Over the past few years as I have moved from being a Republican to being a Conservative, I have noticed that many Republicans/Conservatives harbor some serious pipe dreams. They have a tendency to long for days gone by, for situations past, and they look at those times as the "good old days". Now, those days may not ever have been as good as we like to think they were, but they still stand as beacons for the way we wish things were. We also have a serious tendency to harbor pipe dreams and make them part of what conservatives want to see happen; we make those dreams part of our requirements for candidates and use them as disqualifying points for others. But those ideas and dreams are often do us more harm than good, so here is my list of the 5 pipe dreams we need to let go of and move forward:

1. Roe v. Wade: Roe may be the worst piece of "law" ever foisted upon this country, as it is entirely based on legal fictions. It is a monument to the massive egos of the Warren Court, which decided that the job of the Court was to force it's social views on the rest of the country. It was lawless, unreasonable, and repugnant to the Constitution. But with all of that said, we need to let go of the idea that Roe is going to be overturned. No matter who the President is, no matter how many conservative justices sit in the Court, no matter how long we wait Roe is going to stand. The best we can do is hope for opinions that chip away at Roe gradually and return the decisions regarding abortion back to the states, because there will be no outright overturning of this legal abomination.
2. Federal Marriage Amendment: As much as we may oppose the redefinition of marriage by the forces gathered on the left in this country, we will never see any amendment to the Constitution that allows the practice in any way, shape, form, or fashion. It has been tried before and has failed, not because of massive protests against the idea, but because of the unwieldy mechanism of amending the Constitution. There is simply not enough support for the idea to get a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress or to get 2/3 of state legislatures in this country to call for a national convention. And honestly, this is a matter best left to the states to decide as well; the social mores of the states should be the deciding factor on whether this is acceptable or not. We just have to allow the people to decide the issue at the ballot box, and not some state court (hello Massachusetts!).
3. Internal Revenue Service: Politicians always know they can get a round of applause by going after the IRS, because everyone hates the IRS. And with good reason; the IRS may be technically a part of Treasury, but it is basically a department of its own. Not only does it have the expected tax geeks running around picking your pockets, but it has its own investigative division, and damn near has police powers! The IRS is very powerful, and very scary to most people: never forget, the FBI couldn't get Al Capone but the IRS did! So we all long for the day and for a politician to do something...anything...to reign the IRS in, and in our fondest dreams, to shut them down. After all, the existence of the IRS is unconstitutional on it's face, right? The only thing is that no one is going to do anything about the IRS because they perform a function that the federal government needs; they are the ones that do the dirty work assigned them by the Congress. The IRS did not create itself and does not sustain itself, the politicians in Washington do...and use the IRS as convenient scapegoats for their bloodsucking ways. The IRS is the face of the confiscation of American wealth to be given to the government to (mis)spent on all of its grand schemes. The IRS is never going to go away because they are the muscle that keeps the Congressional crime bosses out of trouble.
4. Department of Education: No one that looks at the educational state of America can honestly say that the Department of Education has been a boon to American education. In fact, since the federal government decided to hijack education from local school boards, America's educational standing in the world has steadily slipped despite the massive amounts of taxpayer cash that has been pumped into the system. The problem is the same as any other bureaucracy...people in Washington, DC have no earthly idea what students in Walnut Cove, NC really need. They don't know what the educational and community standards are in Axton, Va., and they have no idea if there is a need for vocational education programs in Laramie, Wyo. But you can't convince them of that, can you? And the influence of the Department of Ed. is not going to diminish anytime soon, because state and local school officials are addicted to the federal monies they receive for their districts. They have become so dependent on money for free and reduced lunch programs and Title X funds that if the fed told them to show "Debbie Does Dallas" to 4th graders as an educational tool, they would break their collective necks to do so! We may rail, with good reason, about how much of a failure the Department of Ed. is, but it ain't going anywhere!
5. Smaller government: If there has ever been an oxymoron committed to paper, "smaller government" is it! The nature of government is to expand and to grab any power that it can get without a fight. And our government is the world's greatest example of this: we have departments for energy, education, health & human services, occupational health & safety, land management, and space exploration. And in each of the areas that the government expands into, it tries to establish total control; that's why you have to get a freaking building permit to build a deck on your own property! Conservatives would love to see the government shrink, and hold fast to that idea...but  more realistic expectation is in order. Government is not going to get any smaller, so what we need to do is try to hold the line where it is. It may not be the dream scenario, but if the government is ever going to be scaled back we need to stop it from expanding any more than it has already.

