So much to post, so little time......

So you are getting links in a big bundle.

Mirroring the Canadians in the UK, Conservatives win
Election results 2011: Lib Dems suffer worst losses in a generation

I guess they just didn't know it before.
Pakistan Forces Arrest 40 Suspects Connected to Bin Laden

This is not surprising. I know some very good teachers who do not vote with the union, but....
Nation's largest union asks members to back Obama’s reelection

Just for the record, Al Queda has admitted their blessed leader is dead
'Your happiness will turn to sadness': Al Qaeda admits Bin Laden IS dead - but vows bloody revenge

I saw a headline yesterday saying Ahmadinejad had stepped down.  I am not posting that one but it did have to do with the fact that some of his key men have had some very strange accusations made against them and have been ousted from his cabinet. I expect he is on his way out and this is why. I had not planned to post more than headlines but this is just a very good example of what century these people are living in.

Ahmadinejad allies charged with sorcery

Iranian power struggle between president and supreme leader sees arrests and claims of undue influence of chief of staff
Close allies of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being "magicians" and invoking djinns (spirits).

Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as "a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds".

So that seems like a good enough review of what I am reading today.  A large and varied roundup.

Good news from Canada

In spite of the mainstream media and journalists trying to douse our hopes for the future it seems the people of Canada are also on a conservative bent. From Yahoo News Canada:

Canada's Conservatives score massive election win
Reuters

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Conservatives stormed to a decisive victory in Monday's federal election, winning 54 percent of the seats in Parliament and securing a stable four-year term in power after vowing to focus on the economy.

The Conservatives grabbed 167 seats in Canada's Parliament, well above the 155 they needed to transform their minority government into a majority, according to provisional results. They won about 40 percent of the vote, beating expectations.

The victory, a relief for Canadian financial markets, left support for the separatist Bloc Quebecois in tatters and the party's leader without a seat. Bloc Quebecois advocates independence for the province of Quebec.

The Liberals, who have ruled Canada for more years than any other party, were reduced to a dismal third place showing with their worst ever seat haul.

Read it all here.  I don't know about you, but it gives me great  hope. Also read this from the BBC for more on this election. 

Stephen Harper's Conservatives win Canadian election

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party has won a majority of seats in a historic election that saw the left-leaning New Democratic Party become the official opposition.


The Conservatives won 167 of the 308 electoral districts, earning 40% of the vote, Elections Canada reported.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) claimed 102 seats, while the Liberals took 34.

Mr Harper, who took office in 2006, has previously won two elections but never before held a majority government.

Canadians voted on Monday in the country's fourth general election in seven years.

On the necessity of Tea Partys

Our own local Tea Party seems to be getting smaller and smaller, this is no time for letting up on the pressure of the conservatives on the "business as usual" politicians.

It’s no time for a ‘party’
by Frank Miele

If you are a fan of this weekly column, you probably don’t think Democrats are the solution to this country’s problems. But if you think Republicans are the solution, think again.

George W. Bush is a Republican. John McCain is a Republican. Strange as it may seem, even Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican! Now, stop talking about partisan solutions, and face the facts.

Republicans are not the solution — you are.

It’s up to the good people of this country to stand up and get something done — restore common sense, return to common values, and re-establish the Constitution as the common bond that all Americans share.

That means that everyday Americans can’t just be passive observers anymore. You can’t just entrust the future to one party or the other. And you can’t stand back and watch your country be run into the ground, and wonder who is going to take care of the problem. It’s up to you.

There are literally millions of Americans working to “fundamentally transform” America into a place where “social justice” is more important that individual liberty, into a place where “equal outcomes” have taken the place of “equal rights,” and ultimately into a place where — like in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” — “some... are more equal than others.”

Sure, I know there is a sentimental attachment some people have to party designations, and you can make a case that Democrats lean a certain way and Republicans lean another way, but the facts of the past 50 years speak pretty loudly.

Since 1961, we have had five Democratic presidents and five Republican presidents. Congress has been a bit more Democratic over that long period, but you would be hard pressed to see much difference in the outcomes between times of Democratic and Republican control. Problems have continued to grow, and solutions have continued to get more distant in the telescope, no matter who was in control. The current debt crisis is just one more example of that. George W. Bush was nearly as profligate a spender as Barack Obama, and apparently thought that being a compassionate conservative meant spending more money on social programs than Democrats did.

