I got my daily CNSNews.com newsbrief this morning, and I was flabbergasted by the top story. There is so much to it that I just cannot take the time to write an article of my own about it.

What I will do, however, is give you some of the highlights quoted from the article here, and give you the URL so you can read the whole thing for yourself if you don't believe me. The URL is: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124e.html, and the title is: Top Earmark-er Clinton Grants $303,000 to 'Gay' Lobby Group
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

OK...here it goes:

"(CNSNews.com) - A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

This specific appropriation is from the Department of Justice and is aimed at fighting methamphetamine use - that's what the Gay Men's Health Crisis Center is supposed to do with the taxpayer-funded money.

Clinton announced the grant in October 2007, a month after receiving a $750 donation and a $250 donation from Felix Lopez, an attorney for the Gay Men's Health Crisis and for a clinic based in New York.

The Gay Men's Health Crisis Center, based in New York City, has a public policy agenda for the federal, state, and city level that includes a needle exchange program to curb the spread of HIV, allowing non-profit groups to distribute condoms for free throughout prisons, and opposition to abstinence-only sex education.

The group says its top legislative agenda item at the federal level involves changing immigration policy to eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.

In a survey of presidential candidates by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Clinton provided a "mixed position" on the issue of repealing the HIV entry ban. Her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, supports the repeal.

Both support needle exchange programs and the distribution of free condoms in prisons, and they oppose abstinence-only sex education.

The group scored Clinton at 92 percent and Obama at 89 percent."

Now, I could go on and print more of the story here, but between my nausea and the migraine I feel coming on, I will let you read the rest for yourself.

Let us just please do a little review of the troubling information we have just ingested. Here we have a woman who is running for president of the United States of America pushing an earmark to get $303,000.00 in funding for a group that “lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons.”

So, in reality, what Mrs. Clinton is saying is that we have lost any hope of winning the “war on drugs” (gee, sounds like another war she wants to raise the white flag on), so we should just make sure the junkies have clean needles with which to shoot up. I can hear her logic now, “Let’s see, how can we curb crime? Yes, we’ll keep drug addicts healthy (and addicted) so they will go out and rob, steal, and murder to get their ‘fix.’”

Seems like sound reasoning to me.

But wait, there’s more: This money came one month after the group’s attorney, Felix Lopez, donated a total of $1,000.00 to the Hillary for Pres. Campaign. Hmm, coincidence? I think maybe not. Shockingly, Mr. Lopez could not be reached for comment. Maybe he has heard the name Vince Foster some time in the past.

The CNS article goes on to say that, “Clinton's 261 earmarks were more than twice as many as any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, the CAGW analysis showed.”

The next issue of contention which I have with this organization, and Hill’s funding for it, is that it has a public policy agenda of allowing non-profits to distribute condoms free to convicted felons serving time in prisons. Great, first we’ll get them high on clean needles so they can stay healthy enough to rob someone.

Next, after they are convicted for robbing someone, we’ll give them condoms so they can have all the “safe sex” they want once they go to prison. Better still, we’ll give the prisoners condoms so they can go rape an inferior inmate and leave no evidence as to whom the attacker was. That’s OK, it shouldn’t be too hard to track down a rapist at the penitentiary, right?

And then, the group wants to fight abstinence-only sex education. It seems to me like an HIV/AIDS advocacy group would be the first in the world to tell you that the best way to keep from getting AIDS would be to abstain from sex in the first place. But, then, what do I know? I’m just a dumb hick from Kentucky.

Finally, “The group says its top legislative agenda item at the federal level involves changing immigration policy to eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.” Earlier, in her speech presenting the check, Mrs. Clinton said, “With HIV/AIDS rates among meth users more than twice as high as the general public, these funds are essential in helping the Gay Men's Health Clinic continue the fight against HIV/AIDS through treatment and prevention."

So, in the senator’s mind, HIV/AIDS seems to be pretty a pretty damn serious threat to the population. However, in the mind of the group for whom she got the earmark, they feel it necessary to, “eliminate HIV/AIDS as grounds for inadmissibility as a disease of public health significance.” What kind of ridiculous “fairytale (to coin a phrase)” is Mrs. Clinton living in?

The article states that, In a survey of presidential candidates by the Gay Men's Health Crisis, Clinton provided a "mixed position" on the issue of repealing the HIV entry ban. Her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, supports the repeal.”

So, in other words, the top two Democrat candidates for president in the 2008 cycle at least somewhat support repealing a law that would make inadmissible to the U.S. foreigners who have a disease of public health significance. I agree! I think we are rich enough that we should let any person with a terminal illness come here.

Think about it. We have a healthcare system that is in the red. We have roughly 50 million people with no health insurance AT ALL, we have doctors closing doors because they can’t afford malpractice insurance, we have hospitals all along the border shutting down because illegals are “bleeding them dry” by getting services, not paying for them, and hopping right back over the border. Why should we be so selfish as to not allow foreigners who have a disease of public health significance to come and get some of this action we have here? Huh?

Yessir…can you feel the love? The Democrats should be absolutely disgusted with their top “leaders” over tese kinds of actions. If I were a Democrat (and I THANK GOD I AM NOT!) I would be doing some real hard thinking about putting EITHER of those two in the Oval Office!

I know what you’re thinking--”I thought you weren’t going to write an article about this.” Well, I hadn’t intended to, but the more I read and wrote, the madder I got and the more I wrote. This is a sham, and it should be halted IMMEDIATELY…if not sooner!

Well, well, well, it would seem that the articles I have been posting regarding Sen. McCain appear to be true. I learned that last night the New York Times has given the Arizona senator the nod. What could be worse? Well, maybe an endorsement from Mr. "I voted for the war before I voted against it" Kerry.