So there you have it, my top five conservative pipe dreams. Let me know what you think, and feel free to add comments as you see fit!

 

Looking at the race for the Democratic presidential nomination many pundits, analysts, and the like are marveling at how badly the “Clinton Machine” is responding to the challenge of Barak Obama. They are surprised at how impotent the Clinton’s attacks on the Obama campaign have been, and they are openly wondering why. How has the infamous “Clinton Machine” suddenly become unable to do any opposition research on Obama, and why has its every move been so deftly countered by Barak…the “Man Of Hope”?

Why, isn’t this the same “Clinton Machine” that was able to turn a legitimate Special Counsel investigation into a “witch hunt” out to destroy the President? Isn’t this the same “Machine” that was able to turn Ken Starr into a man pilloried in the press as some sort of pervert for investigating Bill Clinton’s perverted sexual acts with “…that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”? Isn’t this the group that destroyed Paula Jones’s credibility after she accused the President of sexual harassment; that buried Juanita Broderick’s rape allegations; that escaped serious scrutiny over the Travel Office affair, and “File gate”? The “Machine” that allowed Bill Clinton to become the first “Teflon President” and ushered Mrs. Clinton into the US Senate by making her appear to be under physical assault in a Senate debate has utterly failed to land a glove on the senator from Illinois.

There is a very good reason that the “Clinton Machine” is failing, despite having Paul Begala and James “Serpent Head” Carville cheerleading for Mrs. Clinton. The faces are the same, yet their tried and true methods and tactics have failed miserably. The reason that they are failing is as obvious as the nose on Geraldo’s face, and that is that their main coconspirator for the 8 years that Bill Clinton occupied the White House has left them high and dry. That’s right; the media have deserted them and fallen in love with “Barak the Magic Negro!”

All of this time we were all giving the Clinton’s credit for being superior politicians and the “Machine” for being deadly efficient in destroying the Clinton’s enemies, we missed the real Machine. We sat around and gave Bill and Hillary credit for being great political infighters, for being able to stop opponents dead in their tracks, for being able to always move forward no matter what was happening around them and even in this campaign we have waited for the “Clinton Machine” to launch an offensive against Obama that would remove him from contention. But without the media to carry their water, indeed with the media supporting the other candidate, the “Clinton Machine” has ground to a halt. Now, instead of championing the attacks launched by the Clintons, the media reacts with shock that they would dare play dirty pool; in fact, many in the media act as though this all new to them, as if they never saw any dirty tricks played by the Clintons during their eight years in office! Now every attack on an opponent is “going negative”; now every question asked abut Barak Obama is a “personal attack”; now Bill Clinton’s actions are being called “un-presidential”…as if having oral sex performed on him by an intern in the Oval Office was “presidential”!

Without a willing press to protect them, the Clintons are just another former President and First Lady with no power to do anything politically. And without their media accomplices to cover up their warts, all of the dirty tricks and base tactics they have always used are being laid bare for all to see. Without the media, the Clinton’s are as powerless a gun with no bullets. Because everyone knows the power isn’t in the guns.

The power is in the bullets.

     

I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh program earlier today, and he said something that sums up the very reasons why Obama has taken the lead in the delegate count in his race against Sen. Clinton. And it is something that plenty of people have noticed about the good Senator from Illinois: he is the best we have seen in a long time at giving a speech and saying nothing of substance.

Think about it, after an Obama speech you will know that he is the candidate for change, that he is young and energetic, and that his apparent campaign slogan is "Yes We Can!" But can you name one original plan or position that Obama holds? Every policy idea he puts forth is the same old liberal boilerplate, just what is expected of a good liberal only presented with a nice smiling face and an engaging personality.

Contrast that with Sen. Clinton and that should give you a huge clue as to why Obama has been able to bring the heat on  her. Sen. Clinton's biggest problem is that she has ideas and is willing to say what they are to any who ask her. Her ideas my be terrible, socialist tripe like "Hillarycare" and the idea to steal the profits from evil Exxon-Mobil, but they are ideas you can easily attribute to her. Even her stance on the war in Iraq is a matter of public record,and while she has played the "I was misled" card, she nonetheless has not run away from her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. She has flirted with that line on more than one occasion, but she has never totally crossed it, whatever her motivations.

