Ahmadinejad Furor Round-up

I'm still baffled, absolutely baffled by the decision to give this murderous thug a platform anywhere in our country. If ever there was a time and reason to protest, this is it. Here are some posts and reactions from people much more articulate than I.

• Hugh Hewitt: Announcing The 2007-2008 Columbia Distinguished Lecture Series
• Little Green Footballs: Columbia University and Hitler: Then and Now
• Maritime Sentry reposts a Catholic League News Release
• Dean Barnett asks Where's the Left?
• and then I found this post, which I really liked...
  

"How can anybody have a logical argument with the left when they bark stupidity to those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, yet give a pass to a guy who doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened? Oh yeah... you can't. I guess empirical evidence can only back your argument some of the time."

• oh yeah, and Michelle Malkin is still all over it.

Protest Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia

Michelle Malkin has been all over the details of Ahmadinejad's visit for the past couple of days, including details of groups who are organizing protests. If you can make it to the vicinity of the UN or Columbia University, I urge you to participate. There is no good reason that this terrorist should be given a platform in our country.

And you wonder why there is a liberal bias in the media of this country? When the top journalism school in the country refuses to have the ROTC on campus but gives this dictator a podium, there should be no doubt. Newt Gingrinch said on Fox News this morning that the New York Times Editorial Board was also taking the terrorist to lunch. Again, saddening, but not surprising.

Murderous dictators who are on record threatening to destroy Israel and us as supporters of the "Zionist regime" do not deserve a platform to speak. Period.

UPDATE: I watched a video last night of Fred Thompson speaking to supporters in Tennesseee. Fred had this to say about Ahmadinejad's visit:

I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country. I would deny this character a visa. What’s he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn’t let him in the country.

I couldn't agree more.

On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Please note that the above resolution mentions nothing of support of the administration's Iraq War Policy, or how long the troops should remain and fight. Yet, the following 25 Senators voted against the resolution anyway.

NAY

• Akaka (D-HI)
• Bingaman (D-NM)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Brown (D-OH)
• Byrd (D-WV)
• Clinton (D-NY)
• Dodd (D-CT)
• Durbin (D-IL)
• Feingold (D-WI)
• Harkin (D-IA)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Kennedy (D-MA)
• Kerry (D-MA)
• Lautenberg (D-NJ)
• Levin (D-MI)
• Menendez (D-NJ)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Reed (D-RI)
• Reid (D-NV)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Sanders (I-VT)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Wyden (D-OR)

And another three Senators couldn't be bothered to make the vote, including Barack Obama would somehow made it to another vote 20 minutes or so earlier.

DIDN'T VOTE

• Biden (D-DE)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Obama (D-IL)

Thankfully 72 Senators did vote in favor of the resolution, condemning personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces. And I thank them for maintaining some semblance of honor and respect in the Senate.

YAY

• Alexander (R-TN)
• Allard (R-CO)
• Barrasso (R-WY)
• Baucus (D-MT)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Bennett (R-UT)
• Bond (R-MO)
• Brownback (R-KS)
• Bunning (R-KY)
• Burr (R-NC)
• Cardin (D-MD)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Casey (D-PA)
• Chambliss (R-GA)
• Coburn (R-OK)
• Cochran (R-MS)
• Coleman (R-MN)
• Collins (R-ME)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Corker (R-TN)
• Cornyn (R-TX)
• Craig (R-ID)
• Crapo (R-ID)
• DeMint (R-SC)
• Dole (R-NC)
• Domenici (R-NM)
• Dorgan (D-ND)
• Ensign (R-NV)
• Enzi (R-WY)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Graham (R-SC)
• Grassley (R-IA)
• Gregg (R-NH)
• Hagel (R-NE)
• Hatch (R-UT)
• Hutchison (R-TX)
• Inhofe (R-OK)
• Isakson (R-GA)
• Johnson (D-SD)
• Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Kyl (R-AZ)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Lieberman (ID-CT)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• Lott (R-MS)
• Lugar (R-IN)
• Martinez (R-FL)
• McCain (R-AZ)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• McConnell (R-KY)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murkowski (R-AK)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Roberts (R-KS)
• Salazar (D-CO)
• Sessions (R-AL)
• Shelby (R-AL)
• Smith (R-OR)
• Snowe (R-ME)
• Specter (R-PA)
• Stevens (R-AK)
• Sununu (R-NH)
• Tester (D-MT)
• Thune (R-SD)
• Vitter (R-LA)
• Voinovich (R-OH)
• Warner (R-VA)
• Webb (D-VA)

NOTE: I find it especially interesting that John Kerry, who was disgusted that anyone questioned his military credentials and record during the last campaign, wouldn't condemn anyone making personal attacks on General Petraeus and our troops. I find it not surprising at all that every single one of the Democrat presidential candidates in the Senate voted against the amendment or didn't vote... apparently it is more important for them to have the support of MoveOn.org than to support our troops.

Senators, General Petraeus has not betrayed anyone. I'm not sure that the 25+3 of you could honestly say the same thing to our troops.

Alan Keyes: The Most Impressive Speaker I've Ever Heard

I was honored to be in attendance when Alan Keyes spoke at NC State University in Nelson Hall sometime in 2001. Having been fortunate enough to listen to and question countless authors, politicians, a world renowned botanist, and the engineer who almost stopped the Challenger explosion, I don't say that lightly. Lecturer or otherwise, I have never heard a speaker who had a better command of the issues or his own beliefs. Maybe because he wasn't running for anything at the time, or maybe because he doesn't fall into the trap of trying to contour his views to that of his audience... Dr. Keyes was an unashamed Christian, Conservative, and Patriot. I will never forget that evening, and how thankful I was to be in attendance.

Now, he's back. After failing to defeat Barack Obama for an Illinois Senate seat in 2006, Dr. Keyes recently announced his entry into the Presidential race with his first event being the Values Voter Debate this past Monday in Florida.

I like Dr. Keyes, a lot. Read the pledge on his website, and if you are a Conservative Christian, I'm sure you would like him too. The difference with Dr. Keyes and many other politicians is that he means every word of it, and won't downplay that because of who his audience is. Refreshing in light of recent leaders on both sides of the aisle.

But, I don't believe Dr. Keyes can be elected. As intelligent and impressive as he is, he had an awful time campaigning against Obama in 2006. Granted he was an outsider, having been recruited to move to Illinois just for the race by the party, who I don't believe supported him as much as they could. Nonetheless, Dr. Keyes lost the male vote, the women's vote, the independent vote, the black vote, and the white vote. He lost the vote of every income bracket, every age bracket, and on virtually every issue but moral values. Even on the war against terror, Dr. Keyes lost to Obama. Dr. Keyes did win with people identified as White, Conservative Protestants... but apparently many of them stayed home.

Yes, state elections are different than National Elections, and if Dr. Keyes was the party's nominee, I'm sure he would do better on the national stage, but I don't believe he can get there. And if he did get there, I don't believe he could beat an Obama or Hillary Clinton candidacy, and that scares me. Yes, the conservatives would show up, but would we be enough? Could Conservative Christians alone mobilize enough and turn out enough vote to counter the 75-95% vote that the Dems would get in every other dynamic? I don't think so.