Yessir, it would appear that both Barack and McCain have officially received the kiss of death. The liberal New York Times, which some have dubbed "The al Qaeda Times" is throwing all that momentum and influence they have with the right behind the senator who has opposed the Bush tax cuts, stripped first amendment rights with McCain-Feingold, and helped try to open our borders with McCain-Kennedy. He sure has his name attached with a lot of people and organizations with which I would not want to be affiliated.

And, lest we forget, he also thinks that we conservatives who oppose killing unborn babies are "on the fringe" of rational politics, whatever that means.

I'm telling you folks, he is not the ficsal nor social conservative we need at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.. Sure, he could very well be the ideal leader in a charge against terror, but we need a candidate who can pull off all three, and Gov. Romney emerges as the ONLY one who will be able to do that.

The New-York Times, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy...what's next? Will Sen. McCain choose Louis Farakhan as his running mate? Come on, folks, we've got to get behind a candidate who can get it done...Mitt Romney. So, LET'S DO IT!

To my readers: I would like to sincerely apologize for my prolonged absence during this most important time of the campaign. The reasons are really 2-fold. I have mentioned I am a single dad, and between MLK Day and 2 snow days, I just really haven’t had time to write.

Secondly, I have mentioned before some physical ailments with which I am currently dealing. That, too, has kept me from being posted at my computer as often as I would like.

Allow me, though to make a couple of observations on what I am seeing. In South Carolina now, we have a white woman (with Hubba Bubba in tow) and a black man slugging it out to see who is the least criminal: a lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart, or a lawyer trying to help a slum-lord in Philadelphia. I have to say, as a conservative, I would be happy to see them dig as deep as they can into one another’s past…less work for us in the General.

On our side, I think Rudy is gone. The polls show he won’t even be a contender in Florida now. It is a 2-man race between Mr. Right Opinion’s man, Mitt Romney, and the deservedly respected Sen. McCain. However, just this morning on Fox & Friends, McCain said that he had NEVER opposed tax cuts, then 10 seconds later he said, well, I did vote against the Bush tax cuts [which, as an aside, pulled this country out of the Clinton recession and 9/11 attacks shortly after taking office].

I have seen Gov. Romney’s well-thought-out plans for both the economy and the War on Terror, and there can be no doubt that at this point in time, he is the man for the job.

I know some polls say that McCain is the only one who can beat Hillary head-to-head, but I just, for some reason, am not putting all my eggs in the polls. I know it is a favorite Clinton tactic; go whichever way the polls tell you. However, I do not believe Mitt is that kind of leader.

I also have enough faith in the Republican establishment to say that Republicans will not nominate McCain solely because he is liberal enough to beat a Democrat. We have to show some grit and stand for the principles in which we believe. We can’t elect a social liberal who is also a fiscal moderately liberal, and a war hawk.

We need a well-rounded candidate. One who has the financial expertise to turn around an economic spiral, stand up for social conservatism, and at the same time, surround himself with those who know best how to deal with the war on terror.

I urge all who read this to go to http://www.mittromney.com/Mitt-TV/index and peruse the Governor’s plans for when he wins the White House. I think you will need look no further to see he IS the most qualified, most trust-worthy man (or woman) in this race.

Naturally, you have to decide for yourselves, but it is my Right Opinion that you at least know the facts before making up your mind.

Thanks, God Bless, and GO MITT!!!

I've been trying to concentrate on Republicans during this Primary season, but I just HAD to pass this along. To any of you Obama fans who think you might have found a winner; that is, a presidential contendor who is not a racist...this one's for you:

Obama Silent on Farrakhan Support

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size


Barack’s Obama’s silence on his longtime minister and mentor’s support of Louis Farrakhan speaks volumes.

Obama’s minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., was quoted in the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, heaping praise on Farrakhan.

“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” Wright said in the article. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”

Wright’s comments ran in a video, which was played when Trumpet bestowed the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award" on Farrakhan.

But in a statement issued this week, supposedly to address the issue, Obama ignored the point that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and that Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.

Instead, Obama adroitly said, “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”

In his comment, Obama not only side-stepped the main point of the controversy, he disingenuously claimed he thought the magazine bestowed the award on Farrakhan for his efforts to rehabilitate ex-prisoners and that the decision was the magazine’s and had nothing to do with Wright and his church. Not only is Trumpet owned and produced by Wright’s church out of the church’s offices, Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor of the magazine.

Neither Wright’s encomiums about Farrakhan nor the Trumpet article mentions ex-prisoners. Instead, they refer to Farrakhan as an “icon” who “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”

Wright’s comments and the award to Farrakhan were first reported in a Jan. 14 Newsmax article, “Obama Minister Honored Farrakhan.” The following day, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post took Obama to task over his connection to Wright.

Hailing his “integrity and honesty,” Wright lauded Farrakhan in the Trumpet article as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st century.

“His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change, and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose,” Wright said.

Is it fair to connect Obama with his minister’s comments and actions? Absolutely.

If your minister, priest, or rabbi spoke glowingly of Farrakhan and gave him an award, would you continue to attend that house of worship or have anything to do with its leader?

Not only is Wright Obama’s minister, Wright is Obama's self-described friend and sounding board. Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. The title of Obama’s best-seller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004.

Obama prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Wright has long been a supporter of Farrakhan, whom he helped organize the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Farrakhan has repeatedly targeted Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals with hate-filled statements.

He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media and some black organizations.

As noted in the Jan. 14 Newsmax article, in sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and has compared Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies.

Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in Trumpet. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said to thumping applause, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! . . . We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

Instead of remaining silent, Obama should be denouncing Wright for supporting and honoring Farrakhan. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, suggested as much when he told the Jewish Week that Obama should confront Wright, whom he described as someone who “embraces, awards, and celebrates a black racist.” If Obama is unable to change Wright’s stand, he should leave the church, Foxman said.

Obama’s failure to do so and his close relationship with Wright for more than two decades suggest that he not only condones much of what Wright says, he agrees with it.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Well, there were a whole lot of nay-sayers about Mitt’s chances to win a “Gold” in Michigan yesterday. Well, all I can say to you folks is: na-na-na-na-na-na. I know, I studied Political Science and Public Speaking, and the best I can do is a string of na-na’s? Well, you have to remember, I am a single father of two young girls, and sometimes the way they phrase things sums it up best!

My heart-felt CONGRATULATIONS go out to Gov. Romney, and to all those who have supported him thus far. I know everybody pretty much counted Mitt out, but what they really failed to talk about, is that Mitt has now WON TWO primaries (Wyoming-the Caucus whom everyone likes to pretend never happened-and now Michigan). So, if my math is right, he has won twice as many states as any other contender, and also has over twice as many delegates picked up over anyone else in the race…on either side!

Michigan wasn’t the “do-or-die” state that everyone predicted…but it certainly does help! Now he can roll into South Carolina fresh off the big win he “so desperately needed” and get the Mitt mojo working in the Palmetto State. I know time is short, and yes, Mitt did look a little ragged on Fox and Friends this morning, but I know he’s up to the challenge.

I urge you to please look at where Huckabee stands. Don’t just look at his stump speeches; do some digging. He is NOT the hard core social conservative he would lead you to believe. Just look at his record on taxes when he was governor. Look at his pardons and paroles while governor (3 times that of his 3 predecessors combined). Look where he stands on illegals. He wanted in-state tuition available for illegals in our country. He also wants this “touch back amnesty.” Now, he doesn’t want to call it amnesty, but that is exactly what is going on in his plan.

As for McCain, as I have always said, I admire him for his service to our country both militarily and politically. However, he has shown time and again that he is also for a brand of amnesty (no matter what pet names these guys give amnesty, it’s still amnesty. Refer to McCain-Kennedy). He has voted to violate free speech with McCain-Feingold, and he voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts which carried us out of the Clinton-recession, saw us through 9/11, and has seen us through times of unbelievable natural disasters and man-made corporate scandals.

Gov. Romney IS the man for the job. I can only hope and pray that the folks in S.C. can see past all the smoke and mirrors and give the right man (Mitt, of course) another Gold!

All I can say is…Keep up the good work, Mitt! We’re waiting for you here in Kentucky!

God Bless.

I apologize for being "off air" for the past ten days. As many of you may know, I have had 6 back surgeries, and there are times when I simply cannot sit at the computer.

Believe me, I have been watching EVERYTHING going on in the world of politics, and have been wanting to say so much, but my back problems have silenced my mouth...or at least they HAD.

I hope to be back on the presidential trail regularly again now. However, a good part of that is up to the body which encapsules my brilliance! LOL!

Please keep checking back. As the race gets more interesting-if that's possible-I am sure the commentary will as well.

Thanks and God Bless,
Mike a.k.a.-Mr. Right Opinion

The only way I can even start to describe this forum is to simply say…WOW! I wish we could roll them all up into one “Super Candidate” and put “Superpub” out there in November to take on whomever the Democrats choose. I have to admit, I cannot remember when we had a field of Republicans who looked and sounded this confident and this competent.

However, as in all things in life, there can only be one winner. And tonight, that winner has got to be Mitt Romney. He showed that he is a class act, and that he has the life experience to be the best possible selection for the next Commander-in-Chief.

All of the other candidates up there left me with question marks about them. With McCain, he emerged as a one-trick pony; he knows how to fight a war and Islamo-facism, but that’s it. Outside of national security (which is obviously extremely important, but by far not the only important issue of the day) he gave me nothing. No real, do-able plan on immigration, no plan to save Social Security, no plan on education, no plan on competing with outside influences (particularly China), just no plan…period. He’s a one-trick pony, and there are too many tricks in this world for that kind of candidate to get elected.

Additionally, in my “Profile: John McCain” article, I informed you that the senator was in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; basically the sacrificing of one life in the hopes of improving another. To me, and to millions of conservatives, that is just wrong. Also in that article, I apprised you that McCain has changed his position on overturning Roe v. Wade.

The final death nail for McCain, in my opinion, from the previous article I mentioned, was his comparison of Louis Farrakhan to Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. That was just too much. In that article, Mccain said that, “pro-lifers are the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance.”

Next we have Giuliani, a man who would stand a better chance winning the primary if he had run on the Democrat ticket. I see him as kind of a one-trick pony, too, although tonight he did speak a little more to the economic situation in America. His mainstay, however, has always been, and will always be, that he was “America’s Mayor” on September 11, 2001. He has chosen to make that the cornerstone of his campaign, and it just simply will not win an election for him.

Do we need a president who will confront terrorism head-on? You bet we do. Do we need a president who will be calm and rational in the event of a national crisis? Absolutely. But we also need a president who can deal with the intricacies of trade with foreign countries, who has a proven track record of being not just a crisis manager, but a leader.

I also wrote an article profiling the Mayor, and what I revealed in it shows that, while he may be a fiscal conservative, he is about as socially liberal as one can get. In the 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007, concerning abortion, Giuliani concluded that, “Ultimately, a woman should make that [decision] with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor.” I don’t know a whole lot of Conservatives who see it quite that way.

