This is an interesting video interview from Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Have you wondered whether or not it makes sense to turn corn into ethanol? Well it doesn't! Here is an excellent video explanation as to why we cannot turn produce into sustainable energy sources and why our government should abandon an energy policy that demands we do.

Click here reason.tv ethanol

Is House Minority Leader John Boehner being outmaneuvered by the Obama team? Chip Hanlon makes the case in a recent post on Greenfaucet.com. Boehner's new hard-line position on earmarks does seem to be a classic case of too, little too late. As Hanlon points out, this is an issue that should have been addressed months ago and represents a squandered opportunity for the GOP.

Boehner's defenders may have trouble with this one but the reality is, when you are in a leadership position, leadership is required. Boehner clearly missed the boat. 

This photo (a Greenfaucet original) adds a fitting exclamation point to Hanlon's post.

We don't often think about the Secretary of State office of a given state to be that important or powerful.  Yet the Secretary of State usually oversees elections in the state, a duty which carries great responsibility.

If laws are obeyed clearly and uniformly, still, the Secretary of State's job means little power and political influence.  But with examples of election monkey-business and manipulation going all the way back to the hanging and dimpled-chads of 2000 and beyond, it quickly becomes apparent that a strong hand is needed from the SOS office to ensure those election laws are obeyed.

And so it is somewhat disturbing to learn from CNS News that there is a liberal 527 group called the Secretary of State Project which is targeting state Secretary of State offices for Democrat takeover. 

On Monday, January 5, President-elect Obama selected former Cong. Leon Panetta to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
 

Panetta's chief qualification is his utter lack of intelligence experience - meaning that he has not been involved with any of the intelligence activities in the past 7 years that have kept America safe.  This makes him an acceptable candidate to the anti-war left.

Obama's first choice to head the 20,000 person, $10 billion spy agency was John Brennan, a former top CIA officer with 25 years of experience, including time as a station chief in Saudi Arabia.  Brennan was a leader of Obama's intelligence transition team.  Obama pulled the plug on Brennan after an uproar from leftwing bloggers that he took his serious job too seriously.

The current Director of the CIA, retired USAF General Michael Hayden, was head of the code-breaking National Security Agency (NSA) for six years before being named the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence for a year. 

With complete understanding of her Constitutional role to provide "Advice and Consent" in approving a president's cabinet picks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed strong reservations about Cong. Panetta.  Sen. Feinstein said, "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director...  My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Indeed.

With America still engaged in fighting a dangerous foe, one who killed 3,000 people that dark September day in 2001, we need an experienced and steady hand at the CIA.

In contradistinction to Sen. Feinstein's sobriety regarding a vital national security position, California's junior U.S. Senator, Barbara Boxer, enthused over the choice of Panetta, saying Obama has, "...picked the right person."

Time will tell.

If Sen. Barbara Boxer votes to confirm Cong. Panetta to be the new CIA Director, and he wins confirmation, a large portion of America's safety will be the responsibility of a man possessing no intelligence and foreign policy experience. 

You probably missed this because it appeared in the Long Island Business News last week.

Remember the NY Times story that linked a beautiful, blond, Cindy McCain look-a-like lobbyist to John McCain last winter?

Well, she is has filed a 36 page lawsuit against the paper!

The story was timed to negatively affect the McCain primary campaign. Here is the lead of the story:

Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman has filed a $27 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times for a February article about Iseman and her relationship with Sen. John McCain.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on Tuesday, alleges the article falsely communicated that Iseman and McCain had an illicit "romantic" relationship in 1999 when he was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and she was a lobbyist representing clients before Congress.

The suit also names the executive editor of the Times, its Washington bureau chief and four reporters who wrote the story as defendants.

William Keller, the paper's executive editor, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the suit.

The entire story can be read at:McCain Affair Story

Senate Republicans should vote to seat Ronald Burris

Much as been made the last few weeks about the selection of former Attorney general Roland Burris to take Barack Obama's seat in the Illinois Senate. Governor Rod Blagojevich sent the political world reeling by making the selection, while under investigation for "selling" the seat.

Democrats who usually don't get embarrassed over corruption have threatened not to seat him.

There has been a lot of discussion. Is Burris easier to beat in 2010? Is there gain in keeping the scandal alive? The longer with another liberal Senator the better. On the Democratic side there are some of the same questions plus race that come into the equation.

None of this matters.

