During the Bush years, Democrats correctly went after the administration for no-bid contracts with Halliburton. This kind of unethical, behind-closed-doors behavior happened more than once during those dark years before The Enlightened One came among us. After he became president, Obama personally decried such deals and said things would change.

Apparently, this is one of the other changes we’ll have to wait on from our president. According to Fox News- and, thus far, only Fox News- a Democratic campaign contributor was given a $25 million contract to work in Afghanistan on a no-bid contract. As my friend Nick Brown put it:

It appears that if this Fox News story has legs, then we can throw away all the shallow remarks from Obama toward the Bush Administration regarding “sweet heart [sic] deals” and Cheney’s previous position at Haliburton.”

This, of course, does not make the Bush Administration’s no-bid contracts any more or less ethical. It does, however, put another bruise on the anti-Bush rhetoric the White House is still using, and on the hopenchange (to steal a term from Michelle Malkin) Americans wanted from him.

Grassroots conservatives are jumping for joy at the prospect of a challenge to Senator McCain in the 2010 Arizona Republican primary.  Leading this charge is controversial talk-show host and former Congressman, JD Hayworth.

Although Hayworth is on the correct side of most economic and security issues facing America in 2010, the roots of his ideological views are disturbing, even to the most conservative and libertarian activist.

Hayworth is one of America’s most vocal supporters of the ‘Americanization’ doctrine.  This doctrine goes beyond the policies of English only and immigrant assimilation into the American culture.  The re-birth of this movement in the early 20th century was deeply-rooted in an anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant and anti-black/brown philosophy.

Throughout Hayworth’s career, he has cited Henry Ford (the father of 20th century Americanization doctrine) as the model for American government and industry to follow.  On the surface, Ford’s Americanization policy appeared to fall within the mainstream of American society, which included such programs as English language training for immigrants hired to work on his assembly lines.  In his 2006 book, “Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror,”, Hayworth wrote;

the ever-so-successful process that used to be called ‘Americanization’ was a major movement in the early 1900s … Henry Ford, a leader in this movement,

These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live.’ Talk like that today and our liberal elites will brand you a cultural imperialist, or worse. But if you ask me, Ford had a better idea.

What the former Congressman failed to mention was that ‘Ford’s idea’‘ was based on xenophobic and anti-Jewish beliefs.  Aside from being one of America’s great industrial innovators, Henry Ford was also a media baron.  One of his publications, the Dearborn Independent, promoted Ford’s belief in the Jewish world conspiracy.  Hayworth also failed to mention that Ford was one of the German Nazi parties earliest foreign supporters.  In Hitler, Ford saw an individual who was willing to adopt many of the same Americanization policies towards “Jewish bankers”, non-whites and immigrants in Germany and the axis occupied countries.

As a reward for his support and a recognition of their shared beliefs,  Adolph Hitler awarded Henry Ford the Grand Cross of the German Eagle in 1938, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners.  Other winners included; Benito Mussolini, Heinrich Himmler, Jozef Tiso and Charles Lindbergh.

I am not suggesting JD Hayworth is promoting Nazism in Arizona and America, (as I am sure the liberal media will have plenty to say about this if Hayworth were to win the nomination), but for the former Congressman not have not found a better example than Ford’s Americanization doctrine, when suggesting solutions for America’s cultural and security issues, should be troubling for all republicans.

I know for many of my fellow conservative and libertarian republicans it can be frustrating when the liberal media is quick to brand us as racist when we push for policies that promote enhanced security at our southern border and legislation that recognizes English as the official language of the Unites States, but to offer them a candidate who has the ability to brand each one of us as anti-Semitic and xenophobic, is not a risk I am willing to take in a year that may allow the GOP to regain control of the House and Senate.

Go away, JD Hayworth.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at kristofer.lorelli@rightOsphere.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

.

With the Illinois gubernatorial primary just over a week away – it looks like reform candidate Adam Andrzejewski is building momentum.  Tea Party activists,  national conservatives, and good government groups seem to be coalescing behind his anti-establishment candidacy as an alternative to machine politicians like Jim Ryan, Kirk Dillard, and Andy McKenna.

Today, Andrzejewski picked up the support of yet another good governance group , “Reclaim Illinois“. This anti-corruption group is relatively new but does have a number of state employees as members. And we should be expecting good news from the Illinois Tea Party organization later today.

However, one of the biggest moves in Andrzejewski’s direction seems to be among the national conservative movement. Friday, he appeared on the popular Dana Show in St. Louis - where he got a ringing endorsement from host Dana Loesch. He’s also getting a good deal of Twitter traffic from national pundit Matt Lewis. 

Some of the other candidates have cash in the bank – but none of them are generating much excitement locally and they certainly aren’t getting any attention nationally.

Adam Andrzejewski is.

Rasmussen Indiana Senatorial Survey

• Mike Pence 47%
• Evan Bayh 44%

• Evan Bayh 44%
• John Hostettler 41%

• Evan Bayh 45%
• Marlin Stutzman 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mike Pence 54% / 25% {+29%}
• Evan Bayh 58% / 38% {+20%}
• John Hostettler 44% / 27% {+17%}
• Marlin Stutzman 31% / 26% {+5%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 20%
• Somewhat approve 23%
• Somewhat disapprove 15%
• Strongly disapprove 41%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 16%
• Somewhat favor 21%
• Somewhat oppose 12%
• Strongly oppose 48%

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 73%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 16%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 11%
• Good 23%
• Fair 28%
• Poor 34%

How would you rate the job Mitch Daniels has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 35%
• Somewhat approve 35%
• Somewhat disapprove 17%
• Strongly disapprove 12%

Survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted January 21 & 24, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Per MSNBC:

Delaware attorney general Beau Biden announced Monday that he will not seek election to the U.S. Senate seat once held by his father, Vice President Joe Biden.

