Every year, it seems we must be reminded of why we have Thanksgiving (and this year more than ever).

Here it is again, for all idiots, ignoramuses, scholars, and people who just like to be in the know.

Enjoy!

RWR

This rules!

Enjoy!

h/t to the BlogFather of the RWRepublic, Emperor Darth Misha I for posting this for me to find!

RWR

Michelle Malkin and others are reporting on the scandal that should have been brought to light decades ago.

Turns out, though, we now have a smoking gun in the "Global Cooling "Global Warming" "CLIMATE CHANGE" hoax.

I must say, it's about fucking time.

RWR

Barbara Boxer is in deep shit. It seems there's a conservative with Federalist tendencies running against her in 2010.

Chuck DeVore's basic platform states the following:

* Chuck DeVore believes government's most important role is to secure our rights. This was the Founders' view of government too. Bigger government encroaches on our liberty.
* Chuck opposed the bailouts, the stimulus package and the big government auto industry takeover.
* Chuck has a strong voting record fighting for increased domestic energy production and he has strongly opposes Barbara Boxer's Cap & Trade energy tax scheme
* California faces an unprecedented challenge due to a drought made worse by arcane environmental laws.
* Assemblyman DeVore is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army retired Reserve. He also worked as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. Chuck supports a strong military and defense for our country.
* Chuck supports strong controls on our borders and considers this issue to be of vital national importance.
* Chuck has a proven voting record of fighting for our Constitutional rights.

DeVore cites the Declaration of Independence in his passages on the role of government. His assessment is spot-on.

On taxes, he correctly points out that high taxes enable an increasingly large government that has forgotten its aforementioned role, again quoting the Declaration.

He isn’t as strong on healthcare, parroting the usual high costs and demonstrably poor results of the proposed plans, but does correctly acknowledge that "Government created many of today's healthcare problems -- and so it makes no sense to turn to government to solve them."

On energy, he's basically a Republican. Good points made, but no reference to the blatant illegality of the government regulating energy production in the first place.

On California's current drought, Chuck supports turning the water back on in California. While this is a no-brainer, Barbara Boxer has staunchly stood in the way of doing it, causing rampant unemployment and a food shortage that will be felt nationwide.

His comments on "family values" are better applied to his decision to support only originalist judges:

In a prospective judge, I'll look for those who understand that the role of government is to secure our "unalienable" rights as set forth in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and that the Judicial Branch's role is not to legislate from the bench.

Sure, this does affect the implementation of values, but it's much more important in its effect on the implementation of the Constitution. I should shoot off a note to the campaign haha.

Sage would love Chuck's position on the military:

While a strong supporter of a robust and modern volunteer military, Chuck has been a consistent skeptic of direct military intervention since the 1980s, preferring instead to encourage those who want freedom and democracy overseas with more indirect methods, if possible. Chuck knows that we neither have enough people [nor] treasure to be a global policeman for decades.

We should have a robust, state-of-the-art military, and we should only use it to kick the asses of those who choose to do us harm. Good call, Chuck. One possible issue, however, would be the "more indirect methods" of supporting the freedom fighters of the world. If we're sending them guns and ammo at our own expense, that's not a good thing. If our gun manufacturers are selling them to them, that's another matter entirely - get the picture?

Chuck's position on criminal trespass of illegal aliens is correct, however, as I have often stated, it is a mistake to use the word "immigrants" to describe these people, as they have none of the required traits of immigrants. Call them what they are: illegal aliens.

Chuck’s stand on the First and Second Amendments is spot-on.

Of course, no assessment of a politician would be complete without a conservative rating. Looking at his voting record, only a single vote for rent control catches my eye. He also voted for clearer definitions of sentences for drug offenders who had violated their probation. Since this was not a vote on the "drug war" itself, but rather a clarification of a convict's rights, I'm not sure I can count it against him. Chuck is going to have to come in very high on the conservative scale – somewhere in the 90-95% range. This guy is no joke.

Of course, Sage is much better at digging up dirt on these guys than I am, but at this juncture, not only is Chuck DeVore better than Barbara Boxer, but he's also head and shoulders above his Republican challenger – yeah I know – big surprise there. The Republican wants you to vote for her because she's a woman. Yeah, California did that with Boxer and look at what it got - nice job, Skippy. On the issues, it looks like California would be doing itself a favor by electing Chuck DeVore.

