Thursday, August 28, 2008

Wow! I had dinner last night with the next Vice President of the United States....

I predict Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will be named tomorrow as Senator McCain’s running mate.

Visiting with him and his wife Mary at the Governor's mansion in St. Paul last night, he comes across as honest, sincere, down to earth, gracious, humorous and a person with natural compassion. Having, at the urging of his wife, converted from Catholic to Evangelical, he will electrify the important religious values voters, estimated by some at 26 percent of the electorate.

Mary Pawlenty, mother of two teenage daughters, has served as a district judge and is vivacious, intelligent, gracious and committed to the values shared by the majority of Americans. She recently was given the Patrick Henry Award from the National Guard Association for her First Lady's Military Family Care Initiative that provides support to the families of Guardsmen who have been called to active duty.

Visiting with them gives me a burst of hope not only for the November election but for the future of America.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Media, Democrats and “Republican Slime”

With the Democratic National Convention in full swing and fawning media coverage for Barack Obama on the level of somewhere between a coronation and a beautification; it is a wonderful time to reflect on the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the way they view the two political parties. With well over 90% of the credentialed Washington press willing to admit they are Democrats, it is hardly surprising that they would be swooning over the prospects of an Obama presidency. In fact, the default position for the MSM seems to be to always give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and suspect the motives of every Republican.

The big catch phrase this election cycle for the MSM has been the “Republican Slime Machine”. By that they mean unfair attacks on Democrats like the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry in 2004. In the Swift Boat ads, over 100 combat veterans, who served alongside John Kerry, were willing to stand up, state their names and cite specific events they had personally witnessed. Four years later, Senator Kerry still hasn’t released his full military records. With his signature on the bottom of a single document, he could have discredited the Swift Boat Vets and proven he was the war hero he so boldly claimed when he was “reporting for duty” at the last Democratic Convention. Instead of demanding the full release of Kerry’s military record, the MSM focused their energy questioning the motives of the Swift Boat Vets.

On the Republican side, President George W. Bush released all of his military records and answered all questions about his service in the National Guard. Still, CBS ran a much heralded report on “Sixty Minutes” with Dan Rather relying on a single anonymous source and forged documents to try and impugn the president. Thanks to sharp-eyed bloggers the fraud was quickly exposed and CBS found itself dancing backwards faster than Ginger Rogers in a Fred Astaire movie.

In this election cycle, the MSM ignores or minimizes well documented facts about Barack Obama while promoting rumors and innuendo about John McCain. The media has turned a blind eye to Obama and his connection with a confessed 60’s radical who brags about bombing government buildings. They gloss over the fact that the Obama’s got a sweetheart deal when they bought a house for a $300,000 discount off the asking price while convicted embezzler Tony Rezko bought the adjoining vacant property for full price. Rezko then sold part of the land to Obama at a steep discount. No one in the MSM seemed the least bit curious about the $14 million dollars in federal funds Obama had help to direct to Rezko and his companies. In a shameless example of media bias, in the current issue of Newsweek, they actually go so far as to condemn John McCain for mentioning this obvious conflict of interest in recent campaign ads.

On the other side, the New York Times ran a thinly supported hit piece alleging that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist eight years earlier. The Times, facing an indignant firestorm of criticism, claimed the article was not about an alleged affair but about potential ethics problems for McCain. Their protestation seemed a bit hollow considering the first six paragraphs of a front page article was about an affair everyone denied ever happened and included a photo of the lobbyist an unnamed source had claimed the campaign was “worried” about.

It is rare when a politician will call someone a “liar” the way Obama did when the Christian Broadcasting Network asked him about his 2003 committee vote on “Born Alive” legislation while he was still in Illinois. The bill would have required doctors to try to save the life of any child born alive during a botched abortion. It turns out Obama was the one who was lying; he was in favor of letting the baby die. So far the MSM – which is nearly 100% pro-choice – has closed ranks on this little nugget and they have minimized or buried any and all stories about Barack Obama’s twisted support of a woman’s right to choose even if it means infanticide.