As for President Obama, what’s his explanation for bombing Libya? How can he possibly jibe his administration’s use of war powers today with his own statement in 2007 that, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”?

Answer: He can’t. It’s just one more example of how political affiliation is more for convenience in getting elected than a statement of values or guarantee of where you stand.

Another place where both parties have an abysmal record for acting in accord with the wishes of the people is border control and immigration sanity. Don’t forget — it was President Bush who tried to push through amnesty for illegal immigrants, with the support of many Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And it wasn’t the Republican Party that stopped that disaster from happening; it was the American people, rousing from their slumber long enough to slam a sledgehammer of email, faxes and phone calls into the Capitol. Congress got the message — barely. The amnesty bill was shut down and people started talking about enforcing border security instead of legalizing criminal behavior.

But as always happens, the powers that be were just waiting for America to go back to sleep — Democrats kept talking about “comprehensive immigration reform,” the code words for amnesty, and Republicans kept trying to figure out how they could vote for it and still get re-elected.

A funny thing happened on the way to the re-vote that many in Congress had hoped for, however; the Tea Party movement emerged, partly as a followup to the amnesty fight and partly as a bulwark against increased government spending that was proposed in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse.

What the Tea Party realized long before most people did was that 20 million illegal aliens inside our borders are a huge drain on government services and taxpayer dollars. If we are against government spending money on citizens, we are adamant in our opposition to spending money to protect people who have broken the law to take advantage of our hospitality.

But if you think that Republicans are going to take the common sense approach to the immigration crisis, just take a look at Utah to see how wrong you are.

In a state that is arguably the most Republican in the country, a bill was recently signed into law that allows illegal immigrants to become legal residents of Utah. That’s right. Pay a fine of $2,500 and be on the road to not just a driver’s license, but also in-state tuition, safety-net benefits, and possibly even the right to vote! Talk about a path to citizenship!

Democrats are no doubt giddy over such a development, but the problem is that it would take federal approval to work — and if the feds were to allow Utah to develop its own immigration policy, it would also have to acknowledge the right of Arizona to do the same thing.

Since Arizona wants to do the right thing and send illegals aliens back to their homes in Mexico and elsewhere, that’s never going to happen!

But in the meantime, we are left with the incredibly important lesson that party membership is no guarantee of common sense, nor a safeguard against hypocrisy or foolishness. If you trust a political party to do the right thing, you aren’t paying attention.

Don’t trust Democrats, don’t trust Republicans, don’t even trust the Tea Party. If you expect anything to get done, trust yourself. Speak up, speak louder, speak until you are heard. Don’t let someone else do it — because they aren’t always speaking for you, and by the time you figure that out, it’s often too late.

Frank Miele/Daily Inter Lake

Arm yourself with these questions for 2011 and forever

Pajamas Media has this post by an ex-Soviet immigrant:

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives
An ex-Soviet immigrant goes Socratic on his liberal American critics.
by Oleg Atbashian

Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:

* If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?

* Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?

* Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?

* If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?

* Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?

* Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?

* If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?

* How did the “war on poverty” end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire? Who is the occupying force and who are the insurgents?

* Why weren’t there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule? And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?

* If capitalism makes some people rich without making others poor, who will benefit when capitalism is destroyed?

* If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?

* Why, on the rare occasions when Obama’s actions benefit America, does his base get angry? And every time his actions are hurting this nation, his base is happy? Who exactly are these people?

* If cutting out the middleman lowers the price, why are we paying the government to stand between us and the markets?

* If racial profiling is an abomination, what do you make of the last presidential election?

* After Eric Holder called Americans a nation of cowards, what has he done personally to help the situation?

* If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?

* Why is a huge poisonous cloud over a volcano considered magnificent — but a smokestack over an American factory is ugly and harmful?

* How many Kyoto Protocols are rendered pointless by one medium-sized volcanic eruption?

* Why is burning gas in my car hurting the planet, but setting fire to housing developments in California is saving it?

* Why does Hollywood glamorize drug addicts, criminals, liberal Democrats, and mentally challenged people? What do they all have in common?

