Et tu Mary Bono?

Conservatives feel like Michael Corleone when he found out that Fredo had sold him out to Hyman Roth.  President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and 8 Republicans screwed the American people royally. Under the cloak of darkness and the death of Michael Jackson they rammed through ‘cap and trade’ legislation that will massively increase energy costs and in so doing will increase the cost of, well, everything. The ‘climate bill’ was voted on and passed last Friday evening. The timing was perfect for the Democratic leadership, not only because of the wall to wall coverage of the King of Pop’s death but because news that happens late on Fridays generally gets much less attention from the media and the public than it otherwise would.  Despite this, angry constituents flooded Capitol Hill with calls and emails opposing the bill, to no avail.

Credit the 44 Democrats that voted against the bill, (even if some of them did so because the bill was not radical enough), many stood up to the president and the gang that is currently running Congress and should be commended for doing so. No such credit to the 8 traitorous Republicans that sold conservatism down the river. For what? Thirty pieces of silver? This just illustrates why Republicans can’t win elections.  The GOP did not lose control of both houses of Congress and The White House because they were too conservative; in fact, the opposite is true.  

Why not support whoever runs against these 8 Judases with your vote and your money? Even if it is a Socialist Democrat, at least you will not be stabbed in the back. These liberal Republicans expect conservatives’ money and support, and then they give them the finger when conservatives and independents voice their opposition to legislation. Why not elect only liberal Democrats so Americans can see the damage that liberalism yields?  

This bill is nothing more than a massive tax hike and government power grab. You would expect big government, tax and spend liberals to go for such a measure; but 8 Republicans? How can you be a Republican if you are for higher taxes and more oppressive government? With friends like these who needs enemies?  

Why is Congress in such a hurry to cripple our economy even further? They claim that we are under siege from catastrophic climate change; but are we really? There is a growing community of scientists that says global warming is nothing but hot air, and the facts back that theory up.  This doesn’t stop global warming fanatics however. They continue to proclaim that the “debate is over” and these are the “facts”…

Global temperatures are rising!
And they are…by ¼ of a degree Celsius per decade since 1960 according to Dr Leonard Weinstein, ScD. This means that 40 years from today the average temperature here in Los Angeles will rise a whole degree from 70°F to 71°F. Oh well, at least we have 40 years to find a new planet to live on. In addition, the earth has been warming .09°C per decade since 1880! The hottest year on record was 1940! It is Dr Weinstein’s opinion and the opinion of many others that the temperatures on earth are not constant! What a groundbreaking theory.

Polar Ice is melting!
Not true. According to the University of Colorado, Antarctic ice has increased by 43% since 1980 which more than offsets the loss of Arctic sea ice by around 200,000 sq km. Does this mean that the world is going into another ice age? Oh no!

Polar Bears are dying!
This fact is challenged by many scientists that say that polar bear populations are thriving. It’s not like there is no ice left in the Arctic. Besides, slightly warmer temperatures are probably welcomed by the bears considering they live in one of the coldest places on earth.  How can a polar bear survive in 100° temperatures at a zoo in San Diego if they can’t handle slightly less freezing temperatures in the Arctic? Don’t forget, polar bears know how to swim!  If a piece of ice melts, they can swim to another piece, right?

Sea levels are rising!
The worst case scenario according to the global warming crowd is that ocean levels will rise a maximum of 18 inches over the next 100 years. That’s 1-1/2 feet! Not exactly “Waterworld” now is it?

“Envioro-libs” claim that carbon-dioxide (CO₂) is to blame for all this.  They say that CO₂ is a pollutant and a poisonous greenhouse gas that threatens to destroy the earth.  Yes, the same CO₂ that you exhale! Perhaps Congress should legislate how many times we can breathe in a given period. Capping the number of greenhouse gas emitting breaths we can take will have about the same effect on the environment as changing your incandescent light bulbs to florescent ones. Don’t forget that plants ingest CO₂; the stuff can’t be that bad if plants need it for survival. Currently, carbon-dioxide accounts for only 382 parts per million of atmosphere, that’s .038%. There is three times as much Argon gas in the atmosphere. Interestingly enough 500,000 years ago there was 20 times more CO₂ in the atmosphere. Without it we would all freeze to death. CO₂ is not a poison, although it is a “greenhouse gas”. Other greenhouse gasses include such pollutants as:

Ozone- protects earthlings from harmful radiation from outer space

Methane- a naturally occurring gas

Nitrous Oxide- (aka laughing gas) used by dentists

Water vapor- the most harmful of all the poisonous greenhouse gasses

The fact is water vapor is much more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere than CO₂ is. Does that mean that hydrogen powered cars are just as bad for the environment as regular cars? I guess we had better invent an engine that only emits rose petals if we want to live to see the 22^nd century.