With Senator Clinton, you know what you're getting...an old time, down the line liberal/socialist. With Obama the exact opposite is true, which helps to explain his popularity. Because he has no hard and fast beliefs, no real positions on issues, and not much more than "change" as a calling card, Obama is a blank slate that everyone can project onto. Because he has no stance on homosexual marriage, the gay lobby can freely imagine that he supports the push for gay marriage. Because he has not taken a stance on illegal immigration, the open borders crowd can imagine that he will be right there with them...like Bush and McCain are. With no definite stance on the war, except the usual Democrat lines about how Bush is doing it the wrong way, the anti-war crowd can readily hitch their wagon the Obama train. By taking no definite positions on anything Obama has allowed himself to actually seem to be all things to all people in the Democratic Party. Hillary, on the other hand, simply is what she is and nothing is going to erase the fact that she has taken positions at one time or other that have p*ssed off nearly every major Democrat constituency. That's why Obama is winning, and will likely be the Democrat nominee.

I wonder if Hillary would be willing to serve as the first woman VEEP? Nah, it's probably all or nothing for Senator Clinton and that's exactly what she'll be left with.

Nothing.

With the decision of Mitt Romney to drop out of the Presidential race, conservatives have been left hanging out to dry. Romney was not exactly Ronald Reagan, but he was way closer to that than John McCain or Mike Huckabee, both lovers of expansive government influence over the individual and both seemingly seekers of power for the sake of power. And sadly, that is what the GOP has left to go up against either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton...or both. When you look at on the whole, with either McCain or Huckabee (or both) the GOP stands little chance of retaining the White House in November.

You see, the GOP seems to have decided that its entire strategy for the Presidential race is to try to simply run against the idea of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. They have not given the voters anything to vote for, they have decided that they can win by screaming about how bad another Clinton presidency would be for America. Think about it, from Rudy Giuliani to Mike Huckabee to John McCain, the cry has been "Vote for ___ because he is the only one who can beat Hillary!" Now we are left with two candidates that don't have the chops to even win among conservatives, much less win a general election against the Clinton machine.

Take the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain (PLEASE!!!). A close look at John McCain's wins in the primaries and caucuses reveals that he is most successful in states where open primaries are held, so he can get votes from Democrats and Independents...votes that he will not be able to poach when there is a true Democrat on the ballot against him. And as much love as the press is showing him right now, that will be flipped as soon as the general campaign starts. Their beloved "maverick" will be portrayed as the most right wing, extremist, freedom squelching politician to ever roam the political landscape...and you can bank that, buddy! The media will turn on John McCain as sure as the sun will rise in the east... as soon as they have their nominee to prop up; that's just the way the game is played.

Then you have Mike Huckabee, whose sole claim to fame is that he is an evangelical and a former minister. Huckabee has proven that he cannot win anywhere other than the South, and once evangelicals start to really look at him they will probably abandon him. As much grief as Mitt Romney took over his Mormonism...and some of it from me...at least he never claimed, as Huckabee did, that in order for him to make a difference in this world he had to leave the ministry and get into politics! Take a minute to digest that.....a Baptist preacher says that the way to make a difference is not to serve God, but to serve in the government! Add to that his lack of foreign policy expertise, his repeated ethical lapses, and his penchant for letting violent criminals out of prison and you have all of the ingredients for a presidential loser.

But the biggest flaw in the GOP's "brilliant" plan is that Hillary Clinton may not even be the Democratic nominee! Mrs. Clinton is in a dogfight with Barak Obama for the Democratic nomination and is in real danger of having to win the nomination in a brokered convention. The Democratic Party faithful are increasingly climbing on the Obama express and are rejecting Mrs. Clinton in favor of someone promising "change". Obama may not have one truly original idea in the political realm, but his name is not Clinton and for many that is enough. Even the Democrats are starting to tire of the Clintons and their attitude of entitlement; they are rejecting the notion that somehow Hillary is owed the nomination. And as Obama gains more steam, not to mention delegates, the GOP "brain trust" has to be wondering, "What the h*ll do we do now?" Every bit of their "strategy" was built upon the notion that they could scare the GOP loyalists into line by repeating the "Stop Hillary" mantra. Where do the idiots go if Obama stops Hillary? Heck, even I don't have anything against Obama besides his liberalism, so what is the GOP going to say to stop him?

