Anderson Cooper on Oprah's Schools in Africa:
Frankly, I was surprised the media ignored Oprah's comments about why she has chosen to build schools in Africa, rather than in the inner cities of the United States. She stated that kids in the U.S. are more interested in iPods and tennis shoes than in getting a good education. Oprah became frustrated with inner city schools and the kids in them because she didn't sense they appreciated the need to learn. (If a conservative made this comment, there would have been press conferences with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al charging racism...)

As Oprah opens her second school in South Africa, there have been reports that some parents of girls at her boarding school are concerned. The school limits family visits to once per month and limits the number of visitors to 4 per child.

Anderson Cooper did a story on the concerns and could only find one mother to go on camera. That mom said she accepts the limitations because she appreciates the opportunity Oprah is giving her daughter. The other parents apparently accept the decision they have made to turn their daughter(s) over to Oprah in the hopes that they will have better, healthier lives.

It is an interesting issue- Oprah has obviously built a magnificent building for these girls. She also seems to believe that it is necessary to separate these children from their parents to ensure they have the best opportunity for success. Boarding schools in America offer a similar opportunity for children of very wealthy people and the token scholarship kids but I have never heard of parents being denied access to their children. In America, parents also have ready access to their kids via phone.

It is difficult to get a lot of detailed information about these children in Africa and their schedule. Are these children being taught western philosophy or is their curriculum rooted in African culture and studies? Are these children allowed to have phone contact with their parents?

In America we have a growing debate about the implications of charter schools pulling the smart kids out of struggling schools. Our country has long struggled with the practice of pulling kids out of their community to help them learn to be successful. I just went to the Colorado History Museum and viewed a display about what happened when Native American children were pulled into boarding schools in order to offer them a better education and to help them learn the skills necessary for them to more successfully assimilate into the greater society. In these cases, religion was also an important aspect of the teachings. These schools were shut down.

How easy and likely will it be that these children feel comfortable returning to their home communities to improve conditions and help others? How likely is it they will be met with animosity, much like those people of color in America who have pursued education outside of their communities? Will those they left behind be jealous and angry?

I can not imagine sending my children away or agreeing to see my children once per month. I am fortunate that my children have access to opportunity and that I don't have to consider such an option.

Only time will tell if Oprah's experiment was well planned. I hope that these kids are receiving a strong education. I hope for the students' sakes that the rules aren't too extreme and that these kids really do take seriously this opportunity to learn. I hope these kids all succeed and someday help improve the quality of life for people across Africa.

I also hope that the children of the inner cities in America wake up to the fact that they are in control of their own individual futures. If these lost American children would spend as much time reading as they do reminiscing about Tupac and listening to vulgar Hip Hop music, they would have opportunities galore.

Thanks to Oprah for doing something to help children succeed. Maybe she will find a way to get through to the children of the inner cities. Maybe she could set up foreign studies programs that take kids from our cities and place them in her African schools. I don't know if our kids could tolerate the struggles faced by those in the world who truly are disadvantaged, but it would be an interesting experiment.

Liberals Should Be Thankful That Conservatives Believe in Free Speech
Rosie O’Donnell is garnering attention from Fox news but her left wing rants suggesting the United States government is the worst torturer in the world, blaming the United States government for bringing down building 7, suggesting the Brits sent their soldiers into Iranian water to provoke an international crisis and taking the side of Iran in the current hostage situation are generally ignored by the mainstream media.

Rosie is a liberal darling. Whether this is because she is overweight, a lesbian or just a person with mental illness that is not being adequately treated, Rosie O’Donnell is a pathetic example of the left putting people on a pedestal if they can regurgitate talking points.

Rosie has the right to say what she wants to say. She doesn’t have the right to have a job at ABC and a forum on a major talk show. Only the government can censor and conservatives would never suggest the government should intervene and prevent liberals from spewing their anti-America rhetoric. When leftists like Rosie O’Donnell go on their ridiculous rants, conservatives shake their heads and say she has the right to say what she wants to say.

ABC will continue to offer Rosie a forum for her hateful, ignorant venom as long as those in a fiduciary capacity at ABC believe she brings in money. It is at least a little ironic that Rosie blames the evil dollar for the Iraq war. It is that same evil dollar that is saving her job.

Conservatives should be thankful for the Rosie rants because they put a face on the beliefs of the base of the Democratic Party. I blog on Rosie’s tirades at www.aconservativeview.com and am thankful she makes it easy for me to comment on leftist ideology.

Conservatives do need to be on alert- when a conservative goes on a right wing rant there is an outcry from the left that results in condemnation, the loss of jobs, columns being pulled from syndication…

If liberals continue to gain political power in the next election cycle, if democrats control the Presidency, we may see the FCC increasingly target right-wing speech. Be watching discussions of Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine.

Shocking: Iran no longer plans to release the female sailor whom they have taken prisoner. Faye Turney has obviously been threatened into writing a letter praising the Iranians. Iran is violating the Geneva Convention by airing videos of the sailors on TV and now threatens to put these soldiers on trial.

The Iranians have demanded the British admit the soldiers were in Iranian waters even though all indications are the sailors were in Iraqi water. No matter where these soldiers were, it is clear that they were not planning any sort of attack on Iran. Iran should turn the soldiers over immediately to avoid an escalation. If Iran does not turn these soldiers over promptly, Britain, with U.S. assistance must act to prevent future Iranian acts.

Britain should immediately move to implement total economic sanctions against Iran. The U.S. and all other democratic countries around the world should also impose sanctions against Iran. We should also interfere with Iranian maritime activity, immediately.

