Remember my post on May 19 of this year? I told everyone that that was exactly the day that the Obama Administration took its sharp left turn full throttle and began to look like Soviets. Only a handful of you believed me on the significance of that day.

I told you that three things were emerging from the administration that should scare to death any good American who knows about the old USSR menace. Those were OHFA—Obama healthcare for America, GM—Government Motors, and GPOU—Government Political Opposition Unit. 

It’s no coincidence that GPOU shares initials with GOP. GPOU is my name for those individuals in the Obama Administration whose job it is to silence or marginalize anyone who even gives a whiff of dissent from the Government’s party line. Most recently, that target has been FOX News.

GPOU operatives like David Axelrod and Anita Dunn made official the war on FOX by passing over the network for various interviews and by calling them “opponents” or the “communications arm of the Republican Party.”

To the credit of all of the major networks, when the White House tried to bar FOX from a roundtable interview of the new “Executive Pay Czar,” ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS all threatened a boycott of the interview until FOX was allowed in as well. Stories from even the New York Times and the Washington Post have illustrated the absurdity of the War on FOX (articles below).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_dumb_war_with_fox_news.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html?_r=1

In typical far-Left ideological fashion, the First Amendment freedom of the press applies only when the press is friendly to leftist goals. Thankfully, this doesn’t look like it will stand, and the administration will unwind itself if it begins to look as though the GPOU is in full swing.

However, should leftist voices prevail and FOX is marginalized—if anything, the opposite is happening, FOX’s ratings are jumping even higher than they were before the GPOU took aim—then we will see an end to freedom.

I will close with some words from a man who, in your heart, you know was right.

“Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.”

            I’d like to congratulate our president for his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, and for his astounding and earth-shattering achievements in the field of world peace.

            In that same spirit, I will now accept your praises and gifts for my outstanding achievements in the field of shaping the global political debate.

            Not buying it? Good. We’re getting somewhere.

            All that the president has really done is talk. A lot. And while talking is wonderful, it does not amount to achievement. I operate a blog—which, by the way, may have recently earned a second or third regular reader—and write for a college newspaper. I also rant to anyone who will listen. I’ve influenced a few minds, I’m sure. But if someone were to tell me that I’ve won an award for my work, I’d respond with the sentence, “Put the damn bong down, you pinhead!”

            President Obama has been in office for nine months. He has talked about closing Gitmo, but keeps pushing the deadline back. He talked about pulling us out of Iraq, but troops won’t be off the ground until at least 2012. He nixed the missile defense shield in Europe, but that was only in the planning stages anyway. No actual action was required. So I must ask, when did great oratory and lofty goals amount to actual accomplishment?

            What has the president done in the international stage? He has snubbed our allies and cozied up to our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez. All this tells me is that the president is very confused. It does not tell me that he has made strides or steps or even stumbles toward a greater, lasting peace in the world.

            Perhaps, had he accomplished something, the president might have earned the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years into his term, but not nine months into his term.

            I am not saying that the president will never deserve recognition, but I am saying that he doesn’t deserve it yet. Let’s wait until something of substance actually gets done, then, we’ll talk. But for now, I think that the Nobel Peace Prize has just reached a point of negative value.

President Obama and the Democrats, in hopes of passing a new version of the healthcare bill, have altered the “public option”—a government-run healthcare plan that would essentially decimate the insurance market—and replaced it with a “trigger option.”

The new “trigger option” would create a public option system only in those areas where one insurance company has a virtual monopoly over the local industry. For example, in a region of Alabama, there is more or less only one major health insurance company, so if people want insurance, they are all but forced to go through this company. Thus, the free market has failed in these regions and government interjection would appear to help with the quasi-monopoly situation. I like this idea, to a point.

Don’t get me wrong, government intervention is almost never the way to go, but, if this “trigger” plan were to set up government health care companies and provide them with some sort of path to privatization, then we could see the shot in the arm that the healthcare industry that Americans seem to want, without the possibility of a government takeover. More specifically, rather than Congress simply making a healthcare plan, Congress would launch a healthcare company, which, after a couple of years, would be allowed to enter the private market and to “cut the cord” from its mother, the Government.

This would, however, only be effective if, as yet another option, incentive-based, privately-owned health savings accounts were brought into the picture. Because, let’s face it, not everyone wants health insurance. John Stossel recently did a piece on ABC’s 20/20 that illustrated that people who do not buy health insurance actually save money over those who do buy insurance.