The Constitution doesn't provide a mechanism to deny him his seat. It should allow the Senate to decide he is unfit for service. He was appointed properly under the Illinois Constitution. Blagojevich is still the Governor and he should be seated. To do otherwise would turn the law and the constitution on it's head. And that is dangerous.

There are six candidates vying to run the Republican National Committee, and the showdown comes this week.

The candidates are former Maryland Lt Governor Michael Steele, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, Michigan Republican party Chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson, Chip Saltsman, who was Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign manager, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

Several of these candidates have a lot going for them, but I've long had a liking for the conservatism of Ken Blackwell.

Blackwell is strongly pro-life, pro-gun, and fought for passage of Ohio's marriage protection amendment (he even had to oppose some RINO Republicans on this issue).  In addition to being a strong social conservative, he's also a fiscal conservative.

In the coming year, it would be great if there were greater clarity regarding the genuine culprits responsible for crimes against humanity.  In the current conflict with Hamas, Israel retaliated after being bombarded with hundreds of Hamas initiated mortars and rockets.  Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects (EU, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UN, etc.) urge proportionality and restraint from the Israeli side.

However, if leaders of these organizations and states had to experience what Israelis must endure daily, they'd be singing a different tune.  They's want to use all means necessary to protect themselves by putting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah out of business permanently.

It would be fantastic for a change if all nations could identify the real threats to civilization (terrorists and their sponsors) and then be resolved to dismantle their infrastructures.  Any nation has the right to exist and defend itself against pre-emptive attacks from rogue groups and states.

Indeed, Hamas offers no warning as to when and where it will strike innocent civilians.  By contrast, the Israelis notify Gaza residents regarding the location and time of its retaliatory strikes against terrorists.  Moreover, the IDF's policy is to minimize civilian casualties during military responses to unprovoked attacks.

Any blame for civilian casualties on both sides rests squarely on Hamas and its supporters.  Life on both sides of the conflict is very cheap to Hamas.  They want to intimidate and terrorize Israel to pump up their followers, and invite Palestinian casualties in order to garner media sympathy.  Yet in no cases has Hamas ever been a victim, because they are always the aggressor against Israel.  

Hamas militants use their own people as human shields as they launch indiscriminate attacks on Israel.  Moreover, these so called "brave" fighters and leaders often hide behind hoods.  This is the same Hamas that brutalizes Fatah and the Gazans, are incapable of governing, and constantly defy the land-for-peace deal of 2005.  Palestinians got the land, but they failed to hold up their end of the bargain regarding peaceful co-existence with Israel.

Our campaign just sent this news release out on the wires:

United States Senate candidate California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore supports Israel's Gaza operation

DeVore: "America must support Israel's right to defend itself against terrorists"

Chuck DeVore, a California legislator and declared candidate for the United States Senate in 2010 against Barbara Boxer, announced his support of the state of Israel's current military operations in Gaza. 

"For the last several years I have been amazed at the forbearance and restraint shown by Israel as Hamas terrorists rained down rocket after rocket purposefully targeted at Israeli civilians," Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said.  "Imagine if terrorists in Tijuana regularly shot rockets into San Diego - America wouldn't stand for it.  I support Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. The terrorist organization Hamas has brought this defensive military operation on itself."

DeVore was in the Israeli city of Sderot two years ago and met Mayor Eli Moyal who expressed his frustration at the constant terror rocket attacks.  Sderot is sometimes darkly referred to as "Qassam City" after the name of the most common Hamas terror rocket.  In 2006, the year DeVore last visited Israel, an average of three Qassams per day were fired into Israel, mostly into Sderot, a town of 20,000.  DeVore has been to Israel four times since 1984 as well as to Lebanon, Egypt, and the West Bank.

Chuck DeVore has served in the California State Assembly since 2004.  He retired from the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer with the rank of lieutenant colonel.  DeVore served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon from 1986 to 1988 as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs and in that capacity he helped to start America's support of the development of Israel's Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile.

DeVore for California's website is: www.ChuckDeVore.com. The campaign's main social networking site is at: www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-DeVore/22771210763. Or follow Chuck on Twitter @chuckdevore. 

A Who's Who of the Conservative movement that includes the likes of RNC Committeman Morton Blackwell (No relation!), Jim Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Aldrich, Ed Meese, Richard Viguerie, Pat Toomey, David Keene, Becky Norton Dunlop and Steve Forbes have signed on the the Ken Blackwell for RNC Chair campaign.