Also in that profile, I gave you some insight into Giuliani’s position on illegal immigrants. His quote in 1994 was, "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being a fugitive." In other words, if you’re an illegal, we will provide you safe harbor. I think the only thing that would change about that statement were he president is that instead of saying “you're one of the people who we want in this city,” he would be saying, “you're one of the people who we want in this country.”

One other issue with Rudy that I raised in my profile on him that stuck in my crawl was his stance on gun control. He said he believed that stronger gun control laws made his city safer. Yet, at the same time, he said that his “sanctuary policy” for illegals, which made them more likely to report crime, was the reason his city became more secure. Rudy is pro gun-control, and that just is not a winner among conservatives.

I know that I am feeding you more than just the information that was disclosed and discussed during the Fox Republican Forum, but I feel that you deserve to know not just what’s being said, but what’s actually “in the pudding.” The old adage “Actions speak louder than words” should help you vet out the talkers from the walkers.

Next let us turn our attention to the Iowa champ, Mike Huckabee. Now, I like Mike, I really do. He is a personable fellow, which I respect. He is a man of God, which I respect even more. And, yes, he does kind of tend to remind me of “one of the guys” at work. However, no matter how much I like “the guy at my construction site,” and no matter how much I respect the fact that that guy is a good, Godly, Christian man, I don’t want the crane operator at work to be the President of the United States of America.

I’m not saying that Chuck Norris’ buddy comes without any qualifications. I mean, you can’t be governor of a state for some 10 years and not gain SOME level of experience. However, what I am saying is that Gov. Huckabee is not what America needs in a president.

During his tenure as governor, he handed out more pardons and commutations than his three predecessors combined. The most infamous pardon for which he pushed, as I told about in my article “Huckabee Comes Under Fire for Pardons as Governor,” was that of a man by the name of Wayne DuMond. DuMond had been sentenced to life in prison for raping a teenager in 1984.

While he denies any role in the rapist’s release, the Arkansas Times quotes Ermer Pondexter, ex-member of the board of pardons and paroles, as saying that, “I signed the [parole] papers because the governor wanted Dumond paroled. I was thinking the governor was working for the best interests of the state.”

In addition to his liberal pardons and commutations, while Mr. Huckabee would like you to think he will be tough on immigration, he pushed for in-state college tuition for the illegal children of illegal adult immigrants.

What’s more, Huckabee is in favor of the so-called “touchback immigration” plan. Here is a quote from the December 13, 2007 issue of The Washington Post, in an article by Jerry Seper, “Minuteman co-founder James Gilchrist's endorsement of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has spurred a backlash among illegal-immigration opponents who say the former Arkansas governor is soft on immigration enforcement.

"Mike Huckabee is pro-amnesty and favors a path to citizenship for illegal aliens currently in the U.S. that would require a lifting of current penalties," said William Gheen, whose 25,000-member Americans for Legal Immigration sent mass mailings yesterday to more than 300 pro-enforcement groups.

"Huckabee has released an immigration plan that contains the deceptive 'touch back' provision that the pushers of amnesty tried on us in Washington this year," he said. "He wants to trick the nation by having illegal aliens leave for a day to pick up new papers at an office set up across the border and then walk right back."

There are not a whole lot of true conservatives who want to see this nation overrun by illegals, and that is just what will happen if Huckabee wins it all. Ronald Reagan was a great man and a wise leader. He was also an excellent teacher, and one thing he taught us is that amnesty does nothing more than increase the flow of illegals into our country.

Other than Mitt Romney, the only Republican candidate I would stand behind four square is Fred Thompson. I genuinely like the Tennessee Senator, and, as I have said in the past, if he were not so lackadaisical about running for the office, I would back him for president 100%. Unfortunately, through his remarks and lack of action, he has let me (and the rest of CONCIOUS America) know that he is just not enthusiastically pursuing the position.
All of this leads us back to where this article started: Mitt Romney won this “Forum,” and the former Mass. Governor is the right choice for the Republican nomination for the next President of the United States of America.

Romney has proven time and again that he is more than qualified to run not only a state with a huge budget, but huge corporations with huge budgets as well. As he himself said, his experience has taught him what creates jobs and what loses jobs.

Romney pointed out that his experiences in the private sector, mixed with his dealings in public life, make him uniquely qualified to deal with countries like China on trade issues. He knows how to create budgets and stick with them. He also gave us a plan to deal with the impending Social Security crisis which is looming large.

He openly admitted that he had changed his mind on a couple of issues such as abortion, but he came across as genuine in the convictions he now espouses.

To me, he was the ONLY Republican candidate on last night’s panel who came off as a sincere social and economic conservative; something that this country desperately needs at this point in history. Romney was calm, poised, and looked very presidential. You can bet that I am behind HIM four square. Not only does he have the attributes, but I am convinced that he actually WANTS the job for which he is applying.

If you're like me, you may not have been on the edge of your seat about the Wyoming Republican Caucus. However, I got the following from ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration), and it appears my man Mitt has won Wyoming.

The story follows:

Romney Wins Wyoming Republican Caucus
Posted on Saturday, January 05 @ 18:35:35 CST
Topic: Republican GOP Republicans immigration
CODY, Wyoming (Reuters) - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the Wyoming Republican presidential caucus on Saturday, taking seven of the state's 12 delegates with nearly all precincts reporting, according to a state party official.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee won two delegates and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California won one, said Amy Larimer, executive director of the Wyoming Republican Party.

Larimer said two delegates remained undecided while officials counted all the votes. A final tally was expected later in the day.

The victory gives Romney supporters something to tout as the focus of the U.S. presidential election shifts to Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. Romney suffered a setback earlier this week in the Iowa caucuses where former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee soundly beat him.

