Excuse me for feeling a little out of sorts today, but one of my childhood heroes is dead. Growing up , I spent many hours thrilling to the adventures of Captain America. The character embodied everything that is great about our wonderful nation, he was an unapologetic patriot who fought evil where it dared to show itself. But now , it would appear as though Marvel Comics thinks that this symbol of America no longer represents our country.

 Jeph Loeb, who also produces the television show Heroes, wrote the story in which the character is killed by an assassin on the steps of courthouse. Loeb had this to say about his story:

"Part of it grew out of the fact that we are a country that's at war, we are being perceived differently in the world," Loeb said. "He wears the flag and he is assassinated - it's impossible not to have it at least be a metaphor for the complications of present day."

 So in Loeb's opinion America is bad, so let's destroy a character that so closely represents our nation. I am growing quite tired of those in the mass media taking out their anti-American views, and using characters that I have come to hold dear. If we ever needed the mass media to hold up heroes it is now. Shame on you Mr. loeb, and Marvel Comics as well, today I am going to dust off my old copies of Captain America, and remember a time when it was o.k. to be proud of our country.

   Yesterday, on the John Zeigler radio program from L.A., Senator James Imhofe( R-Oklahoma) spoke of an incident on Capitol Hill, that should interest anyone concerned with free speech in our nation. While heading to the Senate for a vote, Senator Imhofe overheard a conversation between Senators Clinton and Boxer regarding talk radio, this it what they had to say:


" We've got to do something about this. These people are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We've got to have balance. There has to be a legislative fix to this."

 It seems that talk radio, as well as blogs, podcasts or any grassroots tool, is getting in the way of our "leaders", and they don't much like it. If your voice gets in the way of their agenda, then to hell with your voice. The Center for American Progress, a media watchdog group, released a it's plan to deal with the conservative talk radio program. Their plan includes the following steps:

1. Restore national and local caps on ownership of commercial radio stations.

2. Ensure greater accountable for radio licensing.

3. Require ownership that fails to abide by these policies to pay fines to support public broadcasting.

Their study point out that a huge gap between conservative, and liberal talk radio. They contend  that more must done to " level the playing field". This is not surprising, the head of the Center for American Progress is no other than John Podesta, the former Clinton Chief of Staff. As a matter of fact, it seems the entire former Clinton White House is working for this organization. The list looks this; Sara Rosen a former Clinton staffer, Debbie Goldberg a former Clinton Campaign staffer, David Halpren a former Clinton speech writer, in fact I am not sure which former Clinton staffer isn't working for this organization. I am sure that Mrs. Clinton had no influence on this study, it's not as if conservative talk radio were to disappear, it would help her campaign.

 This is typical of liberals, if you can't win the argument, then simply silence your opponent. The other side has had ample opportunities to succeed in talk radio, and a few have done just that, but most lack the ability to engage large audiences. Talk radio is a perfect example of the free market, the radio stations program these shows because they have a huge audience, to which advertisers want access. Everytime a group has a problem with some of the garbage that is pumped out in films or television, they are told not to watch ,if they don't like what they see. This is solid advice, if you don't like conservative talk radio, turn it off. This is not good enough, liberals don't you to have voice , they don't want you to have the ability to participate in this wonderful representative democracy.

 If they can find a host , like Hannity, Ingraham or Limbaugh, that can get their message out in an entertaining way, finding a audience won't be a problem.To liberals ,stop crying,  roll up your sleeves , and get back in the war of ideas. Maybe the real problem is, liberals have no ideas on how to fix this nation's problems.

My friend Steve, who is working hard on behalf of Sarah Palin for V.P., sent a very interesting letter to a fellow conservative about the next GOP ticket, and I wanted to share it with you.


On June 21 (Thursday) I sent the following e-mail to a noted conservative author regarding as column he'd written about what seems to many "the inevitability of President Hillary Clinton."   I urge you to read it and take the action I suggest. 

Dear Dan: 

A growing number of bloggers have been working hard to build up support for Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket.  I noticed you had a column in TH today that said the Republicans needed to nominate a "good candidate" like Fred Thompson to beat Hillary. 

Dan, with all due respect, Fred Thompson, running with another older white guy (and I'm an older white guy) on a traditionally "balanced ticket" is NOT going to defeat Hillary Clinton.  When boring -- and Fred, for all his talents, plays a relatively boring guy on TV -- runs against dynamic, guess who loses?  We might wish that were not true, but "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."  Even Rush Limbaugh thinks it's very likely. given the current circumstances, tha the next President will be Mrs. Clinton. 

I've spent 200 hundred hours so far working to sign up bloggers and other supporters for Sarah.  Take a look at the material on my blog (http://camp2008victory.townhall.com) about Sarah -- and check out what some of the other Bloggers 4 Palin (links on my site) have said about her. 

