Am I concerned about the fairness doctrine? No. It’s blatant censorship, and as dopey as some of the things that Pelosi and her ilk in Washington will throw at us will invariably be, this should not be a big fear for our party. I don’t see any version of the Fairness Doctrine even getting out of committee in Congress. The American people will see it for what it would be: the victorious Party beating on the losers. America won’t like that and won’t stand for it, so I’m not afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine.

I am also not afraid of The Obama Administration governing from the far left, which they will do. It failed with Carter, and it will fail again. We just need to be patient. 2010 will see Democratic power substantially weakened, and 2012 will see the end of The Obama Administration. I’m not afraid because I know that this level of Democratic power is a temporary condition.

So what am I afraid of?

Believe it or not, I’m afraid of Republicans.

It’s true: right now, we stand to become our own worst enemy. With Mike Huckabee, a man I greatly respect, releasing his new book this week—in which he attacks just about anyone who did not support him in the 2008 primary—I see a dangerous possibility of what our Party could become.

Let’s meditate on that for a moment; since when did we become the Party of sore losers? Since when are Republicans the screaming four-year-old who can’t take it when their brother beats them at “Sorry!”? That’s not us, Mike. At the very least, it shouldn’t be.

Huckabee is particularly hard on Governor Mitt Romney, of whom Huckabee says, “[Romney was] anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” That’s just unnecessary, Huckster.

Meanwhile, while we have Romney and Huckabee getting ready to battle like feuding siblings, we have other names being haphazardly tossed about for a 2012 run. It’s four years away, people! When I said, “let’s look to the future” in my last piece, I didn’t mean start campaigning. I meant hold guarded optimism about the Party’s future. Who knows, maybe we will get Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination (a scenario of which I’m a big fan), but it’s too far away for us to allow it to become our primary (sorry) concern.

What we can actually worry about is the concept of having too many conservatives on the stage for the 2012 primary. This past primary, we had Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, among others, all vying for the “Mr. Conservative” mantle. They wound up cancelling each other out, and so we got stuck with John McCain. The true conservative base of the party was too divided, so all of the real conservatives wound up losing. We can’t let that happen again.

Yes, I’ll admit, I want Mitt Romney to run in 2012. And yes, I realize that this may make me seem like a hypocrite for a variety of reasons. But I also know that earlier coalescence around one strong conservative—Sorry, Mike, but Mitt is indeed a conservative—will make for a stronger party in the future.

My point is this: Mike Huckabee has laid out a veritable roadmap on how to allow ourselves to degenerate to infighting, bickering, and inter-partisan civil war. We have to remember that the things that unite us are far greater than anything that might divide us. We are better than sniping at our own allies over who said what and when.

Let’s save some argumentative prowess for the Democrats. And, even then, let’s keep it reasonably civil. OK, Huckster?

“A man is not finished when he is defeated. He is finished when he quits.” ~Richard M. Nixon

The same holds true for our party. Last night, we were defeated. John McCain lost the Presidency to the most extreme big-government liberal of our time. Moreover, the Democrats have a brand new super-majority in Washington, controlling both houses of Congress by noteworthy margins.

I spent half the night trying to explain to my fellow Republicans that all is not lost. They fear for America’s future; some are convinced that the Republican Party may even be in jeopardy. I outright refuse to adopt such a defeatist attitude. I am not a quitter.

Readers, I assure you: my resolve has never been stronger. I was not broken by Obama’s win last night. Rather, I was emboldened. I was reminded that now, more than ever, is the time to fight. The time to fight tooth and nail to maintain our identity as the party of limited government, moral leadership, and National strength.

America will weather an Obama presidency. The Democratic Super Majority will last only two years; my sights are on 2010—the year we take back congress. It is our principles that founded America, and it will be our principles that win back the American electorate.

Beyond that, we have three names we need to watch: Mitt, Ron, and Sarah. The Republican Party is absent many new faces and strong leaders. But if one of these three people begins to act now; he or she can realistically poise him or herself to become our Party’s standard-bearer within the coming four years. Or who knows? Maybe someone better is waiting, just biding time until a brand new Republican Star is born.

