Cyber Threat From China A Growing Concern- U.S. Vulnerable As Chinese Use Technology For Espionage

China is a country to be feared for more than one reason.

The Heritage Foundation recently published a report on the threat of cyberterrorism and China. (click here to read)

The report suggests that China has already had many successes infiltrating our government's computer systems. Examples offered include the risk of compromised hardward and software that originates in China being purchased by the U.S. government. Hackers have used email systems to gain entry in to many government computer systems. The use of Blackberry phone/email systems has also opened the door to hackers. The list of risks continues to grow...

How great a threat is China? Our growing dependence on computers and the Internet for all aspects of communication and banking exposes our vulnerability. Does the U.S. government need to avoid purchasing microchips from Chinese companies? Does the purchase of microchips by private companies and citizens of the U.S. in general open the door to in increased risk of cyberterrorism? Do we have any clear possibililty of preventing China's espionage from harming U.S. interests? How can this not be a national security issue?

The Heritage Foundation raises some serious questions and concerns that many would rather pretend don't exist. Please read the Heritage issue paper and pass it on.

Charles Barkley Should Stick to Basketball and Spare Us His Ignorant Rants

One Conservative to Charles Barkley: Bring it on!!

His remarks to the Wolf on CNN demonstrate an ignorance that should scare Democrats who may support his intentions to run for Governor of Alabama in 2014. (click here for Brietbart link)

According to Barkley, conservatives are "fake" Christians. Conservatives are not forgiving...Conservatives judge people when they are not supposed to...

Barkley is misinformed and misguided.

Conservatives generally support the idea that there are people who are unable to help themselves or have been so impacted by unforeseen tragedy that society should respond in a very caregiving manner. Conservatives also generally believe that individuals are society's most powerful weapon against virtually every thing that undermines it. If all people made responsible choices in relation to their personal situations a tremendous amount of the vast government bureaucracy and spending would be unnecessary.

First, Christians, conservative or liberal, are not bound to support selfish, irresponsible people who make choices that put them and their children at a disadvantage. Christians who knowingly support people like this are in fact acting in a non-Christian manner. People who support programs that foster dependence should be ashamed of themselves. People who support programs that demean and disrespect people by sending the message they are incapable are not acting in a Christian manner.

We all should have learned by now that giving people something for nothing leads to more irresponsibility not less.

Next, Christians- both conservative and liberal- have a duty to make decisions and support programs and initiatives that encourage self-reliance. Tragedies happen, so people should plan for them. Things like buying insurance come to mind... Things like getting and staying married come to mind... Things like reading to children before bed and teaching them the alphabet and how to count come to mind...

When people plan and a tragedy overwhelms, those not hurt by the tragedy should come to the aid of those in need. Christians do this all the time. Conservatives do this all the time. I hope liberals do this as well. They give money to non-profits and churches, they volunteer their time and they pay taxes. The idea that conservatives sit at thome counting the money they clearly took from the underclass is pathetic. (And by the way, as a person who was paid millions and millions of dollars to put an orange ball in a hoop he is really something: If he thinks his vast wealth came from rich people he is wrong. He capitalized on the adoration of millions of young impoverished people who chose to buy his sneakers rather than a book, who chose to watch him play basketball rather than do their homework, who have unrealistic dreams that they will someday be like him...)

Mr. Barkley has asserted that conservative Christians are not forgiving. What does this even mean? Does this mean that Christian people can not remember the misdeeds of others and view with skepticism the words of those who have acted and continue to act inappropriately?

Does Mr. Barkley understand the concept of forgiveness in regards to repenting? The key here is people should be sorry for their misdeeds. Often people like Mr. Barkley engage in behavior or support behavior that is immoral. They aren't sorry for their actions, they want to be excused for their behavior by secularists who don't "judge" anyone.

Finally, Christians have a duty to stand up and defend behavior that is moral and just and they also have a duty to stand up against those who encourage inappropriate immoral behavior. For example, if a conservative Christian can not stand up and defend the position that 15 year olds should not be sexually active, who will. Certainly not liberals who believe their agenda in regards to sexual freedom is more important than the emotional, spiritual and health needs of children...

