Affordable Dental Care from DentalPlans.com Campaign websites

Sunday, January 28, 2007



















© Copyright 2006 Gary McCoy - All Rights Reserved.

Top 10 WORST State Attorneys General in the Nation


Ranked by Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

State attorneys general are among the most powerful office holders in the country. Unlike governors and legislators, each state's top elected lawyer has fewer institutional checks on his or her powers. Yet, with the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the power wielded by attorneys general receives very little scrutiny from the media, voters, and even tort reform advocates -- even though it can often be abused.

Some attorneys general abuse this power for various reasons. Based on a set of explicit criteria -- such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice -- the following state attorneys general have earned the dishonor of being the nation's Top Ten Worst:

10. Tom Reilly, Massachusetts

9. Peg Lautenschlager, Wisconsin

8. Lisa Madigan, Illinois

7. William Sorrell, Vermont

6. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia

5. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island

4. Zulima Farber, New Jersey

3. Eliot Spitzer, New York

2. Bill Lockyer, California

1. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

USA - USA - USA

Wisconsin School Bans 'USA' Chant at Athletic Events
January 24, 2007 Fox News

One Wisconsin high school is catching flack for banning the use of the chant "U-S-A" at athletic events.
Click here to read the Capitol Times story.

Baraboo High School officials have banned the chant after hearing that it had a double meaning for some students, the Capitol Times in Madison, Wis, reported Tuesday.

Citing the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletics Association code, Baraboo administrators banned "U-S-A" after learning it meant "U Suck [explicative]" to some students.

The WIAA code only allows positive cheers supporting one's own team and bans put-downs and other cheers fraught with innuendo, the paper said. More...

Wow! Now our countries initials are offensive!

What about people that find these type of attacks on our rights offensive?

Call the United States a pariah - OK

Burn the Flag - OK

Protest soldiers funerals - OK

Cindy Sheehan meeting with our enemies - OK

Spit on a veteran at Hanoi janes anti war Rally - OK

Protest in the name of "Free Speech" - OK

Chant USA - NOT OK

King

Dick Cheney – I Could Not Agree More


Copied from the Rush Limbaugh web site:

“RUSH: And then they have this exchange about Hillary.

[Wolf] BLITZER: Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?

[Dick] CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint.

BLITZER: Do you think she will be president, though?

CHENEY: I don't.”

And that is certainly my own opinion.

Hillary Clinton is a “Democrat” with a socialist philosophy. The Government is the be-all-and-end-all-of-all and she wants to be the boss of all that. She is patently unqualified.

She voted for the war before she voted against it. She is the master of hindsight and she is very good at cattle futures and hiding law firm records. She is an avid reader of Republican FBI files and she enjoys destroying the lives of many of the women raped by her husband. Jealousy is apparently her strong suit.

I have to say that if anyone knows Hillary’s philosophical bent it would be Dick Cheney. Hillary has not been slacking in her deranged diatribes against the Bush Administration. I have personally had to sit through 6 years of watching media watch Hillary in the Senate audience during the past State of the Union Addresses. If I had a dollar for every scowl and frown emitted from her insufferably envious countenance I would have at least enough to purchase a “Starbuck’s” latte. If I had a dollar for every time Hillary should have supported the United States but did not, then I could personally purchase Monticello.

Hillary never intended to help the State of New York. Her sole and pointed odyssey was aimed at the White House. I am glad she declared early and I am glad she is considered the front-runner. I remember Howard Dean.

It is true that Hillary will never be button-holed as was the Vice President by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer tried to give Vice President a back-door black eye by mentioning his pregnant, lesbian daughter; then followed up his attempt to make Cheney out the schmuck by asking the Hillary question. Cheney was blunt. Blitzer was “out of line” with the comments concerning the Cheney family. Clinton would not make a good President. Enough said….tactfully and quietly.

The left is making a play to paint the Blitzer-Cheney exchange as some type of dog-fight. The Vice President handled the exchange with a great deal of patience and tact; unlike the in-your-face, finger-waving exchange another Clinton had with Chris Wallace of Fox News a few months ago. (Contrast: Class versus ass.)

For anyone following Madam Clinton it has become apparent that taxes will sky-rocket and social programs will reach a state of maximum redundancy under Clinton tutelage. Hillary believes the government teat is the surest way to retain power. Promise the electorate the world and give it to them a few pennies at a time over a long period of time to make it look as if there is progress where there is none. And raise taxes…often and high!

Clinton has nothing that speaks of leadership ability. She heads no committees and she headed no governments. She is the “junior” Senator of New York and even Chuck Schumer knows that the only thing Hillary is good at is raising money. She’s raised millions to pay the fines of her husband and keep a quality group of lawyers working on her personal defense fund requirements. She’s raised a boodle of cash for Billy’s library too.

When Hillary finally plants her foot on the war, taxes, health care, socialism and her husband she will as unreliable a candidate as was John Kerry. Kerry was known as a flip-flopper and Hillary has shown recent signs of that Kerry-istic trait. The point is Clinton has no qualified plan nor has she suggested any valuable piece of legislation since her first senatorial election. She is simply a token senatorial mouthpiece that is being used as some sort of bludgeon against Republican Party efforts to correct eight years of Clinton Presidential ineptitude! There has been no reasonable debate. There has been a lot of screeching (ala Howard Dean), but there’s been no real substance in Hillary’s sound bites.

Do I think Hillary will be President?

No; “because she’s a Democrat!”

Should Free Speech Be Criminalized?


Because life in the city of Brazoria, Texas, is as close to Heaven as God will allow, Mayor Ken Corley has been forced to create controversy just to assure that Brazoria does not fall into oblivion.

Specifically, the mayor has proposed a city ordinance that would make certain uses of the N word a crime, equal to disturbing the peace and punishable by a fine of up to $500.

The actual language in the ordinance seeks to punish those who use the word in an "offensive manner." Go here:

What, one wonders, would constitute a non-offensive use?

Apparently the ordinance addresses that question somewhat by providing a loophole in instances where the word is used as a "term of endearment."