January 5, 2008
Ruffin Prevost
Reuters
~~
Topics: Illegal Immigration, Mitt Romney, Wyoming Republican presidential caucus, Sen. Fred Thompson, Tennessee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, California, Amy Larimer, Wyoming Republican Party, delegates, Mike Huckabee, Tom Sansonetti
~~

In past election years, Wyoming has been largely ignored by many candidates because it has the lowest population of any U.S. state with roughly 520,000 residents, but this year state Republican leaders sought to attract attention by setting an early date for delegate voting.

Tom Sansonetti, a Republican organizer, said the move has paid off.

"Wyoming is getting a chance to elect the first delegates in the United States," he said, noting that Iowa actually chooses its national convention delegates in April, not with last week's caucuses.

Some candidates made brief appearances in Wyoming this past year, with Hunter being the last to visit in early December. Romney visited the state twice and opened a campaign office.

I received the following email this morning, and I felt its contents too real to not share with as many people as possible. I don't know the original author, but at the end is a thought that should scare eneryone with half a brain just about to death. Time to wake up, America!

Subject: Fw: George Bush's Resignation Speech

If Bush resigned today, this is what his speech would be..

Normally, I start these things out by saying "My Fellow Americans", not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't sink in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears, caribou and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world.

Don't give me this "blood for oil" crap. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Clinton established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe. You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet, it just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a Cat 5 hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your idiotic belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So, I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream of) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too.

That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it - you can have her. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it.

God bless what's left of America . Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you - kiss my a%%!

Well, Iowa turned out to be pretty much what I expected. For the Democrats, I expected Obama to win, and I even called for Edwards to beat Miss Hillary, which, as I write this at 1:22 a.m. (eastern), he has done by one percentage point. As for Obama…what a blowout! I’ll bet Hillary’s top blew all the way back to New York, and her body will spend the rest of the night trying to catch it!

There were no real surprises, at least for me, on the Democrat side of things. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton took the top three slots. Biden and Dodd, who never stood a snowball’s chance in the first place, called it quits. So now it is off to New Hampshire, where Hillary will have her work cut out for her to stop the momentum that is the Obama Express.

My Republican predictions were just a hair off, but if I had boxed my win and place tickets, I would have hit that trifecta too. At this hour, it appears to have gone: Huckabee-34%; Romney-25%; and McCain and Thompson seem to have split third at 14% each.

The Republican Caucus surprised me on a couple of fronts. I really thought Romney would have a better showing. I thought he did an excellent job letting people know how his experience in the private sector would give him an edge on domestic issues like the economy; you know, budgets, employment, and the stock market. I also think he was pretty strong in making his case about his foreign policy; regaining trust from those in the world who have lost faith in America’s credibility, while still not backing down to global threats to American security.

I guess that kind of stuff just doesn’t resonate as well with folks who are so-called values-voters. Iowa is a tough sell for anyone who is not Baptist, or at least professes to be. In my opinion, Romney did a wonderful job with his speech “Faith In America,” where he adamantly stated that, while his faith would advise his presidency, it would not dictate his policies. He made it clear that the church’s authority ended where the president’s authority began.

Of course, there are those who don’t mind having a presidential candidate whose religion dictates their policy, so long as the candidate’s religion gels with theirs. I think it is important to know, deep within, that we are called to a higher purpose than just serving self, and I think Mitt got that message across brilliantly. I just don’t think a Mormon is going to carry Iowa, and I was wrong to think differently yesterday.

The true shock of the Iowa Republican Caucus was the fact that Fred “whichever-way-the-wind-blows” Thompson took as big a chunk of the pie as did Sen. McCain. I can see the Christian conservatives rallying behind Thompson. When the rumor mills first started buzzing back in August and September, I was on board. I would have backed the former senator 100%.

However, the lackadaisical manner in which he has run his campaign (if one may call it that) has long ago turned me off. And if it hadn’t, his comments over the weekend that becoming president wasn’t all that important to him would have. As I said in my article yesterday, I want my president, whether Republican or Democrat (preferably Republican) to actually want to be the president.

My Lord, people, we are talking about the most powerful position in the world. Do we really want to elect someone who basically says “I don’t want to be president, but I’d make a dandy one if I were?” How could such a laissez-faire attitude get 14 % of the vote?

At any rate, it is off to New Hampshire for the Republicans too, where it seems to be coming down to a dogfight between Romney and McCain. Although it will certainly be interesting to see where the Caucus win in Iowa puts Huckabee in that mix.

I got this email today, and what is in it is so ridiculous, I just had to share it with my readers.

Enjoy,
Mike

Subject FW: Bill and Hillary

Bruce Seligman
Financial Recovery, Inc.

Bill and Hillary

I'm sure this one will warm your little taxpayer heart.

If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and
either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas. About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it....

I understand Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years.

What a guy!

AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and
Staffing Plan,' which means tha t even if she never gets reelected, she
STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be
nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies.
He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives
Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency,
they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense!

They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life.

Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover
at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an e xtra residence 'had' to be built
within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent
for the use of that extra residence, which is about equal to their mortgage
payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's
salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the
salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!

As she runs for President, will YOU vote for her?

How many people can YOU send this to?

T.G.I.O….Thank God it’s OVER! I like the holidays and all that, but I am so glad that today is a post-holiday day. If it weren’t Caucus Day, one could even say that it’s “just another day.” No more gifts to purchase, no more kids fighting each other all day long (they went back to school today), no more showing how much you can tolerate your brother-in-law. No sir, no more of that stuff. It’s finally over, and it’s time to get down to business!

I do hope that each of you had a great Christmas, Hanukah, or whatever you celebrate. And I hope that you each rang in the New Year safely and merrily, and I wish you the greatest of God’s blessings in 2008. Which brings me to today’s topic…the Iowa Caucuses.