It is not the place of conservatives or anyone else to condemn people to H*** or announce they know what the afterlife holds for another. It is the duty of conservatives to encourage people to make decisions that support individual responsibility. Many of these positions would also be Christian. This is not to say that conservatives are all Christian or that Christians must be conservative.

Many Americans practice religion in an increasingly secular manner. Moral relativism does not belong in any church. If a church can not identify and condemn immoral behavior than can any entity? As more and more people seem to look to their churches for acceptance rather than tolerance, for affirmation rather than guidance, our churches increasingly sacrifice right for wrong, right for money, right for membership...

People like Mr. Barkley pose a tremendous threat to America. They use celebrity to push positions and policy that divide people for all of the wrong reasons. They use rhetoric of hate backed by ignorance to undermine people who really are trying to help people in need.

The real questions people like Mr. Barkley should be asking:

• Should government (federal or state) force people to help those who REFUSE to help themselves?
• Are there any people who do not deserve help? If yes, who decides which people are left to suffer the consequences of their choices?
• Is the government generally successful in its efforts to help individuals? If you think yes, please provide examples.
• Are nonprofits more accountable and generally more successful than the governemnt?
• Are states more able to meet the unique needs of their citizens or is the federal government generally able to respond to the unique cultures of the various states in our union?

Some questions the Wolf should have asked Mr. Barkley:

• How much money did Mr. Barkley pay in taxes last year?
• How much money does Mr. Barkley pay an accountaqnt to minimize his taxes?
• How much money does Mr. Barkley send to the government every year over and above his tax bill?
• How much money did Mr. Barkley donate to charity last year and did he deduct that money from his tax bill?
• Has Mr. Barkley read the Constitution of the United States?

I am sure there are other questions he should be asked but don't expect to hear them any time soon.

If Mr. Barkley runs for office, I will be happy to send a contribution to his opposition...

Three cheers for Phoenix! Police will soon begin asking people who are arrested if they are legally in the United States. (click here for article)

Shockingly, some people with the ACLU are concerned that people who appear to be Latino and people who speak with accents will be checked more than others.

At some point, United Statesians must begin to challenge the lunacy espoused by these people: OF COURSE people who appear to be Latino will be more likely to be asked if they are in this country illegally. There are estimates that between 12 and 25 million Latinos have broken U.S. law and are in fact in this country illegally. No other ethnic group of people comes anywhere close to contributing this number of immigration law breakers to our society.

If law abiding Latino people do not like this situation, they should stand together with the other United States citizens and legal residents and demand the law breakers leave this country immediatly and come back only when they have permission to return.

(These ACLU people should remember they are the "American" Civil Liberties Union. I suppose the organization's name should be an accurate reflection of its mission- it seems its mission to ensure the individual rights of the people of the United States is clear. (click here for ACLU info) What is not clear is whether their political beliefs interfere with their non-profit goals... Or maybe they should rename themselves the Americas' Civil Liberties Union. Better yet, how about The United States Civil Liberties Union- and refocus their efforts to protect U.S. citizens who need their help. )

The rights of every citizen of the United States are impacted by illegal immigration. If people want to help citizens of other countries, they should work to strengthen the rights of the people in those countries and/or send money to groups within those counties fighting for freedom. Many of the problems around the world stem from governments around the world interfering in their citizens' natural rights to economic, religious and political freedom.

There is a reason people risk their lives to come to the United States. It is interesting to note that few people risk their lives to leave the U.S.

So I say - GO PHOENIX! and hope that cities around the country begin to ask away as well...

Thankfully Republicans don't participate in the super delegate insanity that may further divide the Democratic Party.

Obama has "donated" close to 3/4 of a million dollars to the campaigns of these super delegates, compared to the couple of hundred thousand dollars Clinton has thrown their way. (click here for info)

A recent study has detailed the contributions to the super delegates (click here for more info)

The difference is shocking- did Clinton think she had no need to buy these super delegates because she presumed they would remain loyal? Did Obama knowingly funnel money to them because he understood he would need to buy them off to get their support?

It seems that the super delegates would be wise to send the money back to each of the candidates so as to eliminate the perception of a buyoff.

What will the people of the Democratic Party do if the super delegates decide the election? What if the facts clearly indicate the machine is more important than the people? Can Hillary survive the wrath of "the people" if she usurps their vote? Can Obama thrive in DC without the machine?

In the words of so many: Power to the People!!