Running a conventional campaign with conventional candidates isn't a winning strategy.   A Fred Thompson-Sarah Palin ticket would have a chance and so, I believe, would other tickets including Sarah. 

Many surveys of recent elections show the Republicans have problems with women voters, especially those working as teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, and journalists.  Since 2004, we've also had trouble with younger voters -- and, in 2006, with evangelical Christians.  

Sarah is a professional (journanlist), a dedicated Christian, a lifetime member of the NRA, a wife and a mother of four.  She can reach out to several groups where we desperately need support.   She's a charismatic figure who, in the last election, defeated the best-known Republican in the state (Frank Murkowski) and then polished off the best-known Democrat (Tony Knowles).   She's very feminine in appearance, but she's a tough cookie (as Murkowski and Knowles discovered).

Sarah is the person who should be the first female vice-president.  After that, about 2012 or 2016, she should be the first female President.   If that scenario doesn't hold, then the nation's initial female President will be Hillary Clinton.  

We Republicans have NO other female alternative than Sarah, whose approval rating in Alaska has been 80%-plus.

We need to change the dynamics of the coming election.  If we don't, then we had better get used to eight years of President Hillary Clinton.  The choice is just that stark.

I hope you'll agree with me on the key points -- and that you'll join the Bloggers 4 Palin.   Let me know your decision either by return e-mail or by leaving a comment on my site at http://camp2008victory.townhall.com. 

Thanks for your time.  

steve maloney
ambridge, pa
national coordinator of "Draft Palin 4 VP"

P.S.  I firmly believe the time to act is now -- and not when the "iceberg" (one of Mrs. Clinton's nicknames) looms right in front of us.  Our "ship" may go down, but that's certainly not inevitable.  


 I find Sarah Palin to be more interesting everday, and I believe it is time for NEW candidates on the GOP side. I do disagree with my friend Steve on one point, Fred Thompson is not a boring guy, but Fred and Sarah would be an outstanding ticket.

   I came across this interesting article while surfing the web today.

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20070619164654.aspx

   It seems that the Philadelphia city council, along with a gay rights group, want ot refuse the Boy Scouts from using a building in the city park until they reverse their position on admitting homosexuals to their organization. What is even more ironic, the Scouts actually built the structure in question in 1928, in return for a rent free lease. You would think that with Filthydelphia's out of control violent crime rate, that the council could find better things to do with it's time. But then again, I sometimes forget what a weird PC world we now live in, to the city council of Filthydelphia, leave the Scouts alone!

   Twice in the past week I have heard Press Secretary Tony Snow on conservative talk radio, in an attempt to gather support for the so-called "Immigration Reform Bill". I have always liked the Secretary, he seems to be a very intelligent and engaging man, but does he really believe what he has saying to the american public? The latest talking point from the White House is that, the president and conservatives are " talking past each other".  What does that actually mean? It would seem that the White House wants us to believe that this bill actually provides the measures that the conservative has wanted. Because I am growing weary of being called "xenophobic", I really want to get behind the " Immigration Reform Bill" , and if I can get Secretary Snow to answer a few questions, I will fall in line with president. 

  In no particular order:

1. There is currently a backlog of 6 million status change applications at ICE, including 630,000 who are supposed to be deported, but cant be found. How can the government handle an additional 12-20 million cases?

2. In most states, that actually allow for second amendment rights, it takes up to 7 days to obtain a background check when buying a gun, but it will only take 24 hours to get a check on an illegal. How can a effective background check be done in such a short period of time? A quick follow up question from our friend Mark"The Great One" Levin, " If after 24 hours you obtain probationary legal status, how is this not amnesty?"

3. In 2006 the legislature passed a law to build over 800 miles of border fence, and obtained the needed funding. Less than 80 miles have been built to date, what can be done to expedite the construction, and what can be done to assure Congress will release the funding when it is needed?

4. Social Security credits for work done in the U.S. by those here illegally , and even for those who wont qualify for a Z visa. How can you justify this to the American people , and if the people oppose these credits, what will you do to correct the situation?

5.  In- state tuition and other higher education benefits will be made available to these now " probationary citizens" even if these tuition rates and benefits are not available to all U.S. citizens, which is a violation of federal law. Why should these "probationary citizens" receive such benefits? What will you do to comply with current federal law?

6. The government has neglected to enforce immigration laws for the past 21 years. How can you ensure the American public that you will enforce future law?

 If the Secretary can answer there questions perhaps, just perhaps, I can get onboard and support this bill. Until then, I will continue to be one of Laura Ingraham's " Loud People".