The American People are unlike any other people in the world. We openly resent the inflation of the Government. We will not stand for a government taking our money, our liberties, and our ethics away from us. We don’t want the Government providing for us; we would rather provide for ourselves. One of the three people mentioned above can, if allowed, lead us to victory and back to becoming a Republican Party that our forebears would be proud of.

Let the Democrats celebrate today. Tomorrow, the Republican Party must resume a fighting stance. Do not ever give up.

———————————————————-

By the way, since I am a big fan of playing a hunch, there is one final name I want to put out for our Party to consider very carefully: John H. Hoeven of North Carolina. He is a good conservative, and the longest-serving current Governor in America. Just a name to contemplate for a while…

There had to be a Carter before there could be a Reagan.

This sentiment is the only thing keeping me going at this point, as it looks more than likely that we will face a Barack Obama presidency. Yes, that scares me. We will see the Federal Government inflate to unheard of levels and we will, indeed see taxes rise and liberties like the Second Amendment erode.

But there is hope (sorry) on the horizon.

My prediction is this: that Obama—assuming he wins—will only get one term. America tends to lean traditional, and doesn’t like an inflating government in Washington. So who will the next Republican be? If the Republican Party straps on its balls and stops pandering to the Left and the big-government conservatives that currently inhabit Washington, then it will be the best Republican president since the 80s.

Here’s what has to happen on our side, though. 1) Stop the pandering. Republicans have become as good at shelling out cash and entitlements as the Democrats. This must end. 2) We have to acknowledge that, when the opportunity arises, we have to exercise it fully. That means no moderate nominee. We will need a Mitt Romney, a Fred Thompson, or even a Ron Paul. Someone who is not afraid to stand up and actually be a Republican in the vein of Barry Goldwater or Theodore Roosevelt or even Ronald Reagan. If we go the centrist route again, we will lose again. It’s that simple. 3) We need coalescence. We can’t—however unlikely—be a party divided.

If we pull off all of these things, 2012 will be ours. Four years of Obama might actually be just enough to shock the Republicans into action. It might just be enough to make independents realize just how dangerous a Democratic Super Majority in Washington actually is.

Now, all of this is assuming one thing: we lose the 2008 race on Tuesday. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t lost faith, and I still believe that McCain has a shot. But it’s a long shot.

Good things come to those who wait. And we have to remember that if Barack Obama is elected president. We can at least hope that the Bush administration pops all the letter “O”s off the White House keyboards, much like the Clinton Administration did with the “W”s in 2001. At least we’ll get to chuckle a bit. 

Tonight is make-or-break night for Obama. Not just because it’s the second presidential debate, not just because it’s a town hall-style format—which John McCain loves—but also because Obama leads McCain by just shy of 6% in the RealClearPolitics polling averages. Why is that bad for Obama? Let’s explore.

Obama peaked much earlier than his campaign expected to. These things are cyclical, and Obama reached a legitimate victory margin with a month left for voters to decide the election. That’s bad for the Democrats because people will have a chance to reexamine Obama’s stances, which will invariably lead to some voters becoming disenfranchised rather quickly. Democrats face a huge problem from an electability standpoint: their policies tend to sound good on quick inspection, but rarely hold up to real scrutiny. Case in point: Obama’s 95% tax cut claim. With $850 billion in new spending proposals, he simply cannot cut as many taxes as he says he would.

Second, the debate bar tonight is set impossibly high for Obama tonight. His debate style is to recite his talking points and regurgitate the same old “Here’s what we’ll do, but don’t ask me how,” lines. That will hurt him tonight. With a poll lead like Obama has, people will want to hear something new tonight. I guarantee that something will never come. He has nothing new to say. This debate is Obama’s to lose, and barring some huge gaffe from McCain—which, knowing McCain is very unlikely—he will.

