OK, the time is now to let my fellow Opinionators in on the whole truth of John McCain’s stances while in public office. I know I have been pretty critical and disparaging of the man in the past. But as I have pointed out, this is a primary, and when you’re not backing a particular person, you tend to focus on the not-so-pretty side of their record.

To me, Romney was, and remains, a better choice. However, the Arizona Senator WILL be the Republican nominee, and as such, it is our DUTY as Republicans to coalesce around him and ensure he will win the White House. Believe me, if you think for one moment that Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama would be a better choice for this great land, you are sadly mistaken, and may need psychological help.

Now, you can go to the profile I did on McCain before to see the negative, but here I am going to focus on the positive, starting with an issue that is near and dear to most conservatives: abortion. As before, I will be borrowing from the website ontheissues.org.

In my previous “Profile…,” I pointed out that Sen. McCain said, “I think the respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn is something I've fought for, and it has a lot to do with national security. Because it says very much what kind of a country we are and our respect for human life, whether it be here in the US or anyplace else in the world. So I think it is connected.” (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)

He is dead on here. Respect and commitment to the RIGHTS of the unborn is most definitely at the heart of social conservatives. It is also something that we’ll have to guard and protect with great vigilance. Being pro-life is more than a bunch of rhetoric, and we will have to hold the senator’s feet to the fire if he becomes our forty-fourth president.

I must admit, when it comes to repealing Roe v. Wade, the senator has me a bit perplexed. In August, 1999, Sen. McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” However, his spokesman quickly pointed out that McCain had (at that time) a “seventeen year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”

But then on Jan. 22, 2000, just five months later, the senator took a much stauncher stand. According to an article in the Boston Globe, “McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.” In this quote, he is getting closer to the conservative heart, although some would suggest there be no exeption for rape and incest, since there is always the alternative of adoption.

As for the health of the mother, I think there are good arguments for both sides on this matter. Either way you go, you are sacrificing one life for that of another, a very tough call for someone on the outside looking in. However, I have got to tell you that, as a father of two lovely girls, if God forbid, there came a circumstance where I had to decide if one of them would die, or I would…I would have to die.

Yes, the life of a mother is a tough call for those on the outside looking in, but for those of us on the inside, at least those of us who are conservative, it would never really be a choice at all. I know very few women, if any, who would not give up their life so that their child could have his.

The Right Opinion on this issue is that Roe should be overturned outright. In cases of rape or incest, the mother should have the choice of either keeping the child or putting it up for adoption. If the mother’s life is at risk, it should be a matter of personal choice between the mother, her family, and her God.

With his stance on abortion, however, I think that Sen. McCain makes himself a little more palatable to conservative voters. The following is his voting record as concerns abortion according to On The Issues:

*Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007) *Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006) *Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. *(Mar 2005) Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) *Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003) *Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) *Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) *Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998) *RATED 0% BY NARAL, INDICATING A PRO-LIFE VOTING RECORD (emphasis added)(Dec 2003) *Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004) *Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

Concerning the budget and economy, I will let you read McCain’s words for yourself, as they appear on the ontheissues.org website.

Q: Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?

A: You could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created. But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down. But I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the subprime housing problem. We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so. I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley Jan 31, 2008

Q: Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you are not well versed on?

A: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan Revolution. I was there just after we enacted the first tax cuts and the restraints on spending. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee in the Senate, which addresses virtually every major economic issue that affects the US. I'm very well versed on economics. That's why I have a strong team around me that respect my views and my vision. And that's why The Wall Street Journal, in a survey of economists recently, that the majority of economists thought that I could handle the nation's economy best. And I have been a consistent fighter to restrain spending and to cut taxes. And my credentials & my experience & my knowledge of these economic issues, I think, are extensive. And I would match them against anybody who's running.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

M.R.O. says: Now, at this point, I am quite sure that Gov. Romney was still in it. I know he was, and I would dare argue that Romney, not McCain, would have been better on the economy. However, that point is now moot, and if what the senator says is correct, then I give him my economic blessings.

One thing is for sure, he would certainly be more of an economic hawk than Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, or even Mike Huckabee for that matter. I have to give him this one. And he is right, he was there for the Reagan Revolution…and although some thought Reagan was nuts for “trickle-down economics," it worked!

Q: Why should we continue a Republican in the White House with the current kind of economic record?

A: I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills. I will impose some fiscal discipline. We will clean up our act and we will regain the confidence of the American people as being careful stewards of our tax dollars, and we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China, then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in America has been required to do.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

On the issue of reforming insurance to cover violent weather patterns, Sen. McCain proffered the following:

“As more and more violent weather patterns take place, people's homes are more and more in jeopardy. We can address it regionally. We can address it with the governors and the legislatures working with the federal government to have insurance spread across state lines, increasing the risk pool. We can reform insurance. I will call the regulators, the governors and the legislators and work together to provide every American that's in jeopardy to have the insurance that they need and deserve.”
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

At first blush, I was not sure I liked the idea of “hav(ing) insurance spread across state lines, increasing the risk pool.” My initial thought was, “hey, that will make my rates go up in order to provide Joe Blow with insurance.” However, on reflection, I think it may be a good idea. If Joe Blow has insurance, then he isn’t going to need tax-subsidized no-or low-interest loans to rebuild. And he won’t need tax monies to stay in a hotel while his home is rebuilt. So, I think with a little more detail, this may work.

Q: If we're talking about a recession in the next few months, in 2008, what kind of short-term, more immediate government fixes would you propose to try to keep the slowdown diminished or to reverse it? And would you support them even if they added to th government deficit?

A: The first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending. Out-of-control spending is what caused the interest rates to rise. It causes people to be less able to afford to own their own homes. We need to stop the spending And the way we can get our budget under control is to have strong, fundamental fiscal underpinnings. The second thing that we need to do, of course, is stop spending $400 billion a year overseas to oil-producing countries that come right out of our economy immediately. Some of that money goes, unfortunately, to fund terrorist organizations. We've got to develop technologies to reduce this dependency on foreign oil, and eventually eliminate it, and stop this outflow of some $400 billion a year.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in S.C. sponsored by Fox News Jan 10, 2008

Well, I didn’t really hear a direct answer to the question on how to stop the bleeding in the short-term. However, I am totally with the senator that we HAVE to reduce dependence on foreign oil. These foreigners who wield the all-might oil sword have America by the, well, you know. We need immediate initiatives to become self-sufficient in this arena, so we can tell Ahmadinijad (sp)-you know, the Gilligan-looking guy in Iran, and his buddy, Hugo Chavez, where they can put their oil!

Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?

A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we've got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Now we’re talking turkey. Republicans have undoubtedly forgotten how to control spending, and it shows in every aspect of our economy. Yes, we have had war, and yes, we have had corporate scandal. But all this mess can’t be blamed on those factors alone. A lot of pork has been coming out of D.C., and I truly am impressed with McCain’s veto pen, given to him by the GREAT President Reagan. Not only will McCain veto SOME pork-barrel spending, he said “…I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk.” I love that kind of talk, as do most fiscal conservatives.

List of budgetary spending priorities

McCain would “maintain status” on spending for:
AIDS programs
Environmental programs
Foreign aid
Housing projects
Job training programs
Medicaid & Medicare
Student loan programs
McCain would “slightly increase” spending for:
Education (K-12)
Law enforcement
Military & Veterans Benefits
Border Control
McCain would “slightly decrease” spending for:
NASA
Welfare
McCain would eliminate spending for:
Arts funding

OK, kids, that does it for today’s lesson in McCain 101. In our next edition, we will look at John McCain and Civil Rights issues, and maybe more.

I got this email, and once I got up off the floor, I knew I had to post it here!

Have fun!

Mike

Important tax reminder from your local chapter of La Raza:

Don't forget to pay your taxes......

¡Muchas gracias !

21 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

In the spirit of unifying the Republican party, about which I spoke in a previous blog post, I would like to congratulate John McCain on his victories last night. This puts us just inches away from having an “official” nominee, although it became rather obvious once Gov. Romney dropped out so gracefully that Sen. McCain would be the chosen one.

I have to admit that I was not very swayed by the senator’s first couple of endorsements. I mean, Rudy Giuliani and “The Governator” are not exactly what I call right wing. However, when Mitt came out in support of McCain, I think that got a substantial number of conservatives to really start thinking about what’s at stake here. And now that George H.W. Bush has given the senator his nod, I really can see the Republican party starting to dust itself off and move toward our inevitable candidate.

And this is extremely important. As I have pointed out, it is just plain ignorant to stay at home on election day because you might disagree with a few of McCain’s stances. Let’s face it…Ronald Reagan he ain’t. But neither is anybody else. We have to coalesce as a party, lest the country just go to hell in a hand basket, as my uncle always said.

Once again, I want to ask my fellow conservatives: Do you, in your heart of hearts, truly think that our cause would be better served by allowing another Clinton, or, as is seeming more likely, a Barack Hussein Obama, into the White House? I mean, give me a break here. We are talking about LIGHTYEARS of difference between McCain and either of these liberal candidates.

Remember Mr. Right Opinion’s mathematical equations here:
One Republican who doesn’t vote=One vote for the Democrat;
One Republican who actually votes for the Democrat=TWO votes for the Democrat (that is, one less for the Republican, and one more for the Dem).

And I ask you, in all seriousness, who you would rather have leading this great country. Your choices are: 1) A man who loved this country so much that he endured YEARS of torture in a Vietnamese P.O.W. camp, or 2) a man who is married to a woman who, in her Forties (I think) is FINALLY proud to be an American for the FIRST TIME in her life.

Let’s examine this latter issue just briefly. Now, I will all too soon be thirty-nine, so I am just about her age. I was PROUD to be an American when, at the age of eleven, Americans who had been held hostage in Iran during the Carter (choke) administration got to come home.

I was PROUD to be an American when, in 1981, I saw the first Space Shuttle, Columbia, launch into space and orbit the Earth. I was just as PROUD to be an American when it came back and landed safely at Edward’s Air Force base, becoming the FIRST reusable piloted orbiter, as is explained on NASA’s website: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010412.html.

I was DAMN PROUD to be an American when, in 1987, I took an oath to protect my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, at the Navy recruiting station in Louisville, KY.

I have been PROUD to be an American all my life! Am I proud of everything we, as a nation, have done? Of course not. And if anyone says they are, they’re a liar. However, I have NEVER been ashamed to be an American. If a person has no ability to differentiate between fundamentally sound, great principles and the poor judgment of individual politicians, I certainly don’t want them having any influence in my country.

In the weeks to come, fellow Right Opinionators, I will reveal more about our two almost certain nominees to be, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. In the meantime, please consider what I have said. There is no reason in this world to think that an Obama or a Clinton would be more conservative than a McCain.

Well, the time has come to start writing again. After the Romney decision last week at CPAC, I needed to take a few days to regroup and figure out where I wanted to stand now. I was actually ready a few days ago to state my position on this race, but my kids have been out of school the last couple of days due to snow, and this is really the first chance I’ve had to sit down and write.

And, as it turns out, that was a good thing. Not only did it give me some free time with my kids, but I just got word that Mitt Romney is scheduled to endorse John McCain a little later; a wise decision on his part. I had decided several days ago that it was time to make that move, since Gov. Romney was bowing out. I hated to see that, but if McCain is the nominee, as Republicans, we HAVE to “rally ‘round the flag” and back our nominee.

I’m not going to be an Ann Coulter on this. I like and admire Ann for many reasons, but this is not one. Saying that she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if McCain gets the nod is just plain silly and childish. That would be like John Kerry throwing his Purple Heart over a wall or fence or whatever it was and actively protesting the United States as he did just because he didn’t agree with American policy at that time. Who in their right mind would want to be like John Kerry, at least on the issue of morality ?

I’m not even going to close ranks with Rush and say I won’t support McCain because I disagree with a few positions he has taken, important though they are. Am I to now think that an Obama or a Clinton would be more conservative than a McCain? Especially a McCain/Romney??? I think not! And , realistically, one must realize that not voting for the Republican nominee would really be a vote for the Democrat nominee. And a vote for the Democrat would really be two votes for the Democrat, one more for the Jackass, and one LESS for the Elephant.

Yes, “my friends,” the time has come to put aside the animus and pull the party together. I know I have come out hard and strong against McCain, and I haven’t said one thing that wasn’t true, nor one thing that I did not mean. Every criticism was heart-felt, researched, and cited. But that is the way politics are played here in America…especially during primary season at such a critical crossroads in American history.