Now, here’s why the vision articulated above will not see the light of day anytime soon: first, the Democrats are split over whether or not to include a government option of any sort to begin with. While most, if not all Republicans are firmly in the “no” camp, there isn’t enough agreement to move forward. Second, the Democrats will never agree to a path to privatization because they fundamentally distrust the free market. Which is a shame, because what I have here is exactly the compromise that would save this debate.

There seems to be some controversy brewing regarding the President’s upcoming address to schoolchildren tomorrow. Having read the speech (link below courtesy Yahoo! News), I can honestly say that I don’t understand the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_school_speech_text

Agree with him politically or not, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. That, in itself, deserves our respect, regardless of how vehemently we may disagree with his policies.

The speech, at its most basic, calls on students to work hard and to stay in school. It reminds children that they have a duty to their Nation to work hard and to succeed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, hard work and self-reliance are pillars of conservative philosophy. So why would some criticize this speech?

The answer is simple: there are elements of the Republican Party and of the conservative movement that will fight against absolutely anything the President does, regardless of how benign the action may be. This is dangerous.

For starters, America can’t miss the Republican Party if we’re never really gone. There are times when we should simply nod and give silent support to our President. This is one such time. If we waste our energy balking at every single little move the President makes, then we sound reactionary. We are better than that.

Second, we want leaders to address schoolchildren. It’s important for kids to feel somehow connected to their government, otherwise they will grow up to think that they have no stake in America’s wellbeing.

I, for one, am glad that America’s students will be listening to the President tomorrow. I remember a girl on my high school newspaper remarking to me about how much more she liked then-President Bush when she had a chance to hear him speak, rather than listen to analysts dissect his words. It is a fact that people feel more connected when they have the chance to listen to people like the President tell them that what they’re doing is important.

I fully support this simple decision by the President. And I hope that he—and other elected officials—takes the time to talk to American youth more often.

I just got out of a political policy class, in which the professor stroked one of my pet peeves: he referred to abortion as a “women’s issue.” If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ve likely read the rather lengthy piece that I previously wrote on abortion. But the entire time that I listened to this professor (who, for the record, I still like quite a bit) emphasize his point about policymaking by saying that a man had no reason to march for abortion, my thoughts drifted to my friend, Jack.

Jack (not his real name) had been seeing this girl for some time. The two appeared as close as any couple, and they seemed as happy as could be. And, as you can imagine, I was happy for them.

I knew that the couple was having sex, which is completely their business. I know that I am never in a position to judge or gauge a relationship unless I am a part of it. So, again, I just shrugged and was happy that Jack was so happy.

I should pause here to talk a little bit about Jack. Jack is a smart guy. This is the kind of guy that you go to for help. Any kind of help, really: homework, life, relationships, etc. He listens. And, because he is such a go-to kind of guy, it was flattering to me that he comes to me for the kind of advice and listening that he provides for others. Jack is not a particularly religious guy, but he does have a strong moral compass that constantly points north. He knows what he believes in, and he knows that there is a right and a wrong.

So one time, in spite of Jack’s responsibility and in spite of the efforts he and his girlfriend made to the contrary, everything that can go wrong did go wrong, and she got pregnant. I know Jack. His family doesn’t have a lot of money, but he would have embraced the challenge before him and accepted fatherhood. Jack would have gladly taken a full-time job and transferred to a community college, if need be, so that he could help to support the child he created. But there was a problem: the way that Jack found out about the baby.

Jack and his girlfriend were eating out when she gave him the news. The problem is with the news that she delivered. She didn’t tell him that she was pregnant; she told him that she had already had an abortion. This girl, without ever consulting the father of her child, had decided, for whatever reason, to “terminate her pregnancy” without the slightest show of concern for the father. Jack found out that he was a father only to discover that his baby had been killed before he even got a chance to love the child.

So, what, exactly could I tell Jack? Today, I dare you to try to tell him that abortion is a “women’s issue.” He explodes at the very mention of the argument. “You think abortion is a women’s issue?” he exclaims, “Tell that to my dead baby!”

Abortion is about more than just the woman who carries the baby. It’s also about the man who co-created the child. And, most importantly, it’s about the baby who does not get a voice, who has no one to advocate for him. It’s about that baby who doesn’t get a chance to draw his first breath. It’s about the baby who doesn’t get to cry. It’s about the baby who will never get to be held by someone who loves him.