Iran clearly poses the greatest threat to the stability of the Middle East. Iran has chosen a path that offers the UN the opportunity to justly condemn it and sanction military actions against it.

Unlike the enemy combatants in Gitmo who are not protected by the Geneva Convention, these poor soldiers do fall under the Geneva Convention. Where is the outcry from the left demanding their release, criticizing the videos being shown on TV?

The left is relatively silent because so many of them actually blame the British. After all, had they not succumbed to the U.S. pressure to enter the Iraqi war in the first place, these sailors would not have been in a position to be taken into custody.

Be assured that if the Brits (with or without American assistance) do take action that results in the loss of any Iranian life, the Left will be appalled and continue their Blame the Right (i.e. Blame Bush) rants about any and every issue facing the world today.

We know there is no converting the far left. Therefore we should ignore their concerns and do the right thing. We should assist Britain in taking whatever action desired to ensure the safe return of its soldiers and to give the Iranians pause before ever considering this sort of agression in the future.

Iraq War Bills
Yesterday Pelosi claimed to extend a hand of friendship to the President and told him to “calm down” and also chastised him for not respecting the separation of powers in the Constitution. Wow, does she have nerve.

This so clearly proves the adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer. This woman wishes nothing but the worst for this President and for the war in Iraq. The Democrats are being forced to pretend they want to support the troops and their frustration is beginning to show.

As Democratic leadership bribed members with pork to convince them to sign on to the House and Senate legislation, Bush and the Republicans waited, hoping the Congress would do the right thing.

When Pelosi told the press the President needed to understand there was a new Congress in town, she was right. Democratic and disgruntled conservative voters have apparently saddled our country with a Congress with no ideas, no backbone and no integrity.

Bush should quite literally announce every budget item added to the bill to fund the troops. He should point out which congressional districts benefit from each item and which member of congress was willing to trade the security of our troops for pork for their district.

The President shines when he stands up against those who undermine the security of the American people. Let us all hope he continues to stand up against the Democratic effort to use the troops for political gain.

The American people are beginning to see through the rhetoric of the left as support for the war and the surge has recently risen 20%. Talking points will work for awhile but eventually, action must be taken. The Democrats don’t know how to act. It is easy to criticize and hard to lead. The Democrats don’t know how to lead- they only walk in circles.

Bush had a great, quick press conference this morning, again asserting he will veto any bill with excessive pork or with conditions that tie the hands of the commanders in the field. He will not accept the Democrats arbitrary time lines.

Democrats should be warned they have picked the wrong fight. Republicans, and average Americans, will stand united behind Bush and the troops.

Bush articulated the people’s expectation that Congress be wise about how it spends the people’s money. This bill so clearly demonstrates Democratic ignorance about fiscal responsibility and their willingness to throw the troops under the train to make political points.

Bush will stand strong. He will proudly veto the bill and challenge the Democrats to strip out the pork and the time lines.

If the Democrats think the American people will happily watch them go on Spring Break before they resolve this issue, they are woefully ignorant.

Representative Pelosi: The President has offered his hand to you and invited his friends to join him in an honest dialogue about this issue. We have heard you talk the talk. Can you walk the walk?

(By the way, this is a rhetorical question…)

The Correspondents’ Dinner:

This President would generally not choose to dine in a room with thousands of reporters but the annual correspondents' dinner offered him the opportunity to get in some self-deprecating humor.

The President cracking lawyer jokes… All in all a successful night for the President- he even got in a joke at his mother’s expense.

By the way, who knew Carl Rove could dance?

There was another riot in Paris between police and youth yesterday. The story skirts the reality that Muslim youth in Paris seem to look for a reason to act out violently.

The incident, reminiscent of the riots of 2005, in which 1000's of vehicles were burned, stores were looted and people lived in fear for literally weeks, started with a routine stop at a subway station. Over 100 youth got involved in the incident. Hopefully these youth have been rounded up and jailed.

The French government and the news media seem very reticent to honestly include information about the Islamic background of these youth, instead focusing on their North African or Middle Eastern descent.

If they do not begin to talk about the threat of these youth in accurate terms, the people of France will wake up one day with no ability to control this escalating problem.

Obama may regret all that audacious puffing in his autobiographical books. The Chicago Tribune published interesting information this past weekend detailing some of the stories told by Obama to further his image as a downtrodden, struggling child and young adult. Now that he has decided to play with the big boys and girl, what he says, and said, matters.

Rhetoric often sounds pretty as it rolls off of the lips. Unfortunately for Obama, those little white lies can turn into big liabilities when they are exposed to the light of a good reporters examination. His handlers ought to be combing through his past writings and statements to prepare for a potential onslaught of questions.

Expect to see more misstatements from Obama as he tries to figure out how to turn his privileged past into a life full of trials and tribulations. His efforts to pretend he struggled as a Black man in America will become increasingly annoying to people of every race who didn't go to Harvard.

I am sorry to weigh in on the Anna Nicole mess but come on already. Who takes 9 perscription drugs, at once, to treat depression and anxiety? This woman couldn't have opened all of those perscription bottles, given herself shots or figured out what to take when. Someone was giving her those drugs. If Stern wasn't the one feeding her the pills, he obviously knew someone was her assistant. Anyone who has seen the clown disaster has to know that she was not in control of her faculties.

We may never know how she actually died, but to say that this was merely an accidental overdose is ridiculous. This woman was spiraling towards death for months. For Stern to put on this act about how much he cared for her while he stood by and allowed this to continue is pathetic. At best he enabled her, at worst he supplied her. Either way, he doesn't deserve to spend one more second with that baby.