The younger Biden told supporters in an e-mail that he will run for re-election as attorney general rather than seek the Senate seat his father held for 36 years.

Full story here.

Anyone who reads this site should know that I am anti-establishment to the hilt – to the point where I am often harangued as a “purgist”. Toomey over Specter – sign me up. Rubio over Crist – in a minute. Hoffman over Scozzafava – easy decision for Hoffman. Furthermore – I was one of the first out of the gate supporting Les Phillip over Parker Griffith, I’m pulling hard for uber-anti-establishmentarian Adam Andrzejewski in Illinois, and I’m already in the tank for Sarah Palin’s impending presidential run. Heck, I’ve even drawn fire for suggesting a Joseph Cao primary challenge to the ethically-challenged Sen. David Vitter.

So - now that I’ve established my credentials – can somebody please tell me what former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth is smoking?  I will be the first to say that I’ve had my disagreements with John McCain – but the old maverick is hardly a Rockefeller Republican. Furthermore, he has emerged as one of the most forceful and eloquent critics of the Obama agenda and an invaluable resource in the U.S. Senate. He’s also doing yeoman’s work to recruit solid, electable Republicans in places where they normally shouldn’t win.

Let’s remember that McCain was the first senator visited by Scott Brown after his win in Massachusetts last week – but I don’t hear anyone calling for Brown’s head on a plate. In fact – Brown is widely seen as being decently conservative. He’s definitely the most conservative Massachusetts senator in recent memory – eschewing the hyper-moderate stances that have generated the few recent GOP victories in that state.  And who is one of Scott Brown’s idols? John McCain.

Now, since I bring up Scott Brown – I will be the first to admit that McCain has no inherent right to re-election. It’s not the McCain seat – it’s the people of Arizona’s seat.  I also think that primary challenges can be healthy at times, and that GOP Senators should always be prepared to face opposition from both the right and the left – that’s part of democracy. So, Hayworth has every right to present his case to the citizenry - but the rest of us have the right to let him know that taking out one of the country’s most respected Republican senators is a very bad idea.

I’m all for solidifying principles, but on balance, John McCain doesn’t really deviate from conservative principles all that much. Yes, he has cap-and-trade, he’s not a big fan of waterboarding, and he is staunchly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform (immigration being Hayworth’s signature issue). However, he’s also a strong voice for fiscal sanity and a strong national defense, In fact - while he did indeed have several run-ins with the Bush Administration - one of those run-ins was over the troop levels in Iraq (where he was attacking the administration position from the right).

John McCain is the reigning “lion of the Senate”, and frankly I would be more than happy to see him hold that seat for the remainder of his natural life. He’s a patriot, a hero, and a fine legislator. 

Also, as a Palin supporter, I fully support Governor Palin’s decision to campaign for McCain. In fact, I was sincerely hoping she would. Yes, it will stick in the craw of some of her more rabid supporters. However, Palin owes her political career to McCain and counts him as a personal friend. He’s also publicly gone to bat for her many times both during and after the campaign. Campaigning for McCain is the honorable thing to do and the right thing to do. To throw him under the bus (or even stay out of the race) would be catty, mean-spirited, opportunistic, and classless after everything he did for her. If she deserted him now – then her entire 2008 campaign (and especially that brilliant convention speech) would be a lie.

For all of us who stand with Sarah (and especially those who were with her pre-Veep) - let’s remember that John McCain believed in us and our candidate when few others did. We should now return the favor by believing in him in the face of an ill-advised challenge from the right (even if Hayworth might  be a little more in line with our thinking on certain issues).

J.D. Hayworth is a principled conservative, a strong orator, and could have been a key part of our party’s future. He would have made a fine Governor for the Great State of Arizona (a seat that happens to be hotly contested at the moment) and he could have done the party a great service by running to retake his old seat from Democrat Harry Mitchell. However, he is way off base in choosing to plant his flag against McCain. Not only has John McCain earned re-election to the U.S. Senate, but his ability to articulate the message to moderates makes him a key figure in the Republican Party’s 2012 comeback. If he is defeated in the primary - then I think we will lose many of the gains we would other wise have made and prove ourselves to truly be a small-tent party of ideologues (at least in Arizona). 

Also – Arizona is a red-state – but it’s not THAT red. If McCain loses a bitter primary, we will have to spend valuable resources ensuring Hayworth can hold off a strong Democratic challenge. Right now, our resources are going to be spread thin for a GOOD reason in that we have the potential to bump off multiple Democratic senators (especially now that we are looking at challenging Senators Bayh and Feingold in the wake of the Brown victory). We do not need to divert resources out of  purple states to make sure that Hayworth doesn’t lose.

By the way  - for those of you backing Hayworth – I want you to meet Democratic Tuscon City Councilman Rodney Glassman. The 31 year-old Glassman has no real chance of taking  out McCain in a year when the GOP is at it’s strongest, but as you will see in the video below, he’s a very marketable guy and I would expect him to get massive amounts of DSCC cash if Hayworth ousts McCain. Also – don’t tell me that a JAG officer can’t pick off a lot of bitter, disgruntled McCain loyalists in a general election.