Talk about creating business opportunities for lawyers! Does Mayor Corley run an employment agency for out-of-work lawyers when he is not proposing outrageous new laws for Brazoria?

As if this N word insanity is not bad enough, Corley has promised to expand his "outlawed words list" in the future.

In the name of diversity, the mayor should add phrases like "white trash," "cracker," and "red-neck hillbilly" to his next ordinance. By doing so, Corley will shield many of my closest friends, at least ones living in Texas.

Or to really tackle the issue head on, Mayor Corley, why not just work to have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed?

Friday, January 26, 2007

'08 DEMS: THE MORNING LINE - NOT THE RACE HILLARY EXPECTED

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

And they're off!

First out of the starting gate, with an unexpected burst of speed is the late entrant Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). Not on anybody's radar six months ago, he has already vaulted right over half a dozen others to land close on Hillary's heels in second place.

But Obama faces the key decision: Where is he - still a virtual virgin in national politics - going to position himself? He could run as your standard Democratic liberal - that fits his two-year Senate record of party loyalty (18th most liberal, according to National Journal). But he'd clearly prefer to follow the dictates of his own book and craft a modern triangulated path, running as the "New Democrat" that Bill Clinton was in 1992.

In a run to the center, he'd continue to attack the unpopular war in Iraq, but also appeal for a post-partisan environment - embodying the emerging broad consensus that decries impeachments, government closure, partisan gerrymandering and take-no-prisoners negative campaigning.

But he'll have to fight Hillary for that turf - after all, her husband carved it out first, and she's now invested several years of her own labor into the claim.

Poor Hillary: She suddenly finds herself eclipsed by the phenomenon du jour - the first African-American to have a serious shot at the White House. At the same time, another woman - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - has become the trailblazer for women in U.S. politics.

For the first time since she entered electoral politics, Clinton is having trouble finding enough oxygen in the room. Obama and Pelosi are sucking most of it up.

Yet the real threat to both Hillary and Obama may be coming from left field. Former VP candidate John Edwards has tacked decisively to the left, leading the way in opposing the war.

Daringly, Edwards challenged Hillary right in her New York City backyard on Martin Luther King Day - insisting that "silence is betrayal" on Iraq, much as King said it was on Vietnam.

President Bush's Iraq "surge" energizes the Edwards challenge - and sticks Clinton and Obama in an awkward spot.

All three Democrats will condemn the sending of more troops - but Bush will proceed anyway. The left will demand a cutoff in funding to force troop levels down - and expect Democratic officeholders to deliver.

But Clinton has said she wouldn't vote for a funding cutoff, and Obama probably won't either. That leaves Edwards - who has the luxury of not having to vote - with the strongest antiwar position of the three.

In the past, Hillary has sought to make up for her support for the war by moving left on other issues and increasing the stridency of her attacks on Bush. But that tactic gets riskier now - could it let Obama take the center away from her?

By grabbing all of the money and most of the consultants, Obama, Edwards and Clinton seem to leave no running room for Al Gore or any of the other wannabes. (Sorry, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd - you deserve a chance, but you haven't got one.) At best, like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, they can hope to wind up with the vice-presidential nomination.

Clinton is still the likely winner. She'll have more money, more party support and an army in reserve: tens of millions of single women who've never voted before will come out for her. But she better do better in the stretch than she has in her flat-footed start.

Let the race begin!

Hunter makes presidential bid official

Congressman Duncan Hunter of California has officially declared for President. Stating he wants to pick up on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, he has garned my attention.

***********************************************************************************************************************


AP Photo
AP Photo/DENIS POROY

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) -- Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in this early voting state.

Frequently citing Ronald Reagan, Hunter told supporters he wants to pick up on the former president's legacy.

"I want to lead that policy of peace through strength," said Hunter, a strong supporter of the Iraq war.

The 14-term conservative from California, who has made no secret of his White House aspirations, set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month.

He initially announced his intentions in October, becoming the first GOP candidate to declare, and then began making stops in early primary and caucus states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

He joins an increasingly crowded GOP field of declared and likely candidates, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Hunter has been a familiar face on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon. Until Democrats took control of Congress this month, he was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the powerful panel that oversees military policy.

However, Hunter is little known outside of Congress and his San Diego district. He is a strong opponent of illegal immigration who wants fences extended along the U.S.-Mexico border and supports the prosecution of smugglers bringing illegal immigrants across the border.

Last week, Hunter filed a bill calling for a congressional pardon of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who are both serving more than a decade in prison for shooting a Mexican drug dealer as he fled, then covering up the crime.

In remarks before his speech, Hunter emphasized the importance of South Carolina in winning the GOP nomination.

"Nobody wins the presidency without winning South Carolina," Hunter said.

Hunter already has some deep-pocket allies in the state, including textile magnate Roger Milliken, who supports Hunter's promise to protect U.S. manufacturers threatened by cheap, overseas labor.

"I'm thrilled that he's running," said Milliken, who hasn't yet endorsed a presidential candidate. "This point of view he represents must be heard."

Hunter, 58, was born in Riverside, Calif., and was an Army Ranger in Vietnam. He worked his way through law school with farming and construction jobs.

Hunter won his U.S. House seat in 1980 and has been an ardent military supporter. His son has spent a pair of seven-month tours in Iraq.

***********************************************************************************

Some more info on Congressman Duncan Hunter-

Hunter's Campaign website-
Congressman Hunter's Wikipedia entry-
Congressman Hunter's Official U.S. House website-
An op-ed on Congressman Hunter's candidacy from an anti-communist China blog China e-lobby-

2008 Presidential Campaign

In a world of uncertainty one thing is for certain, November 2008 we will elect a new president. While President Bush has not been perfect and nor will his successor will be, democrat or republican. But that is exactly what the voters and media will be looking for. Is it possible for the voter to recognize the right candidate for his ability of leadership rather than how he/she looks on TV? Do we care about the moral fiber of the President, or will we sell our souls for a few pennies more in our wallet. Yes Iraq has gone wrong, But can we afford to lose a war in such a fragile area of the world? And can we think out side of the box to what might happen if America picked up there weapons and just came home? I don’t think building a democracy is as important as cleaning out the terrorist in that region. They don’t want the Bible and most of us don’t want the Koran, but a US Congressman has been sworn in on that book. How did that happen? The people voted for him. While we are in Iraq trying to build a democracy we need to watch our own before it slips away. We all need to think about the person we are supporting.