Now, the events that are unfolding beg the question, “Exactly what is Romney after with this endorsement of McCain?” The answer is really multi-faceted.

For starters, I think the most likely paramount reason is for a vice presidency. I know on the campaign trail that Romney said he would not entertain the thought of a McCain/Romney ticket, but I think now that he has had some time off, clearer heads will prevail, and, if asked, he would accept the position. Why? That brings me to goal number two of the McCain endorsement:

Brining the party together. I think that it is obvious to McCain (and Mitt) that Sen. McCain is going to have a hard time with the far right. I think it is equally obvious to both that Gov. Romney was making some deep inroads into that part of the Republican base. And I also believe that both realize that McCain will not win the White House without that base vote. Pundits are trying to make a big deal out of Huckabee still getting the Christian vote, but they are failing to realize that a good portion of that would have gone to Romney, were he still in it.

If, as I am now starting to think, there is a McCain/Romney ticket for the general election, that would go a long way to healing the division that McCain unintentionally, and most certainly undesirably, has brought to the fore of Republican politics. I think that McCain/Romney would go much farther than McCain/Huckabee, as we have seen how much better Romney did than Huckabee when it was still a three-man race.

The third reason I think Gov. Romney has decided to back Sen. McCain is love of country. I don’t think that is last on Romney’s list of reasons, but I think it is very deeply intertwined with coalescing the party around the Republican nominee. If we don’t first accomplish bringing the party together, we certainly cannot succeed in bringing the country together in November.

However, I have every confidence that we will do this. Shall I let you know why? I shall, and it is very simple…we LOVE America! I know the Democrats say it, but we actually mean it, and we actually prove it. Love is not a noun, it is a verb. It is a word that requires action. And I don’t mean Code Pink going to Berkley, CA to march against the military in shameful protest. I mean positive action that actually is GOOD for the country!

If you want to see what a patriotic march looks like, look at the footage of House Republicans walking out of the House of Representatives today because Democrats have time to debate a subpoena of White House officials, but no time to debate national security in the form of renewing the F.I.S.A. act. That is what I mean by love being an action word!

We WILL come together, and we WILL overcome this Obama tide that seems to be sweeping the country. It is an aberration, and it cannot sustain itself. He offers great promise, but no plan. It truly is just more of the same old recycled Democrat playbook in a different mask. This time, it is taking the form of, drum roll please, CHANGE! But it is right out of the playbook of the Democrats. Make the goal known, but offer no way of actually getting there.

Just like last year when the Democrats cleaned the proverbial clocks of Republicans in the House and Senate. Remember that? They PROMISED we would be out of Iraq. Now, mind you, I am not for a withdrawal at this point in time…that would be foolish. However, I am saying that they got elected because they made lofty promises, pie-in-the-sky goals, but they had no plan of how to achieve them! Sound familiar?

That is exactly what Barack Obama is doing now. As Senator Clinton said in her Texas speech about Pres. Bush, Obama is “too much hat and not enough cattle.” He has great ideas of what the results will be, but he has no plan to accomplish them. And if he does, I wish he would let the American people in on it.

Yes, we need change. But the change we need is not going to be found in a Democrat president. We need good results, but we also need a plan on how to achieve them. We need a president that will guard the borders and keep illegals out. We need a president that will crack down on employers who hire those illegals. We need a leader who will be tough on national security. And we need a president who will lift us up economically and in spirit. We need to believe in America again. We want desperately to hold our heads high and be that “shining city on the hill” that President Reagan talked about.

I know that President Reagan has departed this world. I realize that the world is a much different place than it was just twenty short years ago. However, the principles that make this country great have not changed in 233 years.

Look at Reagan and Bush 41. They went into the White House not exactly the best of friends, but look what the two of them together were able to accomplish. We dismantled the Soviet Union for Pete’s sake! And, in the process, we won the Cold War. We had “trickle-down economics. People thought the Reagan administration had lost its mind. But guess what…it worked!

Let us come together in this fight for America! Let us now lift our heads high, drop petty, and even not-so-petty differences, and get behind the man that will undoubtedly be our next nominee. And let us pray for this great land, and for those who are charged with directing it.

Well, we are only 24 hours away from the start of “Super Duper Tuesday.” All I can say is that I hope ‘Super Tuesday’ will be like Super Bowl Sunday, and will produce an upset victory for Mitt Romney.

But since it is so close, I wanted to take this opportunity to point out a few things that I have highlighted in my coverage of the Republican side of this primary fight, and the fighters who are still standing.

Let me start by announcing to all you conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who are concerned about illegal immigration and who would best fight it, that Gov. Romney has appointed “immigration warrior” Kris Kobach to be part of his advisory staff. Mr. Kobach, as reported by www.womenforromney.org, “Is A Noted Immigration Expert, Professor Of Law And Head Of The Kansas Republican Party. In 1996, Professor Kobach joined the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law (UMKC) faculty. In 2001, he was awarded a White House Fellowship serving in the office of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. There he would serve as the Attorney General’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Kobach was charged with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) efforts to tighten border security and implement the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Before leaving DOJ in 2003, he led the reform of the immigration court system. Professor Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile immigration lawsuits including representing the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. He is a Senior Counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. At the Law School, he teaches Constitutional law and immigration law.”

In stark contrast to Romney’s pick as advisor on illegal immigration, McCain picked Juan Hernandez to reach out to the Hispanic population. Juan is an open borders crusader who has dual citizenship with Mexico and America, and a man who served on the cabinet of former Mexican president Vicente Fox. These picks alone should tell you something about the men running for the White House and where there loyalties on immigration lie.

As Ann Coulter points out on her blog, “In 2003, McCain told The Tucson Citizen that ‘amnesty has to be an important part’ of any immigration reform. He also rolled out the old chestnut about America's need for illegals, who do ‘jobs that American workers simply won't do.’

“McCain's amnesty bill would have immediately granted millions of newly legalized immigrants Social Security benefits. He even supported allowing work performed as an illegal to count toward Social Security benefits as recently as a vote in 2006 -- now adamantly denied by Mr. Straight Talk.”

If you’re concerned about Illegal immigration, Mitt’s your man.