* How come Hollywood can always find a good side in thugs, but never in businesspeople? What was the last movie that pictured a self-reliant, industrious man as a role model?

* If it’s capitalist greed that forces Hollywood to exploit the lowest human instincts, why didn’t the same greed force Hollywood to exploit America’s patriotism and make war movies showing the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as a force for good? Wouldn’t one such film bring more green cash than all the anti-American flops in the recent years? Where was Hollywood’s capitalist greed then?

* How come those calling Sarah Palin a “bimbo” often look like part of Paris Hilton’s entourage?

* If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?

* Would you know from the media coverage that there are more sex offenders among public school teachers then among Catholic priests? How come the church gets the blame and the Department of Education doesn’t?

* Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles? Who are they afraid to offend?

* Why do those who decry modern civilization never live far from shopping centers and why don’t grind their coffee with a stone ax?

* If we are called a “consumer society” because we consume, why aren’t we also called an “excreter society” because we excrete? For that matter we also sleep, dream, talk, think, invent, play music, raise children, feel pain, get sick and die. Many of us work for a living. Why aren’t we called a “producer society” because we produce the things we consume? Who puts these labels on us and for what purpose?

* How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?

* If describing terrorists as freedom fighters is justified by the journalistic principle of neutrality, what is the name of the principle that justifies describing U.S. troops as rapists and murderers?

* When the media portrays the killing of terrorists as “slaughter of civilians,” while slaughter of civilians is portrayed as “resistance to occupation,” is the media really being neutral? Whose side are they really on?

* If Hollywood types are so opposed to capitalism, why is there a warning against unauthorized distribution of their movies?

* Why is experimenting on animals cruel, but experimenting on human embryos compassionate?

* How come industrial logging is a crime against nature, but the destruction of forests by wildfires is a natural cycle of life?

* Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn’t the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?

* Isn’t the latest economic crisis such a chain reaction?

* Aren’t most of today’s social ills the result of tampering with social ecosystems?

* Why is bioengineering bad, but social engineering good?

* If Al Gore is right and our consumption of the planet’s resources is a moral issue, doesn’t that make genocide an ethical solution? How about an artificial famine? What would Al Gore choose?

* If being a winner in nature’s struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?

* Since our planet’s resources are limited, wouldn’t the ultimate act of environmental activism be to stop eating and starve to death?

* How come those who hate humanity for its faults are called “humanists” but those who love humanity for its virtues are called “hate-mongers”?

* If economic ups and downs are natural cycles, why is the downturn always blamed on unbridled capitalism, but the upturn is the result of a wise leadership of a Democrat president?

* Why is there never a media story praising capitalism for the booming economy?

* Ever noticed that those who demand “power to the people” also believe that people can’t do anything right without government supervision?

* How exactly does dependency on the government increase “people power”?

* Why is there never a headline that says “Government program ends as its intended goal has been achieved”?

* How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?

* Why do advocates for higher taxes have accountants advising them how they can pay smaller taxes? Wouldn’t you expect them instead to seek advice on how to give away more of their income to the IRS? Or at least not to hire accountants at all?

* Can you name one person who paid the IRS more than he owed because he trusted the government to put his money to good use?

* Did it occur to any of the 9/11 Truthers that a government conspiracy to murder thousands of people would have also included a plan to rub out a few troublemakers?

* If U.S. oil companies own everyone in Washington, how come they allowed Congress to grill them for the alleged price gouging — and to broadcast it on C-Span?

* Why didn’t Congress also grill Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and a guy named Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz Bin Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad al Saud?

* Why are windfall profits a problem when they enrich U.S. companies that pay billions in taxes — but when Hugo Chavez uses the same windfall profits to fund Marxist guerillas in Colombia, it’s not a big deal?

* If George W. Bush was an oil-thirsty dictator, why couldn’t he in eight years get permission from Congress to drill in ANWR? And why didn’t that failure in any way hurt his dictatorial reputation with the media?

* If it’s true that the media emphasized bad news and harassed President Bush only because they competed for ratings, what changed now? Aren’t they worried that today’s emphasis on good news from the White House will destroy their ratings and make journalism irrelevant?

* And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

I hope you will find my questions handy. Feel free to pass them around and propose some of your own in the comments below.

In this post he had a story that preceded this list, read it here.