Dr. Keyes has a couple things going against him. I don't believe he comes off quickly with the charm that can bridge ideological differences they way I think Governor Huckabee can. I don't believe he can get much of the media to portray him fairly or seriously, like I hope Fred Thompson can (this has yet to be determined). And he certainly doesn't have the name recognition of the so-called top tier. Dr. Keyes' unabashed Christian values will be seen as a detriment to many as he seems a little more hellfire and brimstone than Huckabee comes across.

And surely Dr. Keyes knows all of this. Surely, after years of attempts with very little traction, Keyes understands that his chances of waging a successful campaign are slim at best. Maybe John Hawkins at Right Wing News was right and "he's just not cut out to be a politician".

I don't know. Just as I mentioned in an earlier post about Governor Huckabee, its a shame that things have become so much about money. It could have been different a century ago. Alan Keyes is a throwback candidate who possibly could have been elected in an era long ago... if only he wasn't black. And now that the country might be ready to look past race in electing a President... we have found a new basis for discrimination... money and special interest favor.

I'm not saying I would vote for Dr. Keyes if the election were held today... as I've said, I'm keeping my mind open and still leaning toward Governor Huckabee. But I do wish more people like Dr. Keyes could be involved in the national debate. And I hope, no matter who turns out to be the GOP nominee, that they don't forget about Ronald Reagan's appointee to the United Nations. Dr. Alan Keyes deserves to have a seat at the table and have a voice in the next Administration.

Values Voter Debate: Mike Huckabee

"If this country allows the Presidency to become more about the pockectbook then it is about the principles, we no longer are pursuing a presidency, we are pursuing a pluotcracy, and God help us if we allow that to happen."

There is nothing wrong with government leaders being wealthy. There is nothing wrong with the wealthy being involved in politics. But when the wealthy control politics, and restrict the platform from those outside their sphere of influence, then we have a problem. When the amount of money you can generate matters more than the issues, you have a problem. This country was build around noble men, stepping away from private life to make a contribution to the public at large... and then going back to private life. But how can that happen when the amount of corporate contributions or $2,000 plate dinners matters more than your values or beliefs?

If the noble man who will not give influence to lobbyists and special interest groups, can not become elected because he does not receive their money... then we have already lost.

Minorities Denied Mortgages?

According to this article, minorities in my neck of the woods are denied mortgages at twice the percentage of whites. The articles makes the leap that "the primary factor appears to be minority status."

B.S.

I've been in the mortgage business a long time, I've never once met a loan officer who was willing to give up a commission because he/she didn't want to work with a minority. I'm sure that person exists... but does it account for a doubling of the denial rate of applications? Not a chance.

Loan officers are generally either entirely paid on commission or mostly paid on commission. Furthermore, mortgage brokers and lenders don't get paid if they don't close loans. In that environment, can you really imagine that a large percentage of loans are denied because the loan officer would rather stick it to a minority than make a paycheck?

The study referenced only cites income levels when comparing applicants of different races. Yet income is only a small fraction of what goes into approving someone for a loan or not. Where is the mention of credit scoring, job stability, rent verification, or personal assets? Where is the mention of down payment, equity or liquidity? I would like to see the raw numbers, but I would be willing to bet that when all factors are considered the denial rate between minorities and whites is not nearly as disparate as the article implies.

• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as good credit scores as whites?
• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as good credit histories as whites?
• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as many debt accounts as whites?
• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much in savings as whites?
• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much down payment as whites?
• Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much personal assets, liquidity, job stability and rental verification as whites?

These are the questions you have to answer in order to determine if there is discrimination in the denial rates of minorities versus whites. But the article, the report cited, and those who want to politicize all of it either cannot or will not answer the above questions. Quite possibly the answer will not correspond with the result they desire.

I can only speak from my experience and from the people I know in the business. I will not make broad generalizations about minority groups because generalizations serve no useful purpose and my office's overall work may or may not be representative of the industry in total. However, I have never seen any evidence of a broad conspiracy in the mortgage business to deny people mortgage loans. I have worked with a number of minorities over the years, and never once has a lender or one of my loan officers denied a loan because of race. We treat all loans equally and try to improve all borrowers financial stability. I assume most mortgage companies' experiences are the same.

And doesn't the assumption of racist mortgage denials fall in stark contrast with other media reports lately? How can mortgage brokers be actively denying loans to minorities and at the same time be offering them loans they can't afford causing mass foreclosures? How can we on the one hand be guilty of unnecessarily turning down business and on the other hand be guilty of giving people loans who don't qualify for them?

Maybe the city of Raleigh needs to look at other options instead of going on a witch hunt after discrimination that might not exist. Let's look into what the real cause is without making supposition. Then, only after you have identified the cause, can it be fixed. If you want to spend tax dollars combating the racial disparity in the mortgage business, it might be better spent on financial education in schools, credit education for the public, and money/debt management training for prospective homeowners. Maybe there should be an analysis of cultural differences when it comes to debt, finances and depository accounts?

I'm tired. Tired of combating societal impulses for media-driven buzzwords, a lack of personal responsibility, and the creation of evil that doesn't exist... all at the expense of what? The truth.

The truth doesn't matter anymore. We're all just a bunch of racists.

I Can Fix Health Care!

The problem with the current health care system is that it has been removed from the free market. Individuals, especially those who have a history of illness, smoking, or obesity, find it virtually impossible to get health care on their own. And when they can, the costs are astronomical. The cause of this is simple... health care companies are not competing for your business as an individual, they are competing for the business of your employer.

The health care industry has a pretty good racket going on. Convince people that their employers should offer them health care. Convince companies that they can not hire good workers unless health care is a benefit they offer. Lobby congress to pass legislation offering tax incentives for employers who offer health care, and in some circumstances require employers to offer health care.

What effect does this have? Businesses are not as sensitive to increases in coverage, and whatever the cost, get to write off the expense. Health care companies only have to cater to the businesses and not the individual, making the cost of underwriting and closing each transaction smaller per policy than it otherwise would be. Not that they pass any savings on to consumers. In my small business, it has often proven that the company policy costs considerably more than the same policy an individual could get... but because it is an expected benefit, I have to offer health insurance or lose good employees. What a scam. And even the costs to the employee are too high, higher than they would be in a truly free market system.

Think about how many car insurance commercials you see on tv. The Geico lizard or cavemen are on virtually all the time. And then there is David Palmer with All State, the eSurance cartoons, Progressive and their semi-celebrity ads, and State Farm with their “real life” agents. Car insurance commercials are on all the time. Why? Because they have to compete for your business and you have to have car insurance. You know what else happens with car insurance? When they are fighting for your business they offer you competitive prices. They have to, because they have to work for every single customer they get. And everyone can get car insurance... even if you have had a DUI in the past. It might be expensive... but you can get it, and people want your business. You also get pretty good service from your auto insurance company, because they know you can go to one of a number of their competitors if you aren’t happy.

Why is auto insurance like that? Because your employer doesn’t provide you with auto insurance. The government doesn’t provide you with auto insurance. You have to have it... and so a number of companies are out there, competing for your business.

Imagine if that applied to health care. Imagine if there were a number of health care companies competing for your business on an individual level. Imagine health care providers competing on price. Imagine calling your health insurance company and not having to wait on hold forever... or imagine billing issues that don’t require an advanced degree. Imagine a health care system where everyone who wanted it could get health care... and it followed you. Imagine if you didn’t like your plan you could switch to another provider who was eager for your business.