This debacle needs to stop already. Can they determine paternity, give the baby to her dad and let everyone move on so the country can focus on some really important issues like Iran taking British soldiers prisoner, the Obama exaggerations, Pelosi's logrolling...

My heart goes out to Elizabeth Edwards and her family. I am so sorry that they will have to face this struggle again. We all hope she survives decades and we should pray for her to have the strength she needs to fight.

Most people with cancer engage in valiant, private battles to destroy it. Elizabeth Edwards does not live in a private world. She and her husband are in the midst of a campaign to win the most important job in the world- the Presidency of the United States.

The President of the United States is not a CEO of some company. People seem afraid to speak the truth about the seriousness of this situation. A sitting President may ultimately have to deal with a personal crisis like the one facing the Edwards family. When a candidate learns during the campaign that his (or her) family is facing a crisis that will, sadly, play on for years, that candidate has a duty to the country to reevaluate the plan.

This is not to say the world should stop for people facing cancer. It is to say that when people are facing metastasized cancer, and they have two young children, they should reevaluate their priorities. This battle is now different. It will be harder. It will be scarier.

The Edwards may believe that John would be a good president. Many would agree. If the Edwards’ think that John is the only person who can lead this country, they are sadly mistaken.

I do know they are the only people who can parent their children through this difficult time. John Edwards made it clear yesterday that he will be with his wife through every part of the struggle. This is where he belongs.

He can not be the husband and father he should be in this particular set of circumstances, if he is the leader of the free world. He cannot be the President our country deserves if he is tending to his wife and children in the way they deserve. This may be sad, but it is the truth.

Money can buy a lot of things but it can not solve the problems facing the Edwards family. I understand their desire to have the world go on as it is. This is human nature. They need a reality check: No amount of denial will change the test results or the prognosis.

No one wants to take away their hope but everyone should encourage then to take a pragmatic look at the facts before them. As an attorney, Edwards should fully understand the need to honestly assess the facts presented.

The American people need to be very careful about allowing sympathy to cloud their judgment in matters as important as this. The American people, the political pundits, their political advisors, their doctors, their family and everyone else not in one of these groups should make it as clear as possible: John and Elizabeth Edwards should reevaluate their plan and their priorities and withdraw from the campaign.

All of the American people stand with them in their fight against this horrible disease and hope nothing but the best for their family.

John Edwards, in Iowa trying to look like he is comfortable in the other America, has a lot of nerve asking Americans to be patriotic about energy conservation. I wonder how much time it takes him to wander around his house every night making sure the lights are off.

Planned Parenthood: Ensure Women Have Access to Information Before They Make Their Choice- Support Ultrasound Machines

Legislation in Columbia South Carolina would require women to view an ultrasound of their child before having an abortion. Any parent who has watched an ultrasound of their baby would have to honestly say it is an incredibly moving experience.

Prochoicers demand women have an unchecked right to have an abortion, but be assured they will oppose their having access to information that would ensure she makes an informed choice. The key to decision-making is having all of the facts.

How many women would have made a different choice had they viewed a two-minute ultrasound of their baby?

As Minnesota legislators consider a bill to allow the children of illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition, I hope consideration is paid to the bigger issues here, even though proponents of the bill do not want people to think about them. Legislators must consider all of the issues related to this bill.

These children of illegal aliens, complicit or not, have benefited from the illegal actions of their parents. They have been very fortunate to have lived in the United States and have hopefully learned to dream the American Dream. I hope these young adults decide to attend college because education is key to building a successful, stable future. They should acknowledge the error of their parents ways and not seek to take any more from the system than they already have.

In state tuition serves a purpose: it recognizes the contributions law-abiding, tax-paying citizens have made to their home state. When the children of those citizens prepare to go to college, the system says "Thanks for your help strengthening our state. In return, we will discount your child's tuition to recognize your contribution. And by the way we have reciprocal agreements with some states because we are good neighbors."

While some illegal aliens have paid taxes, we know that most do not. These people work off the books and do not contribute to our tax system, which funds state universities and colleges. We also know that illegal aliens take advantage of our health care system. They rarely have health insurance so have forced taxpayers to pay for their care, often provided through emergency rooms rather than primary clinics, thus driving the costs up further. Illegal aliens have forced our public schools to expend increased funds to provide interpreters, materials in foreign language and a lower quality education to citizens. Illegal aliens often don't speak English and their children come to school ill-prepared to learn. While I am happy some of these children want to go to college, the taxpayer has subsidized enough of their lives, including their education.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

These young people should be as able to pay non-resident tuition as would any American citizen from a non-reciprocal state. They should not whine about it, they should be thankful that we don't deport them for being here illegally.

Oh, and they should tell their parents to return to their home country and then go to the back of the line where they belong.

Governor Pawlenty has a great opportunity to show conservatives, locally and nationally, that he understands their concerns. Be a leader. Veto this bill.

I waited with anticipation all last week to watch the hundreds of thousands of protesters converge on Washington DC and gather across the country to protest the war in Iraq.

It is shocking that on a weekend when many college kids were on spring break, the anti-war crowd couldn't convince them to show up and rock Washington with their outrage.

In Minnesota, the crowd was quite small, although estimates were that 3000 to 4000 showed up. This is what we get for teaching kids to estimate in the public schools. Rounding up has become a way of life for these people, unless of course we are counting votes for conservatives.

Let this be a lesson to people who depend on unemployed students for most of their support. If you are going to plan a big event around Spring break, hold it in Daytona Beach!

The Straight Talk Express hits Iowa with MN Governor Pawlenty in tow.

