Remember when George W. Bush was elected? We were so proud, not since Pres. Reagan did we have a hard-core conservative that supported social as well fiscal conservative values, a right-wing candidate that united the left and right. There was only one problem, Bush while religious turned out to be a fiscal liberal believing that the American taxpayer could solve the social ills of the nation and possibly the world.

Some are trying to make the same mistake, Mike Huckabee a religious conservative, is not a conservative Republican. His record in Arkansas bears that out in the form of higher taxes and larger government. We need to stop confusing one's personal religious views with conservative ideals. My minister, a Presbyterian, is a nice guy who believes in the sanctity of life and that government is encroaching on religious freedoms (both hallmarks of the right) yet he is as liberal as the day is long. His "compassion" for the downtrodden goes to the point of believing that it is okay for government to take my money and spend it on the "less fortunate".

If Huckabee were to win we will see a continuation growth of the Federal Government and a greater tax burden. There will be the same pandering to the left by trying to buy their love through money for programs and pork conservatives care little about or are even against (remember the impending death of the Dept. of Education?).
 

Also let’s be real here Huckabee is not palatable to the general electorate. Maybe if Hillary is the Democrat nominee he could possibly pull off a win but probably not. Romney, Thompson, and even Giuliani (who even as liberal as he is will probably rule more conservatively than the Huckster) can easily beat Hillary and actually have a chance to beat someone as personable as Obama. Yes we like to put money on our favorite horses but is it really smart to go to the track and bet on the losers?

That fact the Democrats are running Congress and that they are poised to occupy the White House after the ’08 elections may have come home to roost. While yesterday’s dramatic drop of the Dow may have been triggered by foreign influence, mainly the Hang Seng, the lack of confidence in the U.S. Government to construct sound economic policy prevented our markets from withstanding the assault.

Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said that the Bush tax cuts are history. Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton was on the stump telling the world that the profits of the oil companies need to be confiscated and spent elsewhere. Those two statements more than anything else right now could spell the end of the economic prosperity we have enjoyed for so many years.

What the rest us learned in economics 101 and through the examples provided by every major tax cut in history, they cannot seem to grasp. Tax cuts, not increases, spur the economy and actually increase government revenues while raising taxes has the opposite effect. Of course, this is nothing more than another attempt at wealth redistribution. They will go after high wage earners only (folks that actually work for a living); while they leave the likes of Ted Kennedy, with his fortune safely tucked away in Cayman Islands banks, alone.

The de facto nationalization of big oil by Mrs. Clinton borders on the insane. Both small investors (show me a well-managed mutual fund that does not own oil stock right now) and the government (in the form of decreased revenues) will feel the ramifications of it. How many more companies would flee our shores and set up shop in more friendly business climes, such as London, as so many have to escape Sarbanes-Oxley. The confidence in the American Government, along with the dollar, would evaporate. The world market would wonder if the government would stop with big oil. As they have with the tax code, defining lower and lower incomes as wealthy, would the government decide which companies other than the oil industry are making too much money or paying their shareholders too large a dividend? Would they decide that companies that put large amounts of their profits into research and development are operating at an unfair advantage when compared to other companies? Who would decide what the threshold for “unfair” is?

If we wish to remain on top in the global market, America needs to have the free-market it has always had. These attempts by the left create a socialist state by another name must not be allowed to control our economic future.

Where in the Justice Department is there another prosecutor with the tenacity of Patrick Fitzgerald? While Mr. Fitzgerald went after VP Cheney and Lewis “Scooter” Libby over the Valerie Plame affair they seemed to be unconcerned that former National Security Advisor and Clinton Historian-in-Chief Samuel “Sandy” Berger had removed many more original, un-archived documents from the National Archives than originally believed. Even for what was known to have been removed, the Justice Department seemed to be okay with Berger’s assertion that the removal of any documents was purely accidental, even though archive staffers witnessed Berger stuffing documents down his pants and wrapping them around his legs. The discovery that he hid garbage bags of documents at a construction site appears to be of little concern to the Justice Department.

The Department continued to pursue Cheney and Libby even after it was public knowledge that Richard Armitage was the original “leaker” and that a federal grand jury had decided that no crime was committed as to the “outing” of Ms. Plame. They are, however, completely satisfied with their conduct in the investigation of the Berger affair even though it is clear federal law has been broken. I guess this should have been expected since during the Plame investigation Justice failed to investigate Ms. Plame using her position to get her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, a federal appointment. Mr. Fitzgerald could have also looked in to what many believe were a manipulation of the facts in Wilson’s report to the Bush Administration on Iraq’s attempt to buy “yellow-cake” uranium from Niger. The Butler Report, released by the UK Government, seems to contradict the assertions made by Wilson in his formal report to the White House.

Mr. Berger’s original statement to investigators has proven to be a lie "Last year, when I was in the Archives reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake. It is one that I deeply regret; I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely. Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply, absolutely wrong." (USA Today 7/21/2004). So hiding documents in ones underpants and then burying them is an honest mistake? Lying to investigators about the number and content of documents is an honest mistake? The federal prosecutor seemed to think that this was a reasonable explanation of his actions. Is this not why Scooter Libby is currently on trial? Mr. Libby, accused of no crime other than lying to prosecutors, awaits the results of a jury, yet Sandy Berger roams free. Why is Mr. Berger held to a different standard?

