Pelosi knew about waterboarding years ago

Apparently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) isn't being truthful about her pre-existing knowledge of CIA's harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding. In September 2002, a few members of Congress, Pelosi among one of them, were briefed by the CIA about the classified overseas detention sites and the interrogation techniques. At that time, no objections were made to what the Democrats label as torture now.

It's suffice to say that the Obama administration and Democrats' efforts to expose these CIA techniques and perhaps even release photographs of such "abuses" are politically motivated to further dig at the Bush administration and appease the liberal base. Never mind that these tactics kept America safe post-9/11. If these Democrats had at least the heart to acknowledge this fact, I wouldn't be so hard on them. But no, they refuse to give Bush and his CIA any credit, and since taking power in Washington, continue to go down a path of political revenge and kissing up to the liberal nutcases.

The Democrats simply have no intention of safeguarding our republic. Their latest actions only speaks of their immaturity and spitefulness.

A great day for America, not so good for liberal Washington

Simply amazing. Thousands lined the streets of major U.S. cities to protest big government. They brought their homemade signs with thoughtful messages (none of that "Bush = Hitler" crap). They brought along their children. They demonstrated peacefully. And best of all, they chanted "USA" whenever given the chance.

The success of Tax Day tea parties is revealing in many ways:

• It proved that ordinary citizens do care. They care about their kids' future, their families, and more importantly, their beloved country.
• It proved that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are very out of touch with America. President Obama pretends he's never heard of these tea parties, further insulting Americans' intelligence.
• It got on the nerves of the liberal mainstream media big time. Why else would they refuse to cover them? Or why would CNN's Susan Roesgen make an ass of herself on national TV? More evidence of the MSM's leftist alignment with the current administration.
• It also promoted the FairTax! (Hey, Chuck Morris is a believer!)
• It demonstrated that conservatives are even better with grassroots organization. These parties were not led or organized by political parties, established organizations, etc. They were organized by volunteers around the country. Conservatives get the last laugh when it comes to utilizing technology.

Nashville, Tennessee: 10,000. Rochester, NY: 1,000. Cincinnati: 4,000. Madison, Wisconsin: 8,000. Chicago: 4,000. Olympia, Washington: 5,000. Boise, Idaho: 2,500. Austin, TX: 1,500. Lansing, Michigan: 7,000. Jacksonville, FL: 2,000. Atlanta: 20,000. And that's only the tip of an iceberg...

And those ACORN or liberal saboteurs? Probably decided to stay home and watch the rallies on TV instead. I have no doubt that they secretly tuned into Fox News tonight.

Today is Tax Day, time to have Tea Parties

Tax Day has finally come. And as the WSJ points out, nationwide there are more than 300 tea parties being organized. Each state of the union will have one:

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed "tea parties" -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

The most revealing aspect of these tea parties is that it's not led by a political party, labor union, or organization. It is purely a grassroots movement of ordinary Americans who want to give the government a piece of their mind. Of course, liberals are making snarky comments at these protesters, and the mainstream media joins the chorus. They label the tea party movement as "AstroTurf," claiming it is not a real grassroots movement. (Liberals would like to trademark "grassroots" if it were legal to do so.)

Whatever. Nobody really cares what the liberals think anyway. Look back at their rallies and you'll notice something oddly similar. They're often coordinated and led by organizations such as ACORN, MoveOn, Code Pink, NOW, etc. In their case, the protesters are mindless followers.

Today's tea parties, the protesters are leaders. Everyday citizens who work hard to feed their families, make payments on mortgages, and have a simple message: We want more of our own money kept in our wallets. They are not gathering because a political party or activist organization tells them to. In fact, many conservative organizations are the followers of the movement.

Look at this map. This is the real change we can believe in.

It's official: Administration sees conservatives as "rightwing extremists"

This is unbelievable. Michelle Malkin confirms the validity of this DHS report about "rightwing extremism" after Obama's historic election. Check out this footnote on page 2:

(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Now you may close your jaws and take deep breaths. No kidding about the "broadly divided" categorization! This pretty much sums up how this liberal administration sees its conservative opposition.