I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore

 

It's nice to have a president who is not so sleazy that not a single Supreme Court justice shows up for his State of the Union address (Bill Clinton, January 1999, when eight justices stayed away to protest Clinton's disregard for the law and David Souter skipped the speech to watch "Sex and the City").

Speaking of which, the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running.

As long as we have revived the practice of celebrating multicultural milestones (briefly suspended when Condoleezza Rice became the first black female to be secretary of state), let us pause to note that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, would be the first woman to become president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

According to the famed "polls" -- or, as I call them, "surveys of uninformed people who think it's possible to get the answer wrong" -- Hillary is the current front-runner for the Democrats. Other than the massive case of narcolepsy her name inspires, this would cause me not the slightest distress -- except for the fact that the Republicans' current front-runners are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Fortunately, polls at this stage are nothing but name recognition contests, so please stop asking me to comment on them. "Arsenic" and "proctologist" have sky-high name recognition going for them, too.

In January, two years before the 2000 presidential election, the leading Republican candidate in New Hampshire was ... Liddy Dole (WMUR-TV/CNN poll, Jan. 12, 1999). In the end, Liddy Dole's most successful run turned out to be a mad dash from her husband Bob after he accidentally popped two Viagras.
 
At this stage before the 1992 presidential election, the three leading Democratic candidates were, in order: Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen (Public Opinion Online, Feb. 21, 1991).

Only three months before the 1988 election, William Schneider cheerfully reported in The National Journal that Michael Dukakis beat George Herbert Walker Bush in 22 of 25 polls taken since April of that year. Bush did considerably better in the poll taken on Election Day.

The average poll respondent reads the above information and immediately responds that the administrations of presidents Cuomo, Dole and Dukakis were going in "the wrong direction."

Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

Mrs. Clinton's acolytes are floating the idea of Hillary as another Margaret Thatcher to get past the question, "Can a woman be elected president?" This is based on the many, many things Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher have in common, such as the lack of a Y chromosome and ... hmmm, you know, I think that's it.

Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power -- Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry -- love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.

It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.

It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.) Hillary isn't piggybacking on Thatcher because she's a woman, she's piggybacking on Thatcher because Thatcher made it on her own, which Hillary did not.

But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts.

Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats.

He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But -- as some of us warned you -- it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel.

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's penis into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do.

He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," and most recently, "Godless."

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Why Republicans Lost Conservative Trust

The Cost of Abandoning 'Great Things'

By Leslie Carbone
1/25/2007

On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered one of the major speeches of his life. It is remembered as “A Time for Choosing” or simply “The Speech.” In it, Reagan laid out the differences between the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and the Republican Party and its candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater. He remarked:

[T]his idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Senator Goldwater, Reagan’s candidate, lost that election, and lost badly. But Reagan’s ideas resonated with people, and they continued to resound over the next decade and a half.

For Republicans reeling from November’s “thumpin’” at the polls, Reagan’s consistent message and ultimate achievements can provide hope for better success next year and guidance for how to reach it.

In 1976, he ran against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination and lost by only seventy delegate votes at the Republican convention in Kansas City. After winning victory, President Ford invited Governor Reagan to speak to the delegates from the convention podium. Speaking off-the-cuff, Governor Reagan reminded the delegates and the television viewers of why the election mattered. He lamented “the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.”

And he pointed out “that we live in a world in which the great powers have posed and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction that can, in a matter of minutes, arrive in each other’s country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in.”

Governor Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated President Ford in the general election. But Ronald Reagan had become the voice of commonsense conservatism. Four years later, he was overwhelmingly elected president. In another four years, he was re-elected in an even bigger landslide.

He was known as the Great Communicator, but he rejected the title. In his farewell address nation before leaving the White House, the President said:

I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation—from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Throughout his two terms, President Reagan clearly communicated great things. And he pushed policies rooted in great ideas and common sense through a Democrat-controlled Congress. Because those policies were based on a coherent philosophy grounded in truth, they worked. Reagan confronted the Soviet Union, and it collapsed. He cut taxes, and the American economy soared.

Tax cuts spurred economic growth because they reduced the disincentive to prosperity-building behavior inherent in high marginal tax rates. The Evil Empire crumbled because President Reagan’s defense buildup forced them to keep up; because communism stifles prosperity, they couldn’t maintain the same pace that America could.

Reagan correctly gauged how these mechanics would play out because he grasped a great and simple truth of the human spirit: People want to soar, and they can and will do so to the degree that they are unshackled by oppression—the pervasive oppression of totalitarian communism or the here-and-there oppression of a constitutional republic that has overstepped its just limits.

Twenty years removed from the Reagan administration, too many Republicans have squandered the legacy of clearly communicated great things bequeathed to them. They have failed to communicate great things, and they have failed to do the right things. And that’s why they suffered such an enormous defeat in November’s elections.

Squandering the opportunity to promote and pass market-based Social Security reform, they increased the size and scope of the welfare state by expanding Medicare. Failing to make real progress toward stopping abortion, they split the baby by allowing limited federally funded stem cell research. And their profligate spending is enough to make choosing between the two major parties like choosing between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. This federal expansionism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that civil government should remain small, leaving much of the responsibility for social welfare with individuals, families, churches, and community associations.

Instead of serving the American people by passing good policies based on great ideas, some Republicans even sold their support for gold, gifts, and golf trips. When one Republican engaged in an inappropriate pursuit of Capitol Hill pages, many treated the affair as a public relations problem, rather than a moral problem, and the House committee responsible for punishing such ethical atrocities took no punitive action. These scandals were a betrayal of the conservative principle articulated by Ronald Reagan “that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people.” An honorable public servant who knows what he believes can’t be bought; a politician who’s attained political office for the power and the perks can.