For social conservatives, as I have stated before, yes, Gov. Romney has changed his position on abortion and now adamantly opposes it. However, as I have also pointed out, this is not something that he did lightly. And almost every pundit I hear talk about this issue, either Democrat or Republican, believes that this was a conversion of true conviction, not of political expediency.

John McCain would have you believe that he has ALWAYS opposed abortion, but that is not truly the case. Here is a quote from McCain on embryonic stem cell research: “ I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.” (Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007)

And on overturning Roe vs. Wade? “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade.” (Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999)

If you are concerned about abortion, Mitt’s your man.

How about fiscal conservatism? Well, Mitt Romney is all for tax cuts. He also has the real world experience of running businesses with budgets the size of the economies of some countries. As for McCain, while he would have you believe that he has always supported tax cuts, he twice voted against the Bush tax cuts which brought us out of the Clinton recession, and saw us through national tragedies and corporate scandals.

If you are a fiscal conservative, Mitt’s your man.

Yes, folks, we are headed for a Super Tuesday showdown. The polls are saying McCain will come out smelling like a rose. But we have all seen how reliable those polls have been this cycle.

I urge all of you to investigate these things for yourselves in the next 24-36 hours. Don’t listen blindly to the media and become part of the koolaid drinking sheople. Look at the facts, and then go to the polls and vote for the only true conservative in the race…Mitt Romney.

One way you can tell how liberal McCain is is by the endorsements he has picked. I mean, the New York Times? Come on, how much more liberal can one get? Giuliani? The guy is pro-choice and ran a sanctuary city. Oh yea, and married the woman with whom he was having an affair on his ex-wife. And Arnold? Another moderate Republican who married a Kennedy and is more liberal than I think a Republican should be.

Yes, go to the polls, tell a friend, and let’s see Romney all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue!

McClintObama Amnesty Plan: 20 million illegal alien voters by 2010
Posted on Friday, February 01 @ 17:07:57 CST
Topic: John McCain President Campaign
February 1, 2008

by William Gheen
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us

Have GOP Voters forgotten that just a few months ago, John McCain stood hand-in-hand with liberal icon Ted Kennedy pushing for the largest amnesty for illegal aliens in American history? While Rasmussen polling showed that Americans following the legislation very closely opposed it 3 to 1 (69% to 23%), McCain ignored the massive public outcry!

The angry calls rolling into the Senate offices, including John McCain's, were between 50 and 100 to 1 against McCain and Kennedy's bill. We know this because we stood outside his door counting calls received by his staff and because other Senators told us the ratios they were receiving. History was made when the Capital phone system shut down, due to overload of calls from angry Americans.

John McCain refused to listen to Americans and went so far as to call members of the Senate who refused to support the McKennedy Amnesty "Racists"! John McCain showed no regard for American voices and instead called those who disagreed with him petty names. Who was John McCain listening to? He was listening to the US Chamber of Commerce and the racist illegal alien support groups like La Raza (The Race) whom he openly coordinated the effort with.

John McCain has illustrated in dramatic fashion that when he feels safe in his office, he couldn't care less about what a majority of Americans think.

Now, John McCain claims he is listening because he wants to be President in a few months. He says he will "Secure the Border First!" Even if you could trust John McCain, which you cannot, his border security pledge will be quickly reduced to irrelevance, if his desire for Amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens becomes a reality...

Barrack Obama brags about how he worked with Senator McCain for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" amnesty. If the GOP voters allow McCain to win the primary, they will be denying Americans any real choice against Amnesty in November. Unless an independent candidate enters the race, our choice will be between Clinton, Obama, or McCain all pushing for Amnesty from the White House, just like Bush!

Some conservatives will hold their nose and vote for McCain out of fear of the Democrats, others will go third party. Many conservatives would not vote for McCain at gunpoint!

The Republican Party will not be destroyed, if the McCain, Obama, Clinton Amnesty becomes a reality. Each party will race to replace American voices in their ranks, with the twenty million new voters who were recently illegal aliens. Does this surprise anyone who is knowledgeable about how American homes, jobs, tax dollars, limited health care resources, and finite seats in schools are being given to illegal aliens as well?

Any border security promised by McCain will quickly fade into irrelevance beneath the political weight of America's new race based voting block of legalized illegal aliens. What hope will Americans have for border security or immigration enforcement once this happens? The answer is clear... NONE!

Seventy Seven percent of Americans oppose licenses for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be eligible for licenses within a few years.

Over seventy percent of Americans oppose taxpayer benefits and welfare for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens will be turned into citizen voters and will be eligible for welfare and all taxpayer benefits.

Over 80 percent of Americans oppose in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million legalized illegal aliens will qualify for in-state tuition.

Under the McClintObama plan, employers will only have to worry about hiring the next twenty million illegal aliens flooding the country, in response to the Amnesty provided to the most recent wave.

John McCain supports Amnesty. If you have any doubts, then ask yourself why his campaign has deployed open borders fanatic, Juan Hernandez to secure the Hispanic vote for McCain.

Juan Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and America. He used to work for Mexican President Vicente Fox by reaching out to and organizing illegal aliens from Mexico inside the US. Hernandez is known for his stance called, "Mexico First". He is a regular on national television, where he flagrantly advocates amnesty and Open Borders with Mexico.

Juan Hernandez is the face of the McCain's campaign to Hispanic voters and he did a great job delivering the Hispanic vote in Florida to McCain!

There are two main reasons McCain is winning the GOP Primary right now. One is the anti-illegal immigration vote is split up between Romney and Paul, who appear to be sincere in their "No Amnesty" pledges. The anti-illegal immigration vote is also splitting to Mike Huckabee, who truthfully supports Amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, but is a very skillful liar. Huckabee is deceiving voters by mailing out endorsment cards from lone Minuteman Jim Gilchrist. The anti-illegal immigration vote is divided three ways, and the pro-amnesty vote is now collected around John McCain.

The second reason McCain is winning is that many GOP voters don't know his immigration stances, have forgotten his immigration stances, or have forgiven his immigration stances. They say, "He has changed" or "We have to stop Clinton and Obama".

John McCain has not changed or he would not have Juan Hernandez out promising Amnesty for illegal aliens. John McCain has not changed or he would not be saying, "Secure the Borders first", without getting into the part where amnesty is then passed. John McCain has not changed because he recently stated on the national news that he would still vote for his amnesty bill or sign it into law as President!