It gets better! Big Brother is watching and listening on the Internet (page 3):

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

Conservative bloggers, radio show hosts, Twitter users, or even visitors of conservative Websites who like to leave comments -- be warned! Especially if you like to criticize the White House's economic policies.

With the revelation of this DHS report, I'm going to assume that federal agents will be present at the tea parties in major cities. That's a reasonable assumption now. I'm also going to assume that federal agencies will compile reports about these mass demonstrations, too.

Obama's economic policies pave way for America's indebted future. What future awaits us now we know how serious his administration views the opposition?

The ginormous left-wing conspiracy

Forget about the vast right-wing conspiracy. You need to read about the ginormous ("gigantic" and "enormous") left-wing conspiracy. Happening right in front of your eyes.

Still any doubt of the mainstream media not being a left-leaning establishment?

The next bailout: illegal immigration!

The White House with the support of the Democratic Congress so far have bailed out irresponsible homeowners, banks, insurance companies, and automakers. And why stop there? The illegal immigrants deserve their piece of the pie, too!

President Obama strikes the iron while it's hot. With the country still struggling with the recession and jobs are hard to come by, he'll have the undivided attention of the illegal immigrant communities. According to the NYT, he's asking politicians for immigration "reform" to go out amongst the voters (wait, can illegals vote?!) to garner populous support:

That is why Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, a Democrat from Mr. Obama’s hometown, Chicago, has been on the road most weekends since last December, traveling far outside his district to meetings in Hispanic churches, hoping to generate something like a civil rights movement in favor of broad immigration legislation.

Mr. Gutierrez was in Philadelphia on Saturday at the Iglesia Internacional, a big Hispanic evangelical church in a former warehouse, the 17th meeting in a tour that has included cities as far flung as Providence, R.I.; Atlanta; Miami; and San Francisco. Greeted with cheers and amens by a full house of about 350 people, Mr. Gutierrez, shifting fluidly between Spanish and English, called for immigration policies to preserve family unity, the strategic theme of his campaign.

At each meeting, speakers from the community, mainly citizens, tell stories of loved ones who were deported or of delays and setbacks in the immigration system. Illegal immigrants have not been invited to speak.

Mr. Gutierrez’s meetings have all been held in churches, both evangelical and Roman Catholic, with clergy members from various denominations, including in several places Muslim imams. At one meeting in Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, officiated.

First, only the NYT would compare this to a civil rights movement. Sorry, but in America you only have civil rights if you're a lawful resident or citizen. (So the Democrats want terrorists to have civil rights, too, but that's another story...)

Second, "broad immigration legislation"? That's liberal-speak for "amnesty." Last time I checked America is still governed by rule of law, and we do have immigration laws in place for law-abiding immigrants to go through a process in order to obtain residency and citizenship. Millions of immigrants do it. Why can't these illegals? If the President and Congress have their way, these illegal immigrants get to take the easy and cheap way out.

Third, why don't we say what this is really about? Much like the other bailouts involving trillions of taxpayers money, illegal immigration amnesty is just indirect vote buying. This isn't just luring voters. This would actually create voters! And guess which party they'll likely to vote for?

Conservatives leading in tweets

Liberals may have a strong grip on the mainstream media, but conservatives are dominating Twitter usage, notably with the most popular #tcot hashtag. Conservative tweets are gathering so much steam that liberals are paying attention and trying to counter the #tcot wave. Thanks to the efforts of Republican strategist Michael P. Leahy, there's even a site for the #tcot community, Top Conservatives On Twitter (now also part of our Reading List).

If you have not jumped onto the Twitter bandwagon, please reconsider and join the millions of conservative Twitterers in an ongoing stream of conversation about the economy, foreign policy, national security, and much more!

(And remember to follow us @AsianConsBlog.)

Confused moderate-conservatives

Voter's remorse. Is that what David Brooks of the NYT is really saying?

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

Obviously, Brooks is an Obama Kool-Aid drinker, probably getting all his news from fine media outlets like CNN and MSNBC. I'm sure he's a smart gentleman, graduated from University of Chicago and previously worked at several reputable media companies. But even an average American like Joe The Plumber knew Obama's agenda: wealth redistribution and social welfare. Is it really so hard to see through Obama's socialism soul?