   The June 19th Rasmussen poll of likely Republican voters shows that Fred Thompson has taken the lead 28% to 27% over Rudy Giuliani. This is interesting because, Fred isn't even offically in the race. This seems to indicate that Republicans are looking for a real conservative, unlike the man we sent back to the White House in 2004.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

   I was recently introduced to an interesting candidate for the VP nomination in 2008, Alaska govenor Sarah Palin. She is an very interesting lady, if you want more information on her visit the following blog:

http://camp2008victory.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=028c46e2-53aa-4662-9111-2586a327c6eb

   I am becoming convinced that those in charge of the war in Iraq, have no idea how to actually win a war. Here is the latest example, the Pentagon is sending a deck of playing cards to the soldiers showing them how to handle archaeological sites in Iraq. That's right ,our brave men and women  not only have to worry about  roadside bombs, insurgent violence, the Democratic Party, but now the must be careful in how the handle archaeological sites. To quote Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes," IT"S A MADHOUSE!."

 For example, the five of clubs tells soldiers to,drive around a site, not over it, the seven of clubs says this site has survives 17 centuries but will it survive you. Combine the cards with programs that, trained pilots to recognize ruins so they wont bomb them, and having soldiers practice what they would do if fired upon from an archaeological ruin and you have a recipie for disaster. They want our soldiers to think about how best to engage the enemy , in an attempt to preserve the ruins! Have those in charge lost their minds? This is not how a nation goes about winning a  war, you must do whatever is needed to destroy your enemy. It is no wonder why we have not won a major war since WW II, our leaders ,of that time, understood victory at all costs. If you doubt this just check the story of the Battle of Monte Casino. A message to our so-called leaders, let our military do the job that you sent them to do!

   I was speaking with a fellow conservative a few days ago, and the subject of the GOP presidential candidates came up. He told me about the numerous positive attributes about the top three men in the race, their stance on taxes, the war on terror and immigration. It took him several minutes to list all these attributes, and when he had finished, he told me that he couldn't support any of them. Needless to say ,I was quite interested in the reason he would not support  these candidates. When I asked, he told me it was quite simple, the candidates don't meet the Pro-Choice "litmus test". That's right he cant support any of these fine candidates, because they are either now, or have been Pro-Choice. With all the challenges that face our nation, with the fact our very civilization is in mortal danger, some conservatives still maintain that abortion is the issue that should determine our next leader. This position is not only wrong, but extremely dangerous.

 Let me put my argument into context, I happen to believe that abortion is wrong. I find the whole idea of abortion to be morally abhorrent, but it is a legal medical procedure. Abortion has been under challenge since Roe V. Wade was heard by the Supreme Court over forty years ago. Certainly there is an argument to made that the decision is contrary to the text of the constitution, since it imposes a federal policy on the states. This action, the abortion opponents argue, is contrary to the idea of federalism, and they may have valid point, but they have never been able to convince the court otherwise. I shudder to think of the amount of money that has been spent on the fight over this issue, and how many good candidates have been rendered unelectable because of this one issue? If we are to fix this nation's very serious problems, we must get away from being one issue voters. As a nation, we have never been able to leglislate morality, if we are going to fight abortion, it must start at home. We must keep families together, we must take the time to talk honestly with our children about uncomfortable issues, and reinforce the costs of our choices. 

 In my opinion, we will never overturn Roe V. Wade. With this in mind, let's support the candidate that can begin to move the United States in the right direction. We need tax and immigration reform, we need to develop a strategy for the war on terror that willow us to achieve victory, and someone who can make us feel proud to Americans again. So let's take all of those " I Vote Pro-Choice." bumper stickers  off our cars, and realize that regardless of their stance on abortion, any of the top three GOP candidates would make a fine president.

 

    

    Modern politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are using immigration as a tool to establish their dominance of the political landscape. These politicians have no concern for our national or economic security, they simply want to hold onto power.  This attitude is not new, if we look back into history we can see another example of how eager politicians made decisions regarding what was best for their party, and how the decisions led to the utterly ridiculous idea of the 14th amendment.

  The 14th amendment simply states that : " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and the State where they reside." The amendment also assures that these new "citizens" will not be deprived of life , liberty, or property, without due process of law. Much of our current immigration mess can find it's roots here in the 14th amendment, this law encourages illegal to attempt to make it to  America to give birth, thus making the child a citizen. The amendment os another example of the federal government expanding it's powers, not to mention the fact that there is much evidence to suggest that the amendment is unconstitutional.

 How did the 14th amendment become law? With the end of the Civil War in 1865, thoughts turned towards the government's policy towards the South. President Lincoln's Reconstruction Plan  called for treating the South with respect, he wanted amnesty for those who take an oath of loyalty to the Union and would abolish slavery laws, once 10 percent of state took the oath of loyalty, that state could form a government  and send representatives to Washington. Lincoln took this approach because, in his mind, these states did not actually secede, but rather they rebeled against the Federal government.