The party backed liberal Republicans at the expense of solid conservatives. This misplaced pragmatism was a betrayal of the conservative principle that sound policy is sound politics. It’s also politically dangerous game, because these liberal Republicans join with Democrats in approving harmful laws, and then they share the blame for the resulting damage.

These mistakes all added up to the massive Republican losses of November.

But conservative ideas triumphed on their own in nationwide trends. Ballot measures are the purest reflection of voter sentiment, because they are unadulterated by the taint of messengers. As homosexual activists agitated for “gay marriage,” seven states passed marriage amendments. After the Supreme Court trampled the right to property in the infamous Kelo decision, nine ballot measures limited the application of “eminent domain.”

And conservatism made its mark in some of the Republican defeats. Two years ago, the Democrats were narrowly defeated at the polls, and they discovered “values voters.” As Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean allowed, “One thing the Republicans have taught us is that values and character matter.” So they ran candidates who would appeal to the morally conservative majority of voters. With an unwitting assist by scandal-plagued, policy-confused Republicans, their strategy worked. Many of the victorious Democrat candidates were fairly conservative for their party. Jim Webb, a former Republican and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration who closely defeated Virginia Senator George Allen, trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s decades-old praise for him (over Mrs. Reagan’s objections). Bob Casey, Jr., who defeated Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, is pro-life.

While Democrats were wooing conservatives, Republicans were giving them the cold shoulder. Given the opportunity to communicate conservative ideas and pass conservative policies, Republicans instead expanded the federal government and its spending spree. Entrusted with the honor of serving the American people, several Republicans sold the privilege for the porridge self-aggrandizement—allowing themselves to be lured into scandal. Faced with the opportunity to remove liberals from their ranks, Republicans circled the wagons—and sacrificed conservatives on the altar of “party unity.”

Now the party is unified in defeat, hanging together in its betrayal of correct principles, of conferred privileges, of conservative people, the way that Haman hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai.

The lesson is clear. Republicans rejected conservative ideas, Ronald Reagan’s “great things,” and they lost for it.

The question is also clear: Will they learn from their mistake in time to salvage their chances in the next election?

The answer is anything but clear.

Leslie Carbone is a writer living in Virginia.

 

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Blackwell bonuses a savings?

“Depending on the severance package received, 10 members of the staff agreed not to accept unemployment benefits, which is a net savings for the office in terms of total pay outs,’’ stated Carlo Loparo, Mr. Blackwell’s former press secretary and one of the year-end beneficiaries, "Those were severance packages offered to members of senior staff."
See full article in Toledo Blade-

Senate Shows Its Age; Health Problems Pose Challenge For Governing

From The Politico- http://www.politico.com/

The average age of members of the U.S. Senate is older than it has ever been, according to Senate Historian Richard Baker. For many senators, advanced age is starting to show, raising questions about their ability to govern.

Until his retirement last month, former majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a noted heart surgeon, was being consulted for informal medical advice by two dozen of his colleagues -- more than 20 percent of the Senate, according to a former leadership aide. They went to Frist complaining about a host of illnesses and chronic maladies, most related to aging.

Read More at--

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2466.html

Blacks Say Bush Blows Opportunity to Fight for Judges

Project 21 Chairman Says President Should Have Used Congressional Address to Combat Obstruction of Nominees


Washington, D.C. - President George W. Bush mentioned the importance of filling vacancies in our judicial system with qualified nominees, but he failed to use his State of the Union Address to discuss the problem of liberal obstructionism of these nominees in the Senate. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie says President Bush should have used the high-profile speech to make his case to both the Senate and the public about the severity of the problem.

"So many of the things President Bush spent ample time covering in his State of the Union Address - the War on Terror, health care reform, quality education for our children and even our energy policy - will ultimately be shaped by our courts. The President failed to use last night's address to chastise liberal senators who are obstructing the judicial confirmation process and endangering his ability to name judges," said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. "These senators understand the powers a federal judge possesses and they want that appointment power for themselves. They are essentially trying to usurp the Constitution and force the President's hand. President Bush should have directly addressed this problem to them, with the American people watching."

Throughout the Bush Administration, Senate liberals have engaged in obstructionist tactics that deny fair and timely confirmation hearings and votes to judicial nominees who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Four of these nominees withdrew their nominations earlier this month, in part due to the fact that the new Senate leadership is the source of much of this obstructionism.

In his speech, President Bush said: "A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well - to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor."

Currently, there are 59 judicial vacancies, with 28 of these vacancies considered "judicial emergencies" due to the length of the vacancy and the court's backlog of cases.

"I personally find it inexcusable that, in a speech of over 5,500 words, the President spent only 102 words - less than two percent of his speech - on one of the singularly most important issues in domestic security for Americans today," said Project 21's Massie. "I remain greatly disappointed in his reluctance to forcefully use his authority to fight tirelessly for these nominees."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -

Project 21 is an initiative of The National Center for Public Policy Research to promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation's civil rights establishment.

Project 21 participants have been interviewed by hundreds of media outlets, including the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, the CNN Morning News, Black Entertainment Television's Lead Story, America's Black Forum, the McLaughlin Group, C-SPAN's Morning Journal and the Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Larry King shows, as well as in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and many others.

Project 21 participants live all over the U.S. and have a variety of careers. What they have in common is a desire to make America a better place for African-Americans, and all Americans, to live and work. Project 21 members do this in a variety of ways in their own communities, and, through Project 21, by writing opinion editorials for newspapers, participating in public policy discussions on radio and television, by participating in policy panels, by giving speeches before student, business and community groups, and by advising policymakers at the national, state and local levels.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html

More Blackwell Blunders!