Do GOP voters really prefer to have one of their own pushing amnesty than a Democrat? I am a Republican, getting closer to independent every day, but I will say that at very least the Democrats are more honest about their pro-amnesty positions than McCain and Huckabee.

What madness, lies, or misinformation would infect the mind of a GOP voter for them to support a man like John McCain, who works openly with ultra-liberal Democrats, almost changed parties to join the Democrats in 2001, and has the worst record on immigration of any of the GOP candidates?

Why would anyone support a man who is so detached from reality that he told a booing crowd of Union workers that they would not pick lettuce for even $50 an hour!?!?!

John McCain says he knows all about securing the border because he is from Arizona. Say what? Has anyone seen the conditions in Arizona lately, where they have declared a state of emergency and fought to pass strict state laws to enforce the immigration laws, which John McCain and his DC insiders refuse to enforce?

There are good reasons why Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin are heavily criticizing John McCain. There are good reasons for Ronald Reagan's son, Michael to condemn the McCain candidacy. There are good reasons why ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, and almost every other organization in America fighting against Amnesty and illegal immigration, while supporting Border Security, are screaming NO to McCain!

The principles of this nation are at stake. The value of our votes is at stake. The survival of the United States, in its current form, is at stake.

We must stop the McClintObama Amnesty Plan. We must stop twenty million illegal aliens from becoming voters by 2010. We must race against time to warn every GOP voter before Super Tuesday, because we must do all we can to stop John McCain.

---

William Gheen is the national spokesman for ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee) found on the web at www.alipac.us ALIPAC is a collective of Americans of every race and walk of life that are unified in their support for Border Security and enforcement of America's existing immigration laws. William Gheen is a veteran campaign consultant with over 15 years and 44 campaigns of experience. He has served GOP candidates in North Carolina since 2000, before founding ALIPAC on 9/11/2004

Dear Gov. Huckabee:

My name is Mike Minton. I know you don’t know me, and I doubt seriously that you’ve ever seen my blog, “Mr. Right Opinion,” although you don’t know what you are missing out on.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your service to our country, as a pastor, a governor, as an aspirant to the presidency, and no doubt in many ways about which we may never even know.

However, despite all the good that you’ve done in your life, I feel compelled to tell you that, by staying in this presidential race, you are further dividing an already fractured Republican party. And, more importantly, by so doing, you are inadvertently making it more difficult to heal an already deeply divided nation.

Just earlier this week, we saw your former competitor, Rudy Giuliani, withdraw from his campaign and throw his support behind Sen. McCain; a move that will, without a doubt, put the senator in a superior position on “super-duper Tuesday.”

Mr. Huckabee, I can’t imagine that, in researching the backgrounds of your competitors and preparing for your campaign, you haven’t seen what John McCain is really all about.

Governor, you claim to be a conservative, and I have no doubt that you love America every bit as much as I. Well, sir, I am now asking you to demonstrate both of those attributes by putting an end to your candidacy.

This request has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you on the issues on which you were running. The fact is that we now have two front-runners who truly have pretty diverse backgrounds, and two pretty different visions of where this country is going.

Senator McCain is undoubtedly a true American hero. I admire both his military and political service to America. However, Governor, he IS NOT the best option for either the Republican party, nor for the United States of America.

By remaining in a Primary which-and please pardon my bluntness-you simply cannot win, you are detracting votes from the other governor who otherwise could. And I am sure you, as a Christian and a patriot, are above staying in a presidential race merely to skew the results for one candidate or the other.

I realize that Gov. Romney has changed his position on abortion, but I am firmly convinced that he is sincere in his commitment to preserving innocent life. Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has been quoted as saying, “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade….” Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999.

And while I know that Sen. McCain likes to say that he has been consistently pro-life, the fact is that he alluded to pro-lifers as, “the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance…” drawing parallels to the likes of Louis Farrakhan Source: Speech in Virginia Beach, VA Feb 28, 2000. So this means that Sen. McCain is either NOT pro-life, or that he is, in his own words, an agent of intolerance comparable to Louis Farrakhan.

Furthermore, Gov. Huckabee, it is a well-known fact Sen. McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens. This is yet another area in which he has been, shall we say, less than honest. No matter what euphemism you may wish to put on it, McCain-Feingold is an amnesty bill. And, in fact, the senator has as an advisor one of former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s Cabinet members, Juan Hernandez.

Here is a quote from CNSnews.com: “’The fact that (McCain) would pick a person who has worked as a foreign government official is very troubling,’ Steven Camarota, director of research with the Center for Immigration Studies, told Cybercast News Service. ‘That person has taken an oath to a foreign government, and now (McCain) wants to make him an integral part of his campaign.’”

Gov. Romney has gone on the record as saying we must “Secure The Border, Implement An Enforceable Employer Verification System, Reject Amnesty, Punish Sanctuary Cities, Improve Interior Enforcement, and finally, Encourage Legal Immigration, if we are to restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law.”

Gov. Huckabee, you know that over the past two decades, Americans’ faith in the federal government’s willingness to stop illegal immigration has been decimated. That faith desperately needs restoration. I believe Gov. Romney can accomplish that. Sadly, I don’t think Sen. McCain is even interested in restoring that faith.

On another issue, Governor, Mitt Romney is strides ahead of Sen. McCain on economic issues. He has supported lower taxes, and has run businesses with budgets the size of the entire economies of some countries.

Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has not had the benefit of that type of experience. What’s more, the senator has been dishonest about his alleged fiscal conservatism. I have heard him say that he has ALWAYS supported lower taxes. However, he was one of a very few Republicans to vote AGAINST the Bush tax cuts.

For all of these reasons: social conservatism; fiscal conservatism; cohesion of the Republican party; and, most importantly, the betterment of America in general, I am asking you to gracefully drop out of the 2008 race. That will allow true conservatives like myself (and like you claim to be) to rally around a candidate whom we can trust to represent our values in the White House.

Again, thank you for your unselfish service to our country, and God Bless!

Sincerely,
Michael A. Minton

Former Mexican Statesman Joins McCain Camp
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 31, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Juan Hernandez, the man who served in Vicente Fox's cabinet when the latter was president of Mexico, is now advising Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on reaching out to Hispanics during his presidential bid.

Hernandez is the son of a Mexican father and American mother and has dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico.