And moderate-conservative? Come on, make up your mind. Be a real conservative, or just follow the liberal zombies.

Is the White House wise to target Limbaugh?

The Democrats think they've got Rush Limbaugh where they want him. Apparently this all started when James Carville and Stanley Greenberg ran an poll in October to discover that Limbaugh was hugely unpopular among the younger voters. The conservative talk show host continued his criticisms against Obama even after his election, and now top Democrats and the White House see a golden opporunity to paint him as the leader of the GOP, while brushing aside RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

First I got to ask: Why are the Democrats marginalizing Mr. Steele, a fine black politician who's worked his way up to earn the respect of his peers to lead the Republicans during these troublesome years for the party? The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves!

While the Leftosphere is cheering on the latest assaults on Limbaugh, the Rightosphere is welcoming this classic battle of Liberalism vs. Conservatism. On the liberal corner of the ring, there is the mainstream media, the White House, the Democratic Congressmen and Senators, and all the crazies who start their day with coffee and Huffington Post. The other corner of the ring sits one of radio's giants, commanding an audience of millions on a daily basis, and not to mention his great contribution to the conservative movement.

Will it be a fair fight? Of course not. But that doesn't matter. Battles are never fought fairly, and only the strong will survive.

Most conservative bloggers are betting on Limbaugh crushing the opposition like an ant. If the Obama White House was a business, then it'd probably suffer the same fate as Air America. To me this pick-on-Rush strategy is a miscalculation on the White House's part, and the Democrats are just going to convert more folks into Rush's army. The economy hasn't gotten better and probably won't get any better during the Obama presidency, and people are going to realize that perhaps wanting Obama to fail was a valid point...

Rising inequalities in America?

Here's more evidence of liberals high on President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget proposal. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post griping about inequalities:

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.

Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

Dionne and many liberals seem to lack a clear understanding of capitalism. Capitalism works when the individual has the will and opportunities to work hard and accumulate wealth. Everyone can have the same opportunities, but not everyone has the will. Liberals tend to forget this facet and bring in the government as the Great Equalizer. That is socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism is never fair because there will always be lazy punks who make the wrong decisions and waste their talents. Socialism wants to be fair, but that means taking money from the responsible members of society and feeding it to the lazy punks. No, thanks.

Government, please just stay out of the way. All I want is economic freedom and opportunities to work for my wealth.

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.

The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:

The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.

Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

Bush was not wrong, writers are just not right

President Bush's farewell address didn't go well with many liberals. What else is new, eh?

Arianna Huffington unloads:

He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Calm down, Huffy! The only two things I may even agree with are Afghanistan and Katrina. However, he did own up to them and corrected the wrongs fairly quickly. Everything else -- Iraq, Saddam, WMD, torture, rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo -- well, America is kept safe since 9/11. I have to thank the President for that.

Gerard Baker, calling Bush "the epitome of ineptitude," among many other things:

Around the world the Bush name is synonymous with arrogance, ignorance, reckless insouciance, torture, violence and ineptitude. And those would be from America's friends. He leaves office with his country facing the worst economic crisis since (take your pick) Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover left town, two of his predecessors now firmly ensconced in the presidential Hall of Infamy.

Lots of SAT words there. Sure, blame the economy on him, too! Why didn't you write something when Bush's economic policies were making you tons of money in real estate and stocks? Please seek professional help for your Severe BDS...

And the President just can't catch a break, not even on the home front. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), also the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants to investigate and probe the Bush administration:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

I'm sure all in the name of civil liberty and accountability. Looks more like crucifying an outgoing president and his inner circle when Rep. Conyers enjoys the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, and an incoming Democratic president. How about an investigation into Conyers' babysitter? Good grief. And this guy's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

But of course, it's all about Bush and not anyone else...

No BDS relief in sight even as Bush nears end of term

You just can't win with these BDS sufferers.

When Bush got elected and re-elected, liberals from near and far came out on the offense to label him as a dumb cowboy-wannabe from Texas who entered the White House thanks to his daddy and also managed to steal the 2004 election.

Now Bush is about to leave Washington and the liberal media still won't let him go in peace.

Journalism maven Helen Thomas writes about more "bizarre Bushisms":

On the Middle East crisis, his double standard was in full display.