In a joint press release issued through the Council for National Policy Inc. They picked Blackwell after getting responses to question from all the current candidates.

Here is complete list of the endorsements. Titles are for identification purposes. This a shot in the arm for the Blackwell campaign.

1. Gary Aldrich, Chairman, CNP Action, Inc.
2. Morton C. Blackwell, Virginia Republican National Committeeman
3. Robert B. Bluey, Contributing Editor, RedState
4. L. Brent Bozell, Founder and President, Media Research Center
5. Kellyanne Conway, CEO and President, the polling company, inc./WomanTrend
6. T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Former Domestic Advisor to President Reagan
7. James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family
8. Becky Norton Dunlop, President, Council for National Policy
9. Stuart W. Epperson, Chairman, Salem Communications Corporation
10. Steve Forbes, Chairman & CEO, Forbes Media
11. Dr. Ronald Godwin, Vice Chancellor, Liberty University
12. Rebecca Hagelin, Author and Conservative Columnist
13. Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
14. David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union
15. Tim LaHaye, Founder and President, Tim LaHaye Ministries
16. Ed Meese, Past President, Council for National Policy
17. James C. Miller, Past President, Council for National Policy
18. Tony Perkins, President Family Research Council
19. Ken Raasch, Chairman & CEO, Creative Brands Group
20. Alfred S. Regnery, Publisher, The American Spectator
21. Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
22. Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth
23. Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

With a little over two weeks between today and the inauguration of our new president, Investors' Business Daily posted an insightful editorial on James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a letter he sent to Barack and Michelle Obama. Hansen is proposing a carbon tax as a method for re-distributing wealth. I'm sure he's found a willing audience

Hansen suggests that the tax be levied "at the well-head or port of entry" from where it "will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels."

This tax will have "near-term, mid-term, and long-term" effects on "lifestyle choices," Hansen acknowledges. But he seems unconcerned about how such coercion will rearrange the lives and manage the behavior of a people who should be free of state coercion.

Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to reveal the environmentalist left's deeper ambition: a collectivist redistribution of wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to the public in "equal shares on a per capita basis."

You can read the entire IBD editorial at IBDEditorials.com

Last spring I wrote on other environmental issues and actions which can be read at: environmentalism

New Year's Day is always a day of optimism as the old is swept aside and the new looked forward to as the light at the end of the tunnel for some and a vast frontier of new possibilities for others. I suppose those who share my belief in conservative political principles would tend to subscribe to the former, but I'm choosing the latter road in this instance.

This optimism, though, comes with the galvanizing thought that things almost can't get worse, either as a nation whose economy is ravaged by a deep recession or as those who comprise the bulk of a political party whose influence was even more severely tarnished and corroded in recent national election. One could almost describe our movement as equivalent to the Tampa Bay Rays baseball franchise, whose short existence was marked by year after year in the basement of the American League.

In 2008, however, the Rays turned their fortunes around by securing the American League pennant for the first time in franchise history. And while they fell short of their ultimate goal by losing the World Series to the Philadelphia Phillies (who had also overcome a lengthy streak of futility), they achieved their true initial goal of making the playoffs, a possibility many baseball observers didn't even have on the radar screen as the 2008 season commenced.

Oddly enough, the Rays' triumph actually is reflective of how our movement can succeed in two key areas.

For several years, the Rays had quietly built up a very successful farm system with a number of solid prospects and those young players all worked their way up the minor league ranks until they were ready to come of age in 2008.

Secondly, the team stressed fundamentals and preached a team concept with a goal in mind. Rays manager Joe Maddon termed it as 9=8: nine players playing smart, hard baseball for nine innings equals one of the eight playoff spots available to teams in Major League Baseball. The Rays accomplished that goal in each game often enough to win the American League's Eastern Division, then defeated two other teams in the playoffs to win the AL flag.

While a political movement is no leisurely pastime, those principles can apply to our cause as well.

For years, we've spoken about building up a farm team of prospects who begin in local and state political races and work their way up the ladder. While we as conservatives rightfully point to two state governors - Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Sarah Palin in Alaska - as examples of the GOP's future leadership on a national stage, part of the overall question becomes who replaces them as they graduate up the ladder in politics.