Brazen Efforts to Harm Border Patrol Should Ignite Furor

Illegal aliens and their supporters resort to increasingly violent tactics to intimidate our border patrol agents. (click here for article)

In January smugglers ran down a border agent, Luis Aguilar, who was attempting to place a spike strip in their path. (click here for article) Agent Aguilar is survived by his wife and two young children. While his family mourns, the drug smugglers have probably run several shipments of narcotics over the border in the past month...

We should be relieved to know that the Mexican government is doing all it can to find the people who murdered Aguilar...

Now border agents have discovered a trip wire designed to decapitate agents riding on ATVs along the border. (click here for article) The wire, attached on one end to a fence in the U.S. could be pulled taut from the Mexican side of the border and was clearly designed to decapitate an agent riding an ATV.

According to local border patrol agents, the area near Tijuana is controlled by criminals. Again, we should be optimistic the Mexican government is doing all it can to ensure the local criminals are being arrested...

When will we wake up to the truth that the Mexican government is not working with us to control the border or to arrest the criminals who threaten the border agents who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect our country from illegal aliens who undermine our national security.

The border agents deserve better. We need to secure the border but we also need to punish harshly and quickly any person who threatens the safety of any border patrol agent.

The United States government should use all diplomatic means possible to pressure the Mexican government to actually work to stop its citizens from entering the U.S. illegally. Instead our government is considering giving Mexico hundreds of millions of dollars to secure its southern border. (click here for state dept info)

Michelle Malkin has a very informative post about the lunacy running rampant at the State Department. (click here for Malkin's comments)

Call your legislators...

Maybe it's all over but the asking.

Romney's stepping aside at CPAC was a nod to the Party that he is a loyalist. He is willing and able to rally behind the Party to ensure Republicans do as well as possible in November.

McCain hasn't necessarily convinced anyone he is going to become a conservative on issues like immigration but he could appease those of us who are conservative by announcing his VP choice sooner rather than later. He could reward conservatives with the clear choice- Romney.

Conservatives in general should embrace such a partnership. Media personalities have, almost across the board, indicated their support for Romney. His selection would bring most of them back into the fold.

As Democrats continue to duke it out in the upcoming primaries, conservatives could begin campaigning actively for the House and Senate candidates we will need to take back our government. If the Republican Party unites behind its nominee and a strong conservative VP, the team could split up and spread the message more effectively.

Today's press conference was a great step towards unity. Romney made a great case for throwing his support to McCain. His words were clear: It is time to come together to get things done. (click here for article)

McCain's response left the door open to a Romney partnership. Lets hope they shake on it sooner rather than later...

Nancy Pelosi has known for months that the FISA bill needs approval by midnight on Saturday to ensure the national security provisions remain intact. The current act expires on Saturday. The House Democrats have continued to seek extensions to the old act rather than work out details in the new proposal, which has cleared the Senate.

A key provision House Democrats oppose would provide immunity to telecom companies that have assisted the government in efforts to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. Democrats argue that providing immunity for past acts shouldn't be necessary to future national security. Why would a company work with the government in the future when it is currently being sued or at risk of suit for past cooperation?

In bed with trial lawyers who want to be able to sue telecom companies that cooperate with government efforts to monitor terrorist activity, Pelosi just couldn't let the FISA bill come to a vote. Of course not, because it would have passed with bipartisan approval, as it did in the Senate. This is political and Pelosi should not be so arrogant as to believe the American people will not see through these antics.

So while Pelosi stands in the way of voting on the FISA bill, the House Democrats voted to issue contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. (click here to read article from The Hill) What did Bolton and Miers do? They refused to provide documents to and testify before Congress about the firings of several U.S. attorneys- which the Democrats believe were politically motivated.

NEWS FLASH: U.S. Attorneys are in fact political appointees. They have their jobs at the whim of the President. If the country elects a Democratic President in November, you can be sure that a new round of U.S. Attorneys will follow shortly thereafter. The poor U.S. Attorneys who will be terminated because of their connection to the Bush Administration should not be surprised if and when this occurs.

Both of these situations demonstrate the ways in which political fighting has led to the deterioration of the service we the people get from our congressional representatives. The work on behalf of the country and the people has fallen by the wayside as the work that Pelosi thinks benefits Democrats takes center stage.

