Earthquake in Canada

Canada's May 2 Federal Election changed to landscape of Canadian politics is a big way.
Going in to the election things looked like this:
Conservatives: 143
Liberals: 77
NDP: 37
BQ: 47
Green: 0

With only 143 out of 308 seats in the House of Commons the Conservatives had a minority government. After the Liberal party leader, Michael Ignatieff, introduced a motion of no-confidence against the government it passed which triggered elections.
The led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper Conservatives won a majority government, the Liberals, a long entrenched institution in Canada was pushed back to a distant 3rd place losing not only their official opposition status but Ignatieff lost his own seat to a Conservative. The NDP, a hard left party sky-rocketed into 2nd place with their best ever showing in history by far. Many of the seats they won came at the expense of the BQ, Quebec's separatist party which was nearly wiped off the map completely. Like the Liberals, the BQ also lost the seat of their leader, Gilles Duceppe. But in this case he lost to an NDP candidate.

The new map looks like this.
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
BQ: 4
Green: 1

Whether or not the Liberals can recover is up for debate but the Bloc Quebecois is finished as a political force in Quebec. And the Conservatives will have at least four years to govern as a majority.

Osama bin Laden is Dead

On May 1 2011 Americans got the news they have been wanting to hear since 9/11. A team of US Navy SEALs raided his compound in Pakistan, not far from a Pakistani military academy. Osama bin Laden was killed along with one of bin Laden's adult sons.
This is great news for the War on Terror and for free people everywhere in the world.

Election 2010 Post Mortem

There is no other way to put this: last night's election was historic. Republicans picked up a minimum of 60 seats in the House of Representatives, the biggest pickup by a party since 1948.

House
Republicans will have a minimum of 239 seats but will likely end up with between 240 and 242 by the time all the races are called. The Democrats will have less than 200 members of the House for the first time since 1946.
So far, 49 incumbent Democrats have been defeated including 3 Committee Chairmen: James Oberstar (MN-8)- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ike Skelton (MO-4)- Armed Services Committee, and John Spratt (SC-5)- Budget Committee. Two Republicans incumbents were defeated, Charles Djou (HI-1), and Joseph Cao (LA-3).

Senate
The Senate was a more mixed picture. Republicans have picked up 6 seats so far while successfully defending all of their own. The GOP picked up open seats in Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. But failed to pick open seats in Connecticut, Delaware, and West Virginia. Two Democratic incumbents were knocked off, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas by a landslide, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin by a narrow but comfortable margin. Targeted Democrats survived in California, Colorado, and Nevada. Washington has yet to be called but the Democrat is leading by 1-2 percent.
Alaska has also yet to be called with Lisa Murkowski apparently leading by 6-7 points in a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Since Democrat Scott McAdams will finish in 3rd place and both Miller and Murkowski have vowed to caucus with Republicans that seat can safely be called a Republican hold.

Governorships
Republican now have the majority of governorships after the 2010 Elections. The have captured state houses from Democrats in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Races in Oregon and Illinois have yet to be called but Democrats are leading in both.
Democrats took California, and Hawaii from the GOP but are leading in Minnesota and Connecticut as well, although some outlets have already called Connecticut for the Democrats already. Republicans have also lost Rhode Island to independent candidate Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator.

State Legislatures
Democrats came into the election with a significant advantage but so far have lost 18 state legislatures: Alabama House and Senate, Indiana House, Iowa House, Maine House and Senate, Michigan House, Minnesota House and Senate, Montana House (which was 50/50 before), New Hampshire Senate, New York Senate, North Carolina House and Senate, Ohio House, Pennsylvania House, and the Wisconsin House and Senate. The Oregon House which was under firm Democratic control before the election is now split 30/30.

The winning of the House of Representatives by Republicans and the severely narrowed Democratic majority in the Senate will put a very effective block on any left-wing legislation that President Obama may wish to pass, and the pick ups in Governorships and state legislatures bodes well for Republicans in the upcoming redistricting that will reshape the electoral map.

Tea Party
Tea Party energy is what is primarily what made the gains Republicans won possible, but they have a mixed record of success in the Senate: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul won big victories in Republican seats, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania won seats previously held by Democrats. But Sharon Angle was defeated by Harry Reid by 5 points in Nevada and Ken Buck lost to Michael Bennett in Colorado, and O'Donnell cost Republicans a sure victory in Delaware and Joe Miller appears headed for defeat in Alaska to moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski.
Toomey, and Rubio proved strong conservatives can win swing states and nominal blue states, but the Tea Party defeats also prove that the Tea Party must be more careful to nominate credible candidates.