Well, I personally think the stage is pretty well set. While I am not a huge fan of Barack Obama, I am glad to predict that he will take out Hillary today. Another four (and potentially eight) years of Hill and Slick Willy sharing the Oval Office is just too much for me to even seriously consider. Whenever I do, the thought must be quickly smashed with valium…vodka just takes too long--I am kidding, of course. Vodka works perfectly.

But in all seriousness, it is my prediction that Obama will take the gold today. I don’t think that most people in Iowa, Republican or Democrat, want another shared Clinton co-presidency. And I don’t think they want Hillary’s Christmas “gifts” of Universal Healthcare and welfare for all--trading in our Democracy for a pseudo-communist state.

To be honest, I even see John Edwards beating out the carpet-bagging Senator from New York. At least he had enough sense to say, yes I got a four-hundred dollar haircut…and it cost me a lot more than $400.00. Not to mention he said he learned from that mistake, and he will be getting haircuts at White Castle while he sucks down a few Slyders and a free cup of water.

OK, maybe he didn’t say quite that, but he did promise to get cheap haircuts from now on. By the way, what is cheap to a sub-prime mortgage tycoon anyway?

And then we have the Republicans…the party I used to love, and the party whose memory I am still enamored with. Longing for the days of Reagan and “Bring down that wall!” The party which helped me decide to join the military. The party that cut taxes, while still building up the military to the point that the Soviet Union self-imploded. The party that reformed Congress in the nineties, and the party that made the U.N. keep its word on Iraq in spite of itself.

I am predicting a win for Mitt Romney today in Iowa. All I can really say about Mitt and Reagan is that I hope he slows down a bit on comparing himself to the Gipper. I can see some “Reaganesque qualities” in Romney, but I would rather see them than hear the words Ronald Reagan come out of his mouth every five minutes. None-the-less, I don’t think anybody in Iowa is going to be fooled by the Pastor-turned-rock star Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee’s record speaks volumes, and his history of letting violent criminals out on the street, coupled with his soft stance on illegals and his so-called touchback immigration policy will not let him win Iowa, regardless of the polls.

What does surprise me on the Republican side of this is Fred Thompson. The latest I’ve seen actually shows him gaining momentum in Iowa. Now, like they used to say on Batman, “Riddle me this…” When does a presidential candidate not deserve to be the president? How about when he says, “I’m not really interested in politics and don’t really care to be president. I just know I would make a good one.” What kind of crapola is that? I want my president to at least WANT to be there. And then to actually gain ground after making such a statement…how backwards are we as a nation anyway?

And then, of course, there is Sen. McCain. I deeply respect the man for both his military and political service to our country, but I just don’t want him as my president. And, quite truthfully, I don’t think many Iowans do either.

Here is a man who lives in the border state most affected by illegal immigration, and he is one of the most pro-amnesty candidates out there. If you can’t see trouble when it’s in your own back yard, how will you see it coming down the pipe?

Also, as I mentioned in my “Profile: John McCain” article, even though the recent skin cell technology may make embryonic stem cell research a moot point, the senator wanted federal funding for it, which tells us something about where he places the value of an unborn life.

Yessir, at the end of this day, Iowa Caucus Day, January 3rd, 2008, it will be Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who will come out the winners.

God Bless America!

I wanted to pass along to all of you who may read this the email I just received from ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigrastion) for two reasons. One is because I am backing Mitt Romney in the Republican primary.

More importantly, however, is the fact that Mike Huckabee is trying to run a scam on the American people. He says he's for deporting all illegals, but he isn't. If you run "Huckabee amnesty" on any search engine, you will see what I mean. You'll get a lot of hits about "Touch back" amnesty.

William Gheen, head of ALIPAC, said of Huckabee in the Washington Times, "Mike Huckabee is pro-amnesty and favors a path to citizenship for illegal aliens currently in the U.S. that would require a lifting of current penalties...Huckabee has released an immigration plan that contains the deceptive 'touch back' provision that the pushers of amnesty tried on us in Washington this year," he said. "He wants to trick the nation by having illegal aliens leave for a day to pick up new papers at an office set up across the border and then walk right back."

Please read the following email I got, and then follow the link they give and make at least a small donation. I know it's hard around Christmas...I am a single father of two girls and I DO NOT get paid for doing this! I put the "FREE" in FREElancing. But I did do a little to help the cause. Thanks, and Merry Christmas again from Mr. Right Opinion.

Here is the email:

Will you help us try to change the Iowa Election Results?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Friends of ALIPAC,

We have come up with a plan to stop Mike Huckabee and his AMNESTY plans in Iowa.

This plan is designed to have a maximum impact for the benefit of our cause and the candidates that are serious about immigration enforcement who will running for office across America.

If you will support this plan, ALIPAC intends to launch a phone survey into 25-50,000 Republican households in Iowa that are likely to vote in the January 3rd Primary.

Right now, the Iowa voters only know that Huckabee sounds tough on immigration, plans to make the illegals leave, and is supported by Minutemen. We cannot let them vote believing these falsehoods.

The phone poll will ask "Do you support or oppose Mike Huckabee's amnesty plan for illegal aliens, in which they get to leave the country and then return legally in just a day?"

This poll will alert the voters to the shamnesty Huckabee is pushing. It should also give us a high response rate Opposing the plan. We want to run this poll and then release the results to the national and IA media.

Also, we want to send a team of leaders to Iowa, in the final days of the campaign, to work to coordinate ALIPAC volunteers in the area and to warn voters door to door about the Huckabee Amnesty plan.