So to the GOP, I say "Welcome to the Terror Dome!" You now have a presumptive nominee that cannot galvanize the Party because of his years of p*ssing off the base, an also-ran that can only win in a select few states, and a "strategy" that was as dumb as the day is long. Add to that the fact that McCain or Huckabee will be filleted by the media as soon as the big dance starts, and you have a recipe for disaster. And come November, we can pretty much be ready to see a Democrat winning the White House. Maybe we can win enough in the Congress that we are able to at least stymie some of their plans.

The "Stupid Party" indeed...

The history of race relations in America is a subject that we cannot get away from, because in all honesty race is a national obsession in this country. Hardly anything that we do is truly free from the issue of race; not politics, not sports, not entertainment, and not even religion. Race touches it all, in either positive or negative ways.

One of the things that continue to make race this explosive issue with us is that we want to fool ourselves about the issue and its history. We want to believe, as we are taught in schools all our lives, that race relations in America is a string of unbroken progress. We like to look at it in an unbroken line that is always getting better: first there was slavery, then there was freedom, then there was the Civil Rights era, and now everything is hunky-dory. But the real history of race relations in this nation is not an unbroken line of progress, but is more of a set of fits and starts. In many instances, it is a situation where we take 1 step forward and 3 steps back.

For example, most people have the naïve idea that after the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments were passed that life was suddenly much better for blacks in America. Well, it was for a little while, but pretty soon the clock seemed to be rolling backwards towards slavery. The SCOTUS started finding ways to invalidate the enforcement provisions in civil rights legislation, and it eventually helped to usher in the Jim Crow era with its disgraceful decision in Plessy. All of the gains made in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War for blacks, those that untold thousands of soldiers died for and a president was assassinated for championing, were taken away. 1 step forward, 3 steps back.

Flash forward to the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights era. During this period of time, blacks were putting their very lives at risk have their God-given rights as citizens of this country respected; leaders like Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, and Malcolm X arose to demand that blacks be treated as men and women…nothing more and nothing less. Yet, while all of this was going on, the federal government was actively creating segregated neighborhoods and suburbs all over America. For every step blacks took forward, the government was pushing them at least one step back.

But even with all of this history, we today have the chance to do better. Right now, today is the best we have ever seen in terms of racial relations in this nation. We share our music, our foods, our tastes, our lives with one another in ways that were not imaginable just 30 years ago. As we move forward, we are going to have to rethink this social construct that we call race as we continue to intermarry and share our lives together. And when we rethink the issue of race, I hope we can come to an agreement that while it matters, it should nit be the predominant thing in our lives. Moving forward I hope we can honestly start to look at each other and judge one another “not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.”

On the heels of the unfortunate words spoken by Golf TV analyst Kelly Tilghman, the most popular player in golf finds himself in the midst of a race relations storm. Tiger Woods, welcome to the world of race relations in 2008, where no matter what you do you are going to take hits.

Tiger Woods finds himself in the same position that Michael Jordan found himself in during the 1998s and 1990s; stuck in the middle of blacks who are angry that he doesn’t feel the same way they do and a public that simply wants him to keep entertaining us. With Michael Jordan the problem came when he was asked why he did not endorse black Democrat Harvey Gantt in his election fight against Southern iconoclast Jesse Helms in the race for US Senate; Jordan famously answered, “Because Republicans buy sneakers too.” That comment had black activists up in arms that Michael Jordan was not standing up and doing more to “help” blacks or was not more politically active in his public life; likewise, Tiger Woods decision not to publicly castigate Ms. Tilghman for her lynching comment has many of the same voices making the same types of statements about Tiger.

The thing with this though, is that these people actively ignored what Michael Jordan did behind the scenes with his charitable foundation, and they are discounting what Tiger Woods is doing with his charitable foundation as well. They have seemingly come to the conclusion that attempting to impact the entire community is less important than making some symbolic gesture to the black community. Personally, I think that attitude is total hogwash!

All of those “black activists” that are after Tiger Woods right now, including NFL legend Jim Brown need to step back and leave the man alone. They are not really concerned that Tiger is doing anything wrong, they are concerned that Tiger is not doing what they want him to. Honestly, why else would they be on someone’s back who forgave a personal friend for a slight that was his alone? I’ll tell you why, it is because by doing that Tiger is basically saying that he is moving beyond race in his dealings with people and attempting to deal with each person as an individual. And we all know that “black activists” will go out of business the day we all start to make those decisions in our daily lives. Booker T. Washington had it right when he said that those who stir up racial divisions usually do so for their own benefit.