Bush said he remained an opponent of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which has been invaded by Israel. He found only the firing of rockets by Hamas unacceptable, but expressed no sympathy for the Palestinians who are suffering heavy Israeli bombardment with American-supplied weapons.

Bush told the news conference: "Israel has a right to defend itself." He did not say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. He also said the Gazans have to stop smuggling arms. But he said nothing about the tons of arms we have supplied Israel.

As for the global economic meltdown, the president admitted he had to abandon his free-market principles and approve of massive government intervention in the economy. He said this switcheroo was required in order to save the free market system. The logic evoked the Vietnam era when we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Come on, Helen. Of course the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, but the fact remains that Hamas provoked Israel by lobbing rockets across the border, striking fear and killing innocent Jews in the border towns. Also, sending bomb-strapped crazies into crowded Israeli markets doesn't sound like a defensive maneuver to me, either. Do you condone the horrible terrorist acts of Hamas?

And about the economy, I'm sure if Bush had stuck to free market principles and let capitalism work its way slowly and painfully into recovery, Thomas and her liberals critics would attack that "Bushism" with no end in sight. Seriously, it's a no-win situation for President Bush. Liberals will always have something to pick on.

Don't even bring up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's decisiveness and resolve saved thousands more lives around the world. Thomas ought to read the article from The Telegraph's Andrew Robert.

That should provide enough answers to Michael J.W. Stickings' questions about Cheney:

I'm all for liberation, too, but are the people of Iraq truly free? Is there really a vibrant democracy there? And in Afghanistan, what of the ongoing war and instability there? It's not enough just to believe in your own high-falutin' rhetoric of freedom and democracy. It's not enough just to say that there have been such accomplishments, such historic progress. There's the not-so-little matter of the facts on the ground to consider, and the facts don't really back him up, do they? And what Cheney does not consider is not just those facts but that his own policies -- or, rather, Bush's -- have hindered progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as elsewhere, including in Iran, in North Korea, and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Even granting him that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do -- which, in retrospect, I'm not about to do -- what about what came after the invasion? So too in Afghanistan. What about what came after the overthrow of the Taliban, specifically the immediate turn to Iraq and the failure to go after al Qaeda with full determination? And then, what about the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and how Iraq turned into a cesspool of terrorism and sectarianism?

So give it a rest. Iraq is much, much better without the psychotic tyrant Saddam Hussein. Absorb that fact. Learn to live with it. Bush and Cheney did the right thing.

Imagine what took place in Obama's meetings with columnists

Obama had dinner with several prominent conservative columnists a few days ago, and followed up with a meeting with the liberals (of course he had to). Nobody's leaking details of these events, honoring the off-the-record agreement. Larry Kudlow shares some opinion of PEBO. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic isn't talking. No juicy stuff (heck, Kudlow can't even remember what food was served)!

My guess is that during the dinner with the "crazy" conservatives, the conversations were about the economy, Washington war stories, and lots of exchanged pleasantries. Congratulations. How's the family? Thank you. What delicious food! Here's a toast to our new President...

And what of the meeting with liberals? I bet they complained about not having dinner -- not even refreshments! Are we not as important as the right-wing nuts?! And after a brief exchange of pleasantries, they probably treated the meeting like a BDS support group, whining and moaning about Bush's stupidity and Cheney's dishonesty, and Palin's family. These liberal columnists probably hinted to PEBO that it was their words and leftist colleagues in the media that helped him to the White House. Take good care of us. Don't let us down. We can't believe you invited Rick Warren...

Best of luck to PEBO. As Kudlow pointed out, there's a lot of things to deal with already...

Finally, a Hollywood actor speaks up and out

Gary Graham is one pissed-off dude (warning -- some strong language). Thanks, Gary!

Coulter banned on NBC

According to the Drudge Report, controversial conservative author Ann Coulter is banned from appearing on NBC:

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now. It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

That's probably true. Whoever watches NBC probably isn't interested in Coulter's criticism of liberals. But a complete ban based on the reasoning that she's critical of our president-elect? NBC ought to be ashamed! Why didn't they ban those who were highly critical of President Bush? The elite media double standard at its best.

