This is going to be a blowout. It’s not even close.

Georgia

1. McCain - 35%
2. Huckabee - 24%
3. Romney - 24%
4. Paul - 5%

Tennessee

1. McCain - 33%
2. Huckabee - 25%
3. Romney - 18%
4. Paul - 9%

California (Giuliani supporters will likely gravitate to McCain)

1. McCain - 32%
2. Romney - 28%
3. Giuliani - 14%
4. Huckabee - 11%
5. Paul - 5%

Illinois

1. McCain - 34%
2. Romney - 26%
3. Huckabee - 16%
4. Paul - 10%

Minnesota (Giuliani supporters will likely gravitate to McCain)

1. McCain - 41%
2. Huckabee - 22%
3. Romney - 17%
4. Giuliani - 6%
5. Paul - 5%

Our efficient government is changing document requirements for entering the country. 7 years too late!

Jan. 31 Travel Documents Requirement—Frequently Asked Questions

Questions on the Transition

Q: What is the change beginning January 31, 2008?
A: Currently, upon entering the United States at a land border port of entry, an individual without documentation can verbally claim to be a U. S. citizen. On January 31, DHS is ending this practice such that oral declarations alone to prove identity and citizenship will no longer be sufficient. Travelers will be asked to present certain documentation from a specified list when entering the United States at land or sea ports of entry.

A verbal declaration? Are you kidding me? This rule should have been changed September 12, 2001.

Remember in the past year how egomaniac Michael Bloomberg who in his anti gun crusade got into trouble for sending his spies down into Virginia and South Carolina to see how easy it was to buy a gun in our states? Well the authoritarian fringe of the extreme left strikes again:

CHARLESTON — Attorneys general from eight states have signed a letter asking South Carolina environmental officials to deny a permit to build a coal-fired power plant.

The group says the plant, proposed by Santee Cooper, would release millions of tons of carbon dioxide in the air, hindering efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

The state-owned electric utility wants to build two 600-megawatt generators along the Little Pee Dee River near Johnsonville.

The letter sent to DHEC was signed by attorneys general from California, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The State

I can’t think of a time where an Attorney General or any other public official of any “red” state has sent off a letter to another state expressing concern over how they run their piece of land, yet the extreme left seems to have no problem telling everyone else what to do.

I hope we build this coal plant. In fact, I hope we build ten of them and then when we’re finished we build a great big fan and point it straight to New England so we can blow all of our smoke straight up the behinds of those granola munching Kum Ba Ya hippies in the People’s Republic of Vermont and the rest of their northeastern elitist brethren.

Your maple syrup sucks and so does Tom Brady!

A little humor from The Onion

It’s been made official now. He has narrowly beat out Mitt Romney, but Florida is a winner takes all state so to the victor goes the spoils. Rudy Giuliani made a speech that sounded very much like the one Thompson made in regards to tone after South Carolina. I believe, as do the Fox News pundits, that he will be dropping out of the race within the next couple of days, possibly tomorrow. The conventional wisdom is that he’ll endorse John McCain.

9:00PM with 47% in:

Nothing has really changed. McCain at 35%, Romney 32%. The others are the same. Huckabee is already making his “concession” speech for this primary. It’s between McCain and Romney the rest of the night and if it stays this close we may not know until very late or even tomorrow.

8:20PM with 31% in:

1. McCain - 34%
2. Romney - 33%
3. Giuliani - 15%
4. Huckabee - 14%
5. Paul - 3%

7:50PM with 10% in:

1. McCain - 34%
2. Romney - 31%
3. Giuliani - 18%
4. Huckabee - 13%
5. Paul - 3%

7:34PM with 1% in:

1. Romney - 31%
2. McCain - 30%
3. Giuliani - 18%
4. Huckabee - 15%
5. Paul - 3%

In a good news, bad news situation, Rep. Kenny Hulshof has decided to run for Governorto replace Matt Blunt, who is retiring largely thanks to poor poll numbers.  Hulshof has a strong record of social conservatism but has not shown quite the same degree of reliability on fiscal matters.  Hulshof now offers Republicans our best opportunity to hold the Governor’s mansion in Missouri, which is extremely important with redistricting coming up in a few years.   There, the legislature draws the districts, which are then subject to the approval of the Governor.  With Missouri expeceted to lose a seat in Congress, who wins this race could determine which Party loses the seat.

The bad news, though, is that this is yet another district that Republicans must defend.  Although it is true that we now have the opportunity to replace Hulshof with a more fiscally restrained Republican, this is also yet another seat that must be defended in November.  With the increasing number of retirements, including many that were unexpected, it is increasingly difficult to see just how Republicans could conceivable take back the House this year.