Also: Here is a good interview posted at ronpaulforums.com.

RWR

The need for the Tea Party movement has given conservatives the opportunity of a lifetime. The concept of returning America to her federalist origins is both exciting and realistic, thanks to Barack Obama (strangely enough). These "progressives" (read that communists, socialists, fascists, etc.) have finally awakened the American People from their long slumber.

If the Federalist Party Platform reflects your views, check out The Second American Revolution (http://friendsofneofederalism.blogspot.com/), as well as the American Federalist Party Blog (http://federalistpartyblog.blogspot.com/). The former is brand new, and will feature Sage's work, as well as anything I post that seems inspirational for the Federalist Movement. More bloggers will be added to these, especially the former. Drop me your email if you'd write, and I'll get you set up.

Finally, a place where conservatives can strut our stuff!

RWR

When I saw this post by RgihtwigSparkle, it brought to mind a comment I once saw from Sage on Mr. Minority's blog:

Sadly, I believe that the day is not far when we will look at the Boosh days as the "good ole days"!

RightwingSparkle shows us why today we are doing just that. Of course, Bush did plenty for us to complain about, and to expect McLameass to have been much better than Obama would have been foolish, but it does seem that we have reason already to wish we were fighting Bush than Obama.

Of course, there is the up-side. Obama has thrown things into such a tail-spin that Americans who were previously complacent are now doing their duty and speaking out against these usurpers. McLameass would not likely have brought this about. Good for America!

RWR

Just Google it for the links. There are too many people calling the administration on this to keep it all straight. Of course, it's no surprise that Obama and his gang of criminals in Washington are lying about their so-called "stimulus", which is really nothing more than an advance for Donk campaign funds for 2010 and 2012. Here's a chart of some of the lies that were told on the government's page that's supposed to monitor the "stimulus". This chart DOES NOT include the $6.4 billion that went to 440 bogus congressional districts - enough fake congressional districts to DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Now in all fairness, there will be mistakes made. But mistakes of this magnitude and nature have to have you wondering whether you want this same government in control of which doctors you may see and when, even if you do believe that somehow the government is actually authorized to do so.

Furthermore, if this administration is this serious about lying to the people, how can you trust the numbers that aren't demonstrably bogus? Bogus predictions about "pass this or you just might see 9% unemployment", when passing that very bill (illegally at that) brought about 10.2% unemployment AND CLIMBING, bogus numbers on actual stimulus spending, bogus claims that "healthcare reform" isn't an attempt to put private insurers out of business ... Are we seeing a pattern here? How about bogus claims that the current occupant of the White House is a natural-born citizen of the United States? Has anyone shown proof? Why not?

Here is a guy who has spent at least close to a million dollars to stop inquiries into an issue that would cost a mere ten to twenty bucks to put to rest IF there weren't something damning to hide. If he's lying about the stimulus, which he is, and he's lying about the economy, which he is, and he's lying about healthcare, which he is - and taking all these lies this seriously to boot, then why would it be such a stretch that he's lying about his status as a natural-born citizen?

Had the Democratic Party not jumped so quickly at the chance to be able to call America racist for not electing their guy, we would have all these same lies coming from either Hitlery or McShithead. At least Hitlery was born on US soil to American parent. Not that the Republicrats give a damn about the Constitution anyway.

The point is that we've been fed lie after lie after lie after lie for a hundred years from these shitbags. Why should we start believing them now? Why should we allow them to keep the power they have wrested from our very hands for a single day longer? Why should we trust them with our retirement? With our charity? With our safety? The answer, of course, is that we shouldn't - That was the whole point of the Declaration of Independence in the first place. It was the whole point of the Bill of Rights. It's the whole point of being free. As I've said before, with the exception of those few powers the Constitution grants it, WE DON'T NEED A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!! At this point, who would want it?

RWR

RWR

New York, Doug Hoffman, and Nancy Pelosi may have jumped the gun.

RWR

Published on a seemingly anonymous blog on MyFox Orlando, here is a pretty good summary of some pretty extensive research regarding the circumstances of Barack Obama's actual birth. Mind you, most of it is only relevant with regard to the place of birth and not with regard to the dual citizenship issues Mr. Obama has. I've posted it in its entirety, but there are links that you may want to check out.