Let’s assume for a second that global warming is real and it will kill us all one day. Do liberals really think that taxing CO₂ will solve the problem? Tax and regulate is the liberals answer for everything.  Outlawing cars and businesses would also reduce carbon emissions. Why not try that? We could all work for the government and drive a sailboat to work (since the rising oceans will consume most of the earth’s surface). 

By Chris Charles


How has it come to this? How have we allowed liberal fanaticism to distort The Constitution to the extent that a war memorial in the form of a cross somehow violates the freedom of religion?  In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in the middle of the Mojave Desert as a memorial to our country's war dead. The ACLU has sought and won a decision from the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, to remove the cross because it stands on federal property. Is this really all the ACLU has to worry about? The memorial is in the middle of the Mojave Desert for crying out loud, it’s not exactly in Times Square. Doesn’t the ACLU have some terrorists, or child-molesters it needs to defend? If I were locked up in Gitmo right now I would seriously object to valuable litigators being spent on such an inconsequential case.

Liberals and so called progressives hold a strong disdain for organized religion, especially particularly faithful religion. They can’t stand that religion encourages traditional moral behavior, after all ‘if it feels good do it!’ Most liberals resent the fact that churches and other institutions of faith have guidelines for behavior, based on the Bible and other ancient religious texts. They feel that this somehow infringes on their right to do, whatever it is that they do. Leftists in America, much like the Marxists in the former USSR, seek to drive religion out of the public sphere.

On the other hand, leftist radicals are always trying to impose their tyrannical “morals” on the country; such as redistribution of wealth and excessive government control over the individual. According to the left, the problem with religion is; if people put their faith in God, they cannot have faith in government. Government after all should be the all powerful all knowing protector of society, not God. Leftists hate traditional concepts, like The 10 Commandments in modern society. They prefer their own “commandments” to those of God.

The 10 Commandments, according to liberals:

I.                    I am the president thy leader, thou shall worship no others before me
II.                  Thou shall not worship false idols such as Ronald Reagan
III.               Thou shall not use ‘Hussein’ when referring to thy president
IV.                Keep the Sabbath Day holy, according to AFL-CIO regulations
V.                  Honor thy father and mother, unless they wish to “control” thee
VI.                Thou shall not kill, unless it is thy unborn child
VII.              Thou shall not commit adultery, unless thy spouse doesn’t do it for you
VIII.            Thou shall not steal, unless society has forced a life of crime upon thee
IX.                Thou shall not bear false witness, unless thou is a lawyer
X.                  Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife, unless thou really wants to 

The American colonies were founded by religious people escaping religious persecution in Europe. The framers understood that a free people must be able to practice religion in whatever fashion they choose. In the first amendment of the US Constitution it states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is very clear, right? That’s all the founders said in respect to religion. No mention of a ‘separation of church and state’. No insistence that a religious symbol not be erected on government land. The Constitution does not say that government shall reject all forms of religion, however small. In fact, our founding document the Declaration of Independence, states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It also mentions the laws of ‘natures God’, so how could the founders be interpreted to mean complete separation of church and state? Our founding fathers would stand up in their graves if they knew how The Constitution was being interpreted.

In 1948 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a democrat appointed by Franklin D Roosevelt), heard the case Everson v Board of Education. In the case, the court upheld a lower court decision to allow government funds to be used to bus students to private schools. So what’s the problem? Hugo Black, a member of the Ku Klux Klan (and anti-Catholic), wrote the majority decision. While it allowed for the government to pay for bussing of private and parochial school kids, Black included overly broad language that introduced the ‘wall of separation’ terminology into the decision and in so doing created a dangerous precedent for future courts to base decisions on. Mark Levin wrote in his book ‘Men In Black’ that “Black sided with the majority in order to thwart them from the inside”. In fact, Hugo Black himself admitted that he sought a “Pyrrhic victory” (one more victory and I am undone) for the cause of secular government. He gave the original meaning of The Constitution a ‘victory’; but in so doing, added language that would unravel the meaning and intent of the first amendment.