The Congress should be aware that its approval ratings continue to hover between 20 and 25%. (click here for poll results) while the President's approval ratings hover between 30 and 35%. (click here for poll results) While few elected officials should be proud of their approval ratings, many should take note. For people who like to claim the President is very unpopular, Congressional Democrats should consider what their numbers mean comparatively.

I hope Pelosi and the Democrats who refuse to hold her accountable have a nice weekend!

The War on Terror has come to symbolize the key difference between conservatives and liberals. Simplistically, conservatives are “pro-war” and liberals are “pro-withdrawal” even though this over-simplistic conclusion misses the true difference between the groups.

The real division between these liberals and conservatives stems from an understanding that real success in war, in life and in general requires sacrifice.

Conservatives generally understand that tough issues will require tough solutions. There are no quick fixes to big problems. Liberals tend to want the quick fix today and the rest they’ll deal with later. It’s like Scarlett O’Hara- “I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.”

In the mean time, we really are engaged in a war with people who embrace an ideology that does not respect a territorial border. We are at war with an ideology that is creeping around the world, taking advantage of sleeping peaceniks. We are at war with an ideology that abhors freedom.

I don't know if it's possible to ever win the war on terror but 49% of Americans now think the U.S. and our allies are winning the war on terror. (Click here for article) Only 23% of people surveyed believe the terrorists are winning.

Why the change in perception? Has the surge really been the pivot point for the war?

While the surge has obviously had an impact on the war effort, people are also distracted by the elections, the economy, the weather... The media has clearly stopped reporting on the war in the same negative way they report on almost everything that could even remotely support any Bush position. Maybe the better way to state this: the media has finally begun to put their reporting on the war effort in a proper perspective. There have always been successes, we just didn't hear about them. We aren’t really hearing about them now either, we just aren’t hearing news about failures.

If the people who believe that the war on terror must be fought are right and if withdrawing from Iraq would send a message that terrorists have beaten the one country that has the power to hold back terrorism are right, then it would be tragic for the world if those people give up under pressure from those on the left who seem to believe that evil will just go away if we are wishful or hopeful enough.

We have had great success in capturing terrorists and some really evil people have lost their lives. Sadly, some very brave defenders of liberty have also lost their lives in this epic battle. We have made progress but we can never believe that those evil people will not be replaced by others who despise our way of life, who despise freedom.

We must remain diligent in our efforts to protect our country and innocent people from the wrath of those who would prefer America cease its efforts to protect and defend liberty.

On a broader scale, conservatives must remain loyal to principle first, party second. Conservatives must begin to talk openly about the principles at the core of their beliefs and counter the rhetoric that seeks to undermine efforts to strengthen the United States as our enemies around the globe hit the gym on a daily basis.

JFK asked Americans to ask not what the country could do for them but to instead ask what they could do for their country.

Liberals and conservatives should ask themselves what exactly they are doing for their country. Are they fighting social problems by ensuring children are being cared for by parents who can meet their needs? Are they working and contributing to the economy? Are they drug free? Are they able to speak English well enough to secure and keep a job? If they are taking from their neighbors through government programs, are they also giving back in a measurable way?

Americans need to stop looking for a quick fix and start honestly talking about the need for our citizens to sacrifice, voluntarily, for the country. The government can create incentives for people to make sacrifices for others but the government should not use its power to redistribute wealth to those who make poor choices that foster dependency.

The War on Terror is not what separates liberals from conservatives; it is what symbolizes the gulf of difference between them.

We live in a country in which many people don’t feel obliged to work to improve their lives or lifestyles and who think they are entitled to a job or housing or healthcare or transportation with no thought or concern about how these things are paid for.

We live in a country in which many people believe that leaving evil alone will encourage it to fade away.

Conservatives understand that these people are plainly and simply wrong. Things worth having must be earned. Things worth having must be protected.

Conservatives understand that the ideas stated so plainly in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution must be fought for every day. Conservatives, and in fact all people, have a right and a duty to hold our government (i.e. the members of Congress, the Judiciary and the President) accountable. Elections are our opportunity.

Principles, not parties, are the root of what makes America the greatest country on earth. Conservatives have long understood that the Republican Party has more fully embraced the ideas put to paper at our country’s founding.