Predictions: 2010 Elections 10/31/10

The election is just 2 days away and Republicans are poised to take control of at least one chamber of congress. Some Governor and Senate races are beginning to tighten as House races are generally headed in the direction of Republicans.

I predict a 60 or so net pick up for Republicans in the House, giving them control by at least a 20 seat margin. Although there are far more seats in play I think that some of these seats will in the end send the Democrat back to Washington, albeit narrowly which will make them think twice about voting party line with the left.

The Senate could go Republican, but in the end I don't think it will. Connecticut is now a near lost hope for Republicans, as is Delaware. However, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana are lost for Democrats. Wisconsin is almost as hopeless for the Dems. That's 4. But several tossups look to make election night interesting: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, West Virginia, Washington, and California are all considered tossups.
Among those Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Colorado seem headed for the Republican column. Illinois looks slightly tilted Republican as well, but not as much. It is also unknown is the Democratic candidate will receive a bounce from last minute campaigning by President Obama, who is still popular in that state. If those seats go Republican that will be a pick up of 8.
In West Virginia Manchin is headed up in the polls, the most Recent Rasmussen poll has him up 49-46% over his Republican opponent.
Washington is neck and neck between Democrat Senator Murray and Republican challenger Rossi. But this state is Blue by nature so the edge has to go to Murray. Finally in California, 3-term Senator Barbara Boxer is within the margin of error ahead of Businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Boxer has been consistently ahead, but also, consistently under 50%, a danger for any incumbent. I wouldn't rule out an upset for any of these races, but odds are at least two, if not all three of them, will stay Democratic.
I'd say Republicans will pick up 7-9 seats in the Senate.

37 Governorships are up this year and Republicans stand to pick up several. Rasmussen has Republicans picking up Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming for sure. Illinois, and Pennsylvania are also leaning that way. That is 11 seats.
Ohio, Oregon, and Massachusetts, all Democrat seats, are tossups, but Ohio does look like it will go Republican. Rhode Island is a 3-way race with the Republican a distant 3rd in every poll so that seat will either go independent or Democrat. Hawaii had been a near certain Democrat pick up but recent tightening in polls have shown a close race. However other, newer polls have shown former Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie pulling ahead once again of Lt Governor Duke Aiona. When this election is over I expect Republicans to have between 31 and 33 governorships.

My Predictions:
House- About +60 GOP (239 House seats)
Senate- +7-9 GOP (48-50 Senate seats)
Governorships- +7-9 GOP (31-33 Governorships)

A larger than expected Republican turnout could mean even greater gains than expected, just like last minute liberal enthusiasm could reduce expected gains.

Check out these sites for the latest on the Election:

Rasmussen Reports
Real Clear Politics

Senate 2010 Predictions 9/30

As of today all Republican held seats seem safe. But Rasmussen has 3 Democratic seats currently rated Sold GOP: Arkansas, Indiana, and North Dakota. Also, three others are rated Lean GOP: Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. With those seats alone Republicans would gain six seats. Illinois is and has been even for some time, and Nevada and Washington have drifted between even and a slight lead for the incumbent. Finally West Virginia has become even recently as the race has become nationalized.

If I were to guess I would say Republicans would pick up: Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and West Virginia. That's 7.

They will also pick up at least one, but possibly two or three of the following: Illinois, Washington, and Nevada. That's 8-10 seats.
My prediction: A 9 seat gain for Republicans. That would give us a 50/50 Senate with the two independents siding with the Democrats and Vice President Biden breaking the tie.

You can take a closer look at the polls I made my predictions from at:
Rasmussen: Senate Balance of Power

Real Healthcare Reform is Needed, Not a Left-Wing Monstrosity

The Democrats could have had an easy win last year by passing a simple set of reforms to improve the healthcare system. Instead chose to go down the road of the worst mix of ideological obstinacy and special interest capitulation. They even openly and blatantly bribed senators on the fence to try to pass their bill. They ignored public will and paid the price in Massachusetts, with the cost of their filibuster-proof senate, and, the seat of one of the left's most beloved icons Ted Kennedy going to Republicans.