JUST THE FACTS

The documents that we found when conducting our research into Barack Obama Jr.'s citizenship are displayed on this page. This is what we know about Barack Obama Jr.'s parents and his citizenship.

Barack Obama Jr. aka Barack H. Obama Jr. aka Barry Soetoro aka Barack Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Obama Jr.'s mother is Stanley Ann Dunham, aka Ann Dunham, aka Stanley Ann Obama aka Ann Obama, aka Stanley Ann Soetoro, aka Ann Soetoro.

Barack Obama Jr. was born to Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of Kenya and Stanley Ann Dunham, a citizen of the U.S.

Barack Obama Jr.'s mother, Ann Dunham, divorced Barack Obama Jr's father in or about 1963 when Barack Obama Jr was two years old.

Then Barack Obama Jr.'s mother, Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia. Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Barack H. Obama, Jr. et al. as his son and/or adopted him.

While Ann Dunham (Soetoro) aka Stanley Ann Soetoro was married to Lolo Soertoro, Barack Obama Jr. was enrolled in the public school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.

On August 20, 1980, Stanley Ann Soetoro, initiated divorce proceedings from Lolo Soetoro in Honolulu, HI. click here to view court docket

When asked, Barack H. Obama, Jr., et al claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii however, claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals. According to Barack H. Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Barack, Jr. was born in Mombosa, Kenya and she was present during his birth. The Kenyan Government, claim they have the birthing records of Barack H. Obama, Jr. and the birth delivery records of Ann Obama, from Barack H. Obama, Jr.'s birth in Mombosa, Kenya, however, they have sealed the birth records of Barack H. Obama, et al, birth in Mombosa, Kenya and labled them top secret as a result of the presidential election.

The questions are, "where was Barack Obama Jr. born"? Is Barack Obama, Jr. a/k/a Barry Soetoro still an Indonesian Citizen? What is Barack Obama, Jr. a/k/a Barry Soetoro's legal name?

02/18/08: Star Bulletin News Article Obama backers stress importance of caucuses, page 2, "He was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children"

11/04: The Rainbow Edition, Volume 2, Issue 3, Education Laboratory School, page 2, "Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii"

10/2008: Interview with Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Obama during a taped interview at her home in Kenya was adamant "Barack, Jr. was born in Mombosa, Kenya and I was present during his birth."

10/30/08: Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya" "Kenyan Officials with the Provincial Civil Registrar stated there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa , Kenya on August 4, 1961 and confirmed the birthing records of Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret."

10/27/08: Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, "US Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian, and that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in the State of Hawaii"

01/01/68: Indonesian School Record, "Name of School: Fransiskus Assisi School, Name: Barry Soetoro, Citizenship: Indonesian, Name of Parent: Lolo Soetoro, M.A. The school records indicate that Barack Obama Jr. aka Barry Soetoro attended first grade in Indonesia and that he was born in Honolulu Hawaii on 08/04/1961 and his father is Lolo Soetoro.



NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT OBAMA'S COUSIN WHO IS THE PRIME MINISTER OF KENYA HAS ORDERED NO FAMILY MEMBER [CAN] TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT OBAMA UNLESS HIS OFFICE APPROVES IT.

You decide. Based upon this recent post at The Post & Email, it seems that Obama's birth in Hawaii must have taken place sometime between June 27, 2004 and August 28, 2006, given these facts noted in the post:

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

Again, lots of links. Check them out.

RWR

John Hawkins and Conor Friedersdorf have set themselves into a debate about the direction the Right should take in moving forward. In my opinion, they're both standing on the dock waving hankies at the boat.

Hawk brings up conservative infighting, the failed welfare state, the Reagan agenda, and failure to target minority groups as the four things to address in this segment of the "debate". None of this is particularly relevant, though, with regard to the conservative movement.

Conservative infighting - The Founding Fathers would have called this "debate". Greta van Susteren would call it "the marketplace of ideas". Conservatives have been wrongly demonized for far too long with far too high a price for us to allow our beloved country to continue down the path it's been on for a hundred years. Of course we're going to fight. The very survival of our nation is at stake.

The welfare state - The welfare state is reaching a tipping point? Really? You're just noticing this now, long after the tipping point has come and gone? Illegal welfare programs make up a larger portion of the federal budget than defense, all with no authorization for the federal government to even be involved, and NOW you start complaining? Sorry, John. That ship left port years ago.