Get ready for the challenges, for if any of the tightly contested house seats go in favor of Republicans expect challenges from the Dems. They are already hiring lawyers for these challenges. According to the Democrats, Republicans only win by vote rigging and crooked court decisions. Even Mexico has taken a page from the DNC’s 2000 playbook, no matter how many times the votes are recounted or how the courts rule the left keeps saying the election was flawed. While this will not get them into power it will hamstring the new Mexican government, as supporters of the left will feel they were disenfranchised, even if it is not true. The Democrats succeeded, even after liberal organizations counted the votes and say Bush won, even if votes for Buchanan are counted as votes for Gore. A large percentage of liberals still believe Bush “stole’” the election. When the Supreme Court supports abortion it instantly becomes “established laws”, when it rules on Bush’s election it is “appointing a president”. Apparently democracy only works if liberals are elected to public office.

While the left cries “Impeach Bush” almost nostop these days I believe it's time to rally to a new impeachment call. I call for the immediate introduction of articles of impeachment against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) for his complicity in the deaths of American military members in Iraq.

I base my case for impeachment thusly: during the 2004 presidential election, Mr. Kerry stated repeatedly to live audiences and to the national press outlets that he had a better plan to manage the war in Iraq. It is now two years later and many on the left say the war is going poorly and that the cost in American lives is unacceptable. What has the good Senator done to prevent the loss of those lives? Has he introduced the secrets of his better plan for Iraq on the floor of the Senate? Has he informed President Bush of the details so that this better plan could be immediately executed and prevent the deaths of more service-members? Has he told the press the details so that we can all see the great wisdom in his plan for a peaceful Iraqi nation? He has not.

So once again, I call on the members of the Houses of Congress to introduce articles of impeachment against Senator Kerry. For him to hold the details of his better plan to himself is unacceptable in a time of war. The only reason he could be keeping this plan to himself is for personal political gain, right? I mean Mr. Kerry would not have lied to the American people about such an important matter, would he? I’m just as sure he had a plan just as I am sure that Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Clinton will be releasing, as they keep saying they will, the details of their plans to balance the federal budget, lower gasoline prices and provide a better prescription drug plan for all Americans. After all, like Mr. Kerry, I’m sure they’re as good as their word.

Richard Armitage, a State Department official that opposed the war in Iraq and rightly believing she was not covert, not the White House confirmed to Robert Novak what he had learned from others that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The Washington Post (Sep. 1) questions Joe Wilson’s, Plame’s husband, report on Iraq’s attempt to buy uranium from Niger and whether the conclusions were politically motivated. The paper questions Wilson’s baseless accusation of an “illegal conspiracy” to discredit him and goes on to state the charges “that it [the White House] orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson is untrue”. The Post claims, “the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.” The question should be why prosecutor Robert Fitzgerald, who apparently discovered Armitage’s connection early in the investigation, sat on the knowledge for three years and why he charged Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury when apparently all Libby did was say he couldn’t remember events, that it now turns out, never happened.

Many, including elected Democrats, have used these accusations to attack the integrity of the Bush administration. Where is the call for a full investigation of Fitzgerald, Wilson and Plame? Although nothing other than Wilson’s accusations pointed to the White House many on the left did not wait for a court decision before accepting it as fact. Are apologies on the way?

Why do democrats regularly get the Jewish vote? The current situation in the Middle East has again brought out what I believe to be one of the ugly little secrets of the left…anti-Semitism. When even moderate Arabs states are saying Israel is justified in its action why is the American left again coming out in defense of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran?

A trip through the blogosphere will easily answer that, look how Israel is portrayed in democrat, progressive or “green” party sites, always the aggressor no matter what has been done or given up for peace. While publications like The Nation (their blogs have hate the KKK would love to be able to harness) are almost open in their support for Arab terrorists of any type, more mainstream publications such as Time or The New York Times hide it a little better by claiming both sides are equally at fault even when the terrorists are clearly the aggressors. Why would these publications support folks like Hezbollah, which do not believe in democracy, do not support women’s issues or abortion, and would publicly execute homosexuals if in power?
 
While I know some liberals that might like the complete control of political ideology that Islamic fundamentalists have, I feel the real reason for this attitude is anti-Semitism. How can people that believe in “diversity” dislike the Jews so much, is it because they think Jews, like conservative Christians, use moral beliefs to help guide their voting decisions? Is it because of stereotypes? Are they assuming all Jews are rich? I mean look at how the left hates the rich, except for Sorros, Kerry, and anyone named Kennedy. Is it because of the conservative beliefs of orthodox Jews? Hillary had to by votes from them using her husband’s power to pardon. When Israel sits on less the 1/6 of 1 percent of middle-eastern land and gives concession after concession towards lasting peace and still the left considers them the party at fault, what are we supposed to believe? The only conclusion I can come to is deeply ingrained anti-Semitism.