The third reason that Obama will likely suffer tonight and in the coming week or so is an oldie but a goodie: Ayers and Wright. The McCain campaign is bringing back the issue of Obama’s radical ties. At first, I thought that this was a borderline suicidal move from the McCain camp, but as it turns out, it was brilliant to do this when they did. With just a month left to decide, swing voters will get another look at Bill Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the loony pastor who thinks that America invented AIDS to eradicate black people, and the people will swing back away from Obama just in time to vote.

Bear in mind, readers; McCain wins tonight by a similar formula to Biden’s victory in the VP debate. He must seem knowledgeable in contrast to Obama’s inexperience and he simply has to avoid any screw-ups. McCain isn’t prone to major gaffes, but the possibility is always there in the realm of politics. But this is a format where the candidates are held accountable to the American people, not to the moderator, so McCain should theoretically have an advantage. Unless Tom Brokaw gets in the way, which I’m not expecting—even if he is an NBC guy, he’s usually pretty fair—Obama has a lead that will not withstand the scrutiny of the American people.

Wow. THAT was a debate. I think I enjoyed that debate more than any exchange between politicians in a very long time. Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin were very much equally matched. I have to commend them both. I took 6 ¼ pages of notes before 9:10 PM central time (a little over an hour into the debate) before I had to stop. My hand was too tired.

I’ll start with Sen. Biden’s strengths. He is infinitely stronger in a debate than Sen. Obama. Unlike the ticket’s top, Biden has the benefit of specifics and strong points. Where Obama regurgitates talking points, Biden can emphasize specific beliefs and particular points to highlight what his views for action in 2009 forward include.

Biden did, amusingly, look at Palin with almost admiration while she answered, specifically in the early parts of the debate. Biden came off as all business. He was direct, strong, and had logic to back up his positions. Even while I disagreed with him on a great many things, I understood and respect where he came from. He connected to me, a staunch Republican, on that level.

Palin’s strengths were two-fold. One: she made no gaffes. At all. She was factually prepared, honest, and didn’t fumble anything. Two: she was human. The woman who wowed America at the RNC came back in full force tonight. She spoke directly to the American people. She came off as Biden’s antithesis: folksy, often funny, and dare I say cute. She managed to achieve a balance that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro never could: she was strong, intelligent, and feminine at the same time. Unlike many women in politics, she was unafraid to be wholly a woman and wholly a leader. I applaud that.

Weaknesses are harder to come by. Neither candidate really fouled anything up at a totally noticeable level. The biggest criticism I have goes to Palin: early on, she wanted to keep answering the energy question over and over. Biden was almost three questions ahead of her at that point, and that came close to hurting her. Fortunately, it caused no lasting damage, and I, for one, was over it one question later. Biden had more problems with actual facts, such as his previous statements on coal power; but a casual observer would likely think that Biden did fine.

I will do a follow-up piece to this one on fact-checking specifics. But here, I want to focus on the big picture. While I thought that John McCain won the first Presidential debate—albeit by a slim margin—and articulated that point in my school’s newspaper, I have to say, in all honesty and fairness, that Joe Biden came out just a hair ahead tonight.

Don’t misunderstand me. I love Governor Palin, and I think she did absolutely excellent tonight. But Biden had a more professional air, which lends itself to perceived credibility. What I’ve felt about Biden for a very long time is that he’s a remarkably liberal person who breaks all the liberal rules of presentation. He comes off like many conservatives do; more concerned with facts and his own logic than the emotion and “bleeding-heart” elements that usually drive liberals. Obviously, Biden did make factual errors in his performance, but he nevertheless had the aura that can usually only be controlled by conservative thought.

Palin’s personality and conviction won her some friends tonight, and it reminded me why I like her. But her answers lacked depth, which unfortunately drew contrast from Biden’s experience and argumentative brawn.

Congratulations to Joe Biden on his very, very, very narrow victory tonight. And congratulations to Sarah Palin for blowing your first National debate out of the water. Both candidates gave a stellar, fast-paced, and outright entertaining performance tonight. I know most of the pundits are against me tonight, but these are my immediate impressions.