More importantly to me, however, is the other part of the query: how will they be assisted in their efforts? We saw in Palin's case a serious reluctance by many in the party to assist her efforts both in Alaska and in her campaign backing John McCain's run for the White House. Palin's political career has been one of alienation as she wasn't the GOP establishment candidate in Alaska nor did she have the full support of many of the so-called establishment Republicans in the nation's capital. On the other hand, Jindal hasn't received that same treatment but the situation in Louisiana was far different as the state Republican party wasn't already in power as he made his bid, nor has he ever been thrust into a situation of running on a national stage. It remains to be seen how he'll be treated should he decide to run for national office in 2012, but one of his advantages could be having spent some time in the nation's capital as a Congressman.

From where I sit as part of the grassroots, I look at those establishment Republicans and shake my head in disbelief. I'm sure I speak for many among us who cringe every time someone in Washington or a state capital talks about "bipartisanship" when the other side rarely gives an inch - at least insofar as the size and scope of government is concerned. The way I look at it, slowing down the pace of government growth isn't a concession by the other side.

This brings me to the other part of the equation, fundamentals.

When I signed up for this Republican Party gig, I did so because they were the closest political home to my core beliefs of limited, Constitutional government and as a party that has won on a national stage with at least one candidate who had a similar political outlook, he being Ronald Reagan. The first vote I ever cast for President was for Reagan's re-election in 1984, and to this day it's likely the one Presidential vote I didn't regret making somewhere down the line.

Prior to his election as President, in fact years prior to his nomination as the party's standardbearer, Reagan spoke of a political palette comprising bold colors rather than pale pastels. Reagan spoke as one who had little to lose by making his beliefs public, and we as a movement find ourselves in a similar position as 2009 dawns.

I'm writing to you from the state of Maryland, whose General Assembly is about to convene for what I like to term the "90 days of terror" that the body's session is limited to by our state's Constitution. To gain power in our state's legislature, the Republican Party next year (and yes, 2010 is now "next year") would have to add 35 seats to the 36 it currently holds in the House of Delegates and ten seats to the 14 they have in the State Senate (which in total number 141 and 47, respectively.) They would have to win four of the state's eight Congressional seats - including one they just lost in the 2008 election - and keep their one incumbent to become a majority of the state's Congressional delegation, and defeat a Senator who's been in office since 1986 to regain a Republican Senate seat for the first time in decades. To more or less of a degree, this situation exists in many other states. We are in a position where we have nothing to lose by attempting to shift the debate in a more conservative direction.

For years, we have allowed those who favor a larger, more powerful yet less Constitutional government at all levels to control the debate.

This has to end now.

The debate should be moved to the court of making them justify why their programs, some of which have been in force now since the New Deal of the 1930's and others from the Great Society of the 1960's, should remain in place when their stated goals have not been met and their continuance threatens the very foundation of the nation's economy. To that end, we need to engage those who believe in an overarching, all-powerful government in ways they haven't been before. Perhaps this is controversial to say, but we need to conduct our own sort of guerrilla warfare here - not with bullets or bombs, but by forcing them to defend their points at times when they would be otherwise off-guard. In truth, it's what we should do for all of our elected leaders of whatever stripe; however, those who are on our side should rarely need to be questioned as to why they advocate policy and vote as they do.

In most states, 2009 is simply a year where local offices are up for grabs. It's a perfect time to lay the groundwork for what is to come next year; a crush of mid-term and state elections which will shape the political landscape for a decade or more as redistricting will for the most part be in the control of next year's winners.

As movement conservatives, it is our task to develop, engage, and most importantly educate those who haven't developed or are amenable to change their political philosophy by practicing what we preach in limiting government and explaining why this is to the public's benefit, particularly when the Left is reliable in trotting out "victims" of "mean-spirited cuts" in government spending and regulation.

Unlike the Rays, whose "next year" finally came in 2008, we still may not achieve all of our goals in 2010. Political change takes a much longer time on the calendar than uprooting the previous American League standings does, although our Orioles seem to be an exception to that rule. As a movement, we need to become anti-political as far as thinking one generation ahead rather than one election ahead. When the Left says that something is "for the children" they need to be asked whether the effect their new program will have on that generation's freedom and wallet is being taken into account, and whether the benefits merit the cost. In many cases, they'll have a hard time justifying the effort if challenged to prove their point.

Our success will not be measurable in what's accomplished, but by what does not happen. Barack Obama is on record as complaining that the Constitution is written as "negative rights" - those things which government cannot do. If we are to be the party that reflects the intent of the Founders, we must engage in pressing for negative government and bringing back the equilibrium between the branches of government and the tension between rights of the government and the governed, erring in favor of the governed.