The GOP big government (failed) experiment

Richard A. Viguerie writes a good piece in the L.A. Times about Republicans' path and acceptance of Big Government:

Over the last eight years, President Bush sought to tame Big Government and turn it to conservative ends. The administration experimented with the belief -- as expressed by Huckabee, Gerson and Kristol -- that Republicans and conservatives would do better by rejecting small-government conservatism and accepting Big Government. For generations, Democrats had bribed people to vote for them with one Big Government program after another, so Republicans did the same (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, endless deficits and, finally, the bailouts). The results of the experiment are now in: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, President-elect Barack Obama.

Indeed. Look where the Republicans are now, and look how disgruntled the conservatives are. Is there hope in reversing the Big Government trend? History tells a pessimistic story, that often government does not shrink. It all boils down to indirect vote buying. The Republicans thought they could pull such Democrat-inspired moves to win voters, but the maneuvers backfired big time. Seriously, the Republicans have nothing even close to Democrats' social programs, so what makes them think they could compete against Democrats in government programs? (Okay, maybe President Bush came close.) Do Republicans want to blur the lines between them and the Democrats? I sure hope not.

The GOP should embrace Small Government once again as Ronald Reagan did. It's also a way for the new GOP to distinguish itself from the old and from the liberals. The party may not win the fight, but as Viguerie points out "if we do not fight, we guarantee defeat."

Love for country is blind?

Joel Stein of the L.A. Times has this to say about conservatives' love for America:

...I still think conservatives love America for the same tribalistic reasons people love whatever groups they belong to. These are the people who are sure Christianity is the only right religion, that America is the best country, that the Republicans have the only good candidates, that gays have cooties.

In other words, Stein thinks conservatives are barbaric, narrow-minded, and self-righteous? Oh, and homophobic.

My personal observation has been that conservatives love America for its history and traditions, and their belief that those things will steer her to a positive path. Liberals, on the other hand, do acknowledge America's history and traditions, but their belief is that there may be something better out there, or that our minds cannot fathom everything about a theory or philosophy to determine its value. That's why many liberals are fond of Marxism and communism, even though history has again and again proven their failures to sustain a civil society. Yet liberals often call themselves "progressives." Go figure.

Here's what conservatives value: freedom and individuality. America has thrived and strengthened with these two core concepts. How else could such a young democratic republic become the world's superpower?

Freedom and individuality are also gifts from God. God made man in His own image and gave man free will. Our Founding Fathers understood that and believed the birth of America was a divine gift.

This love is not blind. This love is unconditional, reciprocating God's love for us.

Thanks to liberals for keeping Palin in the spotlight

Where's Palin lately? I don't even know, but thanks to Jeff Schweitzer writing in The Huffington Post, he's keeping the Palin dream alive. Oh, calling her a "walking political abomination" doesn't really help his cause, either...

The Rick Warren controversy

There is a lot of buzz surrounding Obama's inauguration invitation to Rick Warren. Many liberals and gay rights activists are shocked at the announcement and have come out to demand Obama take Warren off the list. However, more recently there have been calls in support of Warren.

My view is that President-elect Obama is doing the right thing, politically. He needs a well-known religious figure in his inauguration program to satisfy the conservatives. After all, that's nearly 50% of the voters, and he cannot be effective in his narrative of unity if he distances himself, a self-proclaimed Christian, from the anti-gay marriage crowd. I think E. J. Dionne best describes both men:

One need not be too pious about any of this. Both Warren and Obama are shrewd leaders who sense where the political winds are blowing.

Yet keep in mind that there are folks who oppose gay marriage but support gay rights, such as a civil union. Many have problems with gay activists attempting to redefine the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman. And that is understandable and reasonable. If marriage can be redefined at will by a certain group of people, then what prevents the next proposition of legal marriage to be between say, a man and multiple wives (polygamy)? Or a man and his car? Or a male ape and its mate? Where does it end? That's a point Peter Wehner of Commentary brings up.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge also weighs in on The Huffington Post, starting with:

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

Inspirational, no? But wait a minute -- I thought Bush is being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina? Liberals are starting to confuse even me. She writes an article with sincere emotions, but gays already have the right to love another human of their choice and are protected equally under the laws. Think about it.