While we would rather not ask you this over Christmas, we have no choice on the timing of these events.

For ALIPAC to conduct the phone poll, we must raise $5,000 before Christmas night. For ALIPAC to conduct the poll and for me to lead a team to Iowa, we must raise $7,000.

While many of the people who are considering the trip to Iowa would prefer to be at home with friends and family, we have a job to do that requires phone calls and boots on the ground in IA.

Please consider an immediate donation of any amount and we will do what we can with what we raise. Our current budget only has enough funds to carry our regular operations into the New Year and we must have your financial support to do what needs to be done in Iowa.

To contribute now, please visit this SECURE link....
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=9

Help us change the outcome of the Iowa primary. Help us warn the votes and send a team in on the ground immediately after Christmas.

IF YOU LIVE IN IOWA AND ARE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER FOR OUR GROUND EFFORTS, PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH THE WORD "IOWA" in the Subject line.

National contributors, please contact me if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

William Gheen
WilliamG@alipac.us
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 329-3999
FEC ID: C00405878

(Author’s note: I know this is a long article, but believe me, the time it will take you to read it will be only a fraction of the time and effort that went into researching and writing it-Mike a.k.a. Mr. Right Opinion)

The more I read about this story, the more it chapped my butt. Imagine my chagrin when I got the email from the Patriot Post stating ““Democrats who supported a House resolution to honor Ramadan voted against a similar resolution to honor Christmas and Christianity….” I about swallowed the wad of dip I had in my mouth at the time.

But seriously, what has gotten into you crazy liberals? Since you “took control” of Congress, the best that you can do is pass a resolution to honor a RELIGIOUS holiday? And a Muslim one at that??? Come on now, give me a break! But it was not only loony liberals this time…there were some pretty loony Republicans on this bill as well! This is what our tax money is being spent on? To honor those who have killed us, and would again if given the opportunity?

And, by the way, where is all the outrage from the Loony Left regarding the “separation of Church and State” on this issue of honoring officially, as a government, Ramadan. Please indulge me as I give you the pleasure of reading a small portion of the masterful wording in the bill the House passed honoring this wonderful religion which murdered 3,000 of our citizens. The following comes from the Liberty Counsel website:

“Below is some of the Ramadan resolution.
Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; (2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide; (3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion; (4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and (5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.”

In this vote on the bill entitled, “Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan,” on the Democrat side, there were 224 yeas, 0 nays, 1 “present” vote, and 6 not voting. Amazingly, at least to me, 152 Republicans voted yea, ZERO voted Nay, while 41 voted “present,” and 8 abstained. This is very disappointing on two levels: Firstly, whether Democrat or Republican, members of the government should not be endorsing one religion over another; secondly, and even more disheartening to me, however, is the fact that not a single Republican had the anatomy to vote nay. Not a single one!

The only real silver lining I can derive from this vote is that only 75% of Republicans voted yea, while 97% of Democrats gave the “Ramadan Revolution” the thumbs up. Not really much of a silver lining, but I guess we’ll take what we can get. If you would like to see how your so-called representative voted, or want to read more of the resolution, go to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll928.xml. It’s all there for you to see.

For any of my fellow Kentuckians who may read this article, I would like for you to know that NOT ONE of your elected, so-called “representatives” failed to vote Yea on this resolution. That’s right, ALL FOUR REPUBLICANS (Huge surprise, at least for me), and BOTH DEMOCRATS (no surprise there) voted to not only endorse a religion, but a religion whose self-proclaimed followers murdered 3,000 innocent United States citizens on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Do you remember that day?

And what of the wording of this resolution? “(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;” So, we are, as a government, going to honor Islam as one of the great religions of the world, but we are not, as a government, going to allow Christians to pray in schools?

“(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;” This I don’t have a problem with. I mean, hey, if you’re going to be friendly with me, I’ll be friendly with you. However, is it really necessary to make it an Act of Congress? And I love this next part.

“(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide.” Aren’t we, even as I write these words, in Afghanistan and Iraq directing violence toward Muslims? I know what the authors meant here (I think), but the irony is inescapable.

Now, to be fair to the House, they did vote to pass a resolution honoring Christmas and the TRUE meaning behind it. That much I will concede. However, while the honoring of Ramadan came in October, the Christmas resolution did not come until December 11...a full two months later. To me, this is symbolic of just where Christianity stands in this country-or at least in the hearts and minds of its leaders.

A portion of the text of this resolution is as follows: “Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."

Now, I’m not sure that there is a need for an Act of Congress to recognize the fact that Christ is the reason for both Christmas and the Christian faith. However, I am convinced that it would take MORE than an Act of Congress to afford Christians the same protection that modern political correctness affords Islam.

Again, let’s analyze some of the wording used. “(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world.” Well, there is no doubt about that. Both Islam and Christianity are, without a doubt, two of the great religions in the world, although I am siding with Christianity.

“(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide.” Now this is a joke, or at the very least, a facade. When is the last time you can remember Congress expressing support for Christians. At least up until this bill was passed. I guess they are safe in their wording here, because they haven’t done beans to support Christianity in my memory. It would be refreshing to see them do so, but that isn’t on their agenda.

“(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization.” And just how do they plan to make this acknowledgement? Oh, I have an idea…let’s take prayer out of public schools. Oh yea, that’s been done. Well, we could take “one nation under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Oh, we’re already working on that. Well, I am sure we’ll come up with another way to acknowledge the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization.

“(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide.” I about choked on another wad of dip when I read this one. Let’s see, we have “portraits” of religious figures “painted” in cow dung, and we allow it to be called art and fund it with tax money. Boy, I wish Congress would reject me with a few million dollars!

“(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world." For commentary on this one, please see above.