The Reagan agenda - Without getting into specifics, Hawkins bemoans the Reagan agenda:

Conservatives WILL NOT win by following the "Reagan agenda" because Reagan's agenda was designed, using conservative principles, to deal with the political situation of his day. Some of those battles have been won. Others have been irrevocably lost. Some have grown in importance. Others have lessened.

I submit that with regard to much of the Reagan agenda, there isn't much difference between the political situation of today as opposed to Reagan's time. Still, even if you accept Hawk's premise, your result is likely to be a candidate/agenda to the left of Reagan, which is unacceptable. Because of today's "political situation", Reagan would be far too liberal to be able to get the job done.

Minority outreach - The solution to minority participation in the conservative agenda is not to be just showing up at every racist liberal minority event on the calendar, but instead to show that we don't look at someone's minority status at all. No one should get the special treatment Hawk seems to suggest we give these people. Simply invite them to the events we go to, and be done with it.

Friedersdorf's piece wasn't as readable, but in a nutshell, said that those elected in 2000 as "conservatives" didn't govern as such. Well, duh. He also pointed to infighting - and didn't even take a side. The whole thing was an analysis piece of why conservatives failed in the last term.

Guys. You need to wake up. Conservatives didn't fail in the last term. Republicans did - and they failed so dismally that they brought about the kind of change that our free nation will not easily survive. Luckily, the change was so drastic that it brought about a real conservative revolution that stands to save America from her captors, despite Republican efforts to re-deliver her to them.

Doug Hoffman's impressive showing in New York is clear evidence that the conservative movement is strong enough to withstand the foolishness of the Democratic Party and its accomplices in the so-called "opposition". Here's a guy who only a few weeks before Election Day was a complete unknown - just an accountant with an idea - and with a more conservative agenda than either other candidate, he came closer to winning the election than John McCain did in his presidential effort last year. If you can come that close, you can win. After all, it was perceived by many that McCain could win ...

Hawkins and Friedersdorf are both of the delusion that Conservatism lives in the Republican Party. It does not. It lives in the hearts of conservatives like you and me. If Hoffman showed us nothing else, he showed us that conservatives don't need the Republican Party to be successful. Whether you think he's the future of conservatism or not, you must acknowledge his having shown us that we aren't some piddly little faction that can be ignored. True to form, the Republicans are still ignoring us, so to suggest that reform within that party is the key to advancing our belief system is a fucking joke.

We don't need the Republican Party, and they don't seem to understand that they need us. That's not our problem. Our problem is the liberal progressivism that plagues our great nation. If the Republicans want to do something about that, they are free to join us. In the meantime, we'll stand up for what we believe in: the vision of the Founding Fathers.

RWR

Here's the roll call vote from today's House of Representatives defiance of the American People and her Constitution.

If your congress-critter voted Yay, it's time right now to start the process of showing them the door.

RWR

The worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 took place yesterday at Fort Hood, TX.

The nutbag survived. May the firing squad start with his toes and work their way up.

RWR

Hold me accountable. - Jon Corzine, January 17, 2006

OK. You're accountable.

Don't let the door hit you too hard in the ass on the way out.

Now it's time to hold Mr. Christie accountable. And we will. Read the State Constitution, Chris. We're coming after you.

RWR

OK.

So now that Hoffman is the man in NY-23, and is quite easily the candidate with the most momentum anywhere in the US, it's time to look not so much at his conservative credentials (after all, he doesn't have any credentials as a regular guy that simply decided to run for office), but at his positions on issues. His campaign page's issues section is probably brief enough to take a stab at the whole thing, so let's have at it.

Where do you stand on the stimulus bill?

While most economists agree that spending is required in a recession, government bureaucrats are the worst people to be spending our money. That’s why there are no jobs with this recovery. The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of the stimulus, not because of it. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now. What I would have supported is a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend, not federal bureaucrats… and a bill that spent money on capital projects that would have put people to work now, not in the next two to three years.

Has there been ANY candidate anywhere that has been more right on this issue? Of course the libs would never go for it. It would mean tax cuts. That's what is meant by putting "real money in the hands of Americans to spend".

Where do you stand on health care reform?