The Republican Party has drifted in recent years. Conservatives now must work together to ensure the Party begins rowing towards those principles with a fervor.

Our War on Terror is the terrorists’ War on Freedom. We will never defeat all of the people who oppose and fear freedom but we can, and must, continue to fight.

The War on Terror is vital to the security of our country and that of people around the world. Withdrawing from this fight is an abandonment of the people of Iraq, the people in the Middle East and the principles so many great Americans have fought and died for since the founding of the United States.

All Americans voting in November have a duty to those that have gone before us and those who are yet to come to ensure the leader we will be expected to follow is capable of actually leading us in the effort to protect and defend our country.

All the hope in the world, all the empty rhetoric, does not change the truths held to be self-evident for so many generations. All the hope in the world will not stop the evil growing in the belly of our enemy.

Hope is not a weapon in isolation- it is a tool that must be teamed with action. Conservatives understand the need to harness hope and use its energy in the battle to protect freedom.

This battle for freedom is now being fought in the Middle East.

This battle is the “War on Terror” and it is not a battle we can afford to lose.

Obama's rise as a cultish figure is clearly threatening Hillary's assumed claim of the Democratic nomination for President.

I can't even imagine what the Senator and her husband are saying to each other every night as her dreams of the White House become increasingly likely to stay a dream.

Obama has the momentum. Obama is raising the money. Obama has found a way to convince Democrats that his lack of experience doing anything meaningful as an Illinois state senator or as a U.S. senator doesn't matter as long as they feel "hope" because of his candidacy.

So as Obama and Clinton move through the primary season this close race is leading to the increasing liklihood that the super delegates might decide the nominee. If the super delegates ignore the votes of the people and give the nomination to Hillary, there will be a revolution in the party. Al Gore will have to come in and mediate a solution to calm the people down.

There is no way the Obama fanatics will allow Hillary to take the nomination if she doesn't win a majority of the delegates voted on by the people.

If Obama continues on the present course she will try to find a way to save face because this really is embarassing.

If I were Obama, I would offer Hillary a way out- I would promise to nominate her to the Supreme Court to replace Ginsburg, who will resign shortly after an Obama election. Democrats wouldn't care that she has never been a judge (Rehnquist and Warren weren't judges first...) and would be sure that she would side with the left on every issue they care about. If Obama can be President, she can be a judge.

And then I would promise to appoint Bill Clinton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Then the UN Security Council can recommend his appointment as the Secretary-General of the UN to the General Assembly. Upon their approval, he would be the leader of the One World Government movement... (click here for info on appointment process)

Should we laugh or cry or scream? What a nightmare...

Listening to the audience in the CPAC auditorium when Romney announced he was suspending his campaign it struck me that many of the conservative conservatives showed up at the dance too late. Milling around after his announcement, talking to those who were clearly disappointed, the point became more clear.

Conservatives blew their opportunity to nominate a conservative by waiting.

As conservatives argued about who was most like Reagan and who had flipped or flopped, they lost sight of the goal line. While waiting for Thompson to get excited and motivate people, or thinking Rudy might be the guy, or throwing votes to Duncun Hunter or Ron Paul or just simply waiting for a revelation, McCain capitalized on the disorganization of the actual conservative movement. As the movement remained distracted by the many good candidates in the game, McCain became the likely nominee.

There is much to be said in support of McCain but one can not honestly say that in the last several years he has acted like a conservative on key issues. While his support of the effort to stop radical Islam should be commended, his positions on illegal immigration, campaign finance, the environment, stem-cell research... run counter to conservative positions.

Prior to CPAC, the pundits told us McCain needed to reach out to conservatives at CPAC and prove he wanted to work with them to solve these very serious issues facing the United States.

His speech at CPAC was NOT about reaching out to conservatives. His tone, from the first remark about not showing up last year, demonstrated his mocking of conservatives. (click here for video of first part of speech) (click here for the text of the speech)

McCain started his speech with:

"It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order."

His attempts at humor sucked the air out of the room. If he was trying to be funny, he failed. There is nothing funny about this race. He avoided CPAC last year because he does not respect the people at CPAC. He knew he wouldn't be welcomed and he didn't want to give the conservatives the opportunity to whack him. His failure to show up was a snub. His showing up this year was also a snub.