On Keeping Perspective and Beginning Again
By Ken Blackwell January 23, 2007 Reposted from; Town Hall

Although Los Angeles Dodgers’ center fielder Willie Davis was widely considered the fastest man in baseball throughout the 1960s and 70s, he is perhaps more often remembered for a remark he made following game two of the 1966 World Series against the Baltimore Orioles.

In the fifth inning Davis committed three errors on two consecutive plays. L.A. lost the game 8 to 4 and was swept in the series. When asked about his less than stellar performance, Davis dryly remarked, “It ain’t my life, and it ain’t my wife, so why worry?” Even more important than his amazing speed, Davis had extraordinary perspective.

More than once since the release of the November 7, 2006 general election results, I’ve given some thought to Mr. Davis’ quip.... While the results of the 2006 election represent a temporary set back to me......

In more than thirty years of pubic service one thing I have learned is that the only way a cause is truly lost is if the army is scattered and resolved to defeat. We are not defeated. Indeed, there is still work to do.
More...

Ken Blackwell is the former Secretary of State of Ohio.

----------------------------------------------

This guy ceases to amaze me! Blackwell of all people wants to compare his election to a team sport?

Ken Blackwell does not even understand the basic concept of being on a "Team". In thirty years he learned pretty darn good how to SCATTER an army!

We are not defeated? ONE MILLION VOTES

He thinks he has more work to do? There is no doubt this man intends to run for office again.

He can't even get his story straight - LA got shut out that game much like Ken in his election!

Maybe it it's how he figured the bonuses 9x0= $80,000


1966 World Series Game 2
Box Score

For Game 2, the Orioles' Jim Palmer was given the monumental task of keeping pace with Sandy Koufax... Silencing his critics, Baltimore's twenty year-old "underdog" finished on top by allowing only four hits for the 6-0 win. More...

Good story Ken!! Will you please move out of OHIO?

Dick Morris: Hillary in Trouble

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN -- Pressured by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' bold foray into her own backyard -- when he challenged her silence over the war during a speech at Riverside Church, the shrine of liberalism -- and by Sen. Barack Obama's formation of an exploratory committee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has rushed to signal her intention to run for president.

She has told friends that she hadn't seen why she should wait until the fall of the year before the election, as her husband had done, to announce.

But she was so panicked by the Edwards and Obama initiatives that she announced her candidacy on a Saturday! That's the worst news day of the week, and the Clintons usually reserve it for announcements concerning their scandals.

And the latest Rasmussen Poll shows her plummeting down to 22 percent, with Obama at 21 percent and Edwards, a former and vice presidential nominee, up to 15 percent. Her campaign staff has been flatfooted, and her reaction to the Edwards offensive over the war has been slow.

When she should have been in the United States protesting President Bush's speech, she was in Iraq posing for photo ops.

Edwards is winning the race to the left -- the key place to be in the Democratic primaries.

Hillary's assertion that she would vote for a troop cap only begs the question of what she would do if Bush, as commander-in-chief, sends in the troops anyway.

Would she then vote to cut off funds -- to make him respect the congressional intrusion into the powers of the president? Hillary says she would not.

So Hillary will be reduced to what are essentially symbolic actions against the war. Meanwhile, Edwards, who is comfortably out of the Senate, can go as far to the left as he needs to go to win the primaries. (The latest Fox News Poll shows Democrats support a total cutoff of war funding by 59 percent to 33 percent).

Will the role of Ned Lamont in the upcoming primaries be played by Edwards while the role of Sen. Joeseph Lieberman is shared by Hillary and -- depending on how he votes -- Obama? We all know how the Connecticut primary turned out last August!

Bear in mind, however, that Hillary was similarly awkward in the opening months of her New York state race for the Senate in 2000, committing blunder after blunder until she got her act down pat.

But the fact is that Hillary has not run in a real election in her life. She was almost unopposed for the Senate last year, and she drew wet-behind-the-ears former Congressman Rick Lazio as her 2000 opponent, rather than heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor.

And Hillary has never run in a Democratic primary in her life (unless you count her nominal race in 2006).

Her inexperience and the age of her staff is showing. She and they appear at a loss to adjust to the fast-moving pace of modern politics.

Dick is always saying, as he approaches 60 years of age, that 60 is the new 50. By the same token, 2007 is the new 2008. And Hillary seems not to have grasped this fact. By the time the Iowa caucuses are held, the race for the nomination will be over, just as it was in 2004.

Remember how Howard Dean surged out to a lead in September 2003, months before the first votes were cast, and then lost his lead to Sen. John Kerry in December 2003 amid a barrage of negative publicity?

By the time Iowa voted, it merely mirrored the results of the American-media primary, which had already been held the autumn before.

Will she win? Probably yes.

Still -- Hillary has the capacity to draw out a large number of voters who have not previously cast ballots. In 1996, 49 percent of Americans of voting age participated in the presidential contest. In 2000, 51 percent did. In 2004, the percentage was up to 55 percent.

Increasing turnout is the central fact of presidential elections these days. Karl Rove's ability to maximize the turnout of white married couples and single white men was the key to Bush's 2004 victory. The president got 12 million more votes in 2004 than he got in 2000.

But Kerry was also able to attract almost 6 million new single women to the polls who did not participate in 2000. They formed a large part of the 9 million extra votes Kerry got that former Vice President Al Gore did not.

Hillary, to a great extent, and Obama to a lesser degree, can impel large numbers of new voters to flock to the polls in the primaries and the election itself, which gives them a huge advantage.

But, to win, Hillary better get used to the pace of politics in 2007!

Supreme Court plans to review McCain-Feingold again

From the Evans-Novak Political Report for 1/24
"Not enough attention is being paid to the fact that key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill could be overturned within months. The newly composed Supreme Court will hear some of the issues in the form of the Wisconsin Right to Life case. At issue are the restrictions on mentioning a candidate's name in television and radio advertising 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The provision, one of the more absurd consequences of the campaign finance reform craze of 2002, bars any mention of a candidate's name or the broadcast of his image except by an FEC-regulated political committee. Groups such as Wisconsin Right to Life are barred from buying ads mentioning them.