Although universal health care sounds great in theory, we can’t afford to do everything at once… especially when it means adding an additional trillion dollars to the deficit we are handing to our children and grandchildren. I believe our first step should be to bring the spiraling costs of healthcare under control so the cost of healthcare does not destroy the budgets of hardworking families and retirees. Then, as the economy picks up we can work to insure everyone.

Eh. I disagree that universal health care sounds great in theory, at least on the federal level. If a state wishes to be so foolish, then fine, but even though Hoffman's idea hints at conservatism, it really isn't, because once the economy picks up, he may advocate the very illegal universal health care he now doesn't advocate. That's cause for concern.

Would you vote for higher taxes to help pay for the deficit?

President Ronald Reagan said it best: “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.” Before we even consider raising taxes we must first bring spending under control.

True enough on the surface, but it needs to be reiterated that tax cuts implemented during the administrations of Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush increased revenues collected by the US government. Doug is right to suggest getting spending under control first, but raising taxes should NEVER be an option unless we are both at war and on the "undertaxed" side of the curve.

What spending would you cut?

I would cut the pork and wasteful earmarks. When the Democrats took control of congress, they did so with the promise to end earmarks. Unfortunately, they not only did not end earmarks, they took them to a whole new level. I didn't have to think twice. I signed the pledge to oppose pork barrel spending."

OK. There's no mention of cutting back the socialism that's rampant in Washington. Still, eliminating the earmarks the Democrats said they would eliminate would go a long way in reining in wasteful spending.

Where do you stand on issues such as the war/terror/military?

It is often said, yet too often forgotten: Freedom isn’t free. The men and women of our armed forces are the true heroes in today’s world. Here in the 23rd district, we are more aware of that than most. The 10th Mountain Division is doing a super job and we understand the burden this places on them and on their families. We owe all our soldiers – and their families – a tremendous debt of gratitude and we must do everything we can to support them. The new G.I. bill is a good first step in that direction. We must continue our work to do more for them and to do everything we can to support their families when they are deployed… … We are past the point of pointing fingers over how we got to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question for us now is where do we go from here? I believe we must continue to try and turn the security and governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis. I also believe we need to continue to go after the terrorist strongholds and training bases wherever they are located. The war against terror is not over and the terrorists’ goal remains the destruction of the United States and our way of life… We must never forget this fact.

While Doug is right about most of what he says here, he does stop short of mentioning what really needs to be done in the War on Terror - eliminating the threat posed by Iran. You want to make Iraq a rousing success? Finish off Ahmadenijad. You want to make bin Laden irrelevant? Finish off Ahmadenijad. You want real cooperation from the Saudis? Finish off Ahmadenijad. Almost all of the money supporting the terrorists is coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are pretending to be friends. Cut off Iran, and they would either go the way of the Libyans or be exposed as the frauds that they are. Of course, Khaddafi is a nutbag and only dismantled his program out of fear - just look at how he changed his tune when a Democrat walked into the White House, but taking out Ahmadenijad would put the terrorists on lockdown. Simple maintenance after that ...

Where do you stand on illegal immigration?

There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here – while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

Immigration policies flawed - check.

Putting up a wall to slow the flow if illegal ALIENS is essential to showing our neighbors that we expect our laws to be followed. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you are here illegally, you are not an immigrant, but an illegal alien.

Of course we want immigrants to be able to come to our country and become part of our culture. What we don't want is to have to bend to insistence from illegal aliens and others that we change our culture to fit whatever model they choose. Look around. It doesn't take much to see the folly in what is going on now. Call you local unemployment office for confirmation. The first sentence you hear is "welcome to ... " and "to continue in English, press 1 ... ". Government services in the United States should be provided only in English, and where it is determined that foreign support is necessary, that information should be provided somewhere other than where actual citizens place their calls.

Where do you stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?

I am pro-life, period.

I don't feel that Doug answered this question at all. Is his position in line with the typical conservative who suggests that consenting to the sex act is consent to the pregnancy? Is it in line with the Constitution Party that suggests that a child shouldn't be punished for the sins of his father? Could he perhaps comment on the legality of the decision itself? Pro-life is fine, but there's much more to the issue of Roe than that.

Where do you stand on the issue of Same Sex Marriage?