Dana Milbank misses the point while pointing it out

Just read his article in the Washington Post and a sentence just cried out to be commented on.

Who's a real conservative? It's all relative
by Dana Milbank
A couple of weeks ago, in a column about how conservatives are cannibalizing the likes of   Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bob Bennett of Utah, I had the nerve to describe Murkowski, a member of the Senate GOP leadership, as a "faithful conservative."

"Dear Mr. Milbank," began an e-mail from Myron Ebell, a climate-change skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Your column today would be more convincing if its broad assertions had some connection to facts."
[....]
I took Ebell up on his challenge. What I found was astonishing -- although not in the way he had supposed. Comparing the ACU ratings of Murkowski and Bennett with those of other Republicans in the House and Senate going back to 1971 (the first year in the ACU online ratings archive), I discovered that if conservatives were to employ the purity standards they applied to Murkowski and Bennett, they would have rejected many, if not most, of the leading Republican lawmakers of the past 40 years.

"Dear Mr. Milbank," I wrote, "that is the point. That IS the reason for the tea parties."

A Non-conservative Conservative

This case would be one of those referred to in the former post. (link or see below).
Mr. Hastert’s perks

"Just like families must live within their budgets, the federal government must live within its means. We have passed appropriations bills that have been fiscally responsible while recognizing our national priorities."

That was then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, congratulating himself and other Republican leaders in the 109th Congress for being frugal.
Such talk of smart spending was a staple of Hastert's rhetoric when he was in office. So why is he still spending taxpayers' money more than two years after leaving office?
Federal law allows a little-known perk for former speakers — a taxpayer-funded office anywhere in the country for up to five years. Taxpayers fund the rent, utilities, staff, travel expenses and other incidentals related to the office, which are intended to "facilitate the … conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of" the former speaker's duties in the House.
So, Mr. Former Speaker, conclude already.
The Tribune reported last week that Hastert has taken advantage of that quirky perk to the tune of more than $1 million in taxpayer money. He pays three assistant-type staffers more than $100,000 a year, rents an office for $6,300 per month and travels — staffers in tow — in an $860-per-month SUV....
....One reason Hastert's no longer speaker: People grew tired of Republican talk that wasn't matched by reality. When Republicans controlled Congress, they spent and spent and spent. They preserved Washington's gross sense of entitlement....
...Hastert, who is well into a new career as a lobbyist and business consultant, still believes he's entitled to an office and a car and three staffers, all provided by taxpayers.
He spent years telling us he was opposed to wasteful government spending. It's never too late to make good on his word.

As I said before, it is this one of things referred to by the president of the Libertarian Party in the post below.

Libertarians Speak Out

This is from the Mail Tribune of Southern Oregon -via Lucianne

Where are real conservatives? They're libertarians

We heard an awful lot about "limited government" from the mouths of Conservative Political Action Committee politicians as they held their annual conference. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said "limited government" and didn't mean it, I'd be a very rich man.

Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don't want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases "limited government" and "small government" like a hypnotic chant....

....The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.

Wes Benedict is executive director of the Libertarian Party.

I've posted only a small portion of this, but you need to read it all. 
After you read it, come back here and comment on it.  Let me know what you think.

Another Great Awakening?

Entire article from American Thinker
Eureka, I Am a Conservative!
By Harold Witkov

For the longest time, average Americans were in a political stupor. But not anymore. In the past year, across this great nation of ours, an awakening has started. Individual Americans, by the droves, are experiencing their own political eureka moments and transforming into conservatives.

The famous Greek mathematician of antiquity Archimedes was once requested to determine if a solid gold wreath was indeed solid gold. According to legend, Archimedes, knowing he was not permitted to damage the wreath in any way, was at a loss. However, upon entering a bathtub and noting that the water level rose in accordance to his body mass, Archimedes deduced that he could perform a similar experiment comparing water level variations between the wreath in question and any solid gold material of the same weight. Upon realizing he had found the solution he was so desperately seeking, in what is often referred to as Archimedes' eureka moment of discovery, Archimedes forgot himself and ran home naked through the streets, bellowing, "Eureka! Eureka!" (I've found it! I've found it!)