So as the debate about what Tiger should have done continues to rage, take a moment to reflect on whom is right here. Is it the man who forgave the insult or the men who refuse to let it go?

With the decision of Sen. Fred Thompson to quit the nomination race, the fate of the conservative wing of the GOP is suddenly up in the air. The field has now narrowed down to one RINO, a Liberal/Populist, a pure Liberal, and a newly minted "strong Conservative", leaving many conservatives wondering where will their vote go.

I am no fan of the new GOP "frontrunner" John McCain, nor are most clear thinking conservative voters. No matter what the MSM or nominal conservative pundits like Michael Medved say about him, John McCain is simply no one that conservative voters can...or will...embrace. His vocal "leadership" in trying to ram the last amnesty bill down the gullets of the American people, his championing of the biggest attack on the First Amendment in recent history, and his staunch opposition to tax cutting is enough to make conservative voters squeamish. Add to that the fact that he shows little respect for the concerns of conservative voters and seems to revel in attacking the very people who have always been the backbone of the GOP, and you have a candidate that has no real chance of forging a strong enough coalition within the GOP to get elected should he he win the nomination. And don't forget that his greatest victories in the primary season have come in states that allow crossover voting in the GOP primaries, which allow Democrats and Independents to give McCain's fortunes an artificially inflated boost.

Likewise, I am no fan of Gov. Mike Huckabee either, because he is just too much like the original "Man from Hope" for my liking. Huckabee has had his share of ethics problems in Arkansas, his tendency to pressure the parole board into allowing convicted murderers and rapists makes Mike Dukakis look tough on crime, and his populist demagoguery make me wince. I am not sure, but I don't remember the GOP having a party plank that calls corporations or "the rich" evil. I know that Huckabee has not actually used that word, but his rhetoric has certainly left that impression. And he seems to be another of these "compassionate conservatives" who think that conservatism needs to be watered down to draw in people from the great "middle" of the political spectrum. But we all know, and have witnessed for 8 years, that "compassionate conservatism" is a dismal failure; why should we want another one of these rubes in office? "Compassionate conservatism" is simply a way to mask a strong tendency towards consensus with the other side of the aisle, instead of taking strong stands on your principles. And that is what we get with Mike Huckabee; a man who is more than willing to turn his back on any real conservatism in order to get his grubby little hands on political power.

As for Rudy Giuliani, everyone knows where conservatives stand on this guy: he is a candidate that conservatives won't touch with an 11 foot pole...which is the pole that is reserved for things not to be touched with a ten-foot pole! For all of his rhetoric about being a conservative, his record screams a different story to anyone willing to see. Yes, he helped clean up New York and make it safe again...while he simultaneously was making it into a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. And for all of his high flown rhetoric about his foreign policy experience and his toughness on terrorism, he actually has no experience in the matter for all practical purposes. As my 12 year old son said to me yesterday, if talking about this stuff means that you are presidential material then I should be the leading candidate! I have plenty of ideas and have spoken and written many a word on the subject, so I have about as much real experience as Rudy! All I am lacking is having been on the scene of the 9/11 attacks to put me over the top. And on nearly every social issue, Rudy is right there with Madame Hillary; they share nearly identical positions on abortion, immigration, and the role that government should play in the lives of the citizens. He is as much of a lover of Big G government as anyone on the Democratic ticket.

Which leads us to Mitt Romney, also known as "Mitty-Come-Lately". Mitt has a record that suggests that he holds some very liberal views on the health care issue ( see his plan for Massachusetts), is a late convert to the idea that abortion is probably not a really good thing, and then there is that pesky religious issue that I (and others) have with him. But in this suddenly narrowed down field, and with his lead in the only race that counts...convention delegates...Mitt is starting to emerge as the only candidate left in the field (who has a snowball's chancing of being nominated, sorry Mr. Hunter) who can even pass as a conservative. In fact, even with all of my reservations about him I may be forced to either support him in the primary...or support no one at all. I have been very vociferous about my qualms on the Romney candidacy, but I may have to actually back down, eat a little crow, and wash it down with a glass of pride and support Romney. But that can only happen if Mitt can convince me that he is going to stay with the conservatism that he seems to have only recently stumbled upon, which is going to take some doing.

So thanks for nothing Fred! You have taken a wide open race and made it that much more unpredictable, and your decision to drop out of the race has left us conservatives floating without anyone to latch on to. Suddenly we conservatives have to find someone who is "the most conservative" of the candidates and stop looking for the true conservative.