In this case, the group wanted to air ads in 2004 urging Wisconsinites to contact their senators -- Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl -- to tell them to support judicial confirmations. But Feingold was up for re-election, therefore campaign law shielded him from being mentioned on television by any group that does not follow FEC regulations for gathering contributions and filing disclosure forms. The last time the Supreme Court considered the McCain-Feingold law, they ruled 5-4 upholding the advertising provisions. Now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been replaced by the conservative Samuel Alito, the landmark legislation may be in danger of reversal. The consequences could be enormous in the 2008 election cycle."

School Funding Rip Off

Greatest raid on the treasury in state history

Reposted from Ohio GOP Blog

Opposition continues to grow against a constitutional amendment proposed yesterday, which would demand that Ohio provide every student with a high-quality education without saying what that is or what it would cost. More.....


This has to be one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard! Give me a blank check and I will tell you how much I write it for! I do not understand how funding can be discussed before a performance audit of our school districts is performed state wide.

Many of these districts are bloated with administrators and are not efficient. A performance audit will give us an accurate picture of where we need to start, then we can discuss funding.

Throwing good money after bad money, is no way to correct a problem, it compounds the problem.

King

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

School Demands Proof of Parent ‘Competence’

From the Homeschool Legal Defense Association

When the Guidance and Testing department of Camden public schools sent a letter to homeschool mom Olga Bonett demanding that she prove her “competence” to teach her own children, she immediately asked Home School Legal Defense Association for help.

The letter also demanded that she provide a list of courses and content to be taught, the books and materials to be used, and their hourly and daily schedule. The letter said this information must be submitted annually “in order for the Home School process to be continued for your child.” The letter was issued after Mrs. Bonett decided to send a notice (not required under law) that she was homeschooling.

Under New Jersey law, the family was not obligated to supply any of the information that was demanded. Prior to 2000, there was considerable confusion—even among government officials—as to what was required because former Commissioner of Education Klagholtz had issued “guidelines” that attempted to impose many duties on families with no lawful basis whatsoever.

The subsequent commissioner of education, after consultation with officials and homeschool leaders, published a set of “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) about homeschooling that was remarkably consistent with state statutory and case law. As a result, the former endemic confusion and conflict melted away. Since that time, when officials overstep their boundaries, the FAQs have been very helpful in reigning them back in.

HSLDA attorney Scott Woodruff had a long conversation with the Camden school official who sent out the letter. It became clear that she was just following a routine that had been established long ago, no doubt prior to the 2000 publication of the FAQs. She was very receptive when Woodruff explained that her letter was dramatically out of step with the FAQs. Woodruff sent her a link to the website where the FAQs are posted so she could review them herself.

Three days later she sent a letter to the HSLDA member family and Woodruff acknowledging that they had the right to completely disregard her letter.

 

View article online- http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/nj/200701220.asp

 

It doesn't take a village


By Julie Mosher
1/22/07

view article online- http://www.gopusa.com/michigan/commentary/Itdoesn

As I sit and drink my coffee, going over the local news stories on Yahoo, I come across one of the most outragous stories I have read yet. Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is proposing a ban on spanking your own children . This would make it a misdemeanor for spanking children 3 and under. It could land a parent in jail and a 1,000 dollar fine.

Now here we go with the left trying to force the hand of government into our lives. Big government,tax and spend,and let's make decisions based on "feelings". Does she really think we are so stupid as to spank a 6 month old? Or maybe a newborn? I think that falls under child abuse.

Here is where it will become a slippery slope. Where would we stop? Could our 10 year old have us jailed for grounding them from playing video games? Does she want the government to say what our children can and can't eat? My mother spanked us kids when we were little. It was the seventies! Don't tell me you never got the wooden spoon on your own butt! You know you did!

Children in schools today get away with murder. They tell their teachers off with no respect or any consequences. Many times with the parents coming to their rescue. No moral authority is to great for these kinds of children. Spankings were exceptable in schools as was prayer,two things that have now been taken away.

My point is, nobody should tell anyone how to raise their child. Spare the rod,spoil the child. Beating and spanking are two totally different things,and I think alot of uneccesary lawsuits would take up alot of judges time. Time out in my most humble opinion does not work.As a former pre-school teacher and mother, I know it doesn't work.

Maybe little Sally could direct her unwanted liberal jiberish in a more useful direction like putting pedophiles behind bars forever. Or better yet,make it so they get the death penalty and not just a six month probation. Stop wasting energy on media blitz scams to get your mug in the spotlight. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise my children. Luckily I don't live in Hollyweird or you and I might go toe to toe.

Monday, January 22, 2007

OH BOY!! This is going to be fun!

Senator Hillary Clinton Announces White House Bid
January 21, 2007 Fox News

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it official, announcing "I'm in" for the 2008 presidential race on her Web site.

The former first lady acknowledged her plans to take the first step of forming a presidential exploratory committee.

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though. I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," Clinton says in her web message. She announced that she will be holding live, on-line video conferences with Americans starting Monday.

A polarizing figure since she burst onto the national scene during her husband's first presidential campaign, Clinton engenders strong opinions among voters, who either revere or revile her but rarely are ambivalent.She often is compared to her husband..... others have criticized her for being overly cautious and calculating when so many voters say they crave authenticity.

Many Democrats, eager to reclaim the White House after eight years of President Bush, fret that she carries too much baggage ...
More...

------------------------------------------------------

It is going to be very interesting watch Hillary and Obama go back and forth. Hillary has TONS of questionable baggage that can be picked apart.

The democrats on the blogs don't appear to be thrilled by her entering the race either. Over at Buckeye State Blog, it did not seem she was being well recieved. The pundits are also having a good deal to say at Real Clear Politics also.

For tons of reading about Hillary go to: HillCAP - The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project

Blackwell in Wonderland!

WEEE!
This is fun - A bonus for everyone!

Is this guy for real? What world does he live in? Did he forget he lost? How can this guy justify giving out year end bonuses to his employees? These were bonuses were higher than all previous ones handed out. His office is the ONLY state office giving out bonuses.