I was brought up to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how I feel. I don't want to persecute anyone but that's what I believe. Marriage ought to stay marriage. Period."

Again, what you were brought up to believe and what is legal under the Constitution may be different things. As there has been no government intrusion into marriage at the federal level, you may wish to perhaps comment on the legal grounds upon which you take this position. How you were raised just isn't going to cut it when you're on the House floor.

Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

As an NRA member, Doug believes the Second Amendment is far more vital to our nation than just protecting the recreational activities of hunters and target shooters. The Founding Fathers thought these right’s so vital to a free country that they specifically created the Bill of Rights. They did not want to leave any doubt as to what tools must be available to the lone citizen.

• The first amendment's protection of the ability to question government and assuring the capacity of citizens to communicate to one another.
• The fifth amendment's designation of property rights as the clear demarcation line between the individual and the community.
• The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh's establishing the due process by which the judiciary and law enforcement officers must adhere to in applying the law to individuals.

But the second amendment was included to give bite to the other protections outlined in the Bill of Rights. Without it, all other amendments are nothing more than talk.

Doug Hoffman believes citizens in all states plus the District of Columbia should have a “Right to Carry” with a CCW permits, a right that is now enjoyed in over 38 states.

Doug Hoffman opposes any federal ban or registration on the types and cosmetics of rifles that law-abiding American citizens can own.

The only issue I have with Doug here is the part about permits and bans. The right to carry is implied in the right to keep and bear arms. That's what the Second Amendment means - citizens have the right to carry. Never mind a "federal" ban or registration. NO ONE should be required to register or submit to a ban with regard to their arms. Once you start getting involved in that stuff, all the other Amendments are, as you say, "nothing but talk".

Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs.

Not bad from a "talk" perspective, but nothing about the ILLEGALITY of such a bill.

What type of tax reform do you support?

I believe that a flat tax would be fairer and simpler. It would be low cost and would be a great boost to our economy. I also signed the Americans for Tax Reform, Anti-Tax Pledge.

Yeah. Flat tax. If someone would suggest simply taxing the states, as I have advocated, would you go for that?

How do you feel about No Tax Pledges?

Tax increases are the last thing we need. I signed the 'No New Taxes' pledge."

Keep your word and eliminate the other taxes, and you are well on your way.

Where do you stand on the $180 Million Bank Bailout?

I opposed Albany's bank bailout for the same reason I opposed the Nancy Pelosi's 'Stimulus Bill.' The economy may be slowly beginning to recover but it is doing so in spite of bailouts and stimulus bills, not because of them. I believed at the time the stimulus passed that it was a bad bill and would not work as promised and I believe that even more so now.

Can't speak to the issue vis a vis New York, but it's very sad that someone who calls himself a conservative still avoids the issue of constitutionality when it comes to federal spending of this nature.

What do you think should be done regarding ACORN?

This is simple. I support defunding ACORN 100%. The whole thing is a political boondoggle to elect Democrats and a waste of taxpayers money.

If the Constitution would have simply been followed as intended by the Founders, ACORN wouldn't have gotten a shiny dime from the fed to begin with. Can we please get back onto the subject of the Constitution?

As to the conservative index that I like to post with regard to candidates and their positions, Hoffman takes a conservative position 100% of the time, but almost always stops short of matching his position with truly conservative reasoning. Therefore, he'll come in at about 95% conservative. He could bring this to 100% pretty easily if he would simply think things through more and back his ideas up with solid constitutional references. "I was brought up that way" just isn't going to cut it. After all, Robert Byrd was "brought up that way" with regard to racism. Doesn't mean he's right.

RWR

If the Republicans don't get it now, they are done.

Does anyone believe they will get it now?

They don't have very much time to figure it out.

The Republicans would be wise to read what I wrote about them four and a half years ago. For your enjoyment, here it is. It originally was posted as a comment on Sage's post "Leviathan and Libertarian", April 22, 2005:

Sage and I have talked at length about these subjects, and with most of the post, I agree.

I do have more optimism, however, when it comes to the Republicans. With more conservative Republicans in the House and Senate, enough to create a "supermajority", I believe we would see more and faster dismantling of socialist programs in the US.

In the meantime, we have to work with the same kind of incrementalism that the socialist systems with which we are dealing were created and built up. This isn't the end of the world, as long as progress is in the direction of increased freedom and decreased socialism.