He has not responded to requests by Cybercast News Service to answer critics who say a man who allegedly took an oath of office to the Mexican government and has been an outspoken advocate for open borders and illegal immigrants should clarify how his views comport with those of McCain, who reportedly has toughened his views on illegal immigration since entering the presidential race.

"The fact that (McCain) would pick a person who has worked as a foreign government official is very troubling," Steven Camarota, director of research with the Center for Immigration Studies, told Cybercast News Service. "That person has taken an oath to a foreign government, and now (McCain) wants to make him an integral part of his campaign."

McCain's campaign didn't return calls to Cybercast News Service, but Brian Rogers, spokesman for the campaign, has told news outlets that Hernandez is only an adviser and does not have a policy role.

But Camarota said Hernandez's job with the campaign calls into question McCain's claim that he "gets it" concerning immigration after the collapse of the federal government's proposed comprehensive immigration reform last year.

"It's not at all clear if (McCain) believes in securing our borders," Camarota said.

A Rasmussen poll in May 2007 showed that 72 percent of Americans think it is "very important" for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.

Some 48 percent opposed last year's immigration reform bill, the so-called amnesty bill backed by McCain and President Bush, while 26 percent were "not sure" of their position on the legislation.

On her Web site, conservative Michelle Malkin said of Hernandez's advisory role: "McCain knew what he was getting and so should Republican voters."

But perhaps Hernandez himself has provided the most fodder for his critics by making countless appearances on television touting his open borders message. Diggersrealm.com posted a video montage of some of those appearances, including one on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN.
br>"If we become a different kind of nation that doesn't open its borders to immigrants, we will lose what makes this nation work," Hernandez said. On another show, he said if Mexicans live and work in America they should "think Mexico first."

But some experts say Hernandez has the right credentials to advise a presidential candidate, including his heritage and experience.

"My dealings with Juan Hernandez have been entirely positive," Dan Griswold, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, told Cybercast News Service. "He is a very thoughtful person who brings a thoughtful perspective to a presidential campaign."

In a May 15, 2007 essay for the Reform Institute, where Hernandez is a senior fellow, he wrote under the headline "Immigration Debate a Test of Our Core Values."

"This debate goes to the heart of what America is all about. Two fundamental pillars of our society are our dedication to achieving prosperity through hard work and our devotion to the Judeo-Christian values of compassion, mercy and inclusion," Hernandez wrote.

"Instead of backing away from these core beliefs and fencing ourselves in, we must renew this spirit through a sensible and effective immigration policy that provides a path to permanent legal status for immigrants who strengthen our economy and society," he added.

OK, guys, you know I'm not one to come on here and ask for help. However, we are in a fight for the very heart and soul of the Republican party.

I got the following email today from the Romney campaign, and since I am an official campaign fundraiser, they wanted me to email this to everyone I know. But I thought this would probably be more effective.

You know the articles I've written regarding where John McCain stands, and the liberal positions he holds. Now that this has become a two horse race between Romney and McCain, we really have to kick it up a notch.

Please read the following, and do as your heart tells you.

Thanks and God Bless,
Mike Minton

Dear Mr. Right Opinion Readers

I am writing to ask you to join me in supporting the person that I am convinced should be elected the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney.

Governor Romney has the experience, vision, and values to bring conservative change to Washington, and his message is resonating with voters across the country. With Mayor Giuliani’s disappointing finish in the Florida primary, the race for the Republican nomination has come down to a contest between Governor Romney and Senator McCain.

Governor Romney’s victories in Nevada, Michigan, and Wyoming, and his strong second-place showings in Florida, New Hampshire, and Iowa, demonstrate that he is the only candidate with the broad-based support to unite the coalitions within the Republican Party, secure the nomination, and ultimately win the White House. Americans are looking for a candidate who will not only work to ensure that America’s military remains strong, but who also has the real-world experience to turn around our economy, and the determination to fight for strong family values. Governor Romney is this candidate.

As you may know, over 1,000 delegates will be determined in over 20 states on February 5th, and Governor Romney needs our support to ensure he has the resources he needs to get his message out to the voters in those states. I have volunteered with his campaign to raise money for Governor Romney’s Media Victory Fund, which will help him run enough advertising in key February 5th states to spread his message and win the Republican nomination. Will you join me in supporting his campaign by helping to sponsor an ad today?

Doing so is easy, all you need to do is visit www.MittRomney.com/VictoryFund:fid=INSERTYOURFIDHERE, and contribute $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even $2,300 today. Please use my Fundraiser ID, 180013, when contributing.

Don’t miss your chance to help Governor Romney win. The ad you sponsor could be the one that puts him over the top!

Thank you for your consideration,

Mike Minton (a.k.a. Mr. Right Opinion)

Well, I guess it’s the right thing to do to congratulate John McCain on his hard fought victory in Florida. Oh, yeah, you too, Hill. I just don’t understand why the Republican base is backing this guy. Maybe I’m just crazy.

It would appear to me now, though, that it is time for Rudy to give up the ghost. And that’s a little scary, because Rudy’s people are also liberals, just like McCain, and just like Rudy himself. No matter what he says, Rudy ran New York as a sanctuary city, and pro-illegals are sympathetic toward that quality.

Much in the same vain, McCain supported McCain-Kennedy, which is essentially amnesty. But not only would it have been amnesty for the illegal, but for their family members as well. Here is what About.com had to say on the issue:

The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill Explained
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bill developed by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy and others, aims to secure our borders and make our country safer by strictly enforcing immigration laws. This approach includes a coordinated and up-to-date enforcement at our borders, as well as the so-called "Essential Worker Visa Program" with a new category called "H-5A."
This new category is for alien workers who will perform jobs otherwise not covered in the existing visa categories. It is a temporary visa that allows foreign workers to perform a job for initially three years, with a possible extension after that period. Spouses and children will be able to follow the principal applicant.
As in other visa programs, the H-5A category may lead to a "green card" or permanent residence. Read a detailed explanation by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
Thursday June 16, 2005

And that is not the only areas where Rudy and John share common ground. Both have all but said they are pro-abortion. Harkening back to the profiles I did on each of the candidates, speaking on abortion, Rudy said, “But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn't make. Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

In McCain’s profile, he said, “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade….” Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999. But then McCain went over the line, calling us pro-lifers fruitcakes. Just take a look at this quote from my McCain profile: “…a few leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. Why? Because I don’t pander to them…Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Robertson or Falwell on the right.”
Source: Speech in Virginia Beach, VA Feb 28, 2000

So, this guy, this McCain guy, calls pro-lifers the outer-reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance? And then actually draws a parallel to Louis Farrakhan? Give me a break. These are not conservative values. These are Rudy values, and I know that's where Rudy’s people will break when he quits.