So, just as a cautionary note to Hayworth die-hards, beating McCain would only be a warm up for you. If you win, this is what awaits you in the general, and don’t think this guy won’t give you a run for your money…

This is not just a race between Hayworth and McCain. There IS a Democratic candidate, and he may be overly optimistic but he’s no slouch.  If you think you can beat him (and do it without national help), fine – but I do NOT want to be talking about Senator Glassman next January.

University of Cincinnati Ohio Newspaper Poll

ABC’s “The Roundtable” had the always-brilliant George Will, but also Matthew Dowd, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson. Dowd sums up exactly what happened in Massachusetts, and the ramifications for the political class, starting at 2:41.

(H/T to Real Clear Politics)

Unfortunately, it appears RCP does not allow videos to be posted at other sites. So you’ll have to click  on the RCP link I have above to see what Dowd says.

This is disgusting. I am a regular visitor to Daily Kos, partially because they are a good measure of what the far left is thinking, and secondly because they have a good morning pundit list and a good afternoon news-link section. However, comparing pro-life supporters to terrorists, especially in the graphic fashion done below, is totally out of line, and the front page contributor, one “Angry Mouse,” owes both pro-lifers and those liberals who follow Daily Kos an apology for joining Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Keith Olbermann- among others- in denigrating the state of political discourse in this country and using the platform granted him by Daily Kos to insult the plurality of Americans who are pro-life in such a despicable manner.

As I noted the other day, and as has been recorded by many others, pro-choice advocates (including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) are certainly not always the good-natured, caring people portrayed by idiots like Angry Mouse. Let’s compare: pro-life activists want women and children to have the opportunity, education and future they ought to have. Pro-choice activists support the murder of children and refuse to provide the support and education for pregnant mothers that would allow them to successfully have a child and a positive future. To paraphrase what one person said to me last week, women generally don’t have abortions because they want to. They have them because it’s the last available option for them, when they are alone and desperate. (Bolded word added by me, not the person I am taking the phrase from.) Pro-lifer activists want that loneliness and desperation lifted, through every ethical opportunity available, whether it be education, adoption, abstinence, faith in God or any of a number of other means. Many pro-choice activists do not, and Angry Mouse is emblematic of that. Rather than help women and children, he or she continues to support the extreme left, that part of America that has no problem with what could easily be qualified as genocide and, specifically, minority genocide.

Update I: I modified some of the language from my initial post- while my anger at the Daily Kos writer is justified, I was lowering myself to only a few levels above his or hers by using irresponsible language.

Update II: In the comments section, Mr. Benjamin Hodge reminded me of another stark difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. When Dr. George Tiller was shot last summer, the vast majority of pro-life organizations and supporters correctly decried the shooting, as did pro-choice supporters. News of  the shooting was all over the national media, and leading the liberal charge that conservative media voices were at fault was Daily Kos. Now compare that reaction to the death of a pro-life activist later in the year. Pro-lifers decried the death, but the reaction elsewhere was minimal. For example, President Obama didn’t call for the taxpayer-paid protection of pro-life activists, as he did for abortion doctors after Tiller’s death, and it took him 48 hours to condemn the death, compared to the quick turnaround time after Tiller was shot. Googling “pro-life activist killed, Daily Kos” brings up nothing on the site about the death, and a commenter on Huffington Post noted that he or she had to search for the story about the pro-lifer’s death, as opposed to the many splashes on the site after Tiller’s death.

This update is rather long-winded, I know. However the point is still clear: by and large, pro-lifers hold all life dear, whereas pro-choicers seem to pick and choose who is worth protecting, seemingly based upon a person’s ideological views.

Update III: Commenter MetroIndependent pointed out that I missed refuting the key point of Angry Mouse’s post, which is that pro-life supporters are terrorists. I apologize. Two points about that:

1. Abortion is murder. Using purely the numbers game, 50,000,000 murders of the innocent plus all of the other actions taken by pro-choice believers add up to way more than the small number cited by Angry Mouse, who got his information from the National Abortion Federation, but neglected to note that the numbers include The United States of America and Canada. So let’s compare: 50,000,000 or so murders in America versus eight murders in America and Canada. Hundreds of thousands of harassment and stalking charges that are, according to NAF, often by the same people multiple times- and the same applies to the number arrested. Compare this to the number of pro-life believers total (extrapolating from polls, about 148,000,000 people) and…well, perhaps “terrorist” is being used to describe the wrong side in this debate?

2. This accusation of “terrorist” is ludicrous, and that’s partly why I forgot to initially refute it. After all, do rational beings actually believe this? Nope. Just the radical and loony left. Which highlights another key difference between terrorists and pro-lifers. When Muslim terrorists attack, they are defended or excused by the left and the vast majority of their fellow Muslims. (Of course, not ALL Muslims are terrorists, as the loony left is so quick to correctly remind us.) When environmental whackos were arrested at the Copenhagen summit, protesters were praised and the arrests were decried by many on the left. Meanwhile, conversely, when an anti-abortionist commits any harmful actions towards his or her fellow man, he or she is decried by fellow pro-lifers as quickly as possible, and prayers are made regarding the lives of those affected by the anti-abortionist’s actions.

Terrorists use violence to target innocents who do anything but join them. (See 9/11/2001, Daniel Pearl, many innocent Middle Eastern Muslim civilians and others too numerous to mention.) Pro-life supporters act on their beliefs for the peaceful end to abortions and the violence therein, no matter where the violence takes place and no matter who it takes place against. To call that terrorism is not only ludicrous but totally and completely irresponsible.