Is the Paw up for the VP spot on the McCain ticket? Pawlenty continues to be on the radar screen as an up and coming Governor with national appeal. While making alliances this early may have been premature, the Governor will be a player in the upcoming campaign no matter what.

Minnesota will be a state in play in 2008. Much will be happening here: The Republican convention in St. Paul will hopefully rally the base. Senator Coleman is already in the race of his life with Al "I'm good enough"Franken. (There are others in the race as well: Mike Ciresi the most notable. The Dems are drooling over this race.)

If Pawlenty is on the ticket, his appeal across party lines will help the Republicans. That is, he will be an asset if he continues to make sound decisions throughout this legislative session and the session next Spring. If he moves to the center (which is code for "moving to the left") he will lose his edge and undermine the hopes of others running in Minnesota.

Pawlenty must stand firm against the flood of taxes being proposed by Dems even as the state is swimming in a surplus. (proposals to raise taxes include increase income taxes on the "rich", increase the sales tax for a gazillion reasons, and increase taxes on just about everything under the sun including: liquor, telecommunications, light bulbs, hearses, hunters...) If Pawlenty wants to be a national player he must use the veto power to keep spending in check.

Pawlenty has the potential to turn this legislative session into a windfall for himself, and for conservatives, if he makes fiscally sound policy decisions. He must lead Republicans in working with the Democrats to come up with responsible solutions to the problems facing our state. Throwing money at problems makes Democrats feel better but it doesn't fix the underlying issues. Taxpayers, Republican and Democrat alike, won't vote for anyone who spends irresponsibly.

As an aside, some Minnesota Democrats expressed concern that the Governor was out campaigning with McCain last week while some Minnesotans were facing flood damage. Pawlenty did in fact tour the damaged areas on Friday.

This idea that our public officials, locally and nationally, must personally inspect every natural disaster site has gone too far. If the fear-mongering global warming crowd is right about the impending increase in natural disasters, these leaders are never going to be in their offices. Send in the underlings to take some telling pictures and provide the important information to those at the top. The Governor, or the President, wading through sludge doesn't help anyone get back on their feet.

Look Out, Mr. President! Here They Come Again:

Leahy is now very clear: The President works for him. The Executive Branch may not exercise Constitutional powers without permission from a Senator from Vermont.

The matter was handled poorly. They should have said nothing when asked why these U.S. Attorneys were terminated other than: "They serve at the will of the President."

That's not what they said and now Leahy is demanding a series of executive branch employees testify, under oath, in front of the Judiciary Committee. Leahy stressed the under oath this morning on "Meet with A Liberal" in his assertion that he will get to the bottom of this matter. If Bush doesn't agree to Leahy's demands to send every person summoned, each will receive a subpoena.

Leahy makes these demands because he is tired of the lies. There is the problem.

Leahy has already decided the lies have occurred. He will do his best to make sure as many Republicans are "Libbied" through their testimony, under oath, before the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President: Stand up and fight the good fight. These people will never stop. They can not be appeased. Cooperation is blood in the water. Stop trying to work with them because they ARE NOT working with you. Make him issue everyone in the White House a subpoena and then ignore each and every one of those subpoenas.

Remind him that "advise and consent" applies to appointments not dismissals and tell the American people and the world that there is serious work do be done and you and your staff will not be distracted by this political witch hunt. Leaders lead. Don't be a follower, Mr. President. Mr. Leahy will not lead you anywhere but into an undertow.

Oh, and can the good conservatives of New Hampshire find someone to challenge Sununu?

Kudos to Katherine Kersten, columnist at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, for writing about the insane lawsuit filed by the boisterous imams who scared the bejebus out of fellow passengers last fall with their odd behavior on a USAirways flight.
(See http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1055656.html)

These imams behaved in ways that seemed designed to draw attention to themselves: they prayed loudly in the gate area, expressed criticism of the United States in angry tones audible to others in the area, they changed seats on the airplane in a manner reminiscent of the hijackers on September 11th and also requested seat belt extenders, which could be used as weapons in a variety of configurations, even though they didn't seem to need them.

The pilots took action, requesting authorities remove the imams from the plane because people expressed discomfort. This was not a hasty decision, it occurred after much discussion.

Our government continues to have us on high alert. We are warned to pay attention to those around us and report odd or suspicious behavior. The reasonable person in America understands the need for controlled behavior when travelling by plane. We don't make jokes about box cutters or bombs. We don't encourage fear in our co-passengers. Kersten notes that an internal memo released the very day of this incident described the increased risk faced at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, noting "this very real and deliberate threat" required heightened vigilance.

The world has changed. These changes are the result of the actions of 19 Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists. I would concur that religion and ethnicity played a role in their removal from the plane. This is not evidence of discrimination, it is evidence of common sense. We should be vigilant in the same way women walking alone at night are encouraged to fear big bulky men walking behind them at night or African Americans are allowed to assert their continuing fear of the police because of the historical claims of police brutality.

When a group wants to push an issue into the courts, they often need to create the forum. Groups will often actively seek a friendly plaintiff to help ensure the success of a potential claim designed to influence public policy and opinion. These imams behaved in an irresponsible way and they did so as a group. Is it possible these men knowingly and purposely behaved in a manner that would cause their removal so as to create the stage for this lawsuit.

These imams misjudged. They have over-reached with their efforts to draw the passengers into their lawsuit.

Americans, including lawyers and judges, must not encourage people like these imams to abuse our justice system like this.

If Muslim people support this lawsuit and believe that this is the way to build bridges with Christians and improve relations with the average American, they are sadly mistaken.

Lets hope the defendants have secured a talented attorney who can convince a judge to dismiss this case so our justice system can focus issues that actually matter. And by the way, attorneys fees would be nice, as well.