Want to know how to do it? It’s simple, and it is so much better than socialism.

Prevent the government from offering health care coverage to government employees. Close tax incentives and prevent companies from providing health care coverage to their employees. Require that all people have to find their health care coverage on the open market. If that is a reality, they will compete for your individual policy, rates will fall, and service levels will increase.

It really is that simple.

But, it will never happen.

There is too much money in the health care lobby. People are conditioned to believe that they can't afford health care on their own, the employer must provide it. Congress will never give up their sweet health care package. And people will never admit that paying for it themselves would be cheaper. And liberals and much of the rest of the government won't allow it. If you take their social programs away from them, then they lose power. They lose something to hold over your head to entice you for your votes.

So the people will keep becoming more and more dependent on the federal government and our capitalist republic will become more and more like a socialist experiment. Social Security is screwed up... but the people are too dependent on it and too scared to make a change. The IRS and tax law is screwed up... but the government is too dependent on it and so are countless lobbyists. The education system is a bloated mess... but see how far you get criticizing it. And the health care system too needs reform... and so the government wants to create yet another social program instead of taking the necessary reforms to fix it.

Any time a government makes you more dependent on it, it is doing you a disservice. Bar none. Socialized health care is certainly no exception. All it will serve to do is give more powers to the government and take your freedom and ability to choose away. Want to fix it... make it truly compete on an open market. I promise... it is that simple.

Rate Cut?

Today's Fed meeting is arguably one of the most anticipated in recent history. The market already assumes a rate cut today... what will happen if we don't get one? I guess we'll find out at 2:15.

UPDATE: .5 point drop in both the Fed Funds Rate and Discount Rate.

Redskins: 2-0

Washington comes back from the Link with a hard fault win. As a Skins fan... it doesn't get much better than an NFC East grudge match between the Redskins and Eagles, with the Skins coming out on top (unless of course the win came in Dallas). So far, Redskins football is fun this year, looking much like my Skins of old.

BTW, did you see the last 20+ seconds of the first half??

Washington 20
Philadelphia 12

Conservativism & The Law. Abortion & Gay Marriage

The post below is in response to comments from my brother-in-law, whom disagrees with me on virtually all things political.

Preface.
The Constitution delineates rights guaranteed to us. Amendment 9 of the Constitution mentions other rights retained by the people, but does not specify what they are. It is my firm belief that those who ratified the Bill of Rights knew this Amendment to refer to rights granted to us by God. However, since I don’t know your beliefs, lets rely on the rest of the Constitution for sake of argument. We can save theology for another discussion, but I believe we can all agree that the Ninth Amendment was not alluding to abortion rights or gay marriage.

A Conservative stance on enacting a law.
Conservatives, in general, believe in enacting laws only when necessary. If one person’s action does not infringe on another person’s rights, then there is no need to consider passing a law prohibiting that action. If one person’s action does infringe on another’s person’s rights, then and only then should a law be considered, and only if absolutely necessary to guarantee the second person’s rights.

Abortion.
If abortion was only about a woman’s rights and her body, no true conservative would try to prohibit the practice, no matter how abhorrent the action. However, abortion is not only about a woman’s rights and her body, it is also about the rights of a second person, the unborn child. The action of abortion clearly denies the liberty of the unborn child who is defenseless. Thus, if you believe the unborn child is a person, and you hold to the conservative opinion of laws I articulated above, you must also agree that an acceptable law is one that bans abortion.

There is no constitutional guarantee allowing any person to commit murder. Conversely, the Constitution does protect liberty, which is denied the unborn child by the act of abortion. Thus, the Constitution at its inception did protect the child and any law denying the rights of that child are unconstitutional and should be overturned. Any further law or action prohibiting the rights of the baby are also unconstitutional and should be prohibited. You cannot believe the unborn child is a life and also reason that abortion is a right, as the act of abortion is in conflict to the Constitution by denying another’s liberty.

If you don’t believe the unborn child is a life, then we need to have another debate altogether. There are a number of scientists and doctors who believe the unborn child is alive. There is legal precedent stating that the unborn baby is a life. Example, Scott Peterson was tried and convicted of double homicide, for the murder of his wife and the unborn baby. How can the murder of the baby be homicide if it is not a life? If it is a life, then why is the mother permitted to murder it, but no one else?

Gay Rights / Gay Marriage.
Where in the constitution or elsewhere are rights guaranteed to other people but excluded specifically for homosexuals? I can’t find any such example. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that I do. I might also argue that they have more by way of hate crimes legislation, which punishes crimes against them greater than crimes against me, and thus values their lives and liberty above mine. But that is another argument for another time. The topic at hand is the supposed “trampling” of gay rights... where that supposedly has happened is beyond me.

Homosexuals have the very same rights I do, marriage included. I have the right to marry any adult of the opposite sex (or I did until I got married). So do they. Where is the infringement of their rights? Where are they precluded from rights that other citizens have? I can’t lose a million dollars if I never had it to begin with, and homosexuals can’t lose the right to gay marriage if it never existed before. You cannot trample on rights that do not exist.

People clamoring for gay marriage are looking for special rights to be given to a subset of the population. This is the truest example of a slippery slope. If you are going to make special rights exclusively for homosexuals, where do you draw the line? Can members of NAMBLA marry little boys? Can a cat lover marry her cat, giving spousal rights to Fluffy? No. Are those actions infringing on anyone else’s rights? That’s debatable but not the point. If the law doesn’t exist, it cannot have been denied to them. Homosexuals have not been denied any rights by protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

Would it make some homosexuals happy to marry other homosexuals? Maybe, but is that really the standard we want to give when deciding when a law should be created? It would make my wife and I happy for our anniversary to be a national holiday. Should a law be enacted that does that?

Conclusion.
Clearly no rights are "trampled" upon by those who do not support gay marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights that any other person has, arguably they have more, but definitely they have no less. Additionally women have lost no rights when the sanctity of life is protected. The Constitution protects everyone's liberty. Laws and rights should be protected equally. No special exceptions should be made for mothers, homosexuals, or anyone else.

So much for tolerance.

Conservatives are supposedly the people who are intolerant, at least if you listen to the liberal left. So why is it that time and time again we see stories like this?

I guess attacking a conservative is one way for Barry Manilow to prove he's still alive. Who knew?

Attorney General Mukasey?

Considering I am not a legal scholar, nor have I attended law school (yet)... I am currently searching for more analysis of a case mentioned here. On the surface of it, the rumors of a Mukasey appointment to AG does not seem like a good choice... but I'll withhold judgment until I know more.

Fred & The Tax Code

Here's a video from Fred Thompson in response to a question from blog Captain's Quarters.



While I don't disagree with anything Senator Thompson said... I'm looking for a little more. YES, we need to abolish the current tax code and look for a true and substantive alternative. What I want to know is have you already done so Senator? Have you looked at the alternatives and made a choice? Various FairTax and Flat Tax proposals have been out there for a while... don't just tell me we need to change things, tell me what change you want to make.

MIKE HUCKABEE RESPONDS TO BUSH SPEECH

First, Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are schmucks. Governor Huckabee on the other hand comes across more professional and more genuine than 95% of the people who ever make it to either Mathews' or Olderman's shows. I agree with Governor Huckabee's comments 100%.

Refreshing Campaign Video

This certainly isn't your typical campaign video. I love it!