Rome (American socialism) wasn't built in a day. Therefore it won't come down in one, either. Look at the way the Left screams and moans and cries foul when one of their programs is put into the "growing only at the rate of inflation" category. There are still far too many Americans who are willing to accept their ideas and their rhetoric for us to succeed in dismantling their oppression that quickly. We must work to change hearts and minds and to bring Americans into the clear understanding that entitlements are not rights, and that, in fact, these kinds of things actually interfere with the basic rights with which we have been endowed.

Along with this, I believe that many of the less conservative Republicans may come around. Those that do not will be forced to move over.

There is clear evidence that this may happen sooner rather than later. The Donks (a little Mr. Minority lingo there) have crowned Howard Dean the leader of their party, and Her Highness Hillary is starting to play the "I'm not really a communist" game that her husband played so successfully. I do believe America knows Mrs. Clinton well enough to finish her off at the ballot box, and it is already clear that Mr. Dean is only going to succeed in getting more Republicans elected.

The demise of the Democratic Party is happening right before our very eyes (Baby What a Big Surprise). It will be very interesting, indeed, to see what the Republican Party does with the situation. One of two things will have to happen:

1. The party will do as I have enumerated above, speeding up the repeal of socialism, and placing preventive provisions into the Constitution through Amendment.

or 2. The party will miss the opportunity to empower the people, and a more conservative party will rise up as the conservative alternative. There are a few of these already out there, such as the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Both have the same (very limited) potential at this point in time. More likely, however, I see a coalition of such parties forming and coming together into a new party that will serve as the more conservative alternative if the Republicans choose this course of action. The new party would then be charged with speeding up the repeal of socialism, and placing preventive provisions into the Constitution through Amendment.

The way I see it today, the Republican Party is in a very unique situation. They are the ones writing the history books right now, as they are the only political party that is really relevant from a political standpoint. They are the ones who are going to be choosing which course of action to take, and it will be very interesting to see what they choose to do.

My hope is that they will choose option 1, and I think the leadership of the party will be wise enough to see the writing on the wall and do that. As of right now, though, there is still plenty of potential for the party to swing the other way.

The reason I believe they will choose the first of the two options I stated above is that the majority of Republicans in power today, at the very least, KNOW what the right thing to do is. What is holding them back is the anxiety of the implementation. The current opposition favors big government and making it bigger and more intrusive. If the opposition is weakened to the point of complete irrelevancy (which will be happening sooner rather than later), the Republicans will be in a better position to do the right thing, as it will become imperative for fiscal and constitutional reasons, and to be certain that a new opposition coming from the other side of the spectrum doesn't create for them a similar fate that the Donks are facing now. I believe that when it comes down to brass tax (read that survival as the majority party), the Republicans will come through and do the right thing. The Libertarians and the other conservative parties are the insurance policy we have taken out.

RWR

Sadly, my optimism with regard to the Republicans has waned, as they took this great opportunity to really take the bull by the horns and embrace conservative beliefs as their own, and completely pissed it away in an effort to appease the Donks, even when they had a majority. A foolish game to be sure.

Sage said in a later comment, circa 2008, with regard to the Republican Party, "We don't want the territory, we simply want to control the idealism of the powers that be." How true.

Sadly, when it comes to political parties, it's been pretty decisively proven that the only way to control the idealism of the powers that be is to control the territory. The powers that be in the Republican Party are not likely to give up that control easily, and the Hoffman campaign's success in New York should be a wake-up call for the Republicans. As I said earlier, I doubt it will be. Hoffman will be looked upon in the same light as Ronald Reagan, as the conservative that got through despite the party's best efforts to stop him.

We now will have to look at Hoffman much more closely, as the Republican brass will now be dedicating itself one hundred percent to the task of containing Hoffman to his quiet little Congressional district in New York. Their task will be to minimize him and make sure he doesn't wind up at the top of their ticket in 2012.

Hoffman may very well be the answer for conservatives, depending upon how successful he is on Tuesday and how well he represents the interests of conservatives over the next two years should Tuesday favor him. One thing cannot be denied: Doug Hoffman is the conservative in America today with the most momentum anywhere.

Support him when he's right; work against him when he's wrong, but Hoffman and others like him will be big players in the upcoming months. Mark my words.

RWR