One would think nothing important has happened in the world recently as news outlets focus on things like Anna Nicole Smith, American Idol and the U.S. Attorney firings.

On the firing of United States Attorneys:
U.S. Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Period. For clarification of this fact, please visit the website of the U.S. Attorneys Office to see for yourself. The President may terminate these people at his whim. The advise and consent provision does not apply to the firing process, it applies to the hiring process.

When the President appoints a U.S. Attorney, there is an expectation that appointee will actively and effectively prosecute criminal cases brought by the federal government. The President as the Chief Executive determines the priorities of the U.S. Attorneys. Once given the outlined priorities, these U.S. Attorneys should focus their prosecutions based on these directives from the President and the Attorney General.

When the President decided not to fire Clinton's appointees, those U.S. Attorneys should have certainly understood that they would be expected to respect the priorities outlined by Bush and the Attorney General. Deciding to give them all a shot at staying in their positions did not revoke his authority to get rid of them at will, later as some on the left would suggest.

It is wholly appropriate and responsible for the Attorney General to review the performance of the 93 U.S. attorneys and make recommendations as to retention or firing based on their performance implementing the priorities of the President. Unlike Bill Clinton, who fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office, Bush left people in place and then monitored their performance.

Those terminated six years into his service as President were of both political parties. This was not partisan, this was philosophical. President Bush should take a bold stand on this issue. He should stand strong, offering NO criticism of Gonzalez. He should not make concessions to appease his political opponents or let political pressure influence the duration and power of the story.

While the original story should have been a non-story, it is becoming a story. The story should have nothing to do with the firings. The story should be about the seeming inability of Republicans and conservatives to stand up to the Democratic Party.

Republican Senator John Sununu also gets in the middle of the non-story to fan flames. Hillary Clinton is concerned the firings were political. Don't we assume that about political appointments? Isn't that why her husband fired all 93. You would think reasonable democrats would praise Bush for not firing all of Clinton's political appointments in the traditional manner, at the beginning of his first term. Those ousted should be thankful for the 6 extra years of service.

The Executive branch must protect its Constitutional privileges. If democrats demand people testify as to "what they knew and when they knew it" the President should tell them in no uncertain terms that his staff have better things to do then support their ridiculous antics. He should not allow then to testify. These witch hunts have got to stop.

If conservatives and Republicans begin to call for the ouster of Gonzales, it won't be because they are right. It will it will be because they are weak.

The party line should be: The Administration decided to let some people go. Oh, well.

What a day on the View. Rosie O'Donnell was in typical form, off on ridiculous rants. Please go to our blog, The Conservative View for commentary.

March 14, 2007

Conservatives running for President have one thing in common: They all claim to be Reagan-style politicians.

The longing for a modern day Reagan is readily apparent throughout conservative circles. At CPAC, virtually every speaker referred to Reagan and his principles, hoping to convince attendees that he should be the chosen one. On news program after news program, conservative discuss Reagan principles.

Not surprisingly, each candidate has a flaw. To calm the fears of the voters, the candidates’ handlers have come up with a plan to assure us all will be fine: ____ is flawed, but so was Reagan. Several key examples:

Yes, ____ voted for liberal policies but Reagan was a former democrat who switched to the Republican Party.
Yes, ______ had extramarital affairs and/ or been divorced but Reagan was divorced.
Yes, _____ children have issues with him but Reagan had strained relationships with his children.
Yes, ____ is an actor and people may not take him seriously but Reagan was an actor. (Who could forget the Bedtime for Bonzo jokes?)

We need to be careful and ensure that these people not give mere lip-service to Reagan and all that he stood for in his efforts to protect and strengthen America.

Yes, Reagan was a registered democrat until the early 1960s. He was not a liberal like the democrats of the past several decades. Reagan was a man who always valued the working man and his contributions to building and maintaining a great society. His vision of a strong America required the empowerment of the individual. His common sense approach to getting government out of the way of We, the People reflected reason. As liberals and democrats either embraced or refused to denounce other forms of government like communism and socialism, his understanding of their threat to a free society led him to conservatism. His appreciation of common sense solutions to life’s problems led him to conservatism as the Democratic Party abandoned these principles. The Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan, and many others, behind as its leaders began to embrace big government solutions to all of life’s problems.

Yes, Reagan was divorced but his love of family was clear. It seems that he did not seek a divorce but agreed to it after his first wife, Jane Wyman, requested it. By the time he ran for President, he and Nancy Reagan had been married for a rock solid 27 years. This is not to say that a person must have been married for decades to be President, but is it is to note that Reagan was a loyal and loving husband who went out of his way to ensure his wife felt valued and loved. The book of compiled love letters written to Nancy over their 50 plus year relationship clearly demonstrates his appreciation of his wife.

Yes, at times, Reagan had strained relationships with his children. As most parents know, children have minds of their own. When children seek autonomy they often push their parents away, and disagree with and openly criticize their parents’ views. Parents can love their children unconditionally but parents can not choose the paths down which their children walk. Most children crave the approval of their parents. When children make decisions or live a lifestyle a parent does not condone, they may strike out in anger. A parent who loved unconditionally, Reagan appeared to understand the anger but remained resolute in his convictions. Also, when faced with divorcing parents, children often take sides. For many of these children, only time can heal the pain of those experiences. When Reagan died, the love his children felt for him was obvious to anyone who watched their emotional tributes to their fallen father.