What kind of bill could they have passed for an easy win? Just a few easy reforms would have gone a long way with the public's good will:
1. Interstate Competition
2. Portability when employees change jobs
3. Don't allow companies to drop customers when they get sick
4. Tort reform
5. Pre-existing conditions

The first three would have been easy, with no real opposition to block it, tort reform would have had opposition by the trial lawyers but could have been done. Pre-existing conditions may have been difficult. What reason would an insurance company have for taking someone with a condition that they know for a fact will cost them much more then the customer could possibly put in? However, even this could have been done with smart and delicate legislation.

America would have been better off with a bill with the provisions stated, but the Democrats chose to go the ideological and special interest routes. If Republicans know what is good for them, and they manage to regain the majority in the midterm elections, they would be wise to pass smart, simple, and effective healthcare reform if they want to help the country and themselves at the same time.

Republicans, Conservatives, and 3rd Parties

The fact that the Republicans had everything for 4 years and expanded government is disheartening, almost to the point of wanting to leaving the party. However, seeing what the Democrats have done when they have complete power made me realize that the Republicans at their worst are still better than the Democrats at their best. The Democrats are getting more unpopular by the week and will face crushing defeats in upcoming elections. The only thing that can stop this and give the left even more power is a divided conservative movement.

The right thing to do is not ditch the party and ensure conservatism's demise, but to change the Republican party. Third party conservatives should get inside the party and work to change the it themselves, and we need to invite Libertarians in as well. Although I don't agree with them on everything, most of them have a passion for shrinking government that Republicans could use.

Conservatives should also consider infiltrating the Democratic party as well, the Democratic Party has drifted so far left that moonbats are in charge of both houses of congress and the Presidency. We should run conservatives in Democratic primaries where a Conservative has a decent chance of winning. However, we should only support Conservative Democrats who can say no to their leadership.

In short, Conservatives should think beyond the Republican party, but Conservative 3rd parties will only hurt the Conservative movement.

How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Five for the actual installation as required by union rules, 3 for monitoring
the installers, a committee of 25 for regulatory over site, 65 staffers for the
committee members, 45 for another committee regarding environmental impact, 16
to run the environmental committee's private jet, 85 staffers for the
environmental committee, 35 more to write up the rules for the committees, an
organizing committee of 15 to set up the whole thing, 1 light bulb czar
appointed by the organizing committee to pretend he is solving the problem, and
1 PR guy to deal with the public backlash and blame the enormous cost of the
project on the Republicans and big business.

Republicans Will Need 60 Senators For Conservative Reform

In just a few months under the far left leadership of President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid America's policies have been pushed drastically to the left. And it may get worse if they don't suffer massive losses in at least one house of congress next year. Such a defeat would only give them pause and causing them to slow down for a spell before continuing to advance their far-left agenda.

In fact, even if Republicans are able to take back both houses of congress and the White House in 2012 the Democrats will stonewall 90% of a Conservative reform agenda. The Democrats as a minority will use the filibuster at every conceivable opportunity. Then they will use this to call the majority a do-nothing congress and hope things fall apart enough for them to be able to slither into power again.

America needs several reforms that Democrats will never support. Offshore drilling, real tort reform, securing our boarders, streamlining government, campaign finance freedom, education reform, tax reform, and smart deregulation to name some needed reforms.

Unless the filibuster is taken away from the Democrats as an option they will stonewall and demonize every single reform that they can. To stop this, Republicans need 60 Senate seats minimum, preferably 61-63 to be able to handle the odd defection or two on some issues, and a majority in the House of Representatives, a House with at least 240 Republicans would be needed to handle defections and Democratic pressure of vulnerable Republicans from left-wing special interest groups.

If Republicans can mount a smart enough campaign they can retake the majority in the House in 2010 and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, defeat Obama in 2012, and retake in Senate in 2012 or 2014. Getting a 60 seat majority would likely take at least one or two cycles more, unless Republicans are lucky. I'm pessimistic of the likelihood of this happening, but Republicans must try if they are to enact positive change for the country.

Bernard Goldberg's Brilliant Plan on Affirmative Action

On the O'Reilly Factor today, Conservative author Bernard Goldberg gave an ingenious solution that would satisfy both sides of the affirmative action debate. White Americans who really believe America would be a better place with affirmative action should give up their jobs on the condition that the person who replaces them is not white.