In certain Eastern religious circles, it is believed that sometimes one must discover who he is by first discovering who he is not. I have no idea if there is anything to this school of thought, but when it comes to the world of politics, I do believe there are times when one must discover where he stands politically by first recognizing what he stands against.

Now that Barack Obama and the Democrats have taken over the presidency and both Houses, more and more Americans are starting to gag from the stench of unfettered liberalism. Horrified by out-of-control spending, a socialist agenda, and weak foreign policy, a growing number of outraged Americans have been doing some major political soul-searching. Intuitively, they sense America has dangerously changed course, and a growing sea of citizens are now on the same page and thinking the same thoughts:

I am against the federal redistribution of wealth.

I am against entitlement politics.

I am against American czars.

I am against apology tours that denigrate the greatness of our country.

I am against tax-and-spend politics.

I am against government takeovers.

I am against amnesty citizenship for those who have entered our country illegally.

I am against the out-of-control printing of money.

I am against legislation designed to do away with free speech (Fairness Doctrine).

I am against big government.

I am against trillion-dollar government stimulus package slush funds.

I am against treating our allies like enemies and our enemies like friends.

I am against politicians who do not let us drill for oil.

I am against politicians who look the other way while Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons.

I am against government-run health care.

I am against health care bills that provide abortion funding.

I am against backroom deals by politicians that circumvent transparency and the Constitution.

I am against trillion-dollar deficits.

I am against high taxes.

I am against treating all people to the identical security scrutiny in airports.

I am against bills that provide special exemptions for legislators.

I am against bills that provide special privileges to certain states.

I am against those who would stifle an honest global warming debate.

I am against the federal funding of corrupt organizations like ACORN.

I am against "Miranda rights" for foreign terrorists.

I am against confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed getting a civilian trial in NY.

I am against cap-and-trade legislation and taxing carbon footprints.

I am against the closing of GITMO and the bringing of terrorists to American soil.

I am against letting the U.N. tell us how to live.

I am against a president who does not believe in American exceptionalism.

Should I go on? Is thirty enough? The list need not end.

As Americans watch how -- idea by idea and bill by bill -- Barack Obama and the Democrats are dismantling our nation through their radical liberal left agenda, more and more are realizing:

Not only am I against what Barack Obama is doing to this country, but I stand for the opposite of what he, Pelosi, and Reid stand for.

This is the point in time that these Americans start investigating the opposite of liberalism. They start formulating their own list of what they stand for:

I am for low taxes.

I am for small government.

I am for a free-market system.

I am for the Constitution.

I am for the Separation of Powers.

I am for fiscal responsibility.

I am for government accountability.

I am for supporting our allies and confronting the tyrants of the world.

I am for states' rights.

I am for a strong military.

Should I go on? This list need not end either.

While all this is taking place, these thinking Americans start switching from watching NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN to watching FOX News. They watch Cavuto, Beck, and Hannity. They start listening to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio. They read Mark Levin and Sarah Palin. Now open to invigorated conservative ideas, they reinvestigate the American story. They recall how many times the United States rescued the world from tyranny. They dust off the old economics textbook and remember the lessons about free-market systems and laissez-faire. They spend a buck, buy a copy of the constitution, and start appreciating the sacrifices and insights of the Founding Fathers. They come to grips with living concepts like individual liberty, and they embrace the Bill of Rights. Then it happens: A metamorphosis takes place:

Eureka, I am a conservative!

If this has happened to you, do not be shy; you are not alone. Let your non-conservative friends, be they liberals or independents, know that you have had your political eureka moment and are now a conservative. Then get them started. Provide them with a list of what you are against concerning the present administration, followed by what you believe in...or just make a copy of this article and hand it to them.

Just warn them not to read it while they are taking a bath.

12 Step Program to Defeat the Obama Agenda

by Michael Steele- via Big Government

Exclusive book excerpt: Right Now a Twelve Step Program to defeating the Obama Agenda
These are good words to hear, especially from the head of the Republican Party.