That one deceptive act by Hugo Black has set a precedence that left wing lawyers argue in any number of cases, where liberals seek to squash religion.  The 10 Commandments displayed in a courthouse now violates the 1^st amendment according to the ACLU, despite the fact that our modern laws are based upon the principles of The 10 Commandments. Left wing lunatics continue to argue that the Pledge of Allegiance violates The Constitution because it mentions God. What about the Declaration of Independence? It also mentions God, is the declaration unconstitutional as well? Democrats block faith-based legislation that will help individuals, particularly poor individuals because “the wall of separation between church and state needs to be high and impenetrable, as the framers intended.” Everyone knows that “shall make no law establishing a religion” is 18^th century speak for “complete separation of church and state”, right?  

Our founding fathers specifically insured the freedom of religion in the constitution, not the freedom from religion. Religion has never been nor will it ever be oppressive in the United States. If liberals think that organized faith is oppressive in this country, they should try living in Iran or Saudi Arabia where real religious oppression takes place. Sharia law and the stoning of rape victims is a far cry from a cross on a hill or a nativity scene at city hall. The current Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the 9^th Circuit’s ruling on this case, hopefully sanity will prevail in this case, but don’t hold your breath. The five liberal justices now on the court will be wooed by the ACLU to use the false “wall of separation” precedence to uphold the ruling to take down the cross. In the meantime the Sunrise Rock memorial Cross stands with a shroud covering it as not to offend. Apparently, the 9^th circuit court does not mind offending the families who remember loved ones lost in battle at this memorial.

The left argues that religion anywhere in the public sphere is oppressive to people of differing faith or no faith at all. In fact the opposite is true; the abolishment of faith anywhere in the public sphere is oppressive to people of all faiths everywhere. 

By Chris Charles

On September 11^th, 2001 we were attacked, without warning, by a vicious and brutal enemy. 3,000 Americans were killed because a certain group of people hate us. They hate us for many reasons, it is not important to know the reasons they hate us, it is important to know that they do. It is important to realize that we did nothing to deserve it. There is nothing we can do to make them not hate us, short of surrendering America and converting to Islam, even then there are no promises.

Our only option is to fight. Fight for our collective lives because that is what is at stake. Make no mistake; there can be no peace, no understanding, no common ground with Islamic fascists. Just as Nazi Germany could not be appeased in the 1930’s, we cannot allow terrorists to remain unhindered.

Islamic extremists hate everybody who does not subscribe to their narrow world view. Muslim radicals are at war with, not only us but most of the world. They seek to kill or convert any person that does practice their particular form of Islam. Militant Islam started this, not only with 9/11 but with numerous attacks before and since. The USS Cole, various attacks on US military barracks, the first World Trade Center attack, London subway, Madrid trains, and many, many  more. Muslim radicals attack innocent people; they hide like cowards amongst us. They use our own freedoms against us. Their goal is to kill as many of us as possible. They are playing “Risk” while we are playing checkers.

We had an administration that sought to aggressively fight this battle after the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration put in place new tactics to fight this new enemy that does not fight by the rules. Eight years later we have an administration that is returning to the more passive tactics is decades past. The Obama administration and the left in this country have a different approach to terrorism they believe that it can be combated like we combat criminals in this country. They want to fight terror groups with conventional war tactics. This does not work, the past has proven this. We cannot afford to apply liberal politics to national security. Former Vice President Dick Cheney summed it up when he said; “But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.”

Muslim extremists do not play by the rules of international law and the Geneva Convention. They do not wear uniforms, they attack civilians, they hide in mosques and among innocent people, seek to detonate nuclear weapons, behead American civilians, and those are just a few examples of their violations.

Despite this, some in this country say that we need to strictly follow the rules of the Geneva Convention and international laws. What about them? I know we have to be the bigger civilization here but all we want to do is detain terrorists and interrogate them to find out what city is to be blown up next. They follow no laws, we follow every law.