It’s about Jack’s baby.

*Note: I have been given express permission to tell this story, however, to protect Jack’s privacy, his real name will not be released under any circumstances.

Today, America lost a true legend.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy was the last icon of a political era. He served his country for nearly 47 years and never failed to stand up for what he believed in. The Senate’s Liberal Lion was an amazing public servant and a gifted compass for the American Left.

Whether or not we agree with Senator Kennedy’s politics, we should all respect his years of service and be grateful for his presence in American politics. We should all see Ted Kennedy as a shining example of an American who proudly, unwaveringly stood up for what he believed in, as we should all do at all times.

I hope all of my readers will join me in prayer for the late Senator and his family.

In death, let man remember the good, and let God sort out the bad.

The following is a telling display: our Vice President choking up at the memory of Kennedy.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8417834

So apparently, everyone who asks a tough question of one of our elected Congressional Democrats is a part of some vast right-wing conspiracy. Yeah. Sure. Haven’t we been on this ride before?

What amazes me is that the Dems seem intent on claiming that those who are critical of the Obamacare proposals are right-wing nut jobs that think that the President wasn’t really born in America. Don’t see the connection? Me neither. But that doesn’t stop Liberals from calling opponents of the healthcare bill “loons” or from both sides alternating calling each other “fascists.” Constructive, no?

Here are the points I want to make:

1 – The purpose of a town hall-style meeting is for congressmen and senators to listen to the people. So how does this fit? We’ve got congressmen shouting down anyone who voices opposition at these meetings:

            http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8364201

2 – When the Dems try to draw a line connecting the town hall dissenters and the dopes that doubt the President’s citizenship, do they really think that they’re accomplishing anything? True: 25% of the GOP doubts that President Obama is a natural-born US citizen. But the following is also true: 33% of Democrats believe that George W. Bush had a hand in plotting 9/11. Seriously, folks: there are crazies on both sides. Let it go. These are the people who live in their own little world and would not listen to reason if their lives depended on it. Debate the rational people, and let the crazies twist in the wind. I’m a college student from Chicago; I know better than most that there exists a multitude of ignoramuses who will not listen to anything anyone says unless it fits their ideology.

I have a plan for the Republican Party. This is wild; you’re going to love it. Are you ready for this: we all shut up about healthcare. Seriously. Let the Dems drive themselves into the ground. They will pass a healthcare bill. With such a grotesque majority in Washington, it’s unavoidable. Americans know that Republicans hate this bill with visceral passion, as does most of America. When the Democrats spend every bit of their political capital on this bill, then we will take back America. We won’t see the Obamacare machine exist for long. It will flop within a couple of months and Democrats themselves will dismantle the machine, effectively saying, “Republicans were right.” When that happens, we will have no shortage of people shouting, “I told you so!”

So, in summary: the bill (or some version of it) will pass. But America will not live under Obamacare for any substantive length of time.

Short of the woman contracting a flesh-eating disease or video of her defecating on a copy of the United States Constitution surfacing, it is more than less inevitable that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Republicans should not have been upset about this, as we are trading a liberal (Justice Souter) for a new liberal. The ideological makeup of the court is going to be the same.

Had I been Chairman Michael Steele, I would have issued an official statement formally saying that the Republican Party will not oppose Sotomayor’s appointment or confirmation. I also would have sent some sort of statement or strategy memo to Senate Republicans asking them to simply let Sotomayor in. This should not be a big battle; Republicans are not losing anything here, nor are they gaining. This is a lateral move.

But instead, the Party has vocally opposed Sotomayor and fought against her appointment with most of the weapons in their arsenal. See the link below. This was a stupid move.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/judiciary-republicans-delay-sotomayor-vote-week/

In the relatively near future, we are facing the loss of moderate-conservative Justice John Paul Stevens. Should he leave the court before 2013 (which all indications are that he will), Republicans will desperately need to fight against President Obama’s likely Far-Left nominee. The problem is that the American people will be yawning. The public will unanimously say, “We’ve seen this show before.”

A political party that speaks with a relatively united voice—as the now-minority Republicans have—has very limited political capital. If it appears that the Party fought too hard against Sotomayor, we will have no political capital left to spend on the Stevens replacement, and the makeup of the court will shift to the Left.