 These policies did not please everyone though, a group called Radical republicans wanted stricter laws. These laws would greatly increase the power of the government. These Radicals insisted on guarantees for black suffrage, not because they were actually that concerned about the rights of blacks to vote, but because they assumed that all blacks would immediately become Republican voters. This would most certainly assure the perpetual dominance of the Republican Party. The Radicals were not about stop here, flush with confidence after their election victory of 1866 they set out to push their agenda.

 They set about to pass the Freedman's Bureau Bill , and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Freedman's Bureau  was to provide food, shelter, medical care and education to the former slaves. The Bureau was also to establish labor agreements in the former plantation areas. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturned the Dred Scott Decision, a decision by the Supreme Court that said a slave brought from a slave state to a free state could not sue for his freedom because he wan not a citizen, by stating that all persons born in the United States were citizens. As citizens, they could enforce contracts, sue and give evidence in court, receive protection from the law. President Johnson vetoed these bills, he thought were serious constitutional problems with the bills, as well as opportunity for abuse of power. In fact the Civil Rights Act contained enforcement provisions that allowed the transfer of legal proceedings from state courts to federal courts, if those states did not confirm the Acts provisions. This allowed the federal government to grow even more powerful. The Presidential veto, and obvious Constitutional question did not deter the Radicals, they simply passed the legislation.

  The Radicals realize that their Civil Rights Act could be legally challenged, so they came up with the idea to put the Act into the form of  a Constitutional Amendment. The radicals simply took the language of the Civil Rights, and incorporated it into the Amendment. Southerners mainly objected to the Amendment  because , in their opinion, it would grant the federal government the ability ,to eventually, strip the states of their  rights. In fact, most of those opposed to this legislation feared it  concentrate too much power in a central government. When the Amendment was presented for the states consideration, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states fail to ratify it. Would this put an end to the Radical's plan? Absolutely not!  The simply declare that all the states who failed to ratify the Amendment do not have legal governments. They would break up the states into five military  districts, and rule by martial law. What would these states have to do to join the Union again? They would have to elect delegates to state constitutional conventions and draw up new state constitutions. These new constitutions would acknowledge the abolition of slavery, and the introduction of black suffrage. Of course these states would have to ratify the 14th Amendment.

The Southern states eventually ratified the 14th Amendment, but the process had many irregularities; In Tennessee, opponets refused to be present for the vote so that ratification would be impossible, the men were seized and held in a nearby room so that the vote could proceed, in Oregon , the vote occurred during a time when two Republican seats were being challenged on legal grounds. After the vote, the Republicans were removed from the legislature.

 These actions have influenced the modern day political landscape in many ways, the 14th Amendment has helped to encourage the influx of illegals, the federal government continues to usurp state and local governments at every whim, and political parties still think that they can import new voters, no matter what the social, security or economic impact to the nation. As in the day of the Radical Republicans, modern day politicians are more concerned with party power, than their constituents. We need to take a strong look at the 14th Amendment, it seems unreasonable that just because your mother, if she is not a citizen, gives birth to you within our nation's border, that you are entitled to all the rights we hold so dear.  We must continue to stand together , so that what is best for future comes to pass, not just what is best for the RNC or DNC. If we as a nation are not willing to fight the good fight, history will most certainly repeat itself.

  Someone recently left a comment on the blog insisting that in fact you must be a racist if you don't support " Comprehensive Immigration Reform". Rich Lowry , at National Review Online, has written a great article, describing what  America can accomplish, and what the American's reaction to the bill really means.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZkYWMxODU1ZDg5YTIzMTcwMjZkMWQ0MWNlZTk4YTk=

  Today marks the 20th anniversary of Reagan's famous, " Tear Down This Wall" speech, take a moment to review it, and remember what it was like to have strong leadership.


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganbrandenburggate.htm

  Here is a link to a video of an interview with Vetrans for Peace from the wondeful Hot Air.com, this is what we ,in the bay area ,are up against in trying to save the Blue Angels apperance at Fleet Week.


http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/11/video-san-fran-vet-for-peace-protests-horrific-wmds-aka-the-blue-angels/

   I was going to throw my support behind Fred Thompson for President until I read this....

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56107

   Just when you thought that Sen John"The Manchurian Candidate" McCain  couldn't do anything more to insult the conservative base of the Republican party, he strikes again. On This Week with George Stephanopolous, McCain once again stated that anyone against the Senate's immigration bill has to be anti-immigrant.

  Can we clear up something, if you are opposed to illegal immigration it doesn't mean that you are anti-immigrant. Like many conservatives, I am growing very weary of being called a racist because I believe in the rule of law. Stop playing the race card, and go to work and put together a piece of legislation that will actually secure our borders.