As many of you know, we will be transitioning the Race42012 Community to our newly redesigned site in a matter of weeks (though a firm date is yet to bet set.)

Part of this transition is that we are changing the name of the site to Rightosphere.com. This was a big decision for me, as the “Race4″ sites have been a huge part of my life for so long now. But I felt the time had come for a couple of reasons.

First, it is becoming increasingly costly to own all of the “Race4″ URL’s needed to protect the brand I have built. I already, of course, own Race42008.com & Race42012.com, as well as Racefor2012.com, Race42016.com, Racefor2016.com, Race42020.com, Racefor2020.com, Race42024.com, and Racefor2024.com! So it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to decide where to draw the line as long as I stuck with the “Race4″ identity.

Also, it would become increasingly difficult to have the site consistently identified with one name as time went on (some people still refer to us as “Race42008.com”!) I foresee this becoming an even greater problem as time goes on. Having one name that does not change with each cycle alleviates this problem.

Secondly, I have received many requests throughout the years from the members of our community as to features they would like to see the site have. Some people would like to have the ability to from groups or tribes within the site, e.g., “Team Mitt” or “Team Huck.” Other wanted to have a list of the campaign stops that each candidate would make during campaign season. Others wanted the ability to create their own polls. Many thought it would be nice to have a fully functional social network added to the site so that they can connect with other like-minded conservatives.

About a year ago, Kris Lorelli and me were discussing these requests and we asked each “why not?” Why can’t the Race42012 Community have all of these features to have some fun with?

So we set out together to make this kind of community a reality. The results, I feel, speak for themselves. Rightosphere will have all of the features that anyone has ever asked for plus, much, much, more. In fact, I believe that there is no political website, Right or Left, that will have the features and resources that each member of the Rightosphere family will have.

I encourage everyone to head on over to the new site, register, and take a look around. If you are already on Facebook, you can login via your Facebook account (once registered) to keep your social networking profiles in sync.

Of course, I know that some people will miss the old site, and change of any kind is always somewhat scary. However, what is not changing is our community! Everything that made Race42008 & Race42012 great will be what makes Rightosphere great as well. Think of it this way, when a community builds a new town hall, they do not change the people in the city along with the building. They simply provide new, modern facilities to make community get togethers more fun. This is exactly what this redesign is meant to do.

The frontpage of site will still function in the same way as it has before, and will feature articles written by our tremendous staff. The comments sections will still feature the insights of the best conservative community out there. The only difference is that you will see essays that were posted on a commenter’s personal blog (yes, everyone who registers gets their own personal blog that everyone can subscribe to!) promoted to the frontpage, along with our Twitter feed, and a running scroll of all of the blogs written by the Rightosphere Community (entitled, “Right Now.”)

The transition of our little corner of the Internet from R4’12 to ROS represents the work of a little over a calendar year for Kris and I. It was a labor of love meant to give our little family great new digs. I sincerely hope that you all enjoy it as much as I think you will. Please feel free to email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com with any questions.

P.S. One little suggestion… If you haven’t yet, please consider downloading Firefox. Firefox is a free Internet browser that is faster, more secure, and more fully-featured that any other browser out there. R4’12, Rightosphere (and any other Internet site you visit) both work and look their best in Firefox.

FF is also highly customizable. I surf the ‘Net using the Aero Fox Theme. Give it a shot and see.

Please join me in wishing Anthony Dalke a happy birthday! Many happy returns big guy!

Another sign that civil libertarianism is on the rise in America;

Virginia?!?!

ICYMI;

New Jersey legalizes medical marijuana, support by both Corzine and Christie.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

250,000 march on Washington for life. 25,000 march in San Francisco

Abortion destroying Russian’s future.  (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)

Bill banning adoption agencies from asking about gun ownership advances.

California church faces nonsensical eviction.

Dutch lawmaker faces hate crimes trial for speaking out against Islam.

Music by Stan Williams via Music Alley.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

He has come close before (notching a +1 net approval in early December), but President Obama has finally broken even in the media’s favorite approval poll, with 47% approving and 47% disapproving.

To add insult to injury, he has also tied his lowest recorded Rasmussen approval rating – 44%, along with a near-personal-worst -19 Presidential Approval Index (24% strongly approving and 43% strongly disapproving).

The election of future Sen. Scott Brown and a voting public gradually growing in dissatisfaction and impatience with Obama, it would not surprise me in the least bit if he makes the deficit a prominent focus in his upcoming State of the Union address, as Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and many others have suggested. Of course, he’ll saddle President Bush (rightfully so, at least in part) and the “irresponsible economic policies of the past eight years” (side note: when Obama still says that, as he did in his Ohio speech last week, he inadvertently includes himself) for the government’s miles of red ink and depressed tax revenues due to the struggling economy.

Unfortunately, simply freezing discretionary spending will come nowhere close to solving the problem. Without radically reforming the government’s entitlement programs, America will have no hope for long-term fiscal health.

Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV/MSC Illinois Gubernatorial Survey

Republican Primary

• Andy McKenna 19% (12%)
• Jim Ryan 18% (26%)
• Kirk Dillard 14% (9%)
• Bill Brady 9% (10%)
• Adam Andrzejewski 7% (6%)
• Other: 14%
• Undecided: 17%

Democratic Primary

• Pat Quinn 44% (49%)
• Dan Hynes 40% (23%)
• Other 2% (7%)
• Undecided 13% (21%)

Survey of 601 Democratic and 592 Republican likely voters was conducted January 16-20, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted December 2-8, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

DuPage County Board Chairman Bob Schillerstrom of Naperville, who had 2 percent support in the survey, dropped out of the race Friday and announced he’s backing Ryan.