I hope everyone running for the chairmanship of the Republican Party will read and understand what I've written here. Principle over politics need not be unpopular. Let's make 2009 the year we begin the recovery - not just an economic one but one of Constitutional government as well.

Fast away the old year passes. But instead of making resolutions for 2009 that likely wouldn't be kept, I find myself reflecting on the warm glow of the most recent Christmas past and hoping that each of us, for many Christmases yet to come, will be more Scrooge-like in our observance of the holiday. Yes, that Scrooge - old Ebeneezer himself. 

Scrooge commonly is remembered as "a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!" to whom Christmas was an annoying "humbug," as Charles Dickens described him. A cold, solitary miser who was "hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire...."

But that was Scrooge before his Christmas Eve transformation, brought about by visits from the ghost of Jacob Marley and the three spirits of Christmas. Thereafter, "he became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man" as his or any city knew. "It was always said of him," Dickens observed, "that he knew how to keep Christmas well...."

Most (if not all) of us who are conservative reject the progressive belief in human perfection. Rather, we acknowledge that we are imperfect creatures in need of redemption beyond ourselves. And redemption is what the Christmas story is all about. Dickens shared with us a tale of redemption that entertains and resonates still (with its enduring images of a Victorian holiday) - and challenges each of us not only to keep Christmas well but also to live well, in love and charity with our neighbors, all the year through.

Now, as we prepare to embark on what could be a perilous journey through the vast unknown in the New Year that lies ahead, "God bless us, every one!"

Ralph Nichols writes on public policy and legal issues from the Seattle area. He can be reached at ranichols2@yahoo.com.

 

Quite often, Muslim advocacy groups repeat the mantra that Islam is a religion of justice, peace, and tolerance.  If that is the case, how would Muslims respond to some of these ideas that could bring about more equilibrium in the world?

First, when a company from the Middle East wishes to set up shop and do business in the West, a Western firm ought to be allowed to do the same in a Muslim dominant state.  If an Islamic bank is established in a democratic nation, then a Christian or Jewish bank ought to be welcomed in the Middle East.

Next, Saudi funded media enterprises, mosques, and schools have sprung up in some free societies.  Each time that the Saudis finance a Wahhab organization, any Western democracy should be allowed to build a media outlet, church, synagogue, temple, and school in the Gulf States.  That would more closely resemble justice and tolerance.

Third, whenever non-Muslims are persecuted in Muslim states, the world should hear about it pronto.  Likewise, each time that distortions regarding the Judeo-Christian heritage are spread via Middle East media, mosques, and textbooks, free nations should refute the propaganda with facts.

Fourth, when Muslim advocacy groups support frivolous litigation against an American entity or individual, that entity or individual ought to file a countersuit regarding the abuse of our legal system and waste of tax dollars.  Moreover, free societies ought to export some humor to developing states and autocratic Muslim societies.

Courtesy of Alberto Araoz
Westminster, California
E-MAIL: aaraoz@sbcglobal.net

In the US, if one commits a crime (whether felony or misdemeanor) it is not uncommon for that person to have his/her rights restricted by such behavior. Many of these restrictions are encoded in the federal and state constitutions. Different jurisdictions apply their own rules. This came up during the last election with regard to those states that permit felons who have fulfilled their sentences to exercise their right to vote.

California, a state which has implemented a number of laws which do not necessarily apply anywhere else, is breaking new ground with regards to the right of privacy for those on probation:

Whether it's Fluffy or Fido, probationers must tell probation officers about any pet they own, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The decision kills a 2005 challenge from San Bernardino County Superior Court saying that the pets requirement was too general. In the opinion, the court cited the need to protect probation officers from dangerous animals when they check on probationers.

Now, I realize that this is a small thing, but I believe it speaks to a greater context. There is nothing inherently wrong with having pets. People on probation may well have a desire for pets which in no way endangers someone coming for a visit from the probation office.

The stated reasoning behind this decision is a concern for the safety of the probation officers. While I am by no means casting aspersions on any person who functions in that role, I am wondering why the probation officers need such protection. If the people who have dangerous pets are going to use them against the probation officers, then why are the people out on probation in the first place? It would seem as though they (the probationers) should hardly be eligible for such treatment if their regard for authority is so small.