UPDATE: The follow-up piece mentioned above has been cancelled. I feel that the issue had been covered ad-nauseum, and that most rational-minded Americans will agree that Biden won on presentation/appearance of knowledge, and that Palin won on actual facts. Biden made, I believe 14 factual errors to Palin's 6 or 7. Our gal won there, but the bar should have been higher.

There is trouble brewing in Britain. Apparently, the British Government has caved into a policy of appeasement in the form of adopting Sharia Law to govern Muslim citizens. This effectively creates a parallel legal system in Britain; one in which women will be punished for divorce and Muslim men who engage in domestic violence will likely be protected. The original story can be found here.

Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that the new parallel courts will enforce fundamental Muslim law, and focus on the new breed of chaos that will result from having two different sets of courts both demanding recognition. Anarchy will now govern British Muslims because they will now be able to fight criminal prosecutions on grounds of jurisdiction. They will claim, even with criminal proceedings, that they are only accountable to civil Sharia law. With this advent, the British government has placed its Muslim population on a self-destruct course.

Getting on to the laws that they will be enforcing, Muslim doctrine claims that, among other things, women are subservient to men and even violence in the name of Allah is justified. Across the US and Britain, Islamic domestic violence—and even so-called “honor killing”—is becoming an unreported epidemic. Now, the offenders will have legal protection in the British system. Despicable.

Financial disputes and divorces will also eternally end in favor of male domination, and British Muslim women will now enter into a new age of oppression. Imagine if such a system entered the US. Such a revelation would be downright dangerous. No government could adequately function with two separate, parallel court systems. Even if those systems only govern citizens of one specific faith.

Britain cannot claim to be a free Nation if this sort of law is put into place. Britain is in danger. Appeasement to any one religious group will inevitably cause confusion, corruption, and chaos. One set of laws must govern a country, not two sets of laws. Imagine if Christians demanded to answer only to the officials of their churches. No free democratic system can function in accordance with theocratic courts. History has repeatedly proven that theocracy is doomed to fail. Especially if that theocracy runs parallel to the actual government of a sovereign nation.

Here’s hoping that freedom will continue in Britain, and that these courts will not have power for long.

It’s difficult to keep up with politics, right now. I know what you’re thinking: “What the hell is this guy talking about? It’s an election year. The ONLY thing on the news every night is politics.” Well, that’s true… sort of. But there are more players in the political realm than just the four people running for National Office.

Just in case anybody’s interested, I’m going to run very quickly through a few recent news stories and give my “Readers’ Digest” analysis.

Story 1) The ACLU is taking legal action against certain High Schools who allow military recruiters on campus, but not “counter-recruiters.”

Analysis 1) “Counter-recruiters” is Liberal speak for anti-military loons who outright hate the Patriots (capital ‘P’ for a reason) who are currently serving in our armed forces. The ACLU is, as usual, making no effort to hide their true nature as America-haters, who advocate more domestic big government and absolutely no military. They want to see America crumble, and taking down the military is a good start for that vision.

Story 2) The American Military recently declassified the information that several tons of yellowcake uranium were shipped from Iraq to Canada near the beginning of the Iraq War. Yellowcake uranium is one level away from weapons-grade.

Analysis 2) Nobody saw this on the evening news because it doesn’t fit the Liberal media’s “Bush Lied” ideology. Having to admit that the WMD intelligence from Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Australia, France, the UN, and all the American agencies was actually CORRECT would strike an irreconcilable blow to both the media establishment and the anti-American protestors who can’t accept that the President DID NOT LIE. 

Story 3) Condi Rice goes to Libya, ending a decades-old lack of diplomacy between our two countries.

Analysis 3) Nixon went to China; Condi went to Libya. Today, just about everything we own says, “made in China” on it. Talking to other nations can’t really hurt, as long as they’re not immediate threats (like Iran and Venezuela). To be fair, this story did get reported somewhat.