And free speech? Well, if the McCain-Feingold bill is any indication, free speech in America may well become a thing of the past. Do some reading up on McCain-Feingold, you’ll see what I mean. In fact, I’ll get you started. Go to: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html and read that article. That will knock the wind out of your sails.

Please understand that I have great respect for John McCain. He has dedicated his life to serving this country. God bless him for what he went through in Vietnam, I know I wouldn’t have survived it. And I thank him for his further service to our country in Congress. He just is not the man we need in the White House right now…or maybe ever.

Now consider what Mitt Romney has said on the issue of illegal immigration. Here is a direct quote from his website, www.mittromney.com: “The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has exploded in the last decade from 3 million to over 12 million. We must secure the border, implement an enforceable employer verification system, punish sanctuary cities and reject amnesty if we are to restore Americans’ faith in the rule of law.” And he’s dead on. Nobody in America with whom I talk has any faith at all in the Washington establishment, of which McCain is a part, that the rule of law, as regards immigration, will be enforced.

On abortion, I think it important to lay it all out in the open here and now. Yes, at one time, Mitt was pro-choice. Now, he is not. And I think nobody could explain that change better than the former Mass. Governor himself, which he did for National Review in an article by Katie O’Beirne on Monday, Jan 29, 2007. I give you some of the text of that interview.

“Pro-lifers' faith in the power of persuasion has been rewarded, and their political clout increased, by important converts, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Mitt Romney has also changed his position on abortion, but some social conservatives argue that membership in their ranks should be closed to this most recent convert with presidential ambitions.

"In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law, declaring, 'I'm fully sympathetic with attempts to liberalize the outdated abortion law now on the books in California.' Reagan later changed his mind and expressed regret for signing a measure that saw more abortions performed in California than in any other state before Roe v. Wade. He became a committed pro-life politician and backed the first pro-life plank in the Republican platform. George W. Bush ran as a pro-choice politician in his 1978 congressional campaign, but held pro-life views when he ran for the governorship of Texas in 1994. His father too once favored abortion rights, but took a pro-life position in the 1980 presidential campaign.”

“"During his gubernatorial campaign, [Mitt Romney] won the endorsement of the abortion-rights group Republican Majority for Choice. But three years later, the group's co-chairman declared, 'We feel very betrayed.' The reason was that Governor Romney had vetoed a bill that would have allowed access to emergency contraception – the 'morning-after pill' – without a prescription. Romney had also vetoed an embryonic-stem-cell-research bill; and last year his administration issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes, calling such research 'Orwellian in its scope.'“

This is not a change your stance at a whim kind of guy. Mitt Romney is a man of deep conviction who saw the error of his ways concerning abortion, and did something about it. It’s never too late to right a wrong.

And on the economy? Forget about it. John McCain really doesn’t know what to make of the economic situation. In fact, just the other day on Fox and Friends, I heard McCain say, “I’ve never been against tax cuts.” A minute later he admitted that he did vote against the Bush tax cuts which turned our economy around.

I think Mitt Romney’s credentials on economics speak for themselves. And it would take me forever to try and explain his position on global terrorism, fighting jihad, and the rest. Just please go to www.mittromney.com and look under the tab “issues,” and you will get to know the man very well.

As for Mike Huckabee, I see he and Ron Paul dropping out soon too. I think the Huckabee vote will be split, with a slim majority going to Romney. As for the Paul backers, who knows what they will do. They’re liable to lose it and write in votes for Milton Friedman. Although, I guess in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter a great deal since he only garnered 3% of the vote in Florida anyway. Maybe they’ll try Mitt on for size.

At any rate, I think I’ve made my point. I’ll stop ranting now, and politely step off my soapbox. There is, however, one more thing that I feel compelled to point out here. We must not vote for a candidate simply because the polls tell us that candidate would stand the best chance of beating the Democrat nominee. We must vote with conviction, and with what we know, deep in the smalls of our hearts, is the right thing to do.

God Bless you all, and God Bless the United States of America!

For the final time last night, President Bush stood up and addressed both chambers of Congress in his seventh and final State of the Union address. He looked strong, and sounded sure. And, for the most part, those were justified.

If there was one overriding theme in the address, regardless of the issue about which the president was speaking, it was trust and empowerment. And I will point that theme out as I critique the president’s address.

President Bush started out by recapping some of the challenges our great nation has faced in the seven years during which he has been our Commander-in-Chief. He said, “our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens.” And he assured us that history will show that the government, and the country, reacted with purpose.

On the trust front, the president impressed upon his audience the importance of trusting in the “abilities of free peoples to make wise decisions.” He said, “we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy,” a theme he has hammered for many years.

He then touted a record 52 straight months of adding American jobs to the market, but cautioned that job growth was slowing. The president noted that, “At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future.”

To address this concern, he spoke of a growth package “that includes tax relief for individuals and families and incentives for business investment,” saying it is a good agreement that will “keep our economy growing and our people working.” He then admonished Congress to pass it as soon as possible. It was shown in the Reagan-era, and again since Bush has been in office, that “trickle-down economics” works. When companies pay less taxes, they are more able to expand. When individuals pay less taxes, they are more free to boost the economy through spending.

The president noted that, unless made permanent, most of the tax relief seen over the past seven years will “soon be taken away.” He also pointed out that some in Congress (my bet is he meant mostly Democrats) don’t think of letting tax cuts expire as raising taxes. He went on to say, “Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800.” This set the stage for the line of the night, which I will qoute in its entirety:

“Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.” He got a thunderous standing ovation for that one. And I personally couldn’t help being reminded of all those Hollywood types who threatened to either move to another country or commit suicide if Bush were elected; they didn’t do that, and I’ll bet they don’t send back part of their refund check either! President Bush also assured Congress that any bill raising taxes would be swiftly vetoed.

The president said that next week, “I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I will submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012.” Again hitting the trust issue, he said Americans need to be able to trust Congress to spend tax dollars wisely.