If an animal attacks an officer of the law while that officer is performing his/her prescribed duty, then I believe the officer has every right to disable/kill the animal without legal repercussions. To me, this approach is much more in keeping with the laws of liberty than requiring that those on probation disclose a list of pets on the premises. When government reaches into one area of a person's life it only a matter of time before it extends its reach: all with the best of intentions.

Erie County editor, Rus Thompson was listed as one of the top ten most fascinating people in Western New York by WBEN radio. Doubtful that this comes as a surprise to Red County readers who follow his work. Rus is an outspoken political advocate and not one to pull punches when dissecting the issues or disemboweling those who seek to trample our rights and founding principles.

Rus provides a voice of reason to Erie County politics and is a genuine asset to the Red County team. WBEN obviously did their homework. Congratulations, Rus!

Mary Anastasia O'Grady penned a terrific column about the inexplicable-yet-ongoing worship of Che Guevara by the Left -- in this case, the uber-wealthy precincts in Hollywood via director Stephen Soderberg's upcoming film "Che":

Bad things happen in society when "you make profit the point of everything," the movie director told Politico.com. Che's "dream of a classless society, a society that isn't built on the profit motive, is still relevant. The arguments still going on are about his methodology."

Putting aside for a moment the hilarity of Mr. Soderbergh's personal revulsion with profits, the "methodology" that he suggests is debatable is otherwise known as murder. Che had a "homicidal idea of justice," Alvaro Vargas Llosa explained in The New Republic in 2005, after researching his life. In his April 1967 "Message to the Tricontinental," Che spoke these words: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."

You can read the rest of the column here.

I have never understood the Left's exultation of Che Guevara, especially callow college students wearing his image emblazoned on t-shirts. They might as well be wearing Stalin t-shirts. The only real difference between the two killers was Che lacked Stalin's tenure, machinery of death and access to to victims.

But O'Grady makes a salient point about the stark contrast between profit-decrying Hollywood worshipfully cashing in on a murderous thug like Guevara, while ignoring the oppression of their fellow artists in Castro's island prisonhouse.

You know, Caroline Kennedy would, you know, make a great Democrat representative for, you know, New York in the U.S. Senate. 

She's so, you know, articulate.  You know? 

(30 times!)

When bamboozler-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks, folks with any common sense know that he is up to his old tricks as he attempts to hoodwink the civilized world.  Of course, it's not so hard to pull the wool over the eyes of liberal media outlets such as Britain's Channel Four TV.  It allowed the Iranian dictator to present a counterpoint to the Queen's Christmas message, thus illustrating its addiction to sensationalism.

It's funny how Ahmadinejad clumsily attempts to disguise his hatred for democracy and liberty with soaring politically correct speech so similar to the "diversity" that liberals espouse.  His phony baloney wishes of goodwill to people of all cultures and faiths contradicts the thirty-year track record of his brutal theocratic regime.

In his message, Ahmadinejad said, "If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists, and bullies the world over." 

If that is the case, then Ahmadinejad must be talking about his own nation, because Iran is an expansionist power that opposes universal God-given liberty.  Iran finances and supports proxy warfare against Israel and Lebanon, and it's a primary sponsor of global terror.

Soon-to-be very powerful Senator Harry Reid (D) of Nevada is already gearing up for re-election, as reported by the WSJ:

Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising.

Starting early could help Sen. Reid avoid the fate of his predecessor, Tom Daschle, who was Democratic leader for a decade before losing his re-election bid in South Dakota in 2004. The current Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, narrowly won re-election in Kentucky this year.

[...]

Sen. Reid traveled to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico late last month to meet with campaign contributors. A spokesman for Sen. Reid said he expects to have $3 million in his campaign account at the end of the year, up from about $2.75 million on Oct. 1. Sen. Reid spent $7 million in his 2004 race.

Two Democratic Senate colleagues, South Dakota's Tim Johnson and Oregon's Jeff Merkley, have sent emails to their supporters seeking contributions to Sen. Reid's campaign.

A few thoughts are in order here. First, I'd like to draw your attention to the places that Senator Reid is going to for fundraising: Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Oregon and South Dakota. Isn't the esteemed senator from Nevada? I know, I know, campaigns are increasingly seeking funding outside the states (or in the case of the recent presidential election, outside the country) where the actual election occurs. Nonetheless, I find it remarkable that Tim Johnson is asking South Dakotans to pony up for Reid's re-election at this point. After all, we've yet to see if he can deliver while working with the Obama administration.