McKenna and Ryan are strongest in Chicago and the suburbs, where each has support from more than one in five voters surveyed. Dillard has the backing of 22 percent of downstate voters, but lags in his home base.

McKenna, meanwhile, has increased his name recognition among GOP voters to 84 percent from 67 percent in the previous survey.

Dillard made the most headway in name recognition. He moved from being known by little more than half of GOP voters to 81 percent of them. Dillard, saw his support increase slightly from 9 percent in the last survey.

More than 85 percent of Republican voters still believe that opposition to a tax increase is important in their selection of a candidate.

Democratic voters are split at 44 percent on whether a tax increase is necessary to help cover the state’s budget deficit. Among Quinn supporters, 57 percent said they believed a tax hike is needed while 34 percent said it’s unnecessary. Those numbers are virtually reversed among Hynes supporters, with a majority believing a tax increase isn’t necessary.

All told, Quinn’s job approval rating has slumped to 43 percent — below the 50 percent mark that incumbents seek at election time. At the same time, the number of Democratic voters who disapprove of how Quinn has handled the job has climbed from 18 percent to 31 percent.

Despite Hynes’ heavy dose of attack advertising, he still maintained a favorability rating of 41 percent of Democratic voters, while only 13 percent viewed him unfavorably. Even after getting into a highly publicized battle with Quinn and refusing to sign off on more state borrowing, half the voters approve of the comptroller’s job performance, as they did last month.

Mirroring the overall results, 44 percent of black voters in the survey favored Quinn and 40 percent backed Hynes. But only 36 percent of African-American voters said they approved of the job Quinn was doing as governor.

At the risk of sounding narcissistic, I will be on a DC-area talk radio show to talk about fundraising for Haiti, the March For Life and the Massachusetts election and the importance of said election. I will be on at 2:30, on 1580 AM. (I’m not sure if it’s streamed online- I didn’t see anything on the website.)

Update: Mr. Aron Goldman found the online streaming here. I am on at 2:30 ET.

Rasmussen California Gubernatorial Survey

• Jerry Brown 43% [41%] (44%)
• Meg Whitman 39% [41%] (35%)

• Jerry Brown 45% [43%] (45%)
• Steve Poizner 35% [32%] (32%)

• Dianne Feinstein 43%
• Meg Whitman 42%

• Dianne Feinstein 43%
• Steve Poizner 39%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Meg Whitman 48% [47%] (45%) / 30% [27%] (28%) {+18%}
• Jerry Brown 49% [48%] (53%) / 40% [41%] (37%) {+9%}
• Steve Poizner 40% [36%] (36%) / 31% [26%] (32%) {+9%}
• Dianne Feinstein 50% / 43% {+7%}

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 19, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Whitman over Brown and both Republicans over Feinstein by double-digit margins. Against Poizner, Brown has a four-point edge among unaffiliateds.

Men favor Whitman over Brown by 12 points and break even when Poizner’s the Republican in the race. Women support Brown over both Republican candidates by double-digits.

Against Feinstein, both GOP hopefuls carry male voters, while the Democratic senator leads among women.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

With the exception of Zell Miller challenging Matthews to a duel, I haven’t enjoyed any Hardball segment as much as this since the Clinton Impeachment in 1998.

Matthews explains why reconciliation ain’t happening and he knows of what he speaks.

(Hat Tip: Hot Air.

Ben Nelson is showing the social graces and intelligence that will lead to his defeat in 2012:

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One month after Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stunned pro-lifers across the country by casting the crucial vote allowing the health care bill to pass the Senate, the beleaguered Democrat caused a stir when he arrived unexpectedly at a private meeting of pro-life leaders Wednesday to explain his reasoning and insist that he was still devoted to their cause.

The atmosphere of the room grew tense, however, as it became clear that Nelson had not come to apologize for casting the 60th ”yes” vote that dashed the hopes of pro-life leaders counting on the senator to stop the abortion-expanding bill in its tracks.  Instead Nelson rebuffed the idea that he caved on his pro-life position, and said that the “compromise” language that he had offered just before the final senate vote – which segregated the taxpayer subsidy monies funding abortion-providing insurance plans – allowed Nelson to “hold true to my pro-life principles” in voting for the measure.

Nelson opened his prepared remarks by stating, “I haven’t changed one bit on the principles that you and I share, that every human life is precious and needs to be protected.”  He defended his decision to pass the senate bill with weaker abortion language, saying he was saving “leverage” for a later conference committee vote. At that point, he said, he would have insisted on the stronger language of the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment that the Senate had earlier rejected.

Weak, and I think it shows Nelson’s lack of understanding. He could probably run circles around uninformed citizens in Lincoln or Omaha, but who exactly is he trying to kid if he tries to sell this stuff to national pro-life leaders?

Thanks to Bob Hovic for noting this article as an addendum to my earlier post about another global warming “error” from people whose paychecks rely on “facts” about Earth’s climate:

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.

But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.”

He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.

It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.

Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008.

That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time.

“I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?”

Dr Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier programme.

But he too admitted that it was “really odd” that none of the world’s leading glaciologists had pointed out the mistakes to him earlier. “Frankly, it was a stupid error,” he said. “But no one brought it to my attention.”