Within our own party, we need to make it clear that from now on there will be a price to pay for abandoning conservative principles. The grassroots – activists from tea parties to town halls – have sent a message: no more ‘fake-it-until-you-make-it’ conservatives. The days of merely espousing conservative principles and then, once elected, governing or legislating without principle, are over.
At least one senator has already got this message – Arlen Specter. In early 2009, after years of distressing votes for big government, Specter’s vote for the stimulus bill provoked an outcry among Pennsylvania’s Republican grassroots. Having barely survived a 2004 primary challenge from principled conservative Pat Toomey, Specter asked me what he could do to mend fences with conservatives. I said he needed to stand with us against card check (which abolishes the secret ballot on forming unions) and against the cap-and-trade carbon cutting scheme.
He agreed, publicly declaring himself against those proposals – and soon after, he abandoned the party and became a Democrat.
All the talk about pushing Specter out of the party, or making it hard for him to stay, was just bunk. For him, the politics of reelection outweighed taking any principled position on the issues.
Since then he has switched his position on card check, and I won’t be surprised if he switches on cap-and-trade. He exposed himself as a political opportunist, and we don’t need political opportunists in our party. If he survives his next primary, my goal will be to retire him....
...outright abandonment in the name of power and acceptance and going along to get along.”
Here’s why we’ve fallen out of touch with typical Americans: we’ve acquiesced to big government, big spending, and increased federal control that diminishes the authority of families and the rights of individuals.
Over time, many of our party’s leaders abandoned conservative principles in a misguided effort to maintain and expand their political influence. We became in many ways just another party of big government. In short, we behaved like Democrats.
Republicans gave in to big government, and we paid the price. The road forward is clear: we need to reclaim conservative values.  (RC emphasis)
We must explain our principles clearly and forcefully, directing our appeal to the American people as a whole—not to balkanized racial groups and competing special interests.

For more from his book click here.  I hope he means what he says here. This is the goal of all the newly formed 912 and other groups who are fighting to bring conservatism, and the constituion, back to the party and our country.

Is This the Real Reason?

Why Republicans Can't Get Elected
-By Warner Todd Huston

The reasons that I could never get elected to any government position is the same reason why conservatives have a tough time getting elected and, if they end up elected, can’t govern in this era of the ill-educated voter. First I’ll lay out my main principles…

Leave me alone
Stop taxing me
Shove your regulations

That’s about it. Though there are complexities and nuance contained in them, these are the main tenets of modern conservatism simply put. And therein lies the problem. How can one get elected when his basic tenets are that government should do less, stay out of our lives, and mostly go unnoticed and unseen? In essence a conservative is saying: “Elect me and I’ll do nothing for you.” It’s a tough message to sell in a day when people have lost touch with the American principles that are contained in those very tenets.

Go read the rest of it, he has some very good points.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites

Maybe I should Just tell you to read National Review Online

But in case you don’t, here are some items you must read. First from Mark Steyn:

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Rogue's Eleven 

If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:

AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

Wow. That's ten "AP writers" plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That's 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to "fact-check" Sarah Palin's new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That's 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)...

That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint".

Or is AP arguing "four nights" counts as "often"? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker and his vast team of researchers (17 Minneapolis-area Somali jihadists, 29 Acorn-accredited child-sex slaves, and 43 unemployed Columbia School of Journalism graduates) fact-check AP's fact-checkers.

Coming next:

PALIN: How many AP fact-checkers does it take to change a lightbulb?

FACT: Palin has gone seriously "rogue" in her facts here. AP fact-checkers are prevented per union regulations from changing lightbulbs.

AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this joke. We'll be here all week.

Second:

Mothers Of Five  by Robert Costa

In recent months, Sarah Palin hasn’t been the only conservative woman to get under the skin of the left. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) has also stirred some ire, thanks to her leadership at anti-Obamacare rallies and numerous appearances on cable television. Bachmann tells NRO that she has high hopes for Palin’s upcoming book, Going Rogue.

“Her heart is with the American people,” says Bachmann. “She’s wise to come out with her book now. It’s also important that she is getting out there and speaking for herself. So much of her comments during the presidential race were interpreted through the media. They were opposed to her first-person voice.”

“Sarah is writing this book and beginning her tour in a big way, with appearances on Oprah and Hannity,” says Bachmann. “Not only will she be able to get her message out, but in live interviews, I suspect she’ll impress people and answer many of the questions that people had last year. As a vice-presidential candidate, it was difficult for her to control her message. With Going Rogue, she’ll be able to take the reigns.”