Bowties or Overalls?

Let me preface this post with a bit of background. My loving wife graduated from the University of North Carolina. I graduated from NC State University. The two schools are rivals separated by 26 miles of Interstate 40, and under most circumstances the two don’t mix. Every once in a while I forget why, but today, I remembered.

Our friends the Huxtables (not their real names, but their characters of tv) invited us to the UVA / UNC game in Chapel Hill. We got there a little early, and somehow our group decided it would be fun to sit in the student section. Thus begins the hell that was the game.

Apparently we were not sitting in just any student section; this was the Greek Court of Kenan Stadium, where the guys wear dress shirts and bow ties to the game, and the girls are apparently more interested in showing off their shortest skirts and spreading the latest gossip instead of actually watching football.

The group surrounding us played cat and mouse with the security personnel as they defiantly stood on the bleachers amidst threats of police escort unless they stopped. Stand on the bleachers... security tells you to step down... you step down... security walks away... you stand back on the bleachers. Wash and repeat. You’d think people getting a high-quality education would find enjoyment in more enlightening activities. But no, not this crowd... not until one girl lifted her sun dress to show a half dozen or more airplane bottles taped to her inner thigh. Then their attention turned elsewhere, at least for a while.

When they weren’t toying with stadium law enforcement or partaking in liquid contraband, our stadium-mates were hugging one another, text messaging boyfriends, and doing pretty much anything other than watching the game. As someone actually interested in the entertainment on the field, this made my viewing experience less than pleasurable.

Fish out of water doesn’t even begin to describe it. It was more like I was an undercover reporter who had been thrust in the midst of a foreign-speaking crime ring. I didn’t understand half of what they said, and I didn’t participate in their crimes... but every time a police officer or security guard walked by I just tried to shut up and blend in. I haven’t been a student in years, and I thought maybe during their shenanigans I would have been exposed and earned my own police escort out of the venue. And maybe I should have been... how dare I go wanting to actually watch the game!

It wasn’t like this at State. Overalls jokes aside, the vast majority of our students actually went to watch games. Yes, they could be rowdy... and they too liked to antagonize security personnel by any means possible... but all of that was second to the game on the field. Or maybe I’m just getting too old and forgetting what it was really like. As the gray hair takes over and 28 gets closer to thirty, for the first time I am happy that I soon won’t be able to blend in.

I remember arguing with my dad about the music I listened to growing up... as he undoubtedly did with his. Clichés often come true, and this afternoon I lived one full force.

I attended a rival's football game. I sat in their student section and tried to blend in. I returned older, grumpier, and questioning the quality and future of our youth. (Youth... people I am only 6 or so years removed from, and today for the first time I call them youth?)

I suppose this is what I deserve. I went to the game of my most hated rival as a favor to my wife. For my lack of allegiance I paid a price. Maybe school comes before marriage? Or does age conquer all? I don’t know, but next time I’m sticking with the overalls crowd... and I’ll leave the student section to those that actually are.

Once an Opportunist, Always an Opportunist.

When I got to the office this morning, my brother (and partner in the family business) told me to go to Yahoo and watch this video. I did, and thus starts another lovely day in the mortgage business.

The video shows an interview with Michael DeLaSantos who is mislabeled as a former mortgage broker. Actually, he is a former loan officer who worked for a broker or lender. That is a big distinction, especially in Virginia where Michael worked because Virginia doesn't require loan officers to be licensed (at this time).

But I digress, his license, and that factual inaccuracy by ABC News is not the point of this commentary. The point is to call out a one-time opportunist for what he is... still an opportunist.

I made my living in the subprime business. I did not, and do not take advantage of borrowers. I did not and will not close a loan for someone if I don't believe they have the ability to repay. I did not and will not offer a loan to a customer that I wouldn't offer one of my family members, or myself. That is how a good mortgage broker does business, subprime or otherwise.

But apparently not Mr. DeLaSantos. Michael was an opportunist. He tells you with wide eyes and a slight smile about putting people in loans he knew they could not afford, about offering higher interest rates without regard to better programs for the borrower, and lying on applications to make a quick close. Michael says he felt guilty about such practices, but the lender and his boss encouraged him to do it. Michael made his quick bucks and kept his mouth shut while putting his commission checks in the bank.

Why has Mr. DeLaSantos now seem the error of his ways and finally found a conscious? The fact that the mortgage business has gone bust and he probably doesn't have a job right now might be one factor. Its easy to call attention to your past transgressions now that there is no profit in it anymore. Of course it wasn't Michael's fault... the lender's made him do it.

Now, this generous soul, having ended his evil ways, is volunteering his time at the Center for Responsible Lending. It sure is easier to volunteer and change your tune now that you can't make money sinning any more, isn't it Michael?

Now instead of taking advantage of helpless borrowers, Michael appears to be taking advantage of the current economic crisis... getting publicity by calling out his past employer, lender and co-conspirators while still not taking much personal responsibility. Now Michael is ceasing the opportunity to get some more limelight and is taking advantage of the mortgage brokers out there... many who didn't do business the way Michael did. But you wouldn't know that from the video.

In order to make himself feel better, Michael with ABC News seem to think that all mortgage brokers do business the same way Michael did. And it is the mortgage brokers who created this mess and are responsible for the sky falling on home lending and an ever increasing foreclosure rate.

Now that he has cleared his conscious, I wonder what is next for Michael DeLaSantos? Is this the beginning of his negotiations for a book deal??

Most brokers/loan officers are good people who do good service for their customers. Most subprime brokers/loan officers work with their customers to put them in a better financial situation. Have I closed 2/28 adjustable mortgage for borrowers with the idea of refinancing them again. YES, I have, and the idea was to get them the lowest possible payment now to make their expenses and mortgage affordable. BUT, every time I have offered them advice on how to improve their credit and financial position so when they come back to me or another mortgage broker in 18 months to 2 years, they can refinance into a better, fixed-rate program and never have to worry about it again. My customers always have my phone number and always receive as much attention as needed, both before and after the closing, to help them understand how to improve their credit situation and qualify for a better deal. And most of my customers have been successful doing that. In this business, there is not much greater joy than taking someone from the brink of bankruptcy and helping them reduce their stress level and debt and obtain a low fixed rate mortgage that they can have as long as they own their home. Often there are intermediate steps involved because their short term credit situation is bad. But that is why I am a mortgage professional. I work with people to improve their lives, not just make a quick buck.

Not Michael. He could have taken that approach. But instead he took the easy way out, and now this unscrupulous broker is trying to ease his conscious by painting the rest of us in a negative light. Now he is trying to seize another opportunity, still being dishonest, because the last gig is up.

Once an opportunist, always an opportunist. As for me, I'd rather be a professional.

The Necessity of a Response?

I'm only 28, so forgive me if I am naive, but when did having the opposition's response become necessary after a Presidential Address? Has it always been this way? I know its been going on for a while, but when did it start and why? Does the idea of "equal time" really apply to the President addressing the nation? Is it really an important practice when the Commander-in-Chief is speaking during a time of war?