As he continued on, his rhetoric was clear- he is who he is and while we might disagree with his views, he is right and that is that.

Conservatives should understand that while McCain will continue the necessary fight against fundamentalist Islam and most likely follow through on cutting taxes and pork barrel spending and hopefully securing the border, he also said, by saying nothing, that he still believes in his amnesty proposal. (Say what you want, but a minimal fine and a path to citizenship is amnesty. Allowing those who who broke the law to cut in front of law abiding people who have waited for years for the opportunity to come to this country is wrong. These people should be required to leave in an organized manner and then get in line behind those who have done things right.)

(And by the way, if Congress passed a law that would permanently deny all visa applications or the opportunity for citizenship to any person caught in this country illegally after a date in the future- give people 1-2 years to settle their affairs, sell their houses, finish out their leases, finish out school years...- many illegal aliens would leave voluntarily.)

Now Huckabee will do his best to put the brakes on the McCain train, McCain will do his best to convince conservatives that he is on their team most of the time and conservatives will have to decide whether to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the campaign to elect McCain President or to spend some of that money on conservative House and Senate candidates that may be able to stop those liberal policies that McCain or the Democratic Nominee would allow through.

As the Democrats fight to the finish in their primaries, the best options for conservatives will flush out as well. Lets hope conservatives find a way to rally in a more organized and effective manner in the fall or the reults for the party, and the country, may be tragic...

The pundits are unbelievable and the spin on the election results is dishonest and must be presumed to be a concerted effort to discourage conservatives from backing Romney. They can not report the truth about the results even when the truth is staring them in the face.

Based on the talking heads, one would think that the Super Tuesday results are shocking and that Romney, in response should drop out at CPAC on Thursday.

In fact there are NO shocks that hurt Romney and some that help him.

The following are very simple sentences because that may make it easier for media types to follow the results.

Truth: Romney did better than expected. Huckabee did better than expected. McCain lost ground.

Virtually every commentator on Fox is pushing the idea that things have shifted dramatically even though the truth is that other than both Romney and Huckabee each picking up 2 McCain states, things are, at worst, as predicted and at best show a trend away from McCain. McCain should be grateful Super Tuesday wasn't Super Thursday.

Let us take a look at what the polling people predicted before Tuesday and compare the predictions to the actual results. (All pre-Tuesday numbers were pulled from RealClearPolitics.com)

Before Tuesday, everyone in the media was predicting a sweep by McCain. He was supposed to walk away the clear party nominee.

After Tuesday McCain has clearly lost momentum. He received far fewer delegates than anyone predicted.

There were 21 states up for grabs. McCain was supposed to sweep.

McCain won 10. Romney won 8. Huckabee won 3.

Before Tuesday McCain was predicted to win 12 of 14 states that RCP had polls on, Romney was predicted to win 1 and Huckabee was predicted to win 0. CA was a statistical dead heat.

After Tuesday McCain won only 9 of the 14 states, Romney won 4 and Huckabee won 1.

Before Tuesday the polls had McCain winning Colorado.

After Tuesday Romney won Colorado.

Before Tuesday the polls had McCain winning Minnesota.

After Tuesday, Romney won Minnesota.

Before Tuesday McCain was going to win Tennessee.

After Tuesday Huckabee won Tennessee.

Before Tuesday McCain was going to win Alabama.

After Tuesday Huckabee won Alabama.

Before Tuesday, McCain was going to win Georgia.

After Tuesday, Huckabee won Georgia.

When looking at the trends:

Romney gained more ground in 6 states than the other candidates gained. In two of those states the change was enough to shift the win to Romney from McCain.

Huckabee gained the most ground in 3 states and he won all three states, which had been predicted McCain wins.

McCain gained more ground than the other candidates in 4 states but his shifts had no impact on the outcome of those races. He lost 4 states that he had been projected to win.

There were 7 states with no pre-Super Tuesday polling listed at RCP. Romney won 4 of those states. (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Utah) Huckabee won 2 of these states (Arkansas and West Virginia- see note below) McCain won 1 of these states. (Delaware)

Let us take special note of West Virginia: Romney won the first ballot but didn't have quite enough votes to take the state. Before the second ballot, the McCain campaign instructed their voters to all vote for Huckabee to stop Romney from taking the state. Clearly, McCain views Romney as his greatest threat. If McCain viewed Huckabee as the threat, he would have thrown his support to Romney. Huckabee can pretend it is a win but the truth is the analysis of the meaning of the win is pointless. It was a gift, not a win.