Yes, Reagan was an actor. Reagan was a part of a Hollywood about which we can only wax nostalgic. He appeared in over fifty films but more importantly was the president of the Screen Actors’ Guild from 1947-1952 and in 1959. Reagan worked tirelessly against the growth of Communism in the industry. Sadly, today’s Hollywood A-Listers again embrace the politics of communists and socialists and routinely speak out against the United States in a way that undermines our country in the eyes of not just Americans but people around the world. These actors hide behind the walls of their mansions; adopt children like they are charms on a bracelet so as to show their empathy with the plight of the down-trodden or birth children they immediately pawn off on nannies so they don’t interfere with their careers; engage in classless behavior that demeans our entire society and the list goes on and on. Hollywood, more than any industry, needs another Reagan.

At the end of the day, Reagan was an everyman who acknowledged his mistakes and made course corrections as necessary. He wasn’t a blamer looking for excuses. He glowed with optimism and his excitement about what was to come was contagious. He LOVED America and believed in the promise only our country offers the world.

God blessed America and the world with his gift of Ronald Reagan. Generations will look back on his contributions to democracy as being among the greatest in the history of the United States. His embrace of the Constitution and his commitment to a clear set of first principles should be the model for all Republican candidates.

Ultimately, conservatives must look for and support the most Reagan-like candidate we have. Reagan was a phoenix in the 1980s, building a conservative movement the left could never have imagined. In spite of their apparent success, liberal leaders know that conservatism and conservatives are building and rebuilding using the strength of Reagan’s first principles.

It is only a matter of time before a new phoenix rises from the ashes of the nest Reagan so lovingly built for us.

Fred Thompson on Fox News yesterday wavers on illegal immigration, perpetuating the myth there is nothing we can do about the 12-20 million illegal aliens in the country. There is plenty we can do to encourage them to leave and get back in line like the law-abiding people around the world continue to do. Some suggestions:

1. Deny health care benefits to illegal aliens unless they pay up front.
2. Immediatly deport any illegal who presents symptoms of a communicable disease like Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, Malaria, Leprosy, Polio, HIV/AIDS...
3. Deny the children of illegal immigrants access to our educational system. When the Plyler case was decided, the school district couldn't meet the undue burden test. Today our schools are being destroyed by these people. A school district needs to challenge the Court to revisit this issue.
4. Deny citizenship to the "anchor babies" being used to gain residency or, at a minimum allow the parents to take the baby when they are deported and allow the baby to return at 18 years of age.
5. Pass a federal law denying citizenship, permanently, to any person who commits any crime while in this country illegally.
6. Place a surcharge on all funds wired from the U.S. to private individuals in Mexico and any other Central and South American country to capture the lost revenue from unpaid taxes. The vast majority of this money has not been taxed because it is earned off the books.
7. Consider housing illegals overseas while they await administrative hearings to determine their future. This would be less expensive than utilizing the already overcrowded American jails and prisons.

There are many other solutions to this problem but politicians fear taking a stand because they know that these illegal aliens increasingly vote illegally in our elections.

We, the People, must demand an end to the talking points and a start to the implementation of solutions to the greatest threat America has ever known. Illegal immigrants are a threat to our country's survival and avoidance will not make the problem go away.

Democrats Fear Debate Sponsor Bias Will Undermine Their Message
Lets clear up some facts about the calls to oust Fox News and Fox News Radio from the Nevada Presidential Debate:

• Roger Ailes joked: "It is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if its true that President Bush called {Pakastani president Pervez} Musharraf and said: Why can't we catch this guy?" The butt of this joke was President Bush. The similarity in names between Obama and Osama is obvious and Ailes is playing on the long running joke about Bush's incompetence by suggesting he doesn't recognize the difference.
• The controversial August Presidential debate, to be held in Nevada, will be a debate amongst only the Democratic candidates for President. There will be no Republican with whom Fox could side.
• All of the coverage of the debate will be of Democrats. (As there doesn't appear to be a conservative Democratic candidate at this point, it may be difficult to slant the coverage towards the conservative candidate.)
• Moderators have the opportunity to influence debate through their selection of questions. Sponsors simply fork over money to allow the debate to take place, in hopes they benefit from the publicity.
• Fox News Radio is quickly becoming a major player in the distribution of news to major radio affiliates -one would think Democrats would want to get their message out to as many listeners as possible. (Plus I am pretty sure that every news source in the area will be fawning over the candidates and their performances immediately following the debate.)
• Fox News Channel is clearly the most powerful cable news network so an alliance to promote the debate is a sound business decision. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp
  

In regards to the joke in question, I am guessing George Bush chuckled when he heard the comment because he gets the game. On the other hand, liberals, including John Edwards, are now calling for a boycott of an August debate in Nevada because Roger Ailes, who won't be moderating the debate, made a joke about Obama. Sticks and stones, people.

This is clearly a political move to appease the ultra-left moveon.org group and fuel their grassroots base. Do liberals actually believe the Nevada State Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project, led by Janet Napolitano and Harry Reid, are so inept they will be unable to work with Fox to prevent any possible bias? I for one hope this is true but am surprised Democrats would openly admit such a thing.

On Edwards: the all-powerful trial lawyer, based on skill-set alone, should be able to hold his own in a debate with all comers. (Those of us who debate know that good debaters can argue ANY position effectively.) Come on John, I would think you would be saying "Bring it on" to show your strength in this sort of forum.

Finally, lets just revisit the 2004 presidential debates between all candidates:

A nationally respected moderator: Jim Lehrer- PBS
A political lefty: Charlie Gibson- ABC
A representative of CBS, the network that aired the faked Bush military memo via Dan "Duped" Rather: Bob Schieffer

Republicans know they face moderators who often slant questions to support liberal positions. Conservatives accept the fact that any media venue they enter will be heavily influenced by a liberal viewpoint. They may comment on this obvious bias but they don't whine and they don't boycott debates.