I guess losing by ONE MILLION votes wasn't enough of an embarrassment, so he gives out bonuses to make more republicans hate him. Nothing like giving the dems a TON of more ammo to use against us. Click here for Toledo Blade Article

This nut job should not be allowed to run for anything more than, to the store! He has caused a deep divide within our party. Has done nothing but reinforce the feelings that the republicans are crooked and nothing but about scandal.

In my opinion, Blackwell did this out of spite for what he perceives as a slight by our party. There could be no other logical excuse for this behavior. He is a hypocrite, poor sport, immature and vindictive. This is not a "Leader" we need in our party.

I guess Blackwell forgot what he wrote in his recent, Conservative Movement Needs Leaders letter. He states...

Conservatism in America is in need of leaders who demonstrate fidelity to principle. Voters across the nation expressed their growing dissatisfaction with Republican leadership.

Adherence to our essential principles by Republican leaders will return conservatism to triumph in our traditional two party system.

The battle conservatives face and must fight is for the recognition of the individual, in both our moral culture and in our marketplace. The human being is set apart by his ability of self-direction.


These statements ARE very true and would be great if he meant them. Too bad Ken does not practice what he preaches and is going in the wrong direction!

Every conservative minded person or republican should email or call the Ohio Republican Party and ask Mr. Bennett to do everything within his power to keep Ken Blackwell out of Ohio politics. This man should never be allowed to run for office in Ohio again!
You know, on some level it is really an achievement when a politician can get headlines even after they have left office.

In Ken Blackwell's case, we shouldn't have been surprised. For those of you joining the party late, lets review what I call the Blackwell Transition Highlights: More...


Nothing like giving the democrats MORE ammo against us -

Jerid at Buckeye State Blog says-

So, if the Republicans EVER complain of fiscal irresponsibility or requests for an increased budget remind 'em about this one:

On his way out the door, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell handed 19 of his key employees more than $80,000 in bonuses, even as his replacement, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, said he left her some $1 million short to meet her office’s obligations for this fiscal year. more.....


Then, As Ohio Goes.com, gives another resounding endorsement of Blackwell -

.....8k bonuses. Amazing, huh? ..... “For a lot of the employees, it was almost like a golden parachute,” Brunner told The Columbus Dispatch for a story Wednesday. “I just think that taxpayers’ expectation of how the government operates is that bonuses aren’t generally considered to be something that government does.” More....

----------------------------------------

Come on Mr. Blackwell, you have to get off! Time to get back to reality, the RIDE is over!

Friday, January 19, 2007

10 Questions for Ken Blackwell

Another great item from FYI news-  http://fyinews.blogspot.com/2007/01/10-questions-for-ken-blackwell.html

An FYI News Exclusive

Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s former Secretary of State, ran a campaign for governor that not only gained national attention – but also international attention.

He’s been called “The Anti-Obama” by the Chicago Tribune, “The Republican Hillary” by The Other Paper, and a dog by the Rolling Stone. Needless to say, Mr. Blackwell is well known by the media and the political arena.

He recently took some time to talk to FYI News’ Vince Tornero…

FYI News: What have you been doing since the election?

Blackwell: I’ve been helping my Secretary of State staff work through what, in many of their cases, is a major disruption in their lives and in their careers. The administration of the Secretary of State’s office has not just changed from one person to another, but an inter-party change. There are about 45 people on my staff who will be looking for new employment. So, this is a pretty tough holiday season to make that transition for many of them.

I have also reflected on what I would like to do in the first quarter of next year in the bigger effort to advance important ideas that will transform our nation and our state.

FYI News: What kind and how many job offers have you received since the election? Do you plan to take any?

Blackwell: I have had a lot of folks who have expressed an interest in me working with their respective organization. Anywhere from starting a new business enterprise, to joining corporations, to serving on boards of directors of publicly traded and privately held companies, to a variety of think-tanks both regionally and nationally.

I want to take my time and reflect on the offers and the opportunities and make a determination as to where I could have the most significant impact. I have always, in my 32 years in public service, been driven by something I heard Mother Teresa say: “Sometimes we find ourselves by losing ourselves in service to others.”

FYI News: If you could change anything about this past election, what would it be and why?

Blackwell: Even though I came out victorious and won by a substantial margin (in the primary election), the contest fractured the party. I’m not sure we ever pulled the base back together. If we could have avoided it, it probably would have had some impact on the November outcome.

I actually have much to be thankful for. In the whirlwind of uncertainty associated with politics, I was blessed with a core of volunteers. I think we came away from this political setback with a clear understanding that there are 1.4 million Ohioans that share a worldview, values, and aspirations.

You play the hand that’s dealt you; we played it to the best of our abilities.

FYI News: Do you plan to run for public office (specifically governor) again?

Blackwell: I haven’t made that decision; that option is not off of the table.

I’ve been engaged in public service and electoral politics for 32 years. I love service and I love politics. So, I would imagine that if the opportunity revealed itself again, that I would seize the moment and the opportunity.

I know that we will be re-engaged in that arena (of public policy) within the first quarter of next year.

FYI News: Do you think that the media played a large part for Republican losses? Why/why not?

Blackwell: I think the media had an impact, but I am not sure whether the media was the decisive factor in the outcome. I think the decisive factor was the frustration with the missed opportunity that Republicans had to change the government. In 1994, we were given that opportunity. The reigns of power were placed squarely in our hands. We controlled every constitutional office, the Supreme Court, and both chambers of the legislature. And, instead of changing government, government changed the Republican party in the state of Ohio. I think that sort of duplicity and failure to seize the opportunity of change frustrated a substantial number of voters – independent and Republican alike.

There is no doubt that the media in Ohio has a liberal bent. It just fed a momentum that was moving away from the Republican party.

FYI News: Do you think that race played any key in your loss?

Blackwell: Do I think that there were a handful of voters who voted purely on race? Yes. But you can’t quantify it, and I don’t think it was a significant factor.