The Man speaketh:

You can always count on politicians in Washington to be generous with your hard earned tax dollars. The most recent example of this comes as the President and Congress are preparing to pass an economic stimulus package in response to signs of a slowing economy. This comes despite the fact that many indicators still point to continued economic growth, albeit at a slower rate.

Amid the buzz of various proposals one plan is becoming increasingly likely. The President and congressional leaders have proposed writing taxpayer funded government checks for between $300 and $1,200 per person. These rebates will be one-time handouts designed to spur consumer spending.

But an economy that is facing slumping home sales, a credit crisis and nose-diving markets will not be rescued by temporary cash handouts. History has taught us this lesson repeatedly.

Washington sent Americans $300 tax rebate checks in 2001, but the handouts did little for real economic growth and Congress went back to the drawing board. Instead of making the same mistake again, President Bush and Republicans pushed for pro-growth tax cuts in 2003.

You should read the rest of the article.  Sen. Jim DeMint proves, once again, why he is one of the best Senators in Washington.  He has done a great deal in his quest to serve as a taxpayers’ watchdog.

Daniel Glover unveiled a new blog called “Taxation With Representation,” devoted entirely to one of the certainties of life: taxes. (the other being death of course)

H/T to Club for Growth

I linked to my class blog where I posted this originally, but it can’t be accessed without the username and password. So with the professor’s permission, I’m cross-posting it here.

As covered in an earlier post [note: this is referencing a post by another student], South Korea’s President-elect, Lee Myung-bak, is poised to take several measures in his move to push for expansion and growth in South Korea’s economy. He is going about this by encouraging domestic companies to invest more stateside, pushing for tax cuts and streamlining the government, and privatizing banks and other businesses while also seeking a public works project in the form of a canal system throughout his country.

Luckily for President-elect Myung-bak, the economic conditions in South Korea are ripe for expansion. The Bank of Korea reports that the South Korean economy expanded in the 4th quarter of last year, notably in exports and manufacturing. Economists point to this to suggest that South Korea could maintain its economy and be more than able to fare a global slowdown should the United States enter a recession, which is looking more likely by the day.

Along with this optimistic news on economic growth, South Korean stocks have gained in recent sessions which points to strength in the investment sector of the economy. This success in South Korea is also being shared by its neighbors in Asia, meaning in my opinion that geographically close trading partners are also in a good position, thus will be able to take South Korea’s exports even in a global slowdown.

These positive indicators of the South Korean economy, along with the economic plans of the incoming President, bode well for the economic future of South Korea. I feel that these strengths, along with the perennial strength of Korean microprocessors and other specialized goods, make the country well-prepared to thrive and experience economic growth even in the face of a worldwide crunch. I believe that with Mr. Myung-buk’s pro-growth proposals such as tax cuts and privatization combined with the current strength of the economy, at the very least the country will be able to weather an economic storm with better resilience than other countries with less economic success.

BOSTON—Republican Jim Ogonowski officially announced Sunday that he will challenge U.S. Sen. John Kerry in elections set for November.

Ogonowski, the brother of an airline pilot killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has been preparing for the race for months after narrowly losing a bid for congressional seat against Niki Tsongas in October.

“Last summer, we started a movement right here in Massachusetts — a call for change that has resonated across the state and the nation,” Ogonowski said in a statement released Sunday. “That means serving the people and not the lobbyist and Washington insiders.”

“I will stand up to the Washington insiders and special interests and fight for the people of Massachusetts. We have real problems that need real solutions, not more political lip service,” the retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel said. “It is time we send someone new to Washington.”

The Boston Globe

I am a sustaining member of the Massachusetts Republican Party.  Though I have never lived there, it is the only Republican organization I am actually affiliated with or contribute to.  I generally do not donate to the party apparatuses because in my experience they are usually just corrupt extensions of the good ole’ boys club in Washington.  I just donate to individual candidates or PACs that share my interest.  However, I became a contributing member to the MA GOP after Ogonowski ran for Congress last year.  Even though he lost, I was very impressed with the organization he put together and how the state party really jumped in and contributed rather than writing him off.  They are trying and that says a lot and that was one hell of a well run campaign.

You can donate to the state party here.

Jim also has a campaign Web site, although it is still set up for his past Congressional race.  He just made the Senate announcement today so I imagine that they will get the Web site updated for his Senate run rather quickly and will set up a way to donate to his Senatorial campaign as well.

Thompson withdrew from the presidential race last week. He ended his campaign as he had conducted it, with a minimum of fuss and no wasted words. He released a withdrawal statement over the Internet. It was three sentences long, and he hasn’t been heard from since. My guess is we’ll be missing him dreadfully by spring.