We conservatives now have some serious soul searching to do, and some heavy decisions to make. Like the old song says, "We got a long way to go, and a short time to get there" so we may as well get about answering the newest question in this crazy race: Whiter the conservatives?

They never quit! No matter what else you can say about them, the Democrats do not ever stop; once they have latched onto an idea they will not let it die. The Dracula idea that they keep raising is their stealth plan to do away with the Electoral College and institute a national popular vote for Presidential elections.

The newest plan was being touted this morning on C-Span by Jamie Raskin (D), a state senator from Maryland who was telling us how he has launched a plan that would give all of a state's EC delegates to the winner of the national popular vote. He proudly states that his state and New Jersey are the first to sign onto this scheme to make an end run around the clear intentions of the Constitution.

Ours is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The Constitution is to be the supreme law of the land, and it is only to be amended by a specific process that is explained in Article V of the Constitution itself; amendments are proposed by a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and ratified by either ¾ of the state legislators or by the voters in ¾ of the states. That’s it…there is no back door.

But those who want to make this into the new system are attempting to do it by going around those simple, yet arduous, requirements while simultaneously claiming to be supporters of the Constitution. Mr. Raskin claims that he is simply urging the states to change the way they award delegates, yet he tries to say that this is not an attack on the Constitution; it is in fact the states exercising the rights of the states that are not specifically named in the Constitution.

That argument holds no water with me, since the changing of those rules in effect destroys the EC and the way the Constitution provides for the election of Presidents. It is in effect a Constitutional amendment that gets to skip the whole amendment process, no matter what they say. And it honestly bothers me when Mr. Raskin says that doing things this way somehow makes sure that every state’s votes will count. That flies in the face of history, common sense, and the reason that our Constitution is structured the way it is.

The argument that all states will count the same is a total crock, and is laughable at best. Are these people really claiming that large population states like California, Florida, Texas, or North Carolina that trend either left or right will not skew any election results? California will have a heck of a lot more influence in this system than a solid conservative state like Wyoming or Idaho, simply because they do not have massive populations. There is no fairness there if a state like Idaho has to give its EC votes to a liberal because they were able to carry hose huge states that are decidedly liberal.

The Constitution calls for the EC in order to avoid the rule by the mob, and so that every state can have a true voice in the election of our President. There is a reason that until the Constitution was amended there was only one post in the entire government that was chosen by popular votes…a member of the House of Representatives. Allowing a popular vote to determine a President would only encourage even more lying, demagoguery, and corruption than the system deals with today. The Founders were pretty smart guys, and they at least had enough sense to realize that “one man one vote” was not the ideal way to base a government, since that concept almost encourages people to campaign at the lowest common denominator.

I just want to make you guys aware that this idea is not dead and to keep an eye on your state legislators so that they don’t sign onto this travesty. We have enough problems here without having our state legislators doing their best to further undermine their system for the good of their political cronies.

I know that many of you don't regularly read The American Spectator, so I will continue to bring you highlights of some their better articles. Personally, I prefer TAS in many ways to TH because it is more compact and covers a bit broader array of topics.  Also, they generally tend to be more conservative there than TH...which seems more like a forum for the GOP many times, rather than a forum for conservatives. So I have taken the liberty of pointing you in the direction of some pretty good articles in TAS which can be found at the site today.

For those who continue to doubt Mike Huckabee, Jeffrey Lord has a nice article about Huck's love of BIG G. It is about how Huck is dropping lines about the BIG G needing to do something about the pay of corporate CEO's and how Progressive such a stance is. It really gets interesting when Mr. Lord brings abortion into the conversation as well; it is a rather unique take on things that makes perfect sense.

There is also an article by John Samples that delves into John McCain and his shooting war with the Madisonian view of limited government. The article takes a look at McCain's thoughts about what the BIG G should be involved in and makes you wonder about what effect a McCain presidency would have on the Constitution. Well worth the read, IMO.

Finally, there is an article by Brooke M. Goldstein that explores the new Islamic practice of "lawfare" to stifle anyone who dares speak out against Islam. The Muslims are taking a play from the Liberal/Progressive playbook that you wouldn't believe! It is something that we see every day, but I never considered that the Muslims would be taking the same tactic as their own. This one is a must read!