Story 4) Russia is totally unapologetic for the Georgia situation. President Medvedev says, “We’re not afraid of a new Cold War.” (Approximate quotation)

Analysis 4) We’re in deep $#!T here. With Russia sliding back into communist policy domestically, and USSR foreign relations policies, our kids may very well grow up in a new age of “duck and cover.” This story did permeate the news cycle through John McCain’s RNC speech, where he said that we must stand “in solidarity” with Georgia. I’ll say it again, we’re in trouble.

Story 5) Fannie and Freddie bailout. This one is reported extensively.

Analysis 5) Big Government has to get involved because people are buying homes they can’t afford. I understand that it seems necessary, now. But it is NOT the Government’s job to save the mortgage lenders. This “solution” will cost taxpayers billions over the next several years, and we are in an economic crisis as it is. This will only make matters worse. The way I see it, some of the people who buy overly lavish homes that they can’t afford could use to learn that they need to find homes in areas that are more affordable. I don’t care what any Liberal ever tells you; there is no reason that a sensible person can’t find an affordable home in a decent area. It is not the government’s place to clean up our messes. It’s just like the late 1920s, when people bought more luxuries than they could actually afford, which drove us into the depression. We, the people, need to do better, because every time the Government has to save us, it gets bigger and we lose more control over it.

            Congratulations ­­­­to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Even though I pulled strongly for Senator McCain to pick former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate, I feel confident that McCain made the right choice. Palin is an intelligent, capable, conservative woman; she will be excellent as the next Vice President of the United States.

            Already, however, I have been hearing Liberals try to attack her “inexperience,” or they attack the fact that she’s a woman, or they attack her age. How progressive. As usual, the Left likes to claim the moral high ground, but then proves that they don’t deserve it.

            We’ll start with the “issue” of her gender. Liberal critics have claimed that Senator McCain is merely trying to snatch up the disenfranchised Hillary vote. While I’m sure that this was a factor in McCain’s decision, it was likely a small one. It’s more important that Governor Palin has done great work in her state and has advocated strongly against issues such as abortion.

I’ve had to listen to so-called “feminists” gripe all day. “How stupid does McCain thin we are?” they ask, “he thinks that women are so stupid that they’ll just vote for the woman.” It is safe to say that John McCain dos not feel this way. Neither do I, for that matter, but let’s be realistic. There were many Hillary supporters whose entire basis for their support was “I think its time for a woman.” Just like Senator Obama has secured 90 percent or more of the black vote. Now try to tell me that there’s no racial component involved, either.

Attacking Governor Palin’s age makes no sense at all. She is merely two years younger than Senator Obama, so age is absolutely not a factor in this. If the Left tries to attack Palin’s age, they are simply highlighting the age of the man at the top of their ticket. If the Liberal critics are smart—and that’s a big “if”—they’ll keep their mouths shut on this one. Meanwhile, let’s not forget that Richard Nixon became Vice President at age 39, and he executed the office admirably, both in the foreign relations arena, as shown in the Khrushchev debate, and as a substitute chief executive, during Eisenhower’s health issues.

And finally they tout Governor Palin’s “inexperience.” She has been Governor of Alaska for two years. Senator Obama has been in congress for three and a half years, and he spent about two of those years campaigning for President. Remind me again who has more experience. Moreover, Governor Palin is the only one of the four people running for executive office with any executive experience at all. She’s safe there.

I’ve looked over her record, I’ve listened to her acceptance speech, and I’m incredibly comfortable with her. I wish Governor Palin all the best for the campaign and the future. And I offer my congratulations to John McCain. With your first executive decision, Senator McCain, you’ve done extremely well.

We constantly hear about how corrupt the United States Congress is, but national politicians can begin to look like angels when compared to the Illinois General Assembly.

It’s no secret that Illinois politics has been broken for quite some time. Illinois Democrats frequently concern themselves with lining their own pockets with little consideration for their constituency. Meanwhile, Illinois Republican politicians are even worse; they bend to the whims of special interests, without even firm organization. Different Republican districts in Illinois might as well be in different States, as the party no longer has any legitimate unifying base. The Illinois Republican Party has even taken to raising lawsuits against fellow Republican organizations for failure to get the State Party’s “permission” to call themselves “Republicans.” The word “Republican” refers to a system of political beliefs, not necessarily to a group of bureaucrats. It’s no wonder the Democrats hold so much power in this State; they are at least organized.