Conservatives know that our ideas are simply better and no debate sponsor, or moderator, can negate that truth.

Islamic Rule Over Women in the Middle East
What a night on Hannity & Colmes: They featured author Ghazal Omid, who has recently written “Living in Hell” to tell the story of women living under Islamic rule in Iran. See http://www.livinginhell.com/ for more information.

Americans must wake up to the threat of extremists who claim to promote fundamentalist Islamic teachings. Moderate Muslims around the world must be more vocal in their denouncement of these extremist attitudes if we are all to find a way to live in peace together. Americans, and in particular American Muslims, must lead the struggle to empower those Muslim people who understand the need to turn on the proponents of violence.

Omid hopes the U.S. will use its relationship with Saudi Arabia to pressure the country to allow women to be free. Women in Saudi Arabia need the U.S. to stand up for them. Her hope seems to be that if Saudi Arabia would move to liberate women, other countries would follow. If only that would happen... By the way, where are the feminists?

Why do people not understand that as long as there are people allowed to profess this hatred with no fear of consequences and perform these atrocious acts of violence against women and non-believers in their extremist views, we have no hope for peace?

Couric Exposes Gathering KKK Threat;
Next Up in the Notebook:
The New Black Panther Party Just Wants to Have Fun!
On March 5th, Couric read a page from her idea packed notebook: There are traces of the KKK coming back. Apparently, there have been gatherings of a dozen people here and there, expressing concerns about immigration and gay marriage. Thankfully, there have been no acts of violence stemming from the gatherings. As she says “History teaches us to be vigilant-that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(http://video.cbsnews.com/2007/03/05/video2538137.mp4)

I hope she was watching Hannity and Colmes tonight because this should really shake her up. Tonight, Hannity and Colmes offered a forum to Hashim Nzinga, the National Chief of Staff for the New Black Panther Party. This man spewed hatred for whites that is horrifying- and he wasn’t only speaking of George Bush and the Jews. Please read the 10 point Platform, available at http://www.newblackpanther.com/10pnt.html to learn about their extremist views.

The New Black Panther Party, in support of the vitriol put forth by Farrakhan, pushes for policies that are insane. One of the most interesting: All Black people and people of color should be released from all jails and prisons around the world and turned over to the “lawful authorities” of the Black Nation. Just who elected these people to be the lawful authorities of all people of color in the world? Also, they assert that Black men and women should be exempt from military service. And I thought we had a voluntary military. These are just two of the really unbelievable points made by these extremists. All Americans should read their platform.

By the way, the New Black Party Chairman, Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz, is also the head of Black Lawyers for Justice. He is a graduate of Howard University and Howard University School of Law. How amazing that a man with so much anger could garner so much support in America. See his bio at http://www.newblackpanther.com/shabazz.html because seeing is believing.

If the KKK scares Couric, the positions of the NBPP should terrify her. Unfortunately, in all likelihood, Couric will not be sharing information about the NBPP with America as it wouldn’t score the political points she so desperately needs from her liberal bosses and audience.

She is correct about one thing: Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. This is why it is critical that Americans remember the following events, perpetrated by fundamentalist Islamic extremists who hide behind their acts of terror:

1979 hostage crisis in Iran
1983 homicide bombing of Beirut barracks
1983 homicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut
1993 homicide bombing of the World Trade Center
1998 homicide bombings of U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
2000 homicide bombing of USS Cole
2001 hijackings and attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center Towers and the foiled attempt to hit the White House or the U.S. Capitol Building
2007 homicide bombing of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan- targeting Vice President Dick Cheney

A big story about the game of Life eliminating the paper money and moving to credit cards. To be fair, it sounds as though the "credit cards" will function as "debit cards" so a player should still be out when the debit card hits zero. (It will be interesting when they invent a game in which players can review their credit scores, apply for credit cards, figure out interest payments... myFICO should get on this.)

The new game, which will be available in August, will help kids learn how to manage their gift cards- one of the most common gifts for kids who no longer understand it is the thought that counts.. Visa spokesman Michael Rolnick believes the game may be "the very beginning of a dialogue between parents and their kids on how to manage money in an increasingly cashless society."

I played Life a lot growing up, but I played with my brothers and friends, not my parents. That being said, parents who spend any quality time with their teenagers won't need the game of Life to teach the kids about gift cards- those kids have watched their parents swipe the cards for years and know that when they exceed the balance mom and dad make up the difference.

Here's the real deal- more and more kids in our society can't add three digit numbers without a calculator. The game of Life has probably become too much work for the average kid so this is a way to convince those kids who can't do the math to play the game anyway. We'll see if the marketing strategy worked next September.

Adultery was not the issue then, and it shouldn't be the issue now... or:
Perjury and Adultery are irrelevant to Democrats unless committed by a Republican

In hindsight, Scooter Libby's biggest mistake: Entering into the political war zone as a Republican. We have entered a time when being a Republican puts a bulls-eye on your backside. Whether it be through criminal persecutions, like Libby and Delay, or morality charges, like those being thrown at Gingrich this morning.

Lets follow the logic and make the connections:

1: Scooter Libby had a faulty memory, as did many of the witnesses used to testify against him. People should note that people like Libby speak to dozens of people every day about issues far more important than some unimportant woman at the CIA, who we now know really wasn't a covert agent- which I am pretty sure both Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson knew all along. (Could the average person remember details of conversations from a week ago, let alone months or years ago.) Now convicted of perjury, in this case lying about an issue that was, according to the persecutor (oops, prosecutor) himself, not a crime, he faces up to 25 years in prison. At the risk of immediately being dismissed as a partisan, the most famous perjurer, perhaps in American history, is Bill Clinton. Clinton didn't go to jail, and he shouldn't have gone to jail.