Among the many other stories the MSM has chosen to overlook, is the presence of several members of the wildly anti-Semitic and racist “Nation of Islam” on Obama’s senior staff both now and while he was still in the Illinois legislature. Imagine the uproar if McCain had a few avowed Klansmen working for him. They have also overlooked that in his brief time in the U.S. Senate he amassed the most liberal voting record of any member in 2007.

The mainstream media has shown no reluctance in protecting their chosen candidate and trashing McCain at every opportunity. This poses an interesting question; is it a “Republican Slime Machine” or should that title belong to the Mainstream Media?

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Redemption for the Women’s Movement?

For the past few decades the once proud women’s movement in America has been in significant decline. Their reputation hit rock bottom during the Clinton – Lewinsky scandal when they chose political expediency over protecting vulnerable women in the workplace from being exploited by powerful men. The lukewarm condemnation of the antics of Bill Clinton exposed the National Organization of Women (NOW) and others as little more than branch offices for the Democrat Party.

More recently these historical women’s organizations have turned a blind eye to the plight of women in the non-Western world. The basic human rights and freedoms that are taken for granted in our country are being systematically denied to women in vast areas of the developing and third world. Some of the worst abuses occur under Islamic Shari’a law. Instead of marches and rallies to demand the rights of their sisters abroad, the modern women’s movement seems to be taking an “I’ve got mine” attitude and have shown little interest in less fortunate women.

This may all be changing.

There is a new breed of feminist that has not lost its way and is demanding action. Lead by the intellectual author and teacher Camille Paglia and outspoken radio personality and author Tammy Bruce, the tide may be turning. These bright and articulate women are using their megaphones to call on all true feminists to return to their traditional role of promoting and protecting the rights of women everywhere.

Recently, Tammy Bruce joined us at a conference addressing the rise of Islamic states and spread of Shari’a law; and she spoke passionately on the plight of woman in the Muslim world. We were fortunate enough to get Tammy to share her views in a short but extremely powerful video. I would recommend you take two minutes and watch this important video by one of America’s new breed of women’s activists.

Some comments from Tammy Bruce:

I’ve found that the obviously right thing (such as assisting in the liberation of people) usually comes with the concomitant benefits—in this instance, remembering our own responsibilities and reawakening the voices and power of American women. The major difference with this 21st century effort, of course, is the authentically universal nature of the call for freedom and liberation. The so-called feminist movement rooted in the 60s was simply a co-option of that sentiment by leftists, which simply rode the back of the oppressed in its search for power, guaranteeing its ultimate abandonment of women and failure in general. Today’s silence of what is left of the American feminist establishment in the face of our extraordinary misogynistic Islamist enemy has been unforgivable.

Here we have a remarkable opportunity to, indeed, reawaken the power of American women, individually acting together as a voice of support and advocacy for women here and internationally. The mission is not complicated—remind the civilized world that the abuse, debasement, and murder of women is unacceptable, whether it be touted as ‘religious,’ a ‘private family matter’ or ‘cultural.’ The templates of understanding exist--oppression of people of color, as an example, is scorned worldwide as barbaric and tyrannical. South Africa reaped outrage from the world after what it had sown with the scourge of Apartheid.

We now face Apartheid of women, all in the name of religion. Just as South Africa’s racist oppression was couched as ‘cultural,’ the Islamist scourge of misogyny is touted as religious in significance. Perhaps in the uncivilized ancient world it was, but as slavery of Africans made way for the decency of the civilized world, so should oppression of women in the name of ‘religion.’

Our challenge is to not take for granted the gifts we have as Americans. American women have a special responsibility, indeed a duty, to use the power of our voices and influence to improve the quality of women’s lives, everywhere.