Both Dustin and Alex have both questioned religious rhetoric at the March for Life.

As Dustin wrote, “However, I must ask a question: to those Americans who are not of a pro-life faith, or who lack faith completely, and who could be persuaded to be pro-life, will using theological arguments work? I do not think so. The pro-life movement needs to continue using science to convince the rest of the country to join us.”

As I mentioned recently, I think people make a critical error when they assume that the pro-life movement is primarily a political movement, concerned with winning the political battle over abortion by persuading moderate and middle of the road folks that abortion is not good public policy.

That’s not the aim of the March for Life. It’s an important event, but not one likely to stir to the pro-life side those who are pro-choice. Rather, the March for Life is a “stand and counted” moment for many people to raise their voices on an issue that troubles the heart. It is a moment when people come together from the often lonely world of standing outside abortion clinics with snow pouring down on them, and in Washington, DC. It is a moment that they realize like the prophet Elijah in the wilderness realize, they are not alone.

There are also many youth groups which have come for this purpose and organizers hope these young people will be stirred in their souls to become the pro-life leaders of tomorrow. It is a time of inspiration before the long grueling year ahead of perspiration.

There is a time for the cold arguments of logic, a discussion of ethics and engagement in pro-life apologetics and debate. There are many people who can debate abortion all day long and never utter the name, “Jesus.” I’m one of them, and there are many folks trained in some of the finest schools in America who can do the same.

Yet, at the end of the day, I’m not foolish enough to think that pro-lifers can out-argue our way to victory.  There are very few issues in which human beings are pure beings of logic and abortion isn’t one of them. There are countless myths and misconceptions as well as emotional baggage tied to abortion that makes hopes of a purely logical, purely scientific consensus on abortion in vain. And even if Americans were to decide abortion ought to be illegal, Americans also think there ought to be prayer in schools, and term limits for Congress. Those things don’t happen because while Americans may agree with those ideas, they don’t vote them.

The challenge is not just to stir the minds of the American people that the pro-life ideal is correct, but to change the hearts of enough of the American people to care about protecting an innocent human life that can directly do nothing for them.

Such accomplishment is beyond what man can do alone, and so it has been throughout the history of the pro-life movement, that God has been prominent. And why not? The goals of the pro-life movement are impossible to achieve without God’s help. And I think it is completely appropriate when 95%+ believing pro-lifers get together, that God is acknowledged.

Keep it up, Party of No. We’re doing great!

The following essay is reproduced with the permission of the original author, VoxPatriota, a contributing member of MittRomneyCentral.com. The essay was originally posted here. It is a entertaining and somewhat snarky review of Obama’s first year as President.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the beginning, Obama created massive deficits and new entitlements.

And the earth was without respect for the west, and darkness was upon the face of America.

And Obama said, let there be Change. And there was Change.

In Massachusetts.

Year One of The One is history. And so it is with some sense of vindication that I, and many conservatives, look back at that year and realize that those hesitations, objections, and concerns that we voiced about what an Obama presidency would mean for the United States of America were all completely justified, utterly valid, and in their own (probably racist and heretical) way prophetic.

Has it only been one year? It seems so long ago that the newly inaugurated president ignored common sense, logistical reality, and the underlying difficulty of the task, and promised with doe-eyed optimism, shored up with that now trademark and pseudo-stern manner of his, that he’d be shutting down the American Gulag in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay. Of course, today that insidious prison still has its doors open, and its halls crowded with misunderstood parishioners of the Religion of Peace. And never mind that those who once knelt in prayer within those dastardly cinder blocks, but were set free to be “reeducated” are busily plotting and carrying out yet more “man caused disasters” as retribution for… the failed policies of the last eight years.

And now instead of the triumphant and promised closing down of the Great American Blot, Barack Obama celebrates his first anniversary as our Regulator in Chief with a stiff and bitter piece of humble pie. Boston Cream Pie, to be exact, evenly Browned over the flames of righteous indignation and the cold, fierce reality that Americans tend to be a rather pushy lot, quick to recognize and reject any obvious and overbearing attempt to drive us down that road to serfdom. Even in a state that repeatedly elected Ted Kennedy and J.F.K(erry).

But Obama has responded to the political equivalent of Sparta’s 300 with the same tired, arrogant, and narcissistic rhetorical nonsense that is coming to define this man: He blamed Bush. “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.” It would appear that voters in Massachusetts were listening when Mr. Obama had admonished us all to “grab a mop…help clean up“.

But the President was right about our anger. We are angry. At him.

If we are to believe the leg-tingled, sycophantic backscratchers and bootlickers known as “the media,” then this unprecedented president has had an unprecedented year, achieving the unprecedented and long clamored for change, that is, “the fundamental transformation of America” that has forever been the utopian vision of the American people. Or something. After 223 years of inequality and that hampering inconvenience known as the Constitution, true social justice had come to Washington, in the form of a “light-skinned African American, with no negro dialect.” Truly, Progressivism has come out of the fringe and wilderness of political exorcism and into the red, white, and blue of the American mainstream. We are all Socialists now!

Apparently, however, fundamental transformation means a 30% rise in what was already an absurdly, and statistically abnormally high rate of unemployment. The United States now enjoys the double digits heretofore only common in Europe and elsewhere. Burgeoning models of enterprise and freedom, like, say… Cuba. And despite claiming to have “saved or created” a million (or was it a billion?) jobs, more Americans today find themselves without one since the days of Jimmy Carter. Could it be that Statism leads, inevitably to job loss? How many jobs were lost in 2009? Nearly 3 million. Personally (granted, I’m a right-wing nut job) I think I liked the “status-quo” wherein people had jobs, and were even paid for doing them!