Most liberals say that enhanced interrogation is torture. Real torture is extreme pain and suffering not discomfort or embarrassment. So exactly what do liberals consider torture?

Water boarding- pouring water on the face of a terrorist
Loud music- music played loudly in cells for long periods
Insects- placing non-dangerous pests in a detainees cell 
Stress positions- forcing a prisoner to stand for long periods

We are really stretching it to call this torture. Whatever happened to the rack? Or pulling out finger nails? Real torturers should be insulted by this. These more resemble fraternity hazing or alternative medicine, then torture. In fact, I think we could do more to these animals. Contestants on “I’m a celebrity get me outta here” face more “torture” than terrorists at Gitmo do! Seriously, Hollywood nobodies Spencer and Heidi (from ‘The Hills’) were forced to spend the night in a room full of bugs, snakes, and other creepy critters. I propose that we let NBC producers interrogate all terrorists from now on.

With all of this outrage from the left in this country and around the world you might think that we “enhancely interrogate” any Arab that we can find. You might assume that hundreds, perhaps thousands were pulled off the streets and tortured by the evil President Bush and his willing accomplices in the military. When the truth came out, only three terrorists had been water boarded and all three possessed knowledge of future terror attacks.

President Obama released secret CIA documents that chronicled the used of enhanced interrogation techniques implemented after the 9/11 attacks. They disclosed the methods and frequency our intelligence officials used to gain information. They conveniently left parts of the memo classified, the parts that disclosed what intel was gained from the interrogations. Don’t all the facts need to be reveled if the American public is to understand the entirety of the situation? This is a favorite tactic of the left, control information and release only what supports the liberal view of things. Only the facts that support the leftist agenda are relevant. The absence of these facts also allows The White House to claim that enhanced interrogation doesn’t work, when most in the intelligence community and a former Vice-President of the United States says that it does.

If liberals were in charge of interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and a terrorist detainee knew the details of an impending terror attack on the US what would they do? Ask politely, say please, give them a plea deal? Do these people really think that water on the face is out of the question in these circumstances?  Come on this is real life! You can’t let liberal ideals allow an American city to be wiped off the map! Most Americans will be able to sleep at night knowing that a few terrorists were made a little uncomfortable to prevent another 9/11 or worse.

President Obama looks at it a different way. He thinks that we are never justified to use enhanced interrogation. He equates enhanced interrogation to the tactics used by the Islamic extremists. Let us compare the tactics of the US military with the tactics of the Muslim terrorists.

They behead civilians; we put panties on the heads of terrorists.

They say ‘Allah Akbar’! and blow up people; we say “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of law...” and arrest them.

They burned American servicemen alive and dragged them thought the streets of Bagdad; we cleaned up the Streets of Bagdad and dragged Saddam out of that hole.

They live in shacks and caves in the middle of a desert; we sent them to live on a beach in the Caribbean.

They give ‘prisoners’ a script to read and then decapitate them; we give prisoners an ACLU lawyer and civil rights.

They blow up Mosques and schools; we help rebuild them.

They put women in rape rooms; we put bugs in their rooms.

They cut off heads; we pour water over heads.

They explode bombs; we play loud music.

President Obama is bringing an olive branch to a gun fight. We cannot make friends with people that want to kill us. We have to defeat this enemy and we cannot do so with such liberal rules and regulations around the necks of our servicemen. The Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from countries involved in a declared war, not terrorists that claim no homeland, that follow no rules. Liberals with weak stomachs need to recues themselves from this argument before it gets more people killed. Hopefully the CIA is still making these sub-humans “uncomfortable” in secret. Why do we know every detail of how detainees are interrogated? Shouldn’t the CIA interrogations take place in secret, in a dark damp room in an undisclosed location, out of the reach of the ACLU? Politicians like Nancy Pelosi and far left radical groups like Code Pink should not be involved in the most sensitive aspects of our national security; if we want to win the war on Islamic terrorists.

By Chris Charles
With words from Ronald Reagan, the 40^th President of the United
States of America 

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Since the new deal policies of FDR in the 1930’s conservatives have fought the advancing tide of bigger and more oppressive government. A federal government that limits individual freedoms, taxes prosperity, spends beyond its means, places oppressive controls on business, continuously expands entitlements and the number of people beholden to it, as well as taking every opportunity expand its self in the guise of public interest.  