I'm tired of watching people placing more importance on politics at the expense of patriotism. Yes, I am calling the need to have an opposition response after a Presidential Address unpatriotic. The President articulated a clear plan of reducing our troop deployments gradually over a specific period of time, having commanders give a report to Congress again in March, and making necessary transitions from troops in everyday security missions to playing advisory and counter-terrorism roles. The President presented a plan and gave a time driven reduction in our troops. He also gave us a new deadline to expect additional progress. That should make the left happy. But it doesn't. Instead the Democratic Response was full of attacks on the President and a litany of talking-points designed to undermine his message and question any plan.

The opposition continues to be more about hatred towards Bush, obstructionism to Administration policies, and the priority of political gain in exchange for national security. The opposition response was blatantly political and intellectually dishonest.

God help us if this is the path our country is going to continue upon. God help us when we can't stop trying to score political points when lives are at stake. I hope one day we can rise above this pettiness and find a way to place our love of country over our desire for political gain. God help us.

American Flags once again allowed in NC High School.

Sampson County, North Carolina is about as far as you can get from liberal San Fransisco, both in geography and ideology. In Sampson County you are more likely to find hog farms and tractors than leftists and coffee houses. That's why it surprised me when a story about a Sampson County High School preventing a student from wearing an American flag t-shirt made it to Drudge.

Apparently the school board in Sampson County was surprised too... because just a day after making national headlines, the School Board rescinded the flag ban and said they would be making all dress code decisions in the future.

Down South we might make mistakes, but at least we correct them real quick. Thank you Superintendent Dr. L. Stewart Hobbs, Jr and everyone who made sure the flag ban wouldn't last.


UPDATE - FREE T-SHIRT: If any students at Hobbton High School send me an e-mail before October 1st, I'll send you a free American Flag t-shirt from the American Elephant store. Conditions: 1. You must promise to send me a picture of yourself wearing the t-shirt in front of something distinguishable at the school (sign, stadium marquee, etc.) 2. You must proudly wear the shirt to school at least once. 3. You must actually be a student at Hobbton High School.

Bank of America's Fine Print

Today I received a relatively thick envelope from Bank of America, as I'm sure many other people have or soon will. The terms of my BofA Credit Card (formerly an MBNA Credit Card) are changing at the start of next year, and Bank of America was notifying me of the changes as required by law.

Most people probably throw this stuff in the circular file or stick it in a drawer. If they are smart, at least they shred it (that's what my wife does) but very few actually read the 6pt legalese type. Not me. Like an archaeologist trying to translate ancient hieroglyphics, I study every letter of financial disclosures looking for a "Gotcha".

And there it was.

If you have watched the news lately, you know that chaos in the mortgage market and a so-called "credit crunch" has precipitated calls for a reduction in the Prime Rate. Most people don't doubt that Prime is going to drop, they just question how soon it is going to drop, and by how much. And that is why the new terms and conditions on my BofA struck me as interesting.

Adjustable interest rates are always based on some index (often Prime) plus (or minus) a margin. My Bank of America account is no different and is based, in part on the Prime Rate. To be more specific, in the past the interest rate on my account in a given month was based on what the Prime rate was at the end of the previous month. This is how the variable interest rates on credit cards, personal loans, and home equity lines of credit are almost always calculated.

Until now. Just as the Prime Rate is expected to drop, Bank of America wants to hold onto my money a little longer. Instead of basing my interest rate on the Prime rate at the end of the preceding month, the interest rate will now be based on the highest prime rate over the past three months. In effect, if Prime drops, my interest rate will not drop until nearly 4 months later. Meaning that I am effectively paying an increased interest rate anytime Prime drops for a period of no less than 3 months. Interesting.

I don't suppose its that big of a deal... just one more way the little guy is getting squeezed and the big corporation can find a way to charge you more that will be lost in the semantics. Considering I blame the big credit card companies, in part, on the reported foreclosure crisis currently before the country... this shouldn't be a surprise. More on that another time.

If you find new terms from a credit card company in your mailbox in the near future, you might want to pay close attention. You too might find a defacto interest rate increase hidden among the 6pt type.

Make no mistake, this is what we are fighting.

"As for our own fortune, it is not in this world," he said. "And we are not competing with you for this world, because it does not equal in Allah's eyes the wing of a mosquito." found here

What is it that Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and all of the other appeasers out there don't get? "[W]e are not competing with you for this world, because it does not equal in Allah's eyes the wing of a mosquito" says the terrorist as he sits in front of computer images of a burning World Trade Center.

I was going to keep silent today and not say much... if you were alive six years ago, the memory of that day provides more eloquence and substance than anything I could ever write. But after reading that line, my blood began to boil. What sickens me, is that my blood isn't boiling at the terrorists so much as it is boiling because so many people don't get it or just don't care.

How can you break the will of the beast that doesn't fear dying? Even cockroaches run when you try to squash them under foot. Yet these animals are trying to breed and indoctrinate a culture that has no fear of death, or pain because their false profit promises them joy in the after life. Religion of peace? Not by their interpretation.

They murder people for drawing cartoons. They blow up children on buses to seek revenge. They fly planes into buildings, for what?

Does Ron Paul really believe the "competition" that murderer was talking about was because we had troops in Saudi Arabia? Really? If that were true we'd have even more rationale for removing every last one of the terrorists from the face of the earth. If you are going to kill innocents because we had troops on your holy land protecting your brothers, then what vengeance do I get when your brothers strap bombs to their chests and murder innocents in Jerusalem? Its my holy land too... even Bin Laden repeated an eye for an eye.

You can not rationalize with evil. You can not will away hatred. You can not appease fundamentalist whack-jobs who believe their earthly purpose is to kill unbelievers. Imagine if Jesus taught us to kill anyone who didn't believe in salvation through Christ... do you think the left would explain our actions away? No. Yet somehow, these monsters are excused because their terror doesn't always hit our soil.

Well it did hit our soil six years ago and thousands of innocent lives were taken and even more families destroyed. And on that day, the rest of us should have woken up.

Always Remember.

It's been six years. Have you forgotten?

Very important read.

The Big Picture, a post by Karl and Protein Wisdom deserves everyone's attention. Make sure you have half an hour or so on your hands. I have not seen a more very detailed account of the accurate reporting (or lack thereof) of the war in Iraq. Draw your own conclusions as to how the reporting on the war has shaped popular opinion.

If you only pay attention to one thing online today,
this should be it.

Today is the day.

I'm not sure it was such a good idea to make today such an important day. Liberals and conservatives alike have been waiting with baited breath to see what General Petraeus is going to say as he reports on the war in Iraq and the success of the surge. We already have a good idea of what he is going to say, and the media will be abuzz all day with further speculation and preliminary strikes. You can probably judge if politics are more important than the success of our troops or security of our country by which politicians try to short-circuit the process today and come out against General Petraeus' comments even before he has made them. MoveOn.org's ad calls him "General Betray Us"? Really? Does anyone take this group seriously? Amazing that an ad of that calibre makes it in the New York Times, while an ad supporting the troops and the war can't even be run on cable news. I don't know why I'm surprised... but I am.

The importance of today's speech by the General was a handout to everyone calling for a "timeline" or "deadline" in Iraq. You can't fight a war telegraphing to the enemy when you are going to pack up and go home... and anyone who has any political honesty knows that. Nonetheless, it has been politically advantageous to use that fact against the administration as some supposed-proof of "no plan". The administration theoretically bought some time a few months ago by setting this date as a quasi-deadline... although even that didn't stop the anti-war crowd from a constant drumbeat of surrender pleas. And now, this deadline that isn't really a deadline is upon us. Since the surge is working, I wonder if the administration will set a new deadline for another report and buy the troops some more time? If WE THE PEOPLE really trust the commanders more than Congress and the White House, shouldn't it be enough to silence the people clamoring for a pullout because the war isn't popular?