The unprecedented unemployment rate was supposed to be staved off by the wonderfully Randian named “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.” This so-called stimulus was Keynesian binge drinking – but we taxpayers are the ones left with the hangover. To Obama, and other redistributionists, it certainly sounded like a much better idea than it turned out to be. Costing nearly 800 billion dollars (which I think is the new revised number of jobs that were “saved or created”) and promising to “put Americans back to work” (and capping unemployment at 8%) the bill hampered economic recovery by redistributing wealth to important and shovel ready projects like creating robotic bees ($9.3 million), and the relocation of an unimportant bridge ($54 million). Indeed, it can be argued (if you are Paul Krugman) that this monstrosity did keep its promise of putting Americans back to work. That is, back to work hunting for… work.

Riding the success of economic futility, Mr. Obama pressed forward, determined to not only run the United States into the ground, but also the iconoclastic, union-laden symbol of can-do-it Americanism: General Motors. After dispatching of GM’s hapless CEO, Obama placed his hand-picked successor into the driver’s seat of a company crippled by unionism and government mandated lunacy. In the process, Uncle Sam became an owner of the company, ensuring that it will never more turn a profit. General Motors, meet Amtrack; and welcome to a life of subsidization. Sensing that inevitability, The President of the United States offered to help everyone in America buy a new car, pending government approval of course. And so Cash for Clunkers took the market by storm, creating false demand and compressing years of sales into a very short, very haphazard several weeks. Since the boondoggled program ended, auto sales have slumped, and dealers from coast to coast have been left asking, “Dude, where’s the government money for my car?”

Emboldened at the remarkable success he was having in the 57 states, Obama set out on several foreign tours that presented him ample opportunity to bow to the pressures and special interests of countries considered both friends and enemies (all of whom the Lightworker has managed to anger). He shook hands (bro’ style) with Hugo Chavez, and nearly kissed the feet of the Saudi King. All the while never missing an opportunity to dismiss American exceptionalism, its military power and of course, cultural influence. After all, we obtained such status through exploitation, profiteering, slavery, and uninhibited greed. At long last the chickens of American Imperialism were coming home to roost. It was time for our global comeuppance, humble pie on a national scale, baked with love by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only, I suppose in that case, he is busy not baking pies, but yellow cake.

Except the American people weren’t having it. In fact, they were not having much of anything. Retail sales slumped, jobless claims rose, and Obama reached never before seen approval ratings. The bad kind. Unprecedented lows. Not even the detestable George W. Bush attained such cellar-dwelling numbers in his first year as were reached by Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.

He implemented a surge in Afghanistan after surging to victory in the Democratic primaries by disparaging the surge in Iraq. Which by the way, is still an American theater of war, even though his promised withdrawal date of March 2009 has long come and gone. Coming to his Afghan decision was difficult. He pondered the foggy bottom of options for days. And weeks. And months. In the meantime, while he dithered, he managed to wage war on Fox News, which, if you had not heard, is not a “legitimate news organization,” on Rush Limbaugh, who had the audacity of hoping Obama would fail, and on the American taxpayer. Keeping his pledge to “not raise taxes by one singe dime” he managed to, in fact, raise taxes by several dimes. An underachiever, this man is not.

Using such monumental success, and wielding the magical mantle of Best. President. Ever. Mr. Obama traveled to Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts to cast his spell on would-be voters and plebeians who were engaging in off-year special elections. In every case, and rather soundly, that candidate he championed fell to Republican challengers. The only possible explanation for such defeats: racism and bigotry and subterfuge Tea Party maniacs. A referendum on Him these elections were not. Obama was, and will ever be guiltless. Instead these elections are merely the manifestations of those bitter, God-loving, gun clinging neophytes who are so easily confused, and so quickly whipped into irrational frenzies orchestrated by the GOP Machine, nefariously led by Dick Cheney and his Evil Designs.

One can only hope that the president will continue to campaign for Democrats in this upcoming election year.

After 411 official speeches, comments and remarks, 178 TelePrompTer appearances, 42 news conferences (none since July), 158 interviews (a staggering number) 23 Townhall meetings (with SEIU?) 46 trips to 58 cities and 30 states (only 27 more to go!), 10 overseas expeditions to 21 nations, 160 Air Force One Flights, 28 fundraisers (Bush did six and raised more money), a 1.6 trillion dollar increase in debt and 26 vacation days, the Year of The One has come to a close.

And what of us who no longer believe (or never did) in the Gospel of Barack? We hope for change. And then, we vote for it.

Even in Massachusetts.

~VoxPatriota

I wasn’t at the March for Life but I have done a fair amount of looking around online and put together a collection of items that I think give a flavor of what happened. From what I can gather based on accounts and footage, the event’s turnout was strongly represented by young people who come from primarily Catholic schools. If you want to form your own opinion about who was there, I recommend watching the last two videos of this post as they have some good shots of the crowd. The event was also the largest gathering in Washington, DC since President Obama’s inauguration (as reported by RussiaToday).

2012 dark-horse Mike Pence address the crowd.

(more…)

I am quite intrigued with Tommy Boy’s suggestion of conducting a GOP primary poll of an early state. So why not give it a shot? We will need the support of the Race42012 community. But after all, you guys are the best there is.