“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

”Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to the problem, although, only one party claims government to be the solution to all of our problems. Since the great depression conservatives have fought against liberal expansion of government and political pandering to interest groups. True conservatives understand that the blueprint for success as a country is limited government, low taxes, and individual liberties.

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”

Government fails at much of what it sets out to do, but because it’s the government it cannot go out of business. Government will just continue to take your tax dollars to fund its unsuccessful ventures. When a government program is fruitless the conventional wisdom is always to throw more money at it. The DC brain trust insists the problem with government is underfunding, never wasteful spending or crippling bureaucracy.

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.”

Look no further than education; government spends more and more money on education every year, all the time the quality of public education continues to decline. Big government liberals claim we need to raise taxes to increase funding for schools even more. Even though the government spends an average of $10,770 per student in public schools, these public schools continue to fail. Meanwhile, the average tuition for private schools is $6,600; even lower is the average tuition at Catholic schools, $4,254 per student (NCES). Why can a Catholic school educate a student for less than half the price of its public counter-part? All the while providing it most cases a far superior education to that of public schools. These “nanny-staters” claim a good education is a right for all children in America, as long as the education is provided to them by the government with all of its rules and regulations. Never mind the fact that private or (god forbid) catholic schools provide smaller class sizes, higher test scores, better discipline, safer campuses, better character development, and the ability for parents to choose a curriculum that is right for their child.

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

The “state-ist” believes that government run schools are the only option. Most states have school choice pilot programs to find the feasibility of school vouchers so that parents and students could choose which school is best for them. These trials have been successful, at least for the students who are using them, not so much for the public school teachers unions that fight tooth and nail against any form of school choice. Vouchers would save the government money; the same cannot be said of public schools considering the cure for public school futility is always more and more money. Private school vouchers would benefit low income and inner-city youth the most, a segment of the population that the left claims to represent. Unfortunately, liberals are more concerned with growing the power and control of the State than with what is best for underprivileged kids. You can bet that most children and grandchildren of the liberal elite will attend private schools.

“Status quo, you know, is Latin for 'the mess we're in'.”

Liberals, teachers, and government bureaucrats continue to impede the futures of young Americans by continuing to recycle the same failed tactics. The next time you hear somebody say that schools can’t afford textbooks, ask them why the private school down the street can afford text books and a new cafeteria, at half the cost. It is important to stand up to these people and not back down from the debate. Liberals make emotional arguments about the protecting teachers, conservatives’ site facts and conclude that students and parents can make better decisions concerning education, not government.  

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

Many on the left are also worried about public funds going to religious based schools. For some reason the thought of God being mentioned to young impressionable kids is scary for liberals. Much the same way that sex ED and condoms on cucumbers for 1^st graders is scary to conservatives. The important thing to remember is that parents could have the choice! If you wanted your child to spend hours learning about sex and condoms at school or if you do not want your child to hear any mention of a higher power, public school is great. Those public schools will always be there, but at least the rest of us could have the choice of a quality education and save the tax payer $5,000 per child.

“We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added”

For years conservatives have battled the bloated public entitlement programs. Trillions and trillions have been spent on programs like welfare that were designed to be a safety net, but instead enable irresponsibility and continue poverty. Since the days of FDR, entitlements have been considered by big government as “untouchable” because so many rely on them. This becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when the government steps in and says that it will take care of everything. Added to this problem, is that of government again spending more than it needs to because of mismanagement and bureaucracy.  

“We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.”

Government has had the same problems for years. The problem with government is that the state-ist thinks government can make better decisions than you. Liberals say that government can spend your money more wisely than you can. The facts do not support that theory, not to mention the tax-payer. Tax payers want to keep more of their well earned money and a funny thing happens when they do, economies thrive and government gets more tax money as a result.

“The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

Higher taxes lead to lower tax revenue for the government because higher taxes result in less spending by consumers. If consumers spend less, less sales tax is paid and businesses earn less money, therefore workers earn less money and consumers spend even less. As you can see this is a vicious circle, the only part of this equation that does not cut spending is the government even though revenue is reduced because of lower consumer spending and lower earnings by workers.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.”