Only time will tell, but I doubt it. I think the war will do better in the polls, if only briefly. Within a few days everything will get back to normal, as Dianne Finestein, Harry Reid and their ilk attack General Petraeus as a man and continue their chorus of withdrawal, the General's comments not withstanding. Obama and Edwards will lash out too, because why not continue and score political points at the detriment of national security? And Hillary will carefully craft her message of support but not really, which will morph over the days back to pleas of troop withdrawal, the severity of which will only be tempered by the beliefs of whichever group she is appearing before.

And this day will be like any other day. With the troops fighting against an insurgency in Iraq, and fighting for their honor and the right to complete their job at home. Oh yes, they are fighting for the rest of us too... and our children... but somewhere along the way we have forgotten that.

Light the Night 2007

My wife and I spent much of last evening drawing on paper bags and clapping until our palms itched. It was Light the Night 2007 in Raleigh, and we were fortunate enough to lend a hand.

Maybe another time I will detail how we ended up volunteering with this event. It started last year with a speeding ticket, which resulted in a fine, adopting a rescue puppy, and a new appreciation for those who have been affected by blood cancers. My wife and I were glad to help out with Light the Night again this year, even though this year my participation was not required by a judge.

Last night, just like the year before, much of our volunteer time was spent drawing on paper bags and helping kids do the same. There is a local survivor, Nicholas, who started this project which we think is one of the greatest things. Kids of all ages color and write messages on these bags, and then Nicholas' organization fills the bags with all kinds of goodies (crayons, tooth brushes, treats, etc) and takes them to children in the hospital. Last year Nicholas received so many bags from Light the Night events that bags made it not to just children in our area, but in neighboring states. It was heartening to see so many children write messages of encouragement and draw pictures to bring smiles to the face of children afflicted with blood cancers. While some adults came by and tried to take bags to carry their personal stuff around, many children were coming up eager to lend a hand knowing the bags were for someone else. I was touched to see many of the children write prayers and messages of encouragement about God on their bags. I hope they don't lose that hope and spiritual trust as they grow older.

After the race started, my wife and I put the markers and bags away before heading to the finish line. As the walkers/runners began pouring in from the red-balloon lit 2-mile route, we clapped and cheered them on. Another volunteer, Rebecca, was there as well. I don't know Rebecca's story, but I surmise that she is a survivor or is currently undergoing treatment. She was there, in her wheelchair, ringing a cowbell in one hand and shaking a noisemaker in another. Until the last person crossed the finish line, Rebecca cheered each of them on with the same energy and excitement as the very first. I met Rebecca earlier in the night as she decorated a bag for the children. She was very excited and intentional as she drew a perfect sun with a smiling face looking down on butterflies and flowers. Some child is going to receive that bag and feel the love that Rebecca put into it, even without knowing Rebecca herself.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society had 1300 lit balloons for participants in this years walk, 400 more than the year before. Yet this year they ran out of balloons as many more people showed up to support such a worthy cause. There are two more walks scheduled for the region, one in Durham this week and one in Wilmington on the 20th. Last night's walk raised over $250,000 putting them well on the way to this years goal of $315,000.

I can't think of a better way to spend a Saturday night. Yes it was entirely too hot, and traffic/parking downtown always leaves something to desire... but I wouldn't change a thing. I was proud to give my time to the event and humbled by the boundless love and hope that was shared. I hope the bags we colored bring hope to the hearts of many children and smiles to their face... and maybe, if just for a brief moment, they can be a kid again and forget that they're battling such a terrible disease.

Letter from General Petraeus

Real Clear Politics has a copy of the letter from General David Petraeus to our troops in Iraq. The letter is dated September 7th. After reading the transcript of Bin Laden's tape released on the same day, I find it even more important to read General Petraeus' accounts of what is happening on the ground, directed to his troops. It should give us some insight on the General's upcoming report to congress, and provide contrast to the words of Bin Laden.

Arkansas and Tennessee

I know its early, but am I the only person hoping for a Presidential ticket with a former Governor from Arkansas and former Senator from Tennessee? We had such a pairing succeed in a previous Presidential election. Maybe this time they can also succeed in our governance?

Lincoln-Douglas Style Debates? A Challenge to Fred Thompson

Governor Huckabee wrote an open letter to Senator Fred Thompson today and urged visitors on his website to sign it. The letter calls on Senator Thompson to join Governor Huckabee in substantive debates in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. While such a debate would take away from the candidates' quick stops and sound bytes... it is exactly what is needed to reform the political landscape and return it to a process of the people. I urge Senator Thompson to agree to true debates and encourage anyone who reads this to do the same. If they ever make it to a debate in North Carolina, I will certainly be one of the first in line.

Sign the letter with Governor Huckabee here.

The Osama Tape

The text of Osama Bin Laden's latest video is available online. I found it at ABC. If you think this man doesn't hate us, you must read his words. While Ron Paul thinks they were just mad at us for having troops in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden decries our capitalism and democracy as the plagues of our society. Bin Laden then proceeds to try and convince us how peaceful he and Islam are as he pleas for us to denounce the West, our government and democracy and he tries to convince us to join in his cause.

Bin Laden is smart and manipulative. He is playing on current economic problems, taxes, the mortgage crisis and other societal ills to try and attempt to win our people over. He mentions time and time again big corporations and conjures up the industrial-military complex trying to take advantage of the fears and conspiracy theories of many on the far left. It might actually work. Just as Ron Paul thinks they had no qualms with us before our liberation of Kuwait, and many liberals questioned why they hated us on September 11th... some in our country will believe everything Bin Laden says and renew their calls for our return to isolationism and withdrawal.

For those people I fear there is no hope. If you don't recognize pure evil as it threatens your very way of life, then I don't know how to convince you otherwise. But remember, Hitler only wanted Poland. Once you begin believing maniacal terrorists and appease their evil schemes, they will only want to take more. Just as Hitler didn't stop at the Polish Corridor, Bin Laden would not stop at the Twin Towers.

The only way to stop him is to keep up the fight. The only way to win is to remain firm in our resolve. Have we learned anything from history, or are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes?

Illegal Immigration is not a crime?

Glenn Beck interviewed Rudy Giuliani today. I won't summarize much, because I encourage you to read the entire thing yourself. But at one point, Mayor Giuliani said that illegal immigration was not a crime, or more accurately it was a civil offense and not a criminal one.

Semantically, that might be correct. I'll let the lawyers decide that. But if it is not a criminal offense, it should be. If we can't deport or criminalize 12 million people who committed illegal acts, we should find a way. We have to stop illegal immigration now. A fence is not enough if you don't penalize the people who get through.

I wholeheartedly appreciate that people want to come into this country and take advantage of our many blessings as Americans, but you must do it the right way. But the right way is too tough, burdensome, or takes too long. Tough.

I don't say that lightly. Everything worth having is worth working towards. That is lesson more people in this country need to understand. Most of us will not win the PowerBall, we have to work hard for everything we have. There are few shortcuts in life. More people need to be taught that.