Second, I find the parallel with Daschle's losing campaign to be quite interesting. After all, in that campaign, Tom Daschle had started running for re-election months before his competition even got his staff together. Part of the perceived benefit to the eventual winner of that election (John Thune) was that Daschle wore out the airwaves with advertising to the point where folks simply got tired of hearing them.

Finally, I see hope for conservatives in Mr. Reid's careful planning. Standing at the top of the heap does often mean that one is more easily picked off. More than that, however, is the tacit understanding that being a powerful member of the winning party guarantees nothing when it comes to the only people (in this case, Nevada voters) who have the power to retire a senator.

Senator Reid has every cause to be concerned. It will be instructive to see how much his desire for self-preservation gets in the way of his desire to lead the Senate in a decidedly leftward direction.

Historically, the political Left has hated and despised the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie of Marxist thought. Yet in our times, the Left has realized (or rather re-realized) the political suicide of openly denigrating the "mushy middle."

The Left has always hated the middle class because it has always represented and been the chief obstacle to its utopia, its unconstrained vision, its establishment of heaven on earth. Going back to at least Aristotle, observant political scholars have recognized the stability that a middle class brings to society. But the Left is not interested in stability, far from it. The Left is interested in revolution, in transformation, in the creation of the New Man; in a word: Change, the very opposite of stability. Moreover, the middle class tends to be less vulnerable to demagogic appeals to irrational class envy or self-hatred. In general, the middle class has also been the guardian of traditional religion and morality from generation to generation.  From every angle, the Left has had every reason to attack the middle class.

However, it has been said that the first rule of politics in democratic or semi-democratic nations is to add and multiply, not subtract and divide. Of course, from a practical, electoral perspective, political leaders, if they are to stand for anything at all, can't help but divide the public with their rhetoric and policy positions. No, it is not a question of whether a politician will divide the country but how and to what extent he will divide it.

And if the middle class (admittedly a nebulous term) represents a majority, if not a super-majority (as it almost always has in America), then any political movement cannot afford to alienate this class--if it cares anything for practical, electoral success, i.e. power.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party have (re-)learned this lesson well. They campaigned as champions of the middle class, with the unending mantra of promising tax breaks for the lower and middle classes rather than the wealthy (Tax breaks for those who pay relatively little to no taxes?). This stance may work well politically under the current unfavorable economic conditions, just as FDR was successful in pushing his socialist-fascist policy agenda during the Great Depression. But as a matter of economic policy, it is unsustainable and not in the public interest. Conservatives and Republicans must powerfully communicate and demonstrate this truth the the American people.

When the American middle class re-awakens to this harsh reality, it will turn on the leftists, just as it did on Jimmy Carter. After that, it will only be  a matter of time before the Left's natural hatred of the middle class re-emerges. The Left's only hope is to weaken, corrupt,  or destroy the middle class before it re-awakens, or to patiently wear it down over time and enjoy the fruits at a later time. We conservatives must work to win over the middle class (or more of it) again. We must illustrate the economic harm that the Left is inflicting upon everyone. We must be in the fight for the long haul as well.

I find one budget consideration that has received little or no discussion in the current fiscal debates--the massive cost of illegal immigration on both state and federal budgets. Too many politicians consider illegal immigration to be another third rail in politics. The unwillingness of politicians at the federal, state, and local levels to effectively deal with the social, financial, and political ramifications of a shadow population estimated at 12-20 million people, many of whom have entered the United States illegally, and others who overstayed their visas, is a major contribution to the budget shortfalls of many states.

California is facing a $40 billion budget shortfall in the next few months. But California is not alone in facing unprecedented budget shortfalls. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that 44 states are facing budget shortfalls in 2009.

Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed raising California taxes and has pleaded with the Legislature's Democrat majority to cut spending. Californians are already burdened by the third highest tax rates in the country, only Connecticut and New York have higher tax burdens. The state legislature's out-of-control spend and tax culture has lead to a 40% increase in state spending during Schwarzenegger's tenure. The "post-partisan" governor vetoed last week's budget proposal due to the questionable tax and/or "fee" programs that the legislature passed to close the budget gap, but look for another run on our pocketbooks from California lawmakers.

I am forced to live within my budget and the California Legislature needs to learn how to live within the state's means as well.