On August 12 and 13, a special session of the Illinois General Assembly was called. The intended topics: capital spending on drug and alcohol treatment facilities and school funding. Did they ever get around to those topics? No. Rather, the Senate wasted the day bickering about their own pay raises, while the House of Representatives never, to my knowledge, discussed anything. This is the same Springfield machine that failed for several months to solidify a State budget. This is not what our government was created to do.

Obviously, I bear concern for the status of our Federal Government, but we need new leadership right here in the State of Illinois, first. Readers may or may not know that our State holds the National record for the highest number of indicted Governors. That’s not very reassuring to the people of the State.

Also needless to say, elected Illinois Republicans—if they ever do accomplish anything—seem to act more like Democrats, advocating more spending, the State equivalent of big-government solutions, and new laws and regulations that force our party to the center. Or even, dare I say it, to the left.

What we face is a problem similar to what many National Republicans have had since the 1930s; we look too much like our Democratic rivals to warrant voters to switch sides. “At least this one admits he’s a Democrat,” they think. Or even, “Better to stick with the Devil we know, rather than the Devil we don’t.” What good are we, as a party, if we are too corrupt to care, too cowardly to stand up for what we believe in, and too fragmented to present a united set of Republican ideals? What good is the Illinois Republican Party if our last measurable accomplishment was Abraham Lincoln? It’s time to fix these problems. It’s time to put an end to the chaos.

This article is meant to be a stepping stone, a rallying cry, a glaring light on the flaws in Illinois’s political system. More specifically, the flaws and structural breakdowns in the Illinois Republican Party. Without valid leadership and a valid structure of Party unity, Illinois will become a one-Party State. The Land of Lincoln stands to become the Land of Daley and Obama. Illinois Republicans deserve better. Illinois Citizens, in general, deserve better. And, one way or another, we will get better.

“Hello, friends! Welcome to Honest Barry’s used politics. Have I got a model for you. This one has a beautiful exterior and runs completely on ‘hope’ and ‘change!’ Believe me, this one’s a beauty. But you have to act now, or you’ll be stuck with that older-looking model on the right.”

Sound familiar? Obviously, the above quote is fiction. Senator Obama never called himself “Honest Barry.” But, you must admit, it would be a fitting name. More and more, I see similarities that can be drawn between Barack Obama and a used car salesman. He’s very good at convincing young, inexperienced voters that his politics are brand new. The problem is that his policies and beliefs are little more than “Carter… the sequel” repackaged into a shiny, flashy, new exterior. Really, Honest Barry offers nothing but rehashes of old failures, he just looks new.

The “hope and change” rhetoric sounds nice, and it fits well with college students who are more interested in “ideals” than practicality. Obama’s politics are like the old car on the lot that has a fully refurbished exterior, but has an engine that has broken down several times before. And, just like a used car salesman convinces inexperienced buyers to spend money on the pretty car that will break down a matter of weeks after the sale, Honest Barry is successfully convincing inexperienced voters to buy absolute junk politics that happen to have nice packaging.

Meanwhile, John McCain offers a trusted, reliable brand of politics. We may not always like what he’s done, but we know who and what he is. McCain’s politics are tantamount to the used car that has a lot of miles on it, might have some dings and scratches, but it’s reliable, it’s predictable. The car isn’t as pretty, but it won’t break down.

Fortunately, as of 7/30, Obama’s poll lead is dropping. According to the Realclearpolitics.com average, Honest Barry’s poll lead has fallen from 5% on 7/27 to 2.6%. In three days, that’s impressive. People are beginning to see Honest Barry for what he is, and “hope and change” rhetoric doesn’t pass for real discussion of real issues. Obama has tried that, but he’s also failed miserably at it. His positions shift with the wind, and the few issues he’s consistent on are too radical for a rational Liberal.