Want to be wealthy... you have to study, work hard, and take a little risk. Want to be skinny... you have to eat right and exercise more. Want to get a good job... then get a good education, study, watch, learn. Want to protect us from terrorists... it will take sacrifice and a long hard battle. Anything that is worthwhile is worth striving for and working towards. We seem to have forgotten that.

Ask a successful business owner about cutting corners and taking shortcuts. How many do you think will give you story after story of how shortcuts cost them more in the long run? Ask a home builder about cutting corners and using cheaper materials. How many do you think will tell you that it will lead to more problems down the road?

We need to stop excusing behavior in this country. We need to stop accepting something that is wrong because the desired outcome is right. I can't (and wouldn't) cheat my customers because I want to get ahead quicker. I can't steal from the bank because money is getting tight.

Life is hard work. Accomplishing goals takes effort and time. Those things that are worthwhile are worth fighting for.

You know, if more people understood that there would be less divorce in this country. When things start getting tough, people just want to quit or take a short cut. Its the same with fixing the tax code, fixing social security, fighting the war on terror... and yes its the same with immigration.

Those things that are worthwhile require time, effort, and sacrifice. If getting into this country is so worthwhile, why should it be any different? How does the value proposition change if everyone got to take shortcuts?

We can't excuse illegal behavior because we think the goal is right. What message does that send to our children? What message does that send to the world? If we excuse this illegal behavior, which one is next?

Thank you and Welcome.

Mike Huckabee's blog highlighted American Elephant in a quick post yesterday along with another. For all of you who have come upon this site because of that, welcome.

I am more impressed than you might think because of the mention at the Huckabee Blog. If you read more than three or four posts and look at my links, you will find that while I'm leaning towards Governor Huckabee for President, I'm still keeping an open mind and have some interest in the Thompson campaign as well. The Fred Thompson candidacy has excited me over the summer (and yes, I knew of him *before* Law & Order). BUT, the more I learn about Governor Huckabee, the more I lean his way. Still, in just a few posts since this blog has started, I have not only talked positively about another candidate, I have also disagreed with Huckabee on his use of the word "racism" when describing some of the anti-illegal immigration movement.

So I'm not "in the bag" for the Huckabee campaign yet... and the fact that they would look at this site and not only choose to link to it, but mention it in a post, gives me even greater respect for his campaign.

If you browse around the rest of the political blogosphere, you will find people (especially on the left) vilifying other people over differing opinions. It seems that in some circles you have to either agree with a candidate 100% of the time, or at least pretend to. If you can't do that, then you are not a true believer and are removed from the ranks.

One of the things that makes me proud most days is that conservatives usually try rise above that. Most of us can disagree without calling into question your intelligence. And as a whole, I believe we recognize that everyone brings their own history and circumstance to the table which shapes their point of view. If we agree on most things, and all of the big-picture things... then we can discuss the little issues when the time is right.

There are a few things I will not waiver on. The candidate I vote for must believe in the sanctity of life. The candidate I vote for must understand the threats facing this country and take seriously the challenge of facing those threats. The candidate I vote for must understand that part of that security as well as protecting American culture includes closing our borders and stopping the flood of illegal immigration. The candidate I vote for must believe that the role of government should be limited and for the people, not for career politicians. The candidate I vote for must understand that this country was founded on Christian values... and whether the left likes it or not, those values shaped our constitution and culture. I want a President who is humbled before God and understands that he can not do anything of substance without His help and guidance.

So far two candidates meet that minimum criteria, with one seemingly a bit more than the other. Who said there was no choice for true conservatives on the right? If we have two strong (electable) candidates that meet those needs then we are doing better than most years.

The more I get into this race, the more I have hope. "And hope does not disappoint us..."

WE THE PEOPLE.

NOTE: This post is a response to a comment left by Daniel on this post about last night's debate.


What the people think does matter, that is why we have elections. In representative republic (what we actually have), we elect people to office based on what they tell us they believe and how we think they will handle themselves. Then it is up to the elected official to act accordingly. WE THE PEOPLE don't get to dictate every little decision... if we don't like the decisions our elected officials make, then we get to "throw the bums out" and elect new officials.

Now that that's out of the way... I would rather have a representative that is willing to lose an election, or be voted out of office, never be elected, or be vilified in the polls once elected in order to do what he/she believes is right. I don't want the government basing every decision on what WE THE PEOPLE believe according to some pollster... as polls are almost always inaccurate, and the populous as a whole is very fickle.

Honor is not more important than what WE THE PEOPLE think... but I venture to guess WE THE PEOPLE, by and large, want to protect our honor and understand that this war is about something greater than ourselves. WE THE PEOPLE were attacked on 9/11. WE THE PEOPLE re-elected a President who brought us into two fronts of a war trying to prevent 9/11 from happening again. WE THE PEOPLE overwhelmingly supported that war, and re-approved it by Bush's re-election in 2004. Just because some of THE PEOPLE have forgotten what it felt like on 9/11 or no longer have the stomach for this just cause doesn't mean that we should take our ball and go home.

Make no mistake, this war and the greater fight against terrorism and specifically Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat we have ever faced. Much greater than the threat of nuclear war with the Soviets... because at least they didn't really want to die for their cause. If not for Mutually Assured Destruction (i.e. if the Soviets had been societal maniacs who wanted to kill us at all costs, including the lives of their own families and themselves) we'd already be dead. Now the protection of Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer available as the terrorists proved on 9/11 and again with various suicide bombings in Israel before and since. If they are willing to die and kill innocents for their "cause" then much of our protection is gone.

George W. Bush understood this, as did many of the citizens in this country. Sadly, some of THE PEOPLE have since forgotten.

Did Sadam and crew plan 9/11? No. And no one ever said he did. What they did say, and I will continue to espouse is that those who think Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 are missing the big picture. Sadam supported terrorism. Sadam tortured his own people. Sadam & Sons put citizens in wood chippers. Sadam was sending money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and the Palestinian territory. Sadam wanted weapons of mass destruction, and had previously used them on his own people. We, and the world are better without Sadam. Period. And removing him, and working to make a democracy in the Middle East has a DIRECT EFFECT on our possibility of ending Islamic terrorism, stopping the terrorist attacks, and securing America. It is a long hard road, but if we see this through, my children and my grandchildren will be safer because of it.

The Iraq war has not been downgraded by anyone but the media. There were multiple reasons for going to war... the greatest of which was to fight there so we could attempt to prevent fighting again here. Did the administration sell it wrong? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean the cause wasn't just.

I grew up in a military town and have many servicemen in the family. Try telling any of them that we are not doing good things over there and see what they say? Try telling them that the cause isn't just and the purpose isn't clear. Try telling them their sacrifice wasn't worthwhile and we are going to just pack up and leave. While we get to argue about it on blogs in some idealistic world, they make real sacrifices for it everyday. They don't just talk about it, they do it. And they deserve our commitment and our HONOR.

The United States of America doesn't back down from a fight or stop when the going gets tough. The security of our future depends on that fact remaining true. If we are willing to turn tail and run away... what happens the next time free-loving people and our own citizens need a champion? Who will protect them then? Who will protect us? Freedom for all people, both home and abroad, depends on us maintaining our HONOR. We must see it through.

Thank God many of THE PEOPLE agree with that, including Governor Huckabee. It will be a sad day if we elect a President who doesn't.