2: In 1998, Bill Clinton lied during testimony in regards to his pattern of sexual impropriety because he was trying to protect himself from civil liability in a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, one of many women to come forward with allegations about Clinton. He committed PERJURY. It also became well known that Clinton encouraged others to lie on his behalf to further insulate himself from the consequences of his behavior. This is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

(His wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, asserted that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was behind all of these allegations and that her husband was innocent of all charges. She either lied to the public (not perjury because she wasn't under oath) or is really one of the most naive people on the planet. This issue alone should preclude her from the presidency: If she knowingly lied, perpetuating an issue that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, and the U.S. an unbelievable amount in terms of international respect, she put her personal life above the good of the United States of America- not a quality I find attractive in a candidate for President. If she can be bluffed by her husband, how will she possibly handle Putin, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. More on this in another post.)

Ultimately, Clinton admitted to all of his illicit behavior and was impeached by the House of Representatives because he had committed PERJURY and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE, not because he had an affair.

3: Newt Gingrich has now admitted he had an extramarital affair, with his current wife, while he was leading the charge against Clinton in regards to perjury and obstruction of justice. This morning I listened to liberals on the radio and scanned the news and blogs and was not surprised to note many people drawing comparisons between the Clinton & Gingrich situations and calling Gingrich a hypocrite.

Gingrich should not have had an affair- he himself recognizes this. No matter how much I disagree with and am disappointed by Gingrich's personal behavior, he did not commit perjury or obstruct justice.

Conclusion:

Many people make poor decisions in their lives and few of us would want our actions analyzed in the public eye to provide fodder for the 24 hour news cycle. This has become one of the primary reasons many good people refuse to seek public office. If a group, a prosecutor or a reporter decides to go after any person, there is virtually no way to survive intact.

We should expect our public officials to make good legal and moral decisions as they exercise their responsibilities to the people of the United States. They should be held to the same degree of responsibility, regardless of their political leanings.

Therefore, Libby should be pardoned and Gingrich should go on to influence the policies of our government and make millions of dollars a year in speaking and consulting fees.

Carbon Footprints-
Celebrities and politicians have struck gold with their rhetoric on carbon credits. Be warned: there will come a time when they attempt to force businesses and people to purchase these credits to offset some subjective notion of the size of each person's unique carbon footprint.

First, please know that I think people have the right to buy the biggest home they can afford, fly in the most leisurely way money can buy and eat the most wonderful food they can enjoy. They should not feel guilty about spending their money in any legal way they see fit.

What they should not do is pretend they care about the environment or push for policies that make the rest of us struggle while they (or one of their accountants) write a check to cover their wasteful lifestyles.

These people live lives the average person cannot even begin to comprehend. Their homes are bigger, and use more energy, than some neighborhoods. Their birthday parties and weddings, held in locations around the world, cost more money than many people will spend in a lifetime, even if they face catastrophic health conditions like cancer. The attendees often travel to the parties on private planes so as to avoid hobnobbing with the real people who have so blindly provided these morons with the money to live their insane lifestyles.

Not to worry about these "Inconvenient Truths" as they have stumbled upon a perfect solution: They can offset their ridiculously wasteful behavior by purchasing carbon credits. They will plant trees, build wind farms and I am sure make millions of dollars helping appease the guilt of liberals. What they (note the exception of Prince Charles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4380658.stm) will not do is change their lifestyles other than to create the illusion they are taking responsibility for their carbon footprints.

A site that promotes this new found solution to appease the guilt of the wealthy liberals and Governor Schwarzenegger:

http://www.terrapass.com/about/index.html

We should all be good stewards of our environment and avoid waste where we can. We should also beware of ideas that may dramatically impact the quality of our lives with little or no impact on the actual problem liberals seek to solve.

CPAC- Don't let Coulter tarnish the success of the event
CPAC offered conservatives from around the country the opportunity to come together and discuss and plan (and plot) strategies to revive the principles of the conservative movement.

Attendees heard, from speaker after speaker, ideas that will serve as the foundation of our struggle to regain the trust of the American people. This focus on ideas separates conservatives from many liberals, who tend to throw out comments and allegations with little fact or substance to support them. Hopefully, the many power players who attended the event paid attention to the dialogue and will begin their return to the Reagan conservatism embraced by the majority of the people I heard and with whom I spoke.

Anne Coulter, one of the most successful right wing commentators in the country, performed what amounted to a stand-up routine. Many of her comments generated sincere laughter and applause as the audience members reacted to some truly funny reflections. Her final joke, a reference to Democratic candidate John Edwards, provoked gasps and discomfort as most of those present looked at each other in shock and dismay.

Many of us immediately recognized the potential impact of this singular comment: Those in the media had been waiting for some extreme comment they could use to paint conservatives as irrational and hateful. Coulter handed it to them on a silver platter.

While Coulter is clearly not one to apologize for her commentary, this situation represents a fairly clear misstep on her part. Her comment, one sentence out of thousands, undermined the movement she claims to support.

I respect her right to say what she wants- just as I would defend the right of liberals, no matter how despicable, to refer to George Bush as a Nazi, call our military heroes baby-killers, hope for the death of Dick Cheney...

I hope in the future Ms. Coulter considers more carefully her audience and the possible repercussions of her commentary. She should aspire to be a part of the solution for conservatives, not a part of the problem.