In summary, assuming that we assign 1, 2 and 3 to a first, second and third place finish respectively, prior to Super Tuesday, RCP average(rounded up or down) numbers predicted were McCain 1.15, Romney at 2.38 and Huckabee at 2.85.

Actual results for the average place finished by each candidate: McCain 1.65 (a drop of -.5) Romney 1.85 (am improvement of +.52) and Huckabee 2.50 (an improvement of .35). Romney did better statistically than Huckabee who also gained some ground, and dramatically better than McCain, who lost ground.

The only real question left is California. This is not a winner take all state so the delegates will split but the numbers may not be known for awhile. No matter how things shake up for Romney and McCain- Huckabee is eating their dust.

CONCLUSION: The media, including those at Fox, are working hard to undermine the Romney and push McCain and Huckabee. The talk encouraging Romney to drop out and Huckabee to stay in is demonstrative of this bias. Huckabee is THIRD. There is no "Fair and Balanced" in the reporting of the numbers.

Conservatives need to do some serious analysis of the upcoming states. Honest analysis should point to the following truth:

• McCain has nowhere to go but down in the numbers because he has total name recognition throughout the country.
• McCain will try to convince conservatives at CPAC that he can and should be trusted with the nomination. If he were to win early, there is no way he would shift to the right- he won't need to.
• An intense campaign will be harder on McCain as he attempts to juggle his duties as a sitting Senator with campaigning. (Perhaps he should step down...)
• McCain has a temper and every time he either loses it or uses the pejorative "my friend" voters will take note.
• Romney has nowhere to go but up as voters around the country get to know him in the remaining primary and caucus nights.
• Huckabee's popularity will likely wane outside the Bible Belt.
• Huckabee is not as conservative as he would like voters to believe he is- this too will become clear as the candidates fight it out.

If all three men stay in to the end, a brokered convention is clearly possible. In the event of this possibility, which candidate has the best chance to win? Which delegates would be most likely to switch after which ballot?

McCain would be in the toughest spot because he will have the most difficult time convincing conservatives he really will become a loyal conservative (please remember "Absolute power corrupts absolutely...) once voters have no ability to influence his positions.

McCain could start out with the most delegates and then lose them in the subsequent ballots.

Romney should stay in the race. While the media would have voters believe that Romney is the only contributor to his campaign, he has raised a TON of money and he will continue to see the donations pour in if conservatives think he really is in it to win it. An agressive push in the upcoming primaries (using more ads like the Clinton hasn't run a corner store ad) will help him maintain his momentum.

He needs to deliver a great speech to get the CPAC attendees wound up to help him fight this fight. (I will be there and can't wait to hear it.)

Finally, the pundits should step back and remember what their job actually is: report the news. The continual efforts of reporters to create a result does a disservice to the candidates and to the country.

The spin out of West Virginia: Huckabee's win in state shows he has support of conservatives.

Truth out of West Virginia: Romney wins first ballot. McCain does not want Romney to win. McCain's campaign instructs supporters to vote Huckabee. McCain followers vote in lock step for Huckabee to stop Romney. Huckabee wins with 52% of vote.

Huckabee, knowingly or not, has become a tool of the McCain campaign...

Contrary to what many in the main stream media would have you believe, there is a conservative ideology that believes in a limited federal government and respects state sovereignty. Conservatives need to educate the American people about what conservatism really means.

A simple question: If everyone behaved in a manner that reflected conservative ideology would the country be better off? Conservatives believe in individuals taking responsibility for their lives but recognize that there are times when we need to help each other out. We need to help people who have serious disabilities that have no treatment or cure and we should help people who are down on their luck and willing to help themselves. We also need to hold people accountable for the decisions they make and never create public policy that encourages people to make decisions that are destructive to their own lives or to society.

If all people who are able to make responsible decisions do make responsible decisions, much of the debate between conservatives and liberals would become irrelevant.

On the other hand, if everyone behaved in a manner that reflected the democratic ideology would this country be better off? Governments that create policies to take from one group of people who are productive and give to another group of people who choose to be less productive are doomed to fail. Government programs that protect people from taking personal responsibility will grow because there is a segment of society that will always choose to make irresponsible decisions.