Paul vs. Huckabee on the surge.

Here is the video of the Ron Paul / Mike Huckabee conversation regarding the surge and pulling out of Iraq.

I Stand Corrected...

I'll admit it. Calling Fred Thompson the winner before seeing the commercial, the debate, or the post-debate Leno appearance might have been pre-mature. I still believe it was an intelligent and out-of-the-box political move. And Fred did well on The Tonight Show last night. But, what I noticed last night on Leno with Senator Fred is something I fear will cause some viewers to tune out. Fred doesn't seem to believe in sound bytes much (I applaud him for that), but some of his answers to Jay's questions were a bit long for the setting. I, for one, actually appreciate that... I like that there is no easy answer on Iraq or the "Shouldn't People Like Us More?" nonsense... but I'm not sure that Leno was the right place for such critical topics from a man who actually had realistic and well thought out positions. I wonder if some in the audience tuned him out when the answers lasted longer than 10 seconds. It is late night however, and people are either watching through their eyelids... looking for a laugh... or paying more attention to the Serta sheep they are trying to count and not the background noise of the tv. I guess in the coming days we will know how successful the Leno-Pre-Launch-Launch was.

That being said... for the albeit smaller, but probably more interested audience who watched the debate... there is no question who the winner was... Mike Huckabee. Being a recent Huckabee fan, maybe I'm a bit biased, but Governor Huckabee stood out among the GOP hopefuls last night. And based on the unscientific measure of sales at our little shop, Huckabee outsold Thompson stuff 5 to 1 (of course we only sell gear for a few candidates).

Mike Huckabee was a star. It was nice to see someone (other than the moderators) really take on Ron Paul. Their exchange about pulling out of Iraq should be popular on YouTube today. Ron Paul is a divider. He's wrong about Iraq withdrawal, he's wrong about how to fight the war and arguably why we are there. He's certainly wrong about how you handle these situations. And if you watched the debate in its entirety, you know that Ron Paul just doesn't get what we are fighting now. Contrary to what Paul said during another exchange in the debate, Islamic Terrorists don't hate us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia... they hate us because we are not them. Mike Huckabee got it right, time and time again.

My only disagreement with Huckabee is the immigration issue. Yes, he says he is for locking down our borders, but also sticks with a previous claim that some of the anti-illegal immigration movement is racist. I don't think that's fair, nor does it characterize this debate properly. The word "racist" is thrown around entirely too much in today's culture, and I dare say the Republican Party shouldn't be throwing out such labels, especially when they are about to face a woman or a black man as the Democratic nominee. Its too easy to score political points and label something as racism when you disagree with their point of view. Just wait to see how many people are called "sexist" or "racist" when they disagree with Hillary or Obama as the election draws near.

Wanting people to assimilate, learn our language, adopt our culture, and desire to be an American first is not racist... it is what the founders believed. Yes, we will take "your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" but we expect them to come here because they want to stay. We expect them to come looking for a better life, "yearning to breathe free" and make this their new home and their new country. We expect them to join our society and help continue to build on what makes America great.

The problem with the influx of illegal Mexicans into this country is that many of them aren't here "yearning to breathe free" and aren't ready to join our society and continue to build on the ideal that is America. They are here for short-term opportunity... many of whom will return their earnings and eventually themselves to Mexico as time moves on. And it shows by the way they come. If you wanted to be a part of what makes America great, you would try to do so legally. You would respect our laws and desire citizenship. For people who do it the right way, I welcome you with open arms. Come, Join Us. BUT, for those who only wish to exploit opportunity and send their social security back to Mexico to prop-up their economy and have no desire to follow our laws or become a citizen... then we don't need you.

Its not racism. Its reality. Its the desire to protect what makes America great and not dilute it. We are Americans... first and foremost. Any other hyphenated label or allegiance elsewhere is not needed or desired. As Governor Huckabee said last night regarding Iraq... we are "One Nation, Under God." We shouldn't have it any other way.

How Fred won the debate.

Senator Fred Thompson has already won tonight's Republican debate, and he isn't even participating. Last week I was upset by the idea that Fred was going to officially announce the day after the debate, avoiding 90 minutes of questions with seven other candidates. But as I watch the news today and think about it a little more, the timing of Thompson's announcement and his lack of participation in the debate was a skillful political move.

Turn on the news today and watch the pre-date commentary. The seven debate participants are all lumped together... and then there's Fred. The Thompson campaign will run an ad sometime before or during the debate, and will pre-announce on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The Tonight Show will be watched by around 5.7 million views or about 31% of the audience during its time slot. The debate will likely get somewhere between 2-3 million viewers when it airs. Surely Fred Thompson will be seen by more people, and won't have to share his camera time with seven other adversarial candidates.

Ever more important, Fred Thompson's appearance on the Tonight Show this evening allows him to be the first to comment after the debate. Tricky, yes, since the show is filmed before the debate, so he won't be able to discuss specifics. But I expect to hear a few one-liners and general comments about the debate as Fred once again separates himself from the pack.

As long as Fred continues to make the distinction between himself and everyone else, he will have an advantage. As long as the media discusses Fred, and then everyone else... that advantage will remain. And as conservatives get to know him and his values, that advantage should grow. Fred Thompson has never wavered on abortion unlike the frontrunners. Fred Thompson is strong on defense and against illegal immigration. As people get to know him more, I believe they will be reminded of another actor who was underestimated by his opponents and did things a little differently... who just happened to become the greatest President in recent history.

Federalism & Fred

American Elephant sells some Fred Thompson Federalism t-shirts. The design is popular, but I've been asked more than once what "Federalism" was. I find that sad. Federalism is the antithesis of liberalism, as Federalism entrusts the states and the people with solving most issues, while liberals think national laws and bureaucracy are the answer to ever ill.

Break out your old textbooks, or better yet consult this video from Fred Thompson. Federalism is the foundation of our constitution and the basis for the 10th amendment. It basically means that only select powers belong to the federal government, and the rest of the powers belong to the states and individuals. Federalism provides for a strong state structure with limited federal government, with the idea that states better know how to support their residents, and that each state should almost be in competition with the others trying to come up with new ideas to attract citizens and business. Ultimately, federalism also is the idea that you don't need any more laws or government than you absolutely have to have.

I'm glad to see a political candidate bring this topic back to the forefront, and give many of us a history lesson along the way. It seems many Americans forgot what America was all about... its about time we remember.

$3.5 Million for a non-campaign is not a significant amount of money.

That's right. $3.5 Million Dollars raised in a couple months on a campaign that it not yet a campaign, is not a significant amount of money according to FoxNews' political reporter Carl Cameron.

I disagree. I have no data to back this up, but I believe there are many people like myself who are impressed by Fred Thompson and interested in his candidacy much more so than Giuliani, Romney or McCain... but who refuse to contribute to the campaign until it actually is one. I went so far as to e-mail his site a while back saying such. Will the money come pouring in on the 6th and 7th after Fred has formally announced? I don't know, but at the least it should tick up a notch or two.

I'm very happy about the prospects of a Thompson candidacy... and find him a better alternative to all but one of the current crop. Mike Huckabee still has the edge in my book... but that is subject to change as I get to know more about the candidates and their respective stances on the issues. Character, values, and so-called gravitas go along way... three values that Huckabee has in abundance, and I believe Thompson won't be short on either.