And now for how the votes came down on the “Christmas Resolution.” Democrats-195 Yeas (kind of surprising), 9 Nays, 9 voting “present,” and a whopping 19 abstentions.

However, I again must express dismay with my fellow Republicans. They voted 177 Yeas, 0 Nays (I am happy to report that news), 1 “present” vote, and a truly disappointing 21 abstentions. I am baffled and bewildered beyond belief (how’s that for alliteration?)! How could 21 of what are supposed to be “conservatives” not vote on this, when only eight of you abstained on the vote to honor a Muslim religious holiday???

When I started writing this article, I thought I would be writing about the outrageous facts that I received in a Patriot Post brief which stated “Democrats who supported a House resolution to honor Ramadan voted against a similar resolution to honor Christmas and Christianity... 18 Democrats voted ‘nay’ or ‘present’ on a resolution to ‘recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.’” And, indeed, that is startling news.

The brief goes on to say that “An eagle-eyed Republican House staffer points out that those same members, with one exception, voted to ‘recognize the commencement of Ramadan,’ a Muslim religious observance in October. Nine Democrats voted against the Christmas resolution.” And, because I am going to do the same to Republicans, the nine Democrats who voted against the Christmas resolution are as follows: 1. Rep. Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), 2. Rep. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), 3. Rep. Diane DeGette (Colo.), 4. Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.), 5. Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), 6. Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), 7. Rep. Robert Scott (Va.), 8. Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.) and 9. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

I think that it is reprehensible, sacrilegious, and just plain deplorable that these sorry Democrats would vote to honor a Muslim holiday, and then vote against honoring (arguably) the most sacred holiday of the Christian faith. They should be ashamed, and if it were up to me, they would be cast out of Congress.

However, as I researched this article, the bigger story that seemed to be emerging to me is the fact that 21 so-called Republicans decided to abstain from this vote, while only eight Republicans abstained from the Ramadan vote. If you would like to see how your congressperson voted on the bill entitled “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith,” go to: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1143.xml.

To save you the trouble, and to make a point, I thought I would tell you the Republicans who chose to stand-down when it came to standing up for Christianity. They are: Rodney Alexander (R-LA), Steve Buyer (R-IN), Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Terry Everett (R-AL), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), Sam Graves (R-MO)*Rep. Graves’ assistant assured me that were he not stuck in an ice storm, he would have voted YEA on this bill*, Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Steve King (R-IA)-King himself introduced this bill, but then missed out on the vote???-, Frank Lucas (R-OK), John McHugh (R-NY), Howard McKeon (R-CA), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Gary Miller (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX, and presidential candidate), Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Peter Sessions (R-TX), and Tom Tancredo (R-CO).

These representatives should be called to task for not voting on this Christmas resolution. It was just by chance that I spoke with Rep. Graves’ assistant who told me the Representative was caught in an ice storm during the vote. I don’t have the budget to call all of these representatives to get their excuses for not voting.

Other than physically being unable to vote, the only other excuse that I can think of that would be legitimate would be arguing that it is not the business of the House to recognize any religion. However, the only two Representatives who could even make that argument are Rep. Hunter and Rep. Jindal, as they are the only two members who did not vote on either the Christmas or Ramadan resolutions. All others should be held accountable.

If you see your representative on this list of Republicans who did not vote on the resolution, I urge you to call them and find out why they didn’t. If it is not Rep. Hunter or Rep. Jindal and they tell you that it’s because they feel it wrong to endorse any religion, ask why they didn’t abstain on the Ramadan vote.

Christianity has been the whipping boy in this country for far too long. I can expect certain liberals to vote yea on Ramadan and nay on Christmas, for some of them I don’t even consider Americans. I believe they are non-human life forms who have taken over some poor human’s body and are now posing as American politicians.

But on a much more serious note, there are some Democrats, and a lot of Republicans, with whom I am very disappointed. We can do better than this in our great nation--and we better, or we won’t remain a great nation for long.

Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has stepped down as chairman of his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, after months of being hounded by the press as to whom his clients were, and exactly what role the former mayor played in the partnership. He is being replaced as chairman by childhood friend Peter Powers, according to Fox News.

Giuliani apparently earned about $4 million last year for his efforts, and will retain his equity stake in the company.

So, one may wonder, exactly who did this consulting firm consult with/for? While Critics accuse him of hiding his business dealings because he won't release a client list or describe his work at the firm, Giuliani contends that, due to the sensitive nature of the business, some companies just don’t want their names out in the public eye, so to speak.

One client of Giuliani’s consulting firm has been identified in published reports as the country of Qatar. That’s right, the very country accused of helping to hide 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Well, that is, until Qatar became a U.S. ally in the War on Terror.

The list of Giuliani’s clients also includes airlines, Purdue Pharma L. P., the makers of the controversial painkiller OxyContin, energy companies, and his firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has even represented an American subsidiary of an oil company controlled by Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president.

And, according to the Fox News website, although aides say Rudy hasn’t been involved in day-to-day operations of the company in months, “The firm's Web site listed him as chairman as recently as last month.”

In the Fox article, Giuliani claims, "Everything I did at Giuliani Partners was totally legal, totally ethical," he said. "There's nothing for me to explain about. We acted honorably, decently." Sounding a little defensive there, Mr. Mayor. Which is understandable for a man with connections to a country with ties to terrorism, and a dictatorship who has called our president “the devil.”

Fox news quotes Democratic National Committee spokesman Dag Vega as saying, “Given that he still has a financial stake in Giuliani Partners and it's managed by his childhood friend, Rudy is not going to get away with covering up his ties to shady clients like the government of Qatar, the pharmaceutical industry, and Hugo Chavez.”