The charge against Thompson, who entered the campaign last September when polls showed him a favorite among Republican voters, was repeated so often it became a cliché. Like most clichés it tells us more about the people who used it than about the state of affairs it was supposed to describe. His campaign lacked “energy.” He didn’t get out enough on the campaign trail, and, when he did, he didn’t hold enough events. His speaking style was too low-key, and his speeches were too long, and more often than not his “performance” in televised debates was lackluster. He just didn’t have the fire in the belly.

The Weekly Standard

That was precisely the problem.  We live in a flashy Hollywood society today and ironically Thompson didn’t fit the bill.  With the exception of the final Republican debate in Myrtle Beach prior to the South Carolina primary, there was no fire with Thompson, no fury, no spirit.  There were a lot of good ideas and lot of the right stuff to reign in the conservative base, but it wasn’t presented in palatable format.

This is the key difference between someone like Fred and someone like Barack Obama.  Obama has no ideas, no plans, no details, no nothing, but he’s an eloquent speaker and knows how to liven up the party.  Look how many people are gravitating towards that guy.  Thompson was more straight forward and not really the lively type so I think people just didn’t pay attention.

It shouldn’t be that way, but such is the world we live in today.  If you can’t catch the attention span of the American Idol crowd you’re just wasting your time.

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) clashed late last year during a closed-door luncheon as they debated whether Republicans should take a strong stand against earmarking.

DeMint, the leader of the conservative Steering Committee, called for a renewed emphasis to rein in pet projects, angering Stevens, the notorious earmarker and senior appropriator from Alaska.

At the November meeting of DeMint’s committee, a fuming Stevens called on former Steering Committee heads to convene an unusual meeting to discuss the panel’s future steps, according to one person knowledgeable of the situation.

Calling for a meeting was an “obvious message” by Stevens that he wanted DeMint removed as chairman because of the junior conservative’s relentless push against earmarks, the source said, asking for anonymity because the talks generally occur in confidence.

“He certainly spoke up in some of our Steering Committee lunches and expressed his displeasure,” DeMint said in a recent interview.

“I’ve made a lot of enemies within my own party, but I think some of these folks have the responsibility to show what it means to be a Republican,” said DeMint.

Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Stevens, said his boss was “part of a group of several senators who were simply discussing the general management of the Steering Committee.”

Saunders said Stevens “made no such statement” about DeMint’s ouster, and DeMint could not recall whether the Alaskan sought to remove him from the post. Steering Committee staff declined to comment.

The Hill

If the Republicans really wanted to take back Congress this is how they could do it.  They could make a pledge to completely eliminate earmarks 100%.  Not a single one of them would request another.  They’d prove to the American people that they are going to walk the walk.  This won’t happen, of course, because there are too many in the party more concerned about buying votes for their reelection and you have senile old coots like Ted Stevens who get high off of the power they wield with our tax dollars.   Fortunately, I think 2008 will be the last we see of Ted Stevens.  He’s either going to jail or he is going to be defeated for reelection.

Even though the earmark push faces resistance within the GOP, DeMint and other conservatives say it would be wildly popular with the public and bring the party back to its core roots of fiscal conservatism.

“I think earmarks have basically destroyed the Republican Party,” DeMint said.

DeMint makes me proud to say I live in South Carolina.

A lot of Americans who believe in the right to own guns were very disappointed this weekend. On Friday, the Bush administration’s Justice Department entered into the fray over the District of Columbia’s 1976 handgun ban by filing a brief to the Supreme Court that effectively supports the ban. The administration pays lip service to the notion that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an “individual right,” but their brief leaves the term essentially meaningless.Quotes by the two sides’ lawyers say it all. The District’s acting attorney general, Peter Nickles, happily noted that the Justice Department’s brief was a “somewhat surprising and very favorable development.” Alan Gura, the attorney who will be representing those challenging the ban before the Supreme Court, accused the Bush administration of “basically siding with the District of Columbia” and said that “This is definitely hostile to our position.” As the lead to an article in the Los Angeles Times said Sunday, “gun-control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.”As probably the most prominent Second Amendment law professor in the country privately confided in me, “If the Supreme Court accepts the solicitor general’s interpretation, the chances of getting the D.C. gun ban struck down are bleak.”

National Review

Bush is like Mr. Magoo creating a disaster to everyone around him. This ruling will be one of the most landmark cases in our nation’s history. It will basically determine what the Second Amendment means and Bush is siding with the gun control advocates. But the damage may not be contained to the just Second Amendment.