I understand the concerns of my fellow conservatives. Sonia Sotomayor is not someone that I am fond of, either. However, letting her pass is in our long-term best interest. Progress comes slowly. Patience is everything. We need to remember that, if we want affirmative action upended, if we want Roe v. Wade overturned, and if we want an America where judicial activism goes the way of the dodo bird, then we have to pick our battles very carefully.

The Supreme Court is unlike any other American Government establishment in that there is no mechanism in which it can be held accountable to the American people. As such, progress comes at the speed of continental drift. But it is a battle that the side of right and the Right side will eventually win. It will just take time.

“Pay no attention to the Government behind the curtain…”

This has been the essence of the Democratic Party’s stance on Federally run health care for some time now. And it was also the essence of the case that President Obama tried to make while visiting our mutual hometown of Chicago, today.

For starters, thinking Americans already know that Federal labor law requires employers to offer some sort of healthcare coverage to full-time employees. So, if you’re working full-time and do not have healthcare coverage for your family, it’s your own fault for not knowing your rights as a worker.

This will not, however, stop the march of Big Government. President Obama promises that he will allow you to keep your private insurance. Sure. What the Left is failing to tell you is that the Obama Healthcare plan will be the de facto death of private insurance because employers will buy the cheapest healthcare plans for their employees. When the Government becomes that lowest bidder, all full-time employees will be on Government healthcare.

The second point that the Left ignores—and banks on your ignorance of—is the fact that it is 100% illegal for a hospital or health care provider to deny care and service to a patient based on his or her inability to pay. This is how the homeless, the illegal aliens, and the unemployed have managed to secure healthcare in spite of their lack of insurance. And make no mistake: the taxpayer foots the bill. To be clear, this writer has no problem with this law, and I’m willing to call this a responsible use of taxpayer money. But the left is exploiting the fact that so few members of the middle class, upper middle class, and upper class know about these laws. Ta-daa! The left has created an instant sympathy group—the uninsured Americans. As long as you don’t notice those pesky laws that the Left hopes you don’t know about.

What we’re seeing here is another failure in education. People need to know about the laws that already exist to protect them. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for committing a crime, then why is ignorance an excuse for a voting pattern? People need to wake up and look at the world around them before subscribing to the dishonest propaganda of the Left. When it comes to healthcare, America has been covered for some time. The Obama Healthcare Plan amounts to one thing: a power grab that will topple even more Constitutional freedoms in the false name of “saving a victim.” But, as usual, the victim that the Left is claiming to fight for doesn’t really exist.

This whole situation is like that scene from The Wizard of Oz; we have but to peer around the flashy lights, puffs of smoke, and special mirrors to see what lies behind the curtain: a Big Government that is already pulling all the strings.

I got a look at a batch of the new pennies today. You know, the ones with scenes from President Lincoln’s life on the backs instead of the Lincoln Memorial. For starters, they feel different from old pennies. They seem lighter (although it could just be my imagination), as well as have a brighter hue than old pennies (which is likely simply because they’re new). I am fully aware that these pennies are chemically identical to their predecessors. No, this post is not a tale about the things that cross my mind while standing at a cash register.

Looking at these new pennies, I started thinking about the debate surrounding the penny’s production. For example, it actually costs the US taxpayer 1.23¢ for the Government to mint one penny. This is an enormous waste of money, especially considering that most Americans consider the penny a disposable article.

I also thought about the political landscape of the late 1960s and 1970s, when President Nixon received criticism for suggesting a reduction in size of the penny as a cost-cutting measure, while still allowing for the price-accuracy of 1¢ increments. “Lunacy!” cried the left. So much so that the DNC partnered with novelty interests to create the “Nixon Penny”—a tiny penny bearing the likeness of the 37^th President, which came in cardboard and plastic packaging bearing the words, “NEW: Nixon Penny and getting smaller… smaller… smaller.” The novelty item is shown below (courtesy eBay).

It is NOT the government's job to guarantee that you have a job, healthcare, food, money, or housing. Rather, the government exists solely to keep you safe while you provide all of those things for yourself. In other words: the government’s job is to ensure an environment where anyone—from any economic background, of any color, of either gender, adhering to any creed, and holding any set of values—can fight for themselves without fear of hindrance or molestation.

I take the time to say this because, according to a new Fox News / Opinion Dynamics Poll:

• ·      68% of Americans think that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have food.
• ·      66% think that it is the government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care.
• ·      52% think that government has a duty to provide housing to all Americans.
• ·      51 % think that government has a duty to provide jobs to all Americans who want one.