Healthcare is the perfect example: Millions of people don't buy insurance because they think they don't need it. When they get sick, they go to the hospital and get care but they will not ever pay for that care. Those who do have insurance will pay for those who choose not to pay through higher premiums or higher taxes. If it really is true that the person without insurance couldn't afford insurance then they are probably eligible for a state subsidized program to which they didn't apply. People who choose to avoid responsibility themselves should not be able to shift their personal burden onto the shoulders of those who do behave in a responsible manner.

Conservatism is the best hope for our country and for the world.

Romney has been changing the tide over the past couple of weeks. The early primaries have limited the ability of each of the candidates to really engage in an ongoing discussion about why he should be the one to represent the party. The clumping of primaries has limited voter access to information because there simply isn't time to engage in meaningful discussions. The debates are often just a series of sound bites designed to play on the nightly news.

Additionally, the media has clearly pushed for a quick pick of the most liberal candidate running. As Giuliani faded, the media shifted the news to boost McCain. The pundits’ never-ending efforts to push voters towards McCain have given him a whole lot of free advertising…

People who like Huckabee will hopefully take an honest look at his real chances to defeat either Democrat. It's not going to happen and the Democrats don't care about their collective desire to send a message...

If Romney can pull in a few hundred delegates today and then take conservative issues to the people in state by state primaries- the ideology that is necessary to sustain America will be kept front and center.

Conservatives should understand that if Romney walks away the voice of conservatives will be lost in this election.

McCain will take an early victory as an endorsement of his views, which are definitively more liberal than even moderate conservatives. His views may be preferable to those of the Democrats but they are often not the views of conservatives.

If Romney stays in, McCain will be forced to actively campaign across the country. McCain’s ideas may be popular in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut but they will not play as well in the Heartland. A state by state contest will require each campaign to build a grassroots mobilization of conservatives and that will bode well for Romney. It will also invigorate the Republican Party which will serve the party well in the general election.

Romney can win a war fought in state by state battles across this country. He can fight and he can win.

In the end, we should all be hoping he stays in because his mere presence will help to ensure conservative ideology remains at the core or the Republican Party.

Bob Dole has an incredible past and we should all respect the contributions he made to our country as a war hero and as a senator. His efforts to influence the current debate amongst conservatives by "reaching out" to Rush Limbaugh is a sad testament to where the man is now. (click here for link to Politico report)

His plea to Limbaugh to lay off poor John McCain was based on his personal relationship with him as a member of the Republican Party establishment. He has not been in the Senate since 1996, when he left to pursue his disasterous run for President. While he notes that since he left the Senate, McCain has made some troubling votes, he clings to McCain's early record and then, as a last ditch effort, attempts to pull on the heart strings with the mention of Hanoi Hilton.

This incessant need of the party establishment to convince people that McCain's time in "Hanoi Hilton" makes him the most deserving of the nomination borders on irresponsibility. He should be commended for his service but it did not create some sort of entitlement...

We should all remember how well the Republican Party did when it nominated a war hero who had done his time and "deserved" the nomination. People don't earn the nomination by being good "foot soldiers" or by serving in the military. People should earn the nomination of the Republican Party based on their current political positions and their most recent behavior.

Bob Dole is wrong on this issue and his appearance on Fox News on Monday night demonstrated how out of touch he is with the concerns of conservative Republicans. While he has not served the Senate for over a decade, Dole is still a part of the establishment.

Bob Dole's loyalty to McCain should be less important than his loyalty to the country...

The manager of an Abercrombie store in Virginia Beach has been charged with obscenity after failing to remove "obscene materials in a business that is open to juveniles." (click here for article)

Every Abercrombie store displays photographs that border or cross the line. As a mom, I do not allow my kids to wear Abercrombie clothes and we do not go in the company's stores. When walking through malls, it is hard to avoid the pictures in the windows. Windows visible to all who walk by should be free of the soft porn photos. While it would be great if A & F could sell clothes without sex, that seems to be impossible. If the stores would keep their suggestive photos inside the store away from windows, I would be more sympathetic to their cause.

Maybe more cities will begin enforcing city ordinances and protect kids from the public display of sexually suggestive photos. I doubt it...