The biggest problem is the standard used for evaluating the constitutionality of regulations. The DOJ is asking that a different, much weaker standard be used for the Second Amendment than the courts demands for other “individual rights” such as speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, imprisonment without trial, and drawing and quartering people.

If one accepts the notion that gun ownership is an individual right, what does “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” mean? What would the drafters of the Bill of Rights have had to write if they really meant the right “shall not be infringed”? Does the phrase “the right of the people” provide a different level of protection in the Second Amendment than in the First and Fourth?

But the total elimination of gun control is not under consideration by the Supreme Court. The question is what constitutes “reasonable” regulation. The DOJ brief argues that if the DC government says gun control is important for public safety, it should be allowed by the courts. What the appeals court argued is that gun regulations not only need to be reasonable, they need to withstand “strict scrutiny” — a test that ensures the regulations are narrowly tailored to achieve the desired goal.

Perhaps the Justice Department’s position isn’t too surprising. Like any other government agency, it has a hard time giving up its authority. The Justice Department’s bias can been seen in that it finds it necessary to raise the specter of machine guns 10 times when evaluating a law that bans handguns. Nor does the brief even acknowledge that after the ban, D.C.’s murder rate only once fell below what it was in 1976.

Worried about the possibility that a Supreme Court decision supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right could “cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation,” the Department of Justice felt it necessary to head off any restrictions on government power right at the beginning.

So there you have it. The real man behind the mask. Bush screwed us on fiscal policy.  He’s screwed us on protecting our nation’s borders.  He’s screwed us on foreign policy and now he is snipping the very roots of our Constitutional rights. It is the Second Amendment that allows all others to be enforced.

Bush is no different than his predecessor. Both Bush and Clinton lie and use people for what they want. Bush used evangelicals to get reelected in 2004 with his pandering marriage amendment and those of the eight states that had their own on the ballots. As we see now, he also used Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates are gleaming over it.

You very rarely hear the Democrats campaigning on gun control and the reason for that is because it is a politically poisonous issue for them. Many southern Democrat voters and those in rural areas are strong gun rights supporters and an anti-gun policy would isolate them from the party and the Democrats would lose many of their votes. Thankfully for them, Bush has just opened the door for that. Since Bush has now said that restrictions like D.C.’s are acceptable, look for more to pop up.

I have truly begun to question in the past year whether or not we made the right choice in reelecting this man in 2004. I can’t help to wonder that we may have been better off electing Kerry and watching him fall flat on his face, giving us a chance to put in a real Republican in 2008. I bet we’d still have Congress too.

Lott nailed the reason for this right on the head too. It’s all about keeping the power.

WASHINGTON — John McCain, riding high off victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, has raised more than $7 million this month, collecting in three weeks more than he took in during a three-month period last year.

The Charlotte Observer

Florida and Super Tuesday could throw a wrench into this whole race, but I have to tell you, I am getting the feeling we are looking at our nominee.

My work on the Fred Thompson campaign concluded today. So I am back to blogging.

I will probably have a lot to blog about in the coming weeks. For now, here are my first thoughts.

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.

Breitbart

I am certainly not going to complain about getting $300 of my hard earned money back from the Capitol Hill thieves, but let’s not kid ourselves here.  This move is nothing more than political cover.  Neither party wants to go into November squabbling back and forth over who is responsible for the slower economic gains and the sub-prime mortgage crisis we are experiencing.  These rebates are simply a feel good measure to try and quell the growing public concern towards the situation at hand.  It will resolve nothing in the long term.

First of all, by definition we are not in a recession, not yet anyway.  Could we be headed towards one?  Perhaps, but the economic minds have been making prediction after prediction of a recession over the past few years and it has yet to occur.  The sub-prime mortgage crisis alone is not an indicator of rough economic times ahead.  Lenders, through pressure of the Federal government and radical left wing groups like ACORN, lowered their standards and handed out mortgages to people who were simply not financially responsible, be it through bad credit histories or over extending themselves in the type of property they purchased.  When the interest rates went back up and the fixed term of these ARM loans expired why was anyone surprised that many of these people could not continue making the payments?  Amusingly the politicians expressed their hypocritical outrage at the lenders for “scamming” people into these loans despite the fact that it was they who were responsible for it to begin with.

Bailing out these lenders with corporate welfare and those who have defaulted on these loans will do nothing more than establish the government as a security blanket for corporate America and the public to turn to when they screw up.  It will not correct the behavior, but only encourage it further by abdicating responsibility on one’s self.  Both the lenders and the homeowners need to sink on their decisions and allow the market to correct itself and recover naturally.  Throwing a few hundred dollars out there at middle class and lower income wage earners is not going to resolve any looming economic crises and will only create a budget deficit of well over $100 billion, when we already experienced a similar deficit for 2007.  Furthermore, the problem with Pelosi’s insistence that the lowest wage earners get tax “rebates” on income taxes they never paid to begin with is another government forced shift of wealth from contributers to our economy to receivers.  These lowest wage earners don’t contribute to our economy, they suckle from it.