In 2004 the Center for Immigration Studies released a report The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget. The full report is available on their website at http://www.cis.org. Here is an excerpt from the report:

It must be remembered that, for the most part, illegal households using programs like free school lunch or Medicaid are receiving these benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, who under current law are awarded citizenship at birth. Of course, the costs of providing services to these children are very real for taxpayers and result from illegals having been allowed to enter and stay in the country. And having the federal government feed or provide medical care to their children is an enormous benefit to illegal aliens. Thus, in considering the consequences for public coffers, counting the costs of these programs is necessary, otherwise one would gain a very false sense of illegal immigration's present costs. Nonetheless, the fact that it is the U.S.-born children receiving the benefits is still important, because it means that barring illegals from using programs would not significantly reduce costs. Their citizen children would continue to receive them. On the other hand, if the illegal families were made to return home, the costs would be eliminated.

If the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year.

But, most of the social costs of illegal immigration are born by the state budgets. It is estimated that California taxpayers spends over $10 billion per year to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegal immigrants.

There are 6 million students in California public schools. 1.3 million children speak Spanish as their first language. 21% of California's public school enrollment is living in a Spanish speaking household. That translates to $16 billion dollars in education costs to students who are quite likely from homes with at least one illegal immigrant parent.

The Urban Institute website had the following statistic:

Over one fifth of all U.S. children have at least one immigrant parent, and child welfare systems are encountering large and increasing numbers of these children.

The Urban Institute numbers coincide with the percentage of Spanish language English learners in California schools.

I have seen estimates that say half of the inmates in California's jails and prisons are illegal immigrants. It is difficult to compile demographic data on those incarcerated in the various county, state, and federal prisons for a realistic confirmation of these numbers. But if just 30 percent of the 171,000 California state inmates are illegal immigrants, it costs the state nearly $2 billion to incarcerate illegal immigrants in the state prison system at a cost of $36,000 per inmate. How much more does it cost to house illegal immigrants in California's counties?

Whether these numbers area accurate or inflated, it is clear that there is a heavy taxpayer burden to fund programs for illegal immigrants. The budget impact is large and pervasive. I haven't discussed is the cost to our court system, welfare, healthcare, and infrastructure. Finding actual and reliable statistics are difficult because the government doesn't want there to be transparency in the tax burden. 

Immigrants have been a vital and important part of our nation's history. And legal immigration will continue to be an integral aspect of life in our nation. But, illegal immigration continues to be an unsustainable drain on public resources.

A nation of law cannot turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Immigrant rights groups love to shout "racism" in a effort to stop legitimate debate on how to remedy the problem. But, the American citizens have a right to know who is in the country, and the U.S government has a responsibility to protect the sovereignty of our laws and borders.

There are effective tools for promoting the voluntary self-deportation of illegal immigrants and their families. And, there are effective measures for protecting our borders and ports of entry. It just takes the political will of our elected officials to get the ball rolling.

The Japanese one, that is, both here and in Japan. As Japanese auto purchases plummet, Japanese car companies are ratcheting down domestic production.

Production of passenger cars in Japan decreased 20.3 percent in November from the previous year to 737,797 vehicles, while production of trucks here declined 20.9 percent for the month to 106,170.

...

Auto executives have expressed dismay at the fall in Japanese sales, which have worsened in the last two months.

Japanese plants are being idled to reduce production, and thousands of assembly line workers have lost their jobs in recent weeks.

In the meantime, Japanese companies are also cutting production at their array of plants here in the US, but so far have only cut contract and part-time workers. Despite cuts in Ohio, Indiana and Alabama production, Honda is avoiding layoff. Toyota has avoided them so far, but may be forced into cutting North American workers.

What does this mean? Mostly that American auto workers aren't competing with Japanese workers any more, but with each other. The Japanese labor market is driven by Japanese demand, and the American labor market is being driven by American auto demand. These plants were originally put here to meet domestic US demand, and that's what they're doing.

Secondly, Japanese multinationals are no more loyal to Tokyo than US-based multinationals are loyal to the US. Otherwise, these Japanese companies would be cutting US employment in order to keep their Japanese workers employed, exporting cars to the US.

Finally, beware a currency collapse. Should the dollar decline precipitously against the Yen, and 14% is not precipitous, even operations that are making money here in the US could be endangered. All those dollars that Honda is making only help the parent company if they can be profitably shifted to other markets or other facilities. Otherwise, they're only good here in the US. If those dollars won't buy enough Yen, or Bhat, or whatever, to finance improvements elsewhere, their value to Honda HQ is greatly diminished.