Recently my younger brother and I were talking and the subject of movies came up, and we began talking about movies. Naturally, for us, we got onto the subject of which was the worst movie ever…or at least we have seen. So I decided to devote a special blog posting for the express purpose of listing 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Feel free to add your comments or additions to the list, since there have to be some stinkers that I have (mercifully) missed out on. Enjoy!

Fifth Place: (tie) Batman & Robin and Cat Woman. I understand that many people do not like movies based on comics and these two turkeys are the reason why. From the dark, brooding Dark Knight as portrayed by Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer the Batman series devolved into a bad comic on the silver screen in the pic starring George Clooney (?), Chris O’Donnell, Alicia Silverstone, The Governator, and Uma Thurman. Plenty of colors, but a terrible plot and even worse acting nearly killed the Caped Crusader for good. Thank goodness for Christian Bale and the film Batman Begins or we would have been left with this garbage as a testament to what Batman movies were supposed to be. As for Cat Woman, Halle Berry was beautiful as usual, but that was the only good thing about this movie. The script sucked, the plot was weak, and the only saving grace was plenty of Halle Berry in the cat suit…MEOWWW indeed!

Fourth Place: Red Dawn*. What would have happened to the US of A during the Reagan years if the Soviets and Cubans had decided to invade America? According to this flick, the US armed forces would have been overwhelmed and the Soviet-Cuban partnership would have taken over the Midwest, leaving America’s fate in the hands of a plucky band of high school kids led by Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, and Jennifer Grey. Somehow we are supposed to believe that a bunch of kids on horseback and rifles could take down an army that had successfully invaded and occupied America? Sorry, but there is not that much “suspension of disbelief” in the world!

Third Place: Showgirls. Elizabeth Berkley graduated form Bayside High and went to Vegas to become a showgirl without Zack, Kelly, Lisa, or even Screech to help her. Well she should have stuck with what she was good at: being a cute girl. This was probably the worst acted movie, and worst written, that I have seen. The only thing that is keeping it out of the top two spots is that it didn’t have some “bankable” star stinking out the joint; this was a vehicle meant to help Ms. Berkley cut her teeth in feature films. Too bad it nearly ruined her career before it could get started; and if an agent ever deserved to be fired it was the one who recommended this to his client!

Second Place: Menace II Society. In an “era” of movies that purported to paint the grim picture of life in South Central Los Angeles, this was probably the worst of the lot. My brother wanted me to include *Boyz-N-The Hood here, but it was at least watchable. This movie was almost uniformly terrible, with stilted dialogue, a script that was as weak as water, and actors that looked like they had never taken one acting lesson in their lives. While there was a good @ss stomping scene and Larenz Tate played the role of psychotic “O-Dog” well that was the extent of good things that can honestly be said about this crappy picture. A pure waste of celluloid if I ever saw one!

First Place: You would think that a movie that featured Sharon Stone, Leo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, and Gene Hackman would have some serious power, but in this case you would be W-R-O-N-G! The minute that someone had the idea to make Sharon Stone a six-gun slinging, stone cold gun fighting heroine in a western, this movie was doomed. And the premise that a town would be having some dad-gummed “gun fighting tournament” is so lame as to be laughable. Yet that is the very premise that writers and producers wanted us to swallow when they made the worst western, and the worst movie I have ever seen…The Quick and the Dead. Such a great title for such a horrendous movie! And if you think I’m kidding, take a peek at it on one of the 6 million showings that it gets on American Movie Classics (channel 254 on your Direct TV dial). How they could have this travesty on the same channel, and usually the same night, as Open Range is a mystery to me. But the biggest mystery is why anyone even made this movie!

 

Dishonorable mention: Kangaroo Jack, School Daze, Waterworld, Free Willy, Beethoven ,K-9 Cop, Angels in the Outfield, Roots: The Gift, Exorcist sequels, Poetic Justice, New Jack City*

*Some of these movies I like, but they’re still bad!

I have long had a real problem with the out-sized importance that is placed on the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries. I have long wondered what it is about the opinions of these two states, other than they are among the first to hold primaries or caucuses, that makes them so very important in the process. It just seemed fishy to me that every four years the media and political pundits descend on these places and act as though the decisions of the voters and caucus goers there are like a word from the ancient Oracle at Delphi.

Then it came to me that it is because they are like the Oracle at Delphi that the pundits and media act that way. You see, the Oracle at Delphi never really told anyone anything of significance. The Oracle knew no more of the future than the person seeking wisdom, yet there was always just enough given to the seeker that allowed them to find what they wanted to hear in the mutterings of the Oracle.