If they are serious about their desire for "justice" they would have no problem with offering their job, after all, many people have given a lot more for civil rights. When you think about it most of them would not even have to give up their jobs. All they need to do is offer to give up their job and once racial equity has been established in the workplaces across America the remaining liberals can keep their jobs.

I would be curious to hear what objections white proponents of affirmative action would have to this plan, it would change America forever and give minorities the equity in the workplace they have long sought.

If the left does object to this it will confirm what I have always suspected about them, they don't mind using the government to force other people to sacrifice for their ideological beliefs, as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything.

I suspect we will see fierce attacks on both Goldberg and his idea by the left without actually addressing why they oppose it. The reason being that Goldberg's plan, whether serious or not, exposes the left for exactly what they are, and they won't let that stand without demonizing the man and the idea without actually addressing the particulars.

New Liberal Taking Point: We Need Public Competition

A new talking point the left is using for things like health insurance and the like is, what's the problems with a little public competition. This is an attempt to annex conservative arguments about competition and free-enterprise.

What they purposely avoid telling you is that when the private sector has the government as competition it is never a fair fight. The government has a bottomless pit of money that they can use to drive competition out of the market. All they have to do is lower their prices to a point where competitors can't maintain a profit if they match their prices and services. These lower prices would be explained as making their service affordable to lower income Americans, and while it would help the poor afford the service, it would also kill free enterprise by giving an unfair advantage to the so-called public competition.

Once the competition has been effectively eliminated, like in the private sector, either prices would go up and/or services would be cut. This is why the government needs to stay out of the private sector.

Protests in Iran Not Going Away.

Despite the Iranian Supreme Leader's demand for an end to protests, they continue. No one knows how far these protests will go. Will they bring the regime down? Probably not, but never say never. Whether it happens in a month or in 20 years theocracy's days are numbered.
If anything these demonstrations prove something many have known all along: the Iranian people want democracy. They value the right to determine who leads them just like we do. Iranian youth especially are much more modern than the those who run their country. Their values, while not exactly like ours, are modern.
Afghanistan is free and Iraq is free, I hope Iran is soon to follow.

George Tiller Murdered in Church

The murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday shocked the nation and has been condemned by people on both sides of the abortion debate. He was gunned down in his church in an act so low and despicable it defies description.

All violence in the name of opposition to abortion must be and is condemned by the real pro-life community. Acts like the horrific murder of Dr. Tiller are not only a violation of basic human decency, and the rules of law and civilization, but they hurt the pro-life cause.

I won't gloss over what Tiller did. It was wrong and I would have liked to have seen him shut down, but never in a million years would I or any decent person wish to see him hurt, let alone killed. It is a sad day in America when someone decides to take the law into their own hands and become judge, jury, and executioner.

California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

In a 6-1 decision the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At the same time they ruled that the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples will not be voided.

This was the right call. The people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning it would be declaring a part of the state constitution unconstitutional. It would have been a dangerous court precedent and a new low for judicial activists. Fortunately they made the right decision.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have already started collecting signatures for their own ballot proposition to repeal prop 8. I wish them luck. Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and this was with the backlash of judicial activism, I think it stands a decent chance of passing.

Obama Picks Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

President Obama made his first pick for the Supreme Court today, judge Sonia Sotomayor. Like the Justice she replaces, David Souter, she is a liberal. Not only is she a liberal, but she is a judical activist who thinks the courts are there to make policy.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.

Who Best Represents The GOP? Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell?

The media has been propping-up Colin Powell as some kind of 'moderate Republican.' Powell himself said the party has drifted too far to the right and we need to moderate. With all due respect to Powell's service to this country, he has no credibility when it comes to his advice on the party's direction.

John McCain had reached out to the other party far more often than Obama ever did. He is way closer to the center than Obama, and we have never heard Powell say the Democrats need to move to the center, and the Democrats have let the far-left dominate the leadership of their party. Where is Powell's concerns about the Democrats now, or ever?

Republicans nominated a candidate that reached out to the other party, in fact McCain has reached out to Democrats so often it angered many in his own party. Obama nearly always reached across the aisle on issues where pretty much everyone agreed. He has embraced the most extreme elements of his party while speaking in a manner that makes him look moderate. Is Powell unaware of this? Or is he simply the liberal many conservatives had always thought he was. Either way he has no credibility to tell the Republican party what direction it needs to take.