Click below to watch Tammy Bruce's comments:

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Dangers of "Card Check"

In 2006 the Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress because they actively recruited candidates that were more mainstream and less liberal than the Democrat leadership. Thanks to having to defend 22 U.S. Senate seats, combined with a rash of retirements and assorted scandals, there is the possibility after this fall’s election the Democrats could get to the magic number of “60” votes in the U.S. Senate. This would give the Democrats the ability to stop the Republicans from filibustering legislation.

If this were to happen and Obama were to also win the Presidential election, one of the top item on the new administration’s agenda would be the passage of "card check". While organized labor has fallen to less than 8 percent of the private sector workforce, this new legislation, misnamed the “Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA),” would allow labor unions to force themselves into a business without a secret ballot.

Barack Obama not only supports the potential intimidation of workers by aggressive “Union Organizers” from the Tony Soprano School of Charm, he co-sponsored the legislation. Recently in Denver he vowed once in the White House, “We're going to sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law."

Many of my Democrat friends who are running businesses are very concerned about the power this will give to the unions. It is very difficult for a union member, once he pays his dues to the union, to have any discretion in where those funds are spent.

If the labor unions and their beholden liberal allies in congress could ram EFCA through the senate, it would turn two centuries of secret ballot voting on its ear. This raw power grab is setting off alarm bells around the country; including places you might least expect.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.” This is not from a conservative or even a Republican. This was stated by a true dyed in the wool liberal and former Democrat presidential candidate, George McGovern in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

If the Democrats do control a bare 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans attempt to filibuster EFCA, the pressure on moderate Democrats to vote with the leadership instead of their conscience would be incredible. They could potentially see their campaign contributions dry up and even possibly face a “pro-labor” primary challenge if they didn’t toe the party line.

There is a way to prevent this from happening; be sure the Democrats do not reach the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. A swing of just a few thousand votes in several key senate races could make a huge difference.

In New Hampshire, Republican John Sununu has pulled to within the margin of error in the race to hold his seat after trailing by double digits as recently as June. The open Colorado seat is a toss up with former congressman Bob Schaffer holding his own against Mark Udall. In Louisiana, incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu is facing a stiff challenge from Republican State Treasurer, John Kennedy and this one is too close to call.

These three races could be pivotal in denying the Democrats a filibuster proof congress. It is critical we all throw our support behind the Republican Senatorial Candidates and prevent the “Nightmare Scenario” of a runaway liberal agenda being forced on our citizens.

For more information about card check visit

The Nightmare Scenario

Suppose Barack Obama wins the presidency and the Democrats get to the 60 votes necessary in the senate to stop a filibuster. The last time the Democrats had an unabashed liberal in the White House, control of the House and a filibuster proof Senate was after LBJ’s landslide victory over Goldwater in 1964. President Johnson’s coattails were long and for the next two years the Democrats held 67 of the 100 senate seats and had a 295-140 majority in the House. Even after suffering serious loses during the mid-term elections of 1966, the Democrats held their filibuster proof majority until Nixon was elected in 1968.

During this 4 year period, the following items became law:

  • Medicare
  • Medicaid
  • National Endowment of the Arts
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
  • Department of Transportation
  • Voting Rights Act of 1965
  • Immigration and Nationality Act
  • Elementary and Secondary Education Art (first Federal involvement with Education)
  • Higher Education Act (first Federal involvement with Higher Education)
  • Endangered Species Act
  • National Highway Safety Administration
  • Corporation for Public Broadcasting
  • Bilingual Education Act
  • Gun Control Act of 1968

This is just a partial list. In 1965 alone President Lyndon Johnson sent 87 bills to congress for consideration and they passed 84 of them.

What would be on the top of the agenda of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid if they had total domination of the legislative process?

  • Revive the “Fairness Doctrine” to eliminate conservative talk radio?
  • National Gay Marriage?
  • National Health Insurance?
  • Amnesty for all Illegal Aliens?
  • Legal Late Term Abortions?
  • Banning of Home Schooling?