Hammering away at the trust issue, Mr. Bush said that congressional earmarks undermine Americans’ trust in government, and he pledged to veto any “appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half.” He also went a step farther, saying that, “And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.”

I have to give the president great props here. For far too long, pork barrel spending has been greasing the palms of too many crooked politicians. This should prove to be somewhat of another “check” in our system of checks and balances. I hope it is an executive order that will stand in the future, no matter who our next president is (did someone say Mitt Romney?).

President Bush then moved on to the housing situation. He said that “we must trust (there’s that word again) Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market.” He then asked Congress to “reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.”

The word trust then moved to the issue of healthcare. Mr. Bush stated that we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions. He said our common goal is better affordability and accessibility to healthcare for all Americans, and that the “best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control.”

Mr. Right Opinion doubts that the liberals were very happy with that illustrious goal. It kind of gets in their way of socialized, communized healthcare. But we have to remember here what Winston Churchill said, “You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.”

Now, for those Americans who have retired, or who simply cannot work due to disability, I say they have a birthright to healthcare. However, to those who can work, but are just too lazy, too drunk, or too uneducated to do it, they need to find a way to improve those situations and become a part of the solution, not the problem.

We have seen time and again in this country that goods and commodities (such as healthcare) are helped by the forces of the markets. If people are free to choose their doctors, and doctors are free to practice without the fear of frivolous, unimaginable lawsuits, I think we would see a situation where not only would the cost of healthcare diminish, but the quality of healthcare would improve dramatically.

Speaking on education, the president said that “we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools” (Are you getting the ‘trust and empowerment’ theme yet?) And he is, of course, correct in saying that the only chance our children have to achieve their dreams is through a decent education. Although I would go one step further and say that it is through a great, not decent, education. In my mind, decent evokes thoughts of mediocrity. And for my children, and my country, mediocrity will not suffice.

The president then went on to show how No Child Left Behind has lifted scores in standardized testing, saying that, “Last year, fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs.” M.R.O. (Mr. Right Opinion) says that this is obvious proof that when reasonable minds come together, such as Bush and Kennedy did on NCLB, great things can be accomplished.

He then spoke of helping schools which do not “measure up.” His basic plan calls for a $300 million “Pell Grants for Kids” program to fund faith-based and other non-public schools. This is modeled after Washington D.C.’s “D.C. opportunity scholarship which has brought new hope to more than 2,600 of D.C.’s poorest kids. M.R.O. thinks it sounds like a good plan. I know it’s a worn out cliché, but the children truly are our future. Now, just throwing money at a problem doesn’t make it go away any more than ignoring it would. We need to see tangible results…and fast!

The president then brought his message of “trust and empowerment” to trade, saying, “we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas.” He then basically said that the U.S. is working to break down trade barriers wherever possible by trying to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements.

Mr. Bush then moved on to talk about future energy security. To accomplish that, he said, “we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology.” Again, trust and empower. I really like this theme, because when the government stays out of it, the American people are a creative force like no other.

Some ideas the president suggested were funding “new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.” And yes, I did borrow from the White House transcript for my quotes. The transcript, by the way, is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html.

However, while the president did push for agreements on emissions, he was very careful about how he did it. The last emissions agreement we were urged to sign placed an undue burden on the United States to control emissions while letting other countries have lower standards. Not this time. The president said, “This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride.”

On science and engineering, Bush said, “To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow.” He essentially asked Congress to “double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth.” Now, I have to admit that Science and Engineering are not my specialty, so I’ll trust the president has been well advised on this initiative.

The president said we must trust “medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries.” He then alluded to the discovery last year that skin cells could be transformed into a state where they act like embryonic stem cells, thus nullifying the need to kill unborn babies to advance stem cell research (my wording there at the end).

Said the president, “So we're expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research…And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life.” I have always loved that in this president. He respects Human life-especially that of the unborn. A man is nothing if he changes his convictions just because they are not popular with the masses!

Mr. Bush touched on matters of Justices and Judges. He said, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says.” He then called on Congress to give an up or down vote to judges whom he has appointed. I think that’s a reasonable request. Come on you Democrat controlled Congress, you, get off your collective duff and do your job!

President Bush said that “we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need.” He then asked Congress to extend Charitable Choice to help assure “equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds.”

Next, the president extended our nation’s highest hopes and best wishes to “the armies of compassion” struggling for a new day in the Gulf Coast, obviously referring to Hurricane Katrina victims. He then said that, “tonight I'm pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans.”

Then the president got down to the real nitty gritty. Entitlement funding and Immigration. While some of the “post-game” analysts acted like Mr. Bush’s concern about entitlement spending was something new, he has been trying to prod Congress for years to come up with a plan to shore up Social Security. Did they? NO! In fact, they went around gloating about how they defeated the president’s plan to save Social Security. I guess they figure they’re set for life, so to hell with us common folk.

President Bush put it as simply as he could, so that even the Democrats could comprehend it: “We all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I've laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren.” Dems, it looks like it’s time for you to pick up the ball and run with it. Come on, give us SOME KIND OF PLAN!

And finally, Immigration. This is a hot topic which will NOT be going away until the broken system is fixed. Any type of amnesty such as McCain-Kennedy, or even the president’s guest-worker program will not work. Though I absolutely loved and respected Ronald Reagan, his amnesty bill of 1986 has shown that amnesty of illegals only begets more illegals. The president mentioned a few programs he has unveiled, which were designed to placate the no amnesty hardliners. Other than that, he really had nothing new here.

The president then pushed into foreign policy mode. He said that “We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace.” And we have seen demonstrations of that in places like Georgia, the Ukraine, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. And who can forget the ink-stained fingers and smiling faces on Iraqi’s when they held their first election? Freedom is certainly a powerful force.

The president essentially spent the rest of his speech talking about the War on Terror; particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. He spoke of the effectiveness of the troop surge in Iraq, and the fact that, since that surge, “high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down,” and that over the past year, “we've captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.” There is no doubt in Mr. R.O.’s opinion that the surge is turning out incredibly good results.

There was also some good news for military families with loved ones bravely fighting in Iraq: “Today, because of the progress just described, we are implementing a policy of "return on success," and the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.”

Mr. Bush also said that, “American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission. As part of this transition, one Army brigade combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit have already come home and will not be repl