Rush Limbaugh has often said things in jest that the left went gone nuts over, sometimes justifiably, usually not. I don't always agree with him, I disagree with him on church/state issues, same sex marriage, and a few others, but he is not an extremist. He exemplifies the opinions of tens of millions of Americans. He is a conservative and proud of it but not a radical. Obama has often associated with radicals and showed no discomfort with it until he ran for president. Where was Powell's outrage at that?

Rush was right when he said Powell should become a Democrat. He endorsed the Democratic nominee, not the Republican nominee when the Republican nominee was far closer to the center. In fact I think it is safe to say that Limbaugh, a proud conservative, is closer to the center than Obama.

Maine and New Hampshire Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

Following Vermont, both Maine and New Hampshire have legalized same-sex marriage though legislation rather than judicial activism. There hasn't been much for me to be happy about in the world of politics lately with the rise of the far-left and the media shilling for them at every opportunity, but this is one bright light.
The representatives of the people have spoken and changed the law to allow same-sex marriage. I hope pro-same-sex marriage activists look at these examples and stop resorting to judicial activism. They can win without it. In fact, they will win faster without it.
Almost every time same-sex marriage has been mandated by the courts a backlash has ensued. I hope, and think, this will not be the case with states that have passed it legislatively.

Answering a Liberal Strawman: Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?

Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?
This question is a strawman posed by liberals who are insinuating that being
conservative is somehow the antithesis of being inclusive, but it does raise
interesting issues.

Should Republicans move to the right? Absolutely, Republicans have betrayed
economic conservatism since the late 90s and simply embraced a milder form of liberalism on economic issues than the Democrats. This is one of the reasons they are in the minority right now. Republicans need to stand firm on smaller government and lower taxes.

They also need to stand firm on the war on terror, the 2nd amendment and
securing the border. The people are with Republicans on these issues.

Now, should Republicans be inclusive? Republicans already are inclusive. The
media and entertainment industries have basically been peddling the left's
propaganda of the 'bigoted conservative' to push people into the Democratic
party because they know they can't win by selling a socialist agenda.
Conservatives are not anti-Hispanic, they are just opposed to illegal
immigration. They are not even anti-gay, it is just that most are opposed to
same-sex marriage, a position that the majority of Americans hold.
If you were to ask a gay conservative, who do you get more hostility from,
straight conservatives when they learn you are gay or gay liberals when they
learn you're conservative, the answer is almost always from gay liberals when
they learn you're conservative. It is the left that is intolerant.

Maybe we should ask the Democrats, if they want to continue to move to the left
or be more inclusive. They sure can't tolerate any dissent, judging by their
reactions to the tea parties, and the fact that many of them want to stifle free
speech under the guise of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'

Standing for smaller government and lower taxes is not being exclusionary. We let the left push us in their direction for their benefit and it has to stop. This does not mean we become as rigidly ideological and narrow-minded as they are, but it does mean acting on our principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. These are principles to proclaim proudly, sure we should allow a diversity of viewpoints into the party, but not to the point to where the party stands for nothing but itself and itself alone. Be bold. Be conservative. And don't apologize for it.

Specter Did Republicans A Favor

While there is no doubt his move to the Democratic party was purely self
serving, he even admitted it himself, he may have inadvertently done Republicans
a favor. Once the Minnesota race is resolved, sadly it is almost certain to go to
supposed comedian Al Franken, the Democrats will have 60 seats and no excuses in
2010.

It also rids the Republicans of a bloody primary battle that would have been needed to oust Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania primary. Republicans can now nominate a real Republican, either Pat Toomey or former governor Tom Ridge.

I have literally no harsh feelings that Specter switched parties because he wasn't much of a Republican in the first place, his voting record is left of center and when he was needed to stop the stimulus he actually supported it. He even voted against the Iraq war, which shows that isn't even there on terror issues. Although he isn't far left, his voting record is less than 45% conservative according to the American Conservative Union.

Anyone who has read my blog knows I am not a rigid ideologue. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, and am willing to say so when I think they are wrong, but the party has not drifted too far to the right, especially on economic issues where Republicans have betrayed their base time and again. Republicans have not been conservative enough. If Republicans want a chance at governing again they will need to have a bold conservative vision of less government and more freedom. And let's face it Arlen Specter would never support such a vision.