For example, his tax plan includes hikes of 50% or more, not to mention the absolute annihilation of small business through monstrous capital gains hikes. He also budgets $500 billion or more just to pay for his socialized medicine plans. He’s also predicted $12 per gallon gas prices, rather than suggest any solutions to gas prices. On foreign policy, he showed his naïveté on his tour through the Middle East and Europe, when he claimed that he would still oppose the troop surge, even though he admitted that the surge worked.

Let’s not forget his friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright (“God d*mn America,” and “U.S. of KKK A!”) and the Weatherman Bill Ayers (“I’m sorry I didn’t bomb more government buildings,”). His associations with these two, compiled with his refusal to salute the American Flag or wear a flag lapel pin, and his wife’s statement that she has never been proud of America in her adult life, paints an alarming picture of someone who has no interest in preserving American values.

So, friends, let’s all remember that we need to step up the offensive, and we have to protect young voters—and America, in general—from Honest Barry. 

Telling a hardcore Liberal that “life” is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence is an exercise in futility. Following that up by quoting the Constitution’s preamble, which promises to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY” (emphasis mine) accomplishes little more.

A Liberal still swears that a woman has the right to kill her baby for any reason at all. Only, they word it differently. They say something along the lines of, “government doesn’t get to legislate morality of a woman’s personal decision.” By citing the word “morality,” they scare off religious individuals. They’ve foreshadowed the tried-and-true “church and state” argument that they just love to whip at an issue like pasta to a wall. Sometimes it sticks, but usually…

They’ve also used the phrase “women’s decision.” And there’s the thunderbolt. They’ve tried to make it a “women’s issue.” Now anyone who disagrees with them is a sexist. How mature. They act like someone needs to have a uterus to comprehend the value of human life. Try to explain that to the millions of American fathers who are constantly shafted over custody agreements in divorce court. Try to tell those fathers that they just don’t love their kids as much as mommy does. You’ll walk away with a black eye and a few broken bones.

I recently read Ron Paul’s book Revolution: a Manifesto. In one specific part of this book, Paul discusses some of the earliest legal abortions in America. Do you know what the difference between a C-section and an abortion was at the time? A month or two’s difference; and the fact that, after a c-section, a baby winds up in a room with doctors and nurses buzzing around him whereas, after an abortion, the baby wound up dropped into a bucket in the corner of the room. That was the whole difference!

I used to agree with Congressman Paul and Senator McCain (among others) that abortion was an issue best left to the states. But after recent… shall we say… reassessments; I’ve found that the only way to properly rectify this issue is to amend the Constitution to ban abortions in all cases except those where the life of the mother is in question.

It seems cut-and-dry to me. If you’re “responsible” enough to have sex, you’re responsible enough to stand up for your decision. The “right to choice” is the right to abstain. Actions have consequences. That’s life. I don’t need to be a woman or a priest to figure that out. I also don’t need to be either of these things to discover that every child deserves a chance at life. That’s not religion, it’s the Constitution. Which leads me to ask, what kind of idiotic decision-makers were behind Roe v. Wade? What happened to the Supreme Court? Where was the “bastion of wisdom” that they are supposed to represent?

Now, I know that some bleeding-heart Lib would cry out at me by this point, “what about rape?” To be fair, that’s a valid question. So is this one: “did the baby rape her?” I ask, what could be more indicative of the sheer strength and moral capacity of the American spirit than turning the horrible thing that happened to this poor woman into the most precious gift that anyone can possibly give: the gift of life? Of course, no rational person would expect the woman to raise that child on her own, but life in an orphanage is better than no life at all. Put the child up for adoption. There are even agencies that will find your child a family before you ever even give birth, if you want to ensure that your baby gets a loving home.

To their credit, the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held up this South Dakota law, which requires doctors to inform a woman that she’s about to terminate a human life. This is a great first step in terminating (sorry) the horrendous error in judgment that is Roe. We need more laws like this across all of America. We need to find more ways to defend our Nation's most defenseless.