It is critical we all throw our support behind the Republican Senatorial Candidates and prevent this “Nightmare Scenario”.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Four Major Transformations that are Shaping Political, Ecomonic and World Events

Herbert Meyer, famous for being the first to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union during his CIA career under Reagan, recently gave an address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The audience was filled with CEOs of multi-national corporations. Meyer’s speech was titled, ‘What in the World is Going On? A Global Intelligence Briefing for CEOs’.

Meyer is one of the most acclaimed analysts the Intelligence community has ever produced and has a habit of being right, but not necessarily politically correct. This important paper discusses what he sees as the “Four Major Transformations” that are confronting the world today and their looming impact.

First is the War in Iraq which he sees as the third attack by radical Islam on Western Civilization. Second is the emergence of China as an economic and military power. Third is the demographic time bomb in Europe and Japan where a declining birthrate has frightening implications. His fourth area of concern is restructuring the American business model.

Seldom do we see so many important issues interlaced so deftly; demonstrating how each global force affects the other. I urge you to read the complete article; Meyer’s historical references are excellent and his conclusions are thought provoking.

Here is a sample:


Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political, economic and world events. These transformations have profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our culture and on our way of life.

1. The War in Iraq

There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center of life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, idea of economic liberty, individual rights, human rights-all these are defining points of modern Western civilization… You can find the complete article HERE

Friday, August 1, 2008

Common Law vs Radical Islam

One of the pillars of Western Civilization is our Common Law. Unfortunately, Radical Islam is exploiting this great strength of our culture in a guerilla warfare campaign to undermine our way of life. They are using the courts’ system to silence their critics with an avalanche of lawsuits. The goal is not to necessarily win the case but to cow and intimidate anyone who may speak out against their extreme agenda.

The most glaring example of this is in Britain where “Libel Tourism” has become a cottage industry. Due to the quirk in British law, libel cases that would be tossed out by any American court, are not only filed, they are often won. It is so bad in the UK that flamboyant entertainer Liberace once sued a London tabloid for “implying” he “might” be homosexual and won! A few years later, Liberace was involved in a messy “palimony” suit when he split with his longtime, live-in boy friend.

The bigger problem with the British system is a claim can be filed even if none of the parties resides in Great Britain. A perfect example is the case of Dr. Rachael Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorism, who wrote a book titled, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. In the book she made heavily supported claims that Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz had helped finance global terrorism. Even though Dr. Ehrenfeld was an American and the book was published in the United States and not distributed to the UK, Mahfouz’s lawyers were able to convince a British court to hear the case because 23 copies of the book had been purchased online in England. Refusing to recognize the authority of a foreign court to infringe on her constitutionally protected rights as an American, Dr. Ehrenfeld, to her eternal credit, refused to defend herself against the claim. A default judgment was issued against her demanding money and an apology. Neither is forthcoming. Prompted by this case and several others, the State of New York recently passed the aptly named “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” which effectively makes any judgment by the British courts unenforceable in the state.

Khalid bin Mahfouz has used the English court system over 30 times to suppress and chill any journalist or author who looked too closely into any of the dark corners of his shady past. Recently the mere threat of legal action motivated Cambridge University Press to recall all copies of “Alms for Jihad”. In an eerie reminder of the days of Nazi book burnings, Cambridge took the added step of requesting libraries around the world destroy any copies they may have on their shelves.

Mahfouz has been so successful in using the British legal system to intimidate writers and publishers he even has a webpage where he gloats about his victories over the rights of free speech.

The big question that remains unanswered is why has the U.S. Congress and the President failed to pass legislation similar to New York's to shield our journalists, authors and scholars from potential financial ruin at the hands of a Saudi billionaire with alleged direct links to global terrorism? Isn’t it the first job of our elected officials to protect our citizens and defend the United States Constitution?

Our friends at Act! for America are conducting a letter writing campaign in support for the "Free Speech Protection Act." Please join in this worthy effort.