Vermont Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage The Right Way

Vermont has become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage legislatively. The Vermont House and Senate overrode Governor Jim Douglas' veto. This is a milestone in the gay marriage movement, one I hope the proponents of same-sex marriage recognize and take to heart.

Instead of going to the courts to thwart the will of the people, the representatives of the people passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. It cannot be said that the courts participated in judicial activism as they have in the past. If the law stands the test of time, meaning that it isn't repealed after an election or two, the beginning of a whole new chapter in the SSM movement.
Thank You Vermont. You can be assured that it will be a long time before you hear me say those words again.

The Vision of the Left

The left have a vision to reshape America in their image. What would this new America look like? Let's just look at some of their positions and we'll have a better picture.

Most on the left want Card Check which will rob workers of the secret ballot, and will unleash union organizers across the country to harass workers until they agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. This has already been tried in Indiana with terrible results. Workers were harassed at work and even at home until the necessary signatures were collected to form a union. Fortunately the workers appealed and were able to force a secret ballot; the union was stopped, but there is still bad blood among the workers. The lefts wants this nationwide: thousands of union organizers across the nation harassing workers and intimidating them until they are worn down and agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. Unions overwhelmingly support Democrats so this would boost their political power and resources enormously.

The left also supports the so called 'Fairness Doctrine' which will allow the government to regulate political speech on the only media form the left doesn't have a stranglehold on: talk radio. The supporters of the Fairness Doctrine try as much as possible to make it sound innocuous and benign, but it is a blatant effort to force talk radio to give the left more of a voice, or at least get the conservative voices criticizing them off the air and replaced by non controversial shows that won't criticize them.

In addition, they want to nationalize large parts of the private sector, erode the 2nd Amendment, and take even more from the productive sector part of the populace and use that money to fund further expansions of an already way too big government. This isn't some paranoid conspiracy theory, all you have to do is listen to what the left has to say. It won't happen overnight (although it has been happening damn fast of late), and it won't happen all at once. The left likes to get their agenda passed one piece at a time to get the public used to something before the next piece is pushed though. As Norman Thomas the Socialist Presidential candidate once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Is this what you want for America? The American people need to know what the consequences of the liberal agenda are and how it will affect their lives. They need to know that their freedoms are threatened by the far-left which has hijacked the Democratic Party and is using it to reshape America into something else, something that most Americans don't want.

Dems Pursue Hard-Left Agenda, Reps Not Standing On Principle

It has been less than two months since President Obama has taken the oath of office and he and the Democratic majority in congress have already pursued an aggressive left-wing agenda. Obama has already pushed a $700 billion monstrosity called an Economic Stimulus Package, and that is just the beginning.

They want to push through card-check which will eliminate the secret ballot for unions, and although Obama claims not to support it the radical left has called for so-called 'Truth Commissions' to drag Bush administration officials through the mud, and anyone else who has kept this nation safe from terrorism. Far-left Zealots Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers are among them. Just as scary some hard-line liberals in congress have called for the return of the 'Fairness Doctrine' which will be used to silence conservative talk radio, strange they are only planning to apply it in the only venue where conservatives dominate.
To top it all off the media is so over-the-top pro-Obama that it's hard to imagine anyone can deny that they are in the tank for the Democratic president and keep a straight face.

All Republicans in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the Economic Stimulus bill, but aren't above putting their own pork in the massive waste bills they decry, this won't do.

It justifiably smacks of hypocrisy and will dash any hopes for a conservative comeback. Republicans cannot have a business as usual attitude when being the opposition party to the Democrats who will simply point out Republican hypocrisy while continuing down the same reckless path. They know the media won't call them on it and so do the Republicans in congress, so why do they keep it up? Do they care about reforming government, or is it simply an attack line they're using to score points with the public?

There is no 3rd party out there that can step in and become the conservative opposition to the far-left Democratic majority. I'm not one to demand ideological purity and toss out all those who fail to conform to a perfect standard, but let's have at least some standards. Republicans need to go off pork all-together and demand that the Democrats do the same.

The future of the country is literally at stake, Republicans need to pursue a small-government, greater freedom agenda if they want to make gains in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012.

An Often Asked Question- Do You Want Obama to Succeed?