I already have commitments for $150. We will need much more than that. I promise to acknowledge every benefactor who made this polling possible in the official release.

You can follow the link below to make a donation. Any size will do. Many thanks in advance for your generosity and for your readership!

Obama is in Ohio today trying to regain some of his lost momentum to nationalize one fifth of the nation’s economy.

Well, if you have proven to all and sundry that you are lousy at governing, I guess all you have left to do is go back to what you are good at. In Obama’s case, that would be campaigning. The trouble with that is, once people know that the emperor has no clothes, the magic is gone.

The last time he was out charming the crowds, he was running as a moderate, pragmatic centralist that was going to move the nation beyond partisan politics. Well, after a full year of pushing a far-left agenda down our throats and shutting out all bi-partisan cooperation, he is going to find that fewer people will believe him this time around.

Mason Dixon/Arkansas News Bureau 2010 Arkansas Senate Poll

• Gilbert Baker (R) 43%
• Blanche Lincoln (D) 39%

Survey conducted 1/18-20/10 among 625 likely voters with a 4% margin of error.

“No exceptions. No compromise.”

So blared from the lips of Nellie Gray, the founder of the annual March for Life event, which brings hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates to the mall at Washington, D.C. every year on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. “We can’t compromise with the abortionists,” she said — by which she means the Democratic Party and, as she came to explain, anyone who believes in exceptions for rape.

Despite some pretensions, the scene on the ground confirmed that this was essentially a Catholic event. My (intentionally provocative) “Godless Homosexual 4 Life” sign, which attracted a few eager photographers, couldn’t add a dent to the scene. Everywhere one turned, there were Catholics. The university group I went with was comprised of me and ten Catholics. The first group that I encountered on the metro was from Notre Dame University. Catholic imagery was everywhere on the mall: pictures of Our Lady Guadalupe, portraits of the Pope, signs from Catholic organizations, and nuns in full garb. One Virginia woman I spoke with, Rosemary, held up a massive image of Jesus while echoing Mother Teresa to me. Repeating her claim that abortion is the world’s greatest problem, she said: “It’s the contraception mentality…contraception leads to abortion leads to nuclear war.” She told me that, if she had her way, contraception would be illegal. “It’s bad for women. Life is being sabotaged.”

Meanwhile, Senator Sam Brownback, a Catholic, stood at the stage, repeating a false claim that was on the lips of many people at the event — namely, that a majority of Americans are now pro-life. Signs were being handed out proclaiming “This Is the Pro-Life Generation.” I hope that this is so, but hope does not change hard data. A priest followed Brownback, inducing a cringe in me when he said that “our Jewish brothers and sisters learned: never again.” Comparisons of post-Roe America to the Holocaust were ubiquitous — and greatly bothered me.

These scenes aren’t particularly unfamiliar to most followers of politics. The popular definition of insanity is to repeat the same event, expecting a different result. The March for Life has been going on for nearly forty years. Is the pro-life movement actually making progress? Rosemary thinks so: “The Tea Party movement has had the side effect of helping the pro-life movement. Just look at the Stupak Amendment.” George from Ohio is more ambivalent: “Very little [progress is being made]…we need a strong, pro-life woman. I’ve always considered this a women’s issue, and we need a pro-life woman.” Sarah Palin? “She still nees to prove herself. She’s getting educated. If she can get educated, then maybe.”

Nobody I spoke to was particularly impressed with Palin, or any of the other 2012 contenders. This was purely an issue-based event — stacked top to bottom with the true believers. Those on the ground seemed to understand that this was, first and foremost, a cultural issue — indeed, everyone I spoke to noted the importance of awareness, education, and culture — but the words that came from the mouths of the speakers (and the stunning lack of diversity in the crowd) seemed to disavow incrementalism. Would one make “incremental” steps toward stopping the Holocaust? Abortion is the Holocaust, part deux, to many of them.

What’s the real solution? A physician spoke. “The divine physician is the one” who can help pregnant women.

And there it is. The abortion wars continue to divide primarily amongst religious lines. Speaking from a strictly anecdotal perspective, every person I know who headed down to the counter-protest headed by Planned Parenthood is an atheist. Nearly by definition, all pro-choice advocates are secularists. In a strict sense, abortion is not a religious issue; anyone with a passing interest in medical ethics can understand the philosophical and biological complexity of the issue. But when it comes to rallying the people, the troops on the ground, it’s religion — or the opposition to it — that wins the hearts and minds of the masses. None of those with whom I spoke could convince me that the pro-life movement has made any tangible progress, though. Two women from Delaware insisted that awareness was being raised and that legislative action is inevitable — but the numbers say otherwise. Abortion splits America right down the middle. And those who care about it are the radicals. “No exceptions, no compromises.” No compromises. Unimpressed with the homogeneity of it all, I walked away feeling not like I was on the front lines of conservatism’s side of culture war — but on its ground zero.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Rasmussen Arizona GOP Senatorial Primary

• John McCain 53% (45%)
• J.D. Hayworth 31% (43%)
• Chris Simcox 4% (4%)
• Some other candidate 3% (2%)
• Not sure 8% (7%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• John McCain 74% (74%) / 23% (24%) {+51%}
• J.D. Hayworth 58% (67%) / 25% (16%) {+33%}
• Chris Simcox 28% (27%) / 23% (26%) {+5%}

Survey of 502 Likely Voters was conducted January 20, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 18, 2009 are in parentheses.