Iran threatens America and Israel:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377626,00.html

Russia threatens America over Czech relations:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378065,00.html

Maybe I’m clairvoyant! I wrote the following commentary for my high school newspaper in November 2007:

Ask a random person on the street what the greatest threat to our National Security is, and you’ll probably get quite a few different answers. One person will say it’s al-Quaeda, another might claim that it’s global warming, and an uninformed, sarcastic individual may use the opportunity to snipe at President Bush.

Less than 20 years ago, the answer to that question would have most certainly been “Russia.” It’s frightening to think that within our lifetime, the greatest threat to National Security may once again very well be “Russia,” at least in part.

Three out of four of the world’s largest oil powers are linked together, and are a big part of what’s keeping Americans crying at the gas pump. According to CNN, these countries are Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. Two of these countries are ruled by totalitarian dictators, and the third is led by an ex-KGB agent whose record is shaky, at best.* These countries are entering into territory that Americans should be skeptical of, if not genuinely afraid of.

Iran is supplying the terrorists who we’re fighting in Iraq, and they are very chummy with Russia and Venezuela. Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad consistently welcomes Russian and Venezuelan leaders with open arms. The question is: why would these leaders want to be welcomed by the Holocaust-denying leader of a corrupt government whose stated mission is to wipe Israel and “infidels,” read: Americans, off the face of the map? This man is an Islamic extremist version of Hitler. Americans should be alarmed by this man’s power alone, but combining him with a communist dictator and a declining Russia is terrifying.

Venezuela is the biggest oil supplier in our hemisphere, and their leader has been quoted numerous times verbally assaulting America. Their cooperation with Iran casts a frightening shadow of nuclear armament mixed with oil powers, which could be detrimental to American well-being. We can’t defend ourselves if the enemy has our biggest fuel source in its pocket. According to the BBC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants an arms deal with Russia. This feels a little bit too much like the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis for my liking.

Russia is thankfully not the danger that it once was, but very soon, it may regain its seat as a major threat to the United States. By backing both Iran and Venezuela in the UN, and paying them financial tribute, they may be moving in a dangerous direction. Additionally, the Russians have recently socialized their country’s biggest business: oil. President Putin* has done an alarmingly good job of reinstating policies of the USSR and socializing businesses that start to get too big, in other words: successful. He’s letting Russia’s private sector do the work of rebuilding profit capabilities, and then scooping up the industries to reap the rewards.

The three nations have constructed a joint compound in Venezuela. And because of Russia’s place on the UN Security Council, it’s impossible to be certain of what’s going on down there. Americans should be concerned with that base, but, understandably, our focus is on the two wars we are currently engaged in, not one that most people think “may come in the future.” Sorry friends, the future is now.

Only small margins of Americans refuse to acknowledge that we are currently, for all intents and purposes, at war with Iran. We know that Iranian money and armament are keeping insurgents and terrorists going in Iraq. American agents from the NSA and CIA have found Iranian markings on weapons and missiles confiscated from insurgents. We know that Iran is developing a nuclear program. America has been trying to reason with Ahmadinejad about abandoning the program for quite a while now. We know that Russia has made “unspecified proposals” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We know that both countries are friendly with Hugo Chavez, the communist oil tyrant that runs Citgo and hates America (nice combo). And we know that the three countries have something going on in Venezuela.

Between these countries’ secrecy in dealings and their sketchy backgrounds, Americans should be vigilant. There may be no threat at all. That’s a definite possibility, but we need to have a healthy respect for what these countries may be capable of, even if we need not fear them…yet.**

*Note: President Putin is no longer the Russian President. He is now Chairman of the United Russia political party, as well as Prime Minister of Russia. His successor is current President Dmitry Medvedev.

**Note 2: We do, indeed, need to have a healthy respect for the danger that these countries pose to America and Her allies. World War III is likely around the corner, and its centerpieces will be Middle East relations and oil, compounded by hostilities with Russia.