By traveling to cities often ignored by major publishers for her book tour, Palin is “making a good move,” says Bachmann. “People in places like Minnesota, and elsewhere, in towns that may be off the beaten path, appreciate the kind of personal visits that she is making.”

Bachmann also says that she finds Palin to be “delightful,” and “very humble, very poised, and very knowledgeable.” They met a couple years ago when Bachmann traveled with a congressional delegation to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and had dinner at the governor’s mansion. Bachmann says that Palin’s mastery of energy issues is especially impressive.

“We’re both mothers of five,” says Bachmann. “I would like to be able to meet her again, talk with her, and compare notes. She done so much in living out her values and supporting her five children in a wonderful way.”

“Politically,” says Bachmann, “she has good instincts.” People, she adds, “are intrigued by her and rightly so. She’s a fascinating figure. This is a good time to let people learn more about her. People didn’t have a lot of background about her in 2008. They knew what the media said but they didn’t know a lot about her. Now people will be interested in learning more about Sarah Palin the person, perhaps even more than Sarah Palin the politician. She just has a compelling life story.”

Michele Bachman – remember that name, I think she will be extremely significant.

We Won Two Big Ones, Not so much on the other one

There is much euphoria on the wins in New Jersey and Virginia, as there should be, but we didn’t make it in New York 23. That was a flawed race from the beginning and I thought Hoffman could win. I am ashamed for the performance of the incumbent. I thought when she withdrew from the race she would do the right thing. Apparently she doesn’t know how. That is just a sad spectacle of a politician.

The new mantra for the conservatives on New York: Wait till Next Year.  We need to keep that in mind for a lot of the races that will happen next year.  Keep on Fighting for the recovery of our country.

The New York Race

In Redstate.com Erick Erickson has the following commentary and information:

15 prominent conservative leaders are out today joining RedState in making NY-23’s race between Doug Hoffman and the two leftists running against him a hill to die on for the conservative movement.

Everyone from Ed Meese to Al Regnery to Tom Winter and Tony Perkins signed a letter from the National Conservative Campaign Fund (PDF) urging conservatives to rally to Hoffman over Scozzafava.

You might not know some of the names on the list, but each is important. In Washington and deep within the conservative movement, these men and women are real opinion leaders, opinion shapers, and money drivers. When something like this gets on their radar, it is a signal that the larger conservative movement is truly noticing what is at stake.

Read it all at Redstate.

Republican Appeals Court Justice Rose Vela announced today she is seeking election to Place 9 on the Texas Supreme Court.

Let's start now. Support ALL Conservatives.

Vela, known as a no-nonsense conservative, was elected in an historic 2006 election to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals becoming the first Republican elected since the court’s creation. Vela will seek the seat being vacated by Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister who has announced his intention to resign and not seek re-election in 2010.

The Conservative Challenge

From Powerline an answer to many of the questions we discussed at the 912 meeting last night. Where are we going? How are we going to accomplish it?
Scott Johnson discusses an article by Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of books. See links at the bottom of this post.

He quotes:

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it," Abraham Lincoln counseled in his great 1858 House Divided speech.

In Lincoln's spirit, Professor Charles Kesler situates the dire position of the conservative movement confronting Barack Obama. "In President Barack Obama, conservatives face the most formidable liberal politician in a generation, perhaps since John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson," writes Kesler:

Charles Kesler is of course the editor of the Claremont Review of Books (subscribe here) and professor of government at Claremont College. His brilliant essay "The conservative challenge" leads the new issue of the CRB and has been made available online at our request.

Us vs Them

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

Further down in the article:

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

We are a Conservative Nation

This is taken entirely from a Power Line blog by John H. Hinderaker.
Conservative Nation

The Gallup
Poll has undertaken an interesting project: measuring the ratio of self-identified conservatives to self-identified liberals on a state by state basis. Gallup interviewed 160,000 adults (not, apparently, likely voters) to compile its numbers.
The results will be gratifying to anyone who believes that America has been, and remains, a center-right country. Gallup classified states as Most Conservative, More Conservative, Somewhat Conservative or Less Conservative, depending on the percentage by which conservatives outnumber liberals. Here is the resulting map, with the darker colors being the most conservative;

You will have to visit their site to see the map and read the rest.

Very Interesting.