Those numbers scare the living daylights out of me. And they should scare any given capitalist, as well.

Look at history; look at facts. Every time that a government has decided to try to “provide” something to its people, it has failed. There’s a reason that, save for China and Cuba, the world has sworn off communism. It doesn’t work. Look at the Soviet healthcare system: you’ve all seen it because it’s two aspirin. That’s all that the great “medicine for all, paid for by all” could afford. News alert to President Obama: “Spreading the wealth around” does not work.

Yes, I will concede that, in capitalism, some people must, from time to time, fail. Capitalism involves risk and effort. But there are two sides of the coin: if you must own your failures in full, then you also get to own your successes in full. It is those successes that America was built upon.

To quote President Washington, “Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” If we start asking government to do things for us instead of us doing things for ourselves, then the government will ask something in return: funding.

To remind my readers: government is bankrupt. It’s true; the government has never spent a single dollar that it already had. Rather, that trillion-dollar spending bill that just plowed through congress will be funded by you through new, higher, and ever more ridiculous taxes. And, as much as it sounds like universal healthcare is a warm, compassionate thing for government to do; it is really a cold and foolhardy concept that calls for the government to play the role of Robin Hood, taking from everybody and redistributing money where government deems it more appropriate.

This also means that that “top 2%” that the President keeps saying will be getting a tax hike includes 85% of small business owners—anyone earning over $250,000. I hate to break this to you, Mr. President, but even if you raised their taxes from 35% to 100% (no, that’s not a typo), the government would still not have enough money to pay for your ludicrous spending projects.

Here’s the bottom line: government cannot give something to one person without stealing something from somebody else. Expecting government to provide for your family’s needs is not just illogical; it’s lazy and irrational. It is your job to provide for yourself and your family, nobody else’s. Government needs to step aside and get out of your way.

If Americans want to remain a free nation, then Americans need to shake this asinine sense of entitlement that has pervaded our collective psyche. Ours is a nation of the self-reliant. Let’s start acting like it.

Call me an idealist. I sent out the following message to members of a newly created Facebook group whose stated purpose is to try to get Congressman Peter Roskam elected Governor in 2010:

“I want to thank all of you for joining this group. Especially those of you who are actually from Illinois--although all support from any State is appreciated!

Why did I start this group? I'll confess, I'm a bit opportunistic. With the arrest of Governor Blagojevich, I see an opportunity that our State party would be remiss not to take. The people of Illinois are tired of voting for the lesser of "who cares?" We deserve a real politician, not the stuffed shirts we get stuck sending to Springfield. And with the Illinois Democratic Party left tainted, State Republicans have a chance that is too good to miss.

Governor Blagojevich won in 2006 because Topinka simply sucked worse. Forgive me for being so blunt. The people of Illinois deserve better... The Illinois GOP deserves better.

For once, we have a legitimate shot at electing a politician who has more than just the "gravitas" that voters usually have to settle for. Peter Roskam, I believe, is a man of authenticity. He is the perfect candidate to become the face of the Illinois Republican Party.

Our Party is in shambles. Illinois Republicans are disorganized, lost, and confused. That's because our candidates, even when they have electability, lack real leadership potential. Peter Roskam has it.

For 2010, we have a choice. The Illinois GOP could nominate another stuffed Republican that will fail the Party and the State, or we could elect a real leader. A principled Republican of character, authenticity, moral fiber, and, yes, that gravitas.

For all intents and purposes, this is 2009. We need to get a jump on supporting the man who can and should lead Illinois in 2010. Invite friends, rally support, wear "Roskam for Governor" t-shirts. Anything to get the word out.

Thank you for joining.”

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “The good ones always lose. ESPECIALLY in Illinois!” You’re not wrong.

I supported Fred Thompson during the 2008 Primaries, not because he was the most electable man, but because I honestly believed that he would have been the best man for the job. I learned quickly that the politician who should win is usually not the one who does.

But, here, in Illinois, in light of the recent tainting of the Democratic Party in Illinois, is it so insane that I see more of an opportunity than ever to push to elect the right man for the job?

Politics doesn’t have to be a choice between who will screw us less. We have a chance here to put in a candidate that we can honestly believe in. Illinois deserves that kind of chance.

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?