The state-ist solution to this is to raise taxes even higher in an attempt to balance the books. You see, the government does not care how much money is taken from you; all that is important is that government not cut expenditures, because as you know the state can spend your money better and more wisely than you can. This is proven by more liberal states that inhibit economic growth with oppressive taxes, like California. California takes in around $115 billion in revenue, by far the most of any state, yet is near bankruptcy because of massive overspending. States like Florida and Texas take in $35-40 billion annually and yet they somehow manage to survive. (US census)  

“Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.”

Liberals continue to try and increase the size and scope of the state and federal government despite the fact that government, for the most part, is inefficient, wasteful and burdensome. The liberal and the state-ist insist on more and more governmental control, and as a consequence we have less and less individual liberty. Of course, the left will not admit this; they insist the society depends of the benevolence of big government. We insist that our society is great because of the individual.

“Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.”

Today we face the largest expansion of government since the great depression era. Presidents Bush and Obama have already spent Trillions on wasteful stimulus programs. Now, President Obama is pushing nationalized healthcare as well as cap and trade programs. Both of which we cannot afford, both of which would do irreparable harm to businesses and personal liberties, not to mention personal health and personal wealth.

“One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.”

Liberals justify socialized healthcare by citing inflated numbers of uninsured and sob stories of people that do not receive basic medical attention, both of which stretch the facts. Although, even if they were true government run healthcare cannot be justified because it’s just that, government run. Never expect government to do something well. Government can’t do the basics of government right, why do liberals believe it can do something as complex and important to our survival as healthcare? Again, we have examples of failed socialized medicine programs around the world. Most of which are horror stories of people not getting quality care or waiting months to receive it, or both. What the state-ist does not comprehend is that the free market incentivizes doctors to provide better care to patients; it also helps create advancements in medical technology.

“Facts are stubborn things.”

Liberals like to demonize the pharmaceutical industry for mixing money with medicine, but the truth is there would be no medicine without money. They do not realize that advanced medicines cost millions to create, so if pharmaceuticals were not as profitable there would cease to be the kind of medical advancements that we have seen in this country in recent decades. Research and development is paid for with profits from existing drugs. Without a free market healthcare system, medicine will not advance in the ways that we have seen in the past.

“If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement”

Cap and trade or as liberals will call it the “climate bill” will tax individuals and companies in relation to their use of fossil fuels and other forms of carbon emissions. All in an attempt to save the earth from an invisible/imaginary enemy of global warming or is it global cooling again? It’s impossible to remember which one will cause the apocalypse this week. If the weather happens to be hot, then global warming is going to melt the polar ice and kill us all, if it’s cold out then its global cooling that will freeze all of us to death. It becomes a little tricky when the weather outside is 72 and partly cloudy.

“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”

Let’s assume for a moment that carbon emissions will kill us all in the future. Americans have already invented a way to create electricity for the entire world without releasing those darn carbon atoms. It is called nuclear energy, but liberals do not like this either. They think that it will kill us all, are you starting to see a theme here? A liberal hears the word ‘nuclear’ and runs for cover, when in fact nuclear energy is very safe contrary to the conventional wisdom of liberal sissies. What do liberals have to lose? If global warming/cooling is going to kill us all anyway, why not take a chance on nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is produced by using fissionable nuclear material (uranium) to heat water to create steam that in turn, rotates turbines that create electricity. It’s not like scientists are lighting off nukes in the desert to create electricity, it is a very safe way to create a great deal of energy with just a little amount of nuclear material. It is also a clean, abundant, sustainable form of energy at a cheap price. But, don’t let the facts get in the way of a new scheme to wrestle away more power and money from the American people in favor of the all knowing all powerful government.

“Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”

Our founding fathers gave to us the most benevolent form of government the world has ever seen. Along with the Declaration of Independence the framers gave us our Constitution, which limits the role of the federal government. It also protects individual freedoms and liberties. Government is necessary for a society to survive; a limit to the power of that government is just as essential. The trend of ever increasing government control must be reversed if we are to remain “the last best hope for man on earth.”    

By Chris Charles

To: Larry Elder (AKA The Sage from South Central)
CC: The Republican National Committee; everyone
Subject: Larry Elder for US Senate! 