What I know is that Republicans in the spring of this year had a conservative, African-American candidate versus a white, moderate-Republican candidate. They chose the African-American conservative to be their standard bearer.

FYI News: Do you have any predictions for the first years of the Strickland Administration?

Blackwell: What I’ve said consistently is that I am not going to engage in criticism or predictions about the Strickland Administration until after the first 100 days. He won the right to advance his agenda; there is an urgency in the state of Ohio that the agenda must be articulated and must start to have impact in the first 100 days. Once he lays that on the table – or fails to lay it on the table – we will engage in the process.

FYI News: What should your supporters do in the meantime; do you have any message for them?

Blackwell: I think we all must reflect on the lessons learned in this past election. We must make sure we strengthen our ties with our families and our networks. We must understand that voters did not reject the principles upon which we advanced my candidacy. We must stay in contact with one another. We know that time passes quickly. The key over the next over the next 100 days is to make sure that we stay in contact by telephone, by e-mail. We need to know that the strength is in our numbers.

FYI News: What is your best memory from the campaign?

Blackwell: There were so many magic moments in the campaign. In a word, it was the capacity of a campaign to beat the odds and to empower people with the spirit that we can get things done.

That’s why I have no doubt that everybody associated with my campaign knows that we were knocked down. We weren’t knocked out. We’re back up, we have our bearings, and we’re ready to fight the next round.

American POP Culture

From fyi news- http://fyinews.blogspot.com/

A Can of Pop That Will Make Rappers Envy

$100,000 sterling-silver can is encrusted with 300 diamonds, 100 sapphires and 100 rubies. Unfortunately, no Pepsi is inside.



In order to put some pop into its sponsorship of the Super Bowl XLI halftime show, Pepsi will give away a $100,000 jewel-studded soft-drink can to a lucky fan.

The sweepstakes winner also will get two Super Bowl tickets every year for life.

"The can is all blinged out," Pepsi-Cola North America Chief Marketing Officer Cie Nicholson says of the sterling-silver can crusted with 300 diamonds, 100 sapphires and 100 rubies. The design was inspired by past Super Bowl rings, as well as by the Vince Lombardi Trophy for the winning Super Bowl team.

Registration at SuperBowl.com/Pepsi begins Saturday, as will TV, radio and Internet ads for the sweepstakes. After people sign up at the site to enter, they will be e-mailed a code number. The winning code will be revealed at the end of the halftime show of the Feb. 4 game on CBS.

While a lifetime of Super Bowl tickets has obvious value, what the winner can do with the ornate can is less clear. "I think they'll build an addition on their house to display it," jokes Nicholson.

(Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-01-10-pepsi-usat_x.htm)

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Ron Paul jumps in

This time it's from the highly respected Politics1 website...
RON PAUL JUMPS IN.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) last ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee, winning 400,000 votes and earning ballot status in all 50 states. On Thursday Paul filed federal exploratory committee paperwork to make a second run for
President, this time as a Republican. Still an outspoken libertarian iconoclast, Paul stridently fights to slash taxes and reduce the role of the federal government. He also has opposed the Iraq War from the inception and opposes the President's domestic surveillance program and the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. On many House votes -- even routine ones of seemingly uncontroversial matters -- Paul frequently casts the lone dissenting vote. That is why Paul, a physician, earned the moniker of "Doctor No." Paul's campaign chair concedes Paul is "an underdog ... but we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide" ...

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Ron Paul announces exploratory committee

As reported by Viking Spirit Blog-

"Today, Congressman Ron Paul, one of yours truly's favorite Politicians, announced an exploratory committee for the Republican Presidential nomination. I can't seem to find a link to a story about this, but Paul did announce his exploratory committee.

Although I believe Paul has little to no chance at winning the nomination, I believe he can have an impact on the debate during the elections. Paul has consistently stood true to his ideals of limited government, and has voted time and time again against bills that expanded federal power. Paul is also a great fiscal conservative."
More info on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul.org/
See post on Viking Spirit Blog-http://vikingspirit.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_vikingspirit_archive.html

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Senator Boxer's Insult of Condoleezza Rice Condemned by Black Conservatives

Single, Childless Women Should Not Be Disqualified from Leadership, Project 21 Members Say


Washington, D.C. - Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is being criticized by members of the black leadership network Project 21 for implying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lacks a proper perspective on the War on Terror in Iraq because she does not have children.

"Barbara Boxer is a feminist who is attacking the feminist dream," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "But Condoleezza Rice's achievements are disqualified because she is a black conservative, and her rise was not blessed by the liberal establishment. Former attorney general Janet Reno was also unmarried and childless, but I don't remember insulting questioning like this regarding her handling of Elian Gonzalez or the deadly raid on the Branch Davidian cult."

During a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Boxer asked Secretary Rice: "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Secretary Rice replied: "I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom..." Senator Boxer cut her off, saying in response: "Madam Secretary, please. I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."

In an editorial about the incident, The New York Post noted: "The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli added: "I am deeply appalled by Senator Barbara Boxer's cruel and callous attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Senator Boxer's absurd comments are inexcusable and immoral, further proving what a characterless individual she is. The debate should have been about the war in Iraq and not a platform to demean Secretary Rice, who is one of the finest examples of a leader and is well qualified for the nation's chief cabinet office. No matter what her views are, Secretary Rice is a noteworthy public servant who should be treated with respect."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.

- 30 -

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

'IMPEACH!' is message at Nancy Pelosi beach - More than 1,000 in San Francisco spell out message to new speaker

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com











More than 1,000 people gathered yesterday at Ocean Beach in San Francisco to spell out the message "IMPEACH!""America is a great country," said event organizer Brad Newsham. "But President Bush has betrayed our faith. He misled us into a disastrous war, and is trampling on our Constitution. He has to go. Now. I hope Nancy Pelosi is listening today."Ocean Beach is located in the congressional district of Pelosi, the new speaker of the House.
-------------------------------------------------
This is just wonderful! We are so lucky to have Nancy the Ninny and her San Francisco Nut Jobs setting the direction of our country!