A question asked of conservatives since the election of Obama is: "Do you want Obama to succeed as President?" This is more complicated than a simple yes or no answer.
 
I want Obama to succeed in keeping America safe. This surpasses politics, this is our country. I hope to be able to say after President Obama's term expires in four years that he has kept us safe from terrorist attack. My disagreement with his policies in national security concern me, and I am convinced that the probability of him keeping us safe will decrease if these policies are adopted.

The same is true on the economy. I want him to keep America prosperous, however his tax and spend policies are more likely to hurt the economy than help it. This make me hope that he fails to implement these policies, but hope he is able to keep the economy healthy at the same time.

Lastly, I hope President Obama serves his full 4 years. I don't want him to be taken down by scandal or be "disqualified" from the Presidency as some people with conspiracy theories have hoped. The election is over and we have a president. It is not the man I voted for, and if I had the chance to go back and make that decision again I would still vote for Senator McCain. But this doesn't mean I wish Obama ill, far from it in fact.

As an American I hope President Obama is able to keep America safe and prosperous, but both as an American and as a conservative I hope he fails to swing the courts even farther to the left. I hope he fails to grow the size of government. I hope he fails to restrict the 2nd amendment, and I hope he fails to satisfy left-wing special interests who want a vastly different country than I do.

Obama wins, Dems Expand Majorities in House and Senate: Total Liberal Control

On November 4 Barrack Obama won the Presidency with what looks like 52% of the vote, Democrats have picked at least 21 seats in the House defeating several incumbents, while only 4 Democratic incumbents were defeated, and one of them was involved in multiple sex scandals. The result in the Senate was just as bleak for the Republicans, they lost 6 seats so far with 3 more to close to call. If all those seats are called for the Democrats they will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving them a super-majority that can kill filibusters.

Long term realignment trends look bad as well, Obama won both Virginia and Colorado which have been trending Democrat for a while and seem to be slightly Democratic now. These 2 states alone push the electoral map below the needed 270 for the Republicans, to win the Presidency again Republicans will have to either win back these states, or turn other blue states red. In congress with the defeat of moderate Connecticut congressman Chris Shays Republicans in the House have been shut of New England Entirely.

On January 20 of next year the Presidency, House of Representatives, and the Senate will all be controlled by partisan, left-wing ideologues who will steer this country far to the left of what the public wants. Conservatives need to lay the ground work for a comeback today to retake congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012. Conservatives need to find a way to control the conversation of political dialogue, as the Democrats did this year, and get even blue states to take a second look at Conservatism.

Conservatives have the public on their side on many issues: taxes, drilling, nuclear power, a secret ballot for union members, and controlling spending to name a few. Republicans can't be pale imitations of the Democrats, but they also cannot be hard-core ideologues who shut out differing points of view. A balance must be struck and it must be struck soon. New strategy is badly needed, and we must be ready for 2010 today.

Say it Ain't So, Christopher Hitchens Supports Obama

Christopher Hitchens parted from the left after 9/11 when he fully supported the U.S. in its fight against Islamic terrorism, he further departed from the left by supporting the war in Iraq. Since then he has not wavered in his support to win in Iraq and defeat the Islamists.

So what truly baffles me is that a few days ago the Atheist firebrand, and anti-surrender in the War On Terror advocate has thrown his support to a man that got the nomination of his party by pandering to the surrender faction, wants to pull out of Iraq regardless of whether it will ensure defeat, supports meeting with the terrorist sponsor state Iran without preconditions, and doesn't think it important enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore.

Hitchens says that McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be president and attacks Palin for her "bizarre religious and political affiliations." Say it ain't so Hitchens, McCain is exactly the man we need in the White House right now, and say what you want about Palins's religion or church, but I find Obama's assertion that the surge was a mistake far more troubling.

Hitchens is an writer I admire for his laser beam logic and eloquence, but on this he is simply wrong. In fact, when I first read of his support of Obama I half expected him to post another article saying this his support for Obama was a joke. That being said he doesn't exactly lap praise on Obama either, in fact he said, "both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated," a little better than unequivocal support for Obama but a rare lapse in logic nonetheless. I hope, but doubt, that Hitchens will rethink his half-hearted, sort of endorsement of Obama, and realize that McCain not only has the character and temperament to be president, but he also has the needed realism on the issue of Islamic radicalism that Obama lacks.