And so it is with the media when the subjects are the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries; the media takes what little information they get there and turn the results in the voting into earth shaking news when it really isn't. Hillary Clinton has a poor showing in Iowa and every conservative pundit out there is dancing a jig about the demise of the Clinton machine, and on the other side Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa and he is basically being handed the GOP nomination. My question to that is: Why are those types of conclusions being drawn, and what does the chattering class get from advancing those ideas?

I happen to believe that all of the attention given to the results in these two states allows the Fourth Estate to exercise undue influence on the political process, and it allows them to attempt to select their preferred candidates for the nominations. Think back to the 2000 election cycle on the GOP side: poor showings by George W. Bush in Iowa and New Hampshire had the media declaring the Bush candidacy DOA and John McCain, their boy, as the clear front runner. To the eternal chagrin of the media, however, Bush made a serious push in South Carolina and the rest is history...for good or ill.

The media is trying to do the same thing now, and it serves as a way to influence the entire election process. By focusing on the results in Iowa, where only a handful of the state's voters actually get to be involved with the caucus process and New Hampshire, where independent voters are allowed to vote in party primaries, the media is able to create a narrative that fits their wishes. Thus, you have stories of McCain's "comeback" and of Obama's newfound strength that are backed up by the results or projected results of voters in these two states.

But don't be fooled people! As hard as the media may try to influence the process by over-inflating the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, we know that they are not the "be-all-end-all" the media would make them out to be. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, 34...that's right 34...states will hold caucuses or primaries on or before February 5 this year. That leaves a lot of delegates to be won and a lot of campaigning to be done, and it destroys the media driven idea that the Iowa and New Hampshire results are somehow the determining factors in figuring out the nominees.

Just be careful not to believe that media hype or fall for their god-like political pronouncements, because in the end the voters will make their own decisions. WE will deny the media the undue influence they seek to exercise on the nomination process.

In this campaign cycle the GOP has been split by competing ideas of what conservatism is, with some proclaiming that Reaganism is dead in the Party, some claiming that they are Reaganites, and others trying to simply redefine the very meaning of conservatism. I found an article today at the American Spectator by Jeffrey Lord that gives a great explanation of Reagan conservatism. Check it out and let me know what you think.

When did it all go so wrong for us? When did we become a nation that is so selfish that we cannot even see that there are things that are greater than our own selfish wants and desires? Where have all the patriots gone?

There was a time that public figures in America were unabashedly patriotic, proud of their American identity, and willing to do whatever it took to demonstrate their patriotism. In stark contrast to today’s popular culture figures, the biggest stars of previous times never thought to be anything other than patriotic. It was expected of them to be patriots, to support the government, and to love their nation.

Take the story of Carole Lombard, for instance. Carole Lombard was an actress of some renown in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood in the 1930s and 40s, a major star, and the wife of Clark Gable. Ms. Lombard was tragically killed in a plane crash in 1942 on her way back home to Los Angeles after helping to raise over a million dollars selling war bonds. It was not something that her publicists told her to do, or her studio pressured her to do for good publicity but something that she chose to do…because she felt she was doing the right thing to serve her country. After her death, her husband joined the Army and flew combat missions in Europe to honor her memory…and to help protect his nation. Can you imagine any star of today dropping his career plans to defend America from her enemies?

Or take the example of Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players of all time. In his career “Teddy Ballgame” was the last man to hit .400 in a season, and hit a homerun in his last major league at bat, all of which would fit nicely in a movie script. But what is more amazing is that in the prime years of his career, Ted Williams gave up his baseball career to serve his nation as a pilot in World War 2! Can any of us imagining Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, or even Curt Schilling giving up his career to fight a war? Yet this man did just that, without reservation simply because it was right.

It is a sad state of affairs that so few of us today can imagine any “famous” person that would be willing to make this type of sacrifice in the service of our nation, Pat Tillman notwithstanding. And what is even sadder is the idea that so many of our popular culture figures have that real patriotism somehow consists of publicly ridiculing our President in a time of war, characterizing our military as ignorant dupes at best, and bloodthirsty murderers at worst.

How did the “Greatest Generation” give birth to what can only be called the “Selfish Generation?” I suppose it is up to us now to rediscover those attributes that made that generation great and impart them to our children, so that we do not drown as a nation in our own selfishness.