Don’t be fooled by these gestures of “good will” by the White House and Congress.  They are irresponsibly avoiding the problem and engaging in a smoke and mirrors magic show to cover their asses in an election year.

After 17 years in the House of Representatives, Republican California Congressman John Doolittle is calling it quits.  Doolittle has been under investigation for the last three years for alleged ties to convicted felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  He will serve the remainder of his 9th term, but will not seek a 10th.

Doolittle appears to have had a fairly standard quid pro quo arrangement with Abramoff, who has admitted to bilking millions from his Native American tribal clients.  Congressman Doolittle allegedly interceded on behalf of Abramoff’s clients, while receiving tens of thousands of dollars for campaign contributions in return for his assistance.

Doolittle’s wife, Julie, was also paid in excess of $66,000 between September 2002 and February 2004 to plan a fundraising event for Abramoff that never took place.  

The National Ledger

The main players of the Culture of Corruption continue to drop like flies.  Once we get rid of Stevens and Young that house will pretty much be cleaned up.  I think Ted Stevens does have a primary challenger but I’m not sure who.  I don’t know that Young does.

Told you so:

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states.

“Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” Thompson said in a statement.

The AP

As RedState puts it, “The Craptacular Capitulation of a Lame Duck.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects, but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future, administration officials said Monday. (story here)

Translation: “Don’t do it again! But I’m going to let you do it just this once…” (Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle snicker with glee)

Fiscal conservatives in Congress and budget watchdogs have been urging Mr. Bush to issue an executive order instructing agencies to disregard the many earmarks listed just in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

More than 90 percent of earmarks are specified that way, not actually included in the texts. White House officials say such earmarks are not legally binding on the president.

Emphasis mine. The next logical step for a real conservative President would be to gut these non-binding earmarks, right? Well, yeah, but Bush isn’t exactly a conservative President.

Congressional leaders of both parties, who are scheduled to meet on Tuesday with the president, said Mr. Bush would provoke a huge outcry on Capitol Hill if he ignored those earmarks.

Waaaaah! We want our pork and we want it now!

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy.

Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.

Again, all emphases are mine. Heaven forbid a Democratic president striking favors earmarks from a bill! Why? Well, because there’s an “R” next to that legislator’s name!

So it goes. Fiscal conservatism, who needs it?

Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate (well, serious candidate, Ron Paul did as well) to say outright that he would issue the executive order against these “air-dropped” earmarks.

Ridiculousness like this is why people like me aren’t taking the “but you’ll let Hillary win!!” line when it comes to the “Republican” candidates.

What’s the difference, honestly?

Sen. McCain will interfere in the market (and give taxpayer dollars to people who lose manufacturing jobs - so why would they look for another one?), be against tax reform, embrace Al Gore’s Global Warming Government Expansionist argument, and appoint judges who will side with him on McCain-Feingold - meaning not judges like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas. He’ll close Guantanamo Bay and argue that intense interrogation of terrorists to save American lives is actually “torture.” Not to mention, he has a temper and a vindictiveness similar to that of the Clintons.

Gov. Romney still supports the federal “assault weapons” ban. He’s an advocate of government mandates for healthcare (see RomneyCare). He recently said he was disappointed that there wasn’t a federal program to help Detroit automakers, and basically pledged to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to “save” Detroit if he becomes President. Michigan voted for him, so they will expect results. He’s a friend of Ted Kennedy. I haven’t even touched his convenient “conversion” to social conservatism - he turns me off enough today with stuff he’s saying now, so his “change of heart” is just icing on the cake.

Huckabee? Do I really have to go to the John Edwards wannabe? Yeah, he’ll be a real strong advocate for fiscal conservatism and limited government, let me tell ya! (snark off). Not to mention he’s one of the most immature, unserious candidates on either side of the race.

If we’re going to give this country to statists, by all means do it under the Democratic banner, not the Republican one.

UPDATE: Stop The ACLU has more of this line of thinking, referencing Stephen Bainbridge and even Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE II: The Club for Growth has more details on the fallout from this move by the Bush Administration, and a round-up of conservative response around the blogosphere and in the media.

UPDATE III: Michelle Malkin has an excellent round-up of McCain’s ridiculous position on illegal immigration, which I failed to mention originally.