Dear Mr. Elder,

It has come to our attention that you may be considering a run for US Senate in 2010; we would like to voice our support of the idea. We are tired of the typical politician, on both sides of the aisle and we believe that you can bring the ideas and dialog so badly needed at this time inside the political establishment. The Pew Research Group did a study in 2004 that said that only 19% of Americans were liberal. The other 81% of us need representation. Not a partisan who will tow the party line but a different kind of politician, one who is more American than they are Democrat or Republican.

For years you have been a leader of the conservative and libertarian movement in America, on the radio, on TV, on the web, in newspapers, and in your books. For years, you have set an example for all Americans, not just black Americans, or conservative Americans. You were born and raised in South Central Los Angeles, the epicenter of black poverty and discontentment in the United States. Instead of succumbing to the streets, you chose to break free of the bonds of racial victimhood. You were not content to be a member of the discontented masses. As a black American you faced racism but did not let it be an anchor to your future. You saw that America holds opportunity for all people, despite their differing races or backgrounds. You learned from your parents the values of hard work and personal responsibility. You studied hard to make good grades and gained admission to Brown University and later to the University of Michigan law school.

Larry, for too many years the Republican Party has lost the plot in respect to the values which are the cornerstones to the Republican Party and conservatism in general. Year after year the GOP continues to offer up candidates that are more interested in their own political well-being then the overall well being of the United States. Republicans have been far too quick to moderate their positions on important matters because they wanted to gain approval from the DC elite or because a poll said that they should.

This is why a person of your character is need in Washington.  In addition, the incumbent, Senator Barbara Boxer is one of the most liberal members of the US Senate. She is supported by trial lawyers, big labor, and big-abortion. She is opposed by tax payer groups, family groups, and small businesses. We need a member of the US Senate that stands for the Constitution. That stands for economic, personal, and political freedom. We need a person that stands for a strong national defense in the face of looming adversaries around the world. We need someone who is intellectually honest, who will speak the truth even when doing so is not popular. The people crave a politician that will do what is in the best interests of the Union despite the threat of annihilation from political opponents. You have never been one to back down from a fight, or to moderate yourself for personal gain.

You combine the focus of a strong national defense and respect of the rule of law of conservatism, and the belief in individual freedom and responsibility of libertarianism. You have coined the term “republitarian” as a person who is a Republican but has independent and libertarian views. You would completely stand alone in the world of politics.

People will ask. Can a conservative “republitarian” be elected to the Senate from the liberal state of California? Yes, if that person can convince the many sane-minded voters of the golden state to side with them on the important issues of our time. Larry, you are the person that can frame the debate, and stick to facts and issues not generalities and platitudes that offer no real advancement from our current state. Your formidable intellect will allow you to avoid the landmines buried in the dirt of liberal spin and non fact. The same landmines that have tripped up so many Republicans in the past because the typical Republican candidate in liberal states is usually a party stooge of the lowest order.  Set up for failure by the party in favor of candidates in more traditionally conservative areas.

The unwitting candidate is usually a silver-spoon country-clubber type with a stiff demeanor and unremarkable personality. Not that there is anything wrong with that, a Senator needs not to be poor or possess a flamboyant personality to be successful. However, this coupled with the tendency of the typical blue state GOP candidate to run a campaign of watered down conservatism, having more interest in the office than the issues; make these stereotypical Republicans easy pickings for the liberal establishment.

California and America both need someone different. Not someone of different skin color but someone truly different in ways that genuinely matter like intellect, ideas, and courage. We need someone to bring change to Washington, not just the change of the party in power, but a change in the way government works. We want government to be minimal as intended, we want government to do very few functions but we want them done very well. We want our government to protect us from our enemies. We want the government to protect our life, liberty, and property. We want the government to be fiscally responsible and accountable to the taxpayer. We want our government to provide justice across the land. We want all of the freedoms and liberties granted by the constitution.

Larry Elder, you are the man we all need so badly in Washington DC. Not only Californians but Americans everywhere need you to be a voice for them in the United States Senate. It will not be an easy road, but we can guarantee that we will be there for you every step of the way to support you and fight for you because we know that you will fight for us.

Godspeed and good luck to you, Sage!

 

Sincerely,

The 81%