The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Thursday, November 30, 2006


Once again proving that when campaigning Democrats say one thing and when elected do another, the new Congressional House leadership has backed off of their campaign promise to , "fully implement, " all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Repeatedly as a stab at the GOP and President Bush, House Democrats especially Speaker to be Nancy Pelosi continually pounded the pledge that if Democrats were to gain the majority in the House all of the Commission recommendations would be implemented immediatly and without question. Now that they have the majority, House leaders are balking on the implementation of a key Commission recommendation calling for a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democrat leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations. Democrats also pounded the GOP during the campaign concerning Congressional oversight yet when having the opportunity to turn the mirror on themselves, the Dems balk at it also. "Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need." What is boils down to is that Democrats on the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee do not want to yield some of their power to the Intelligence Committee which is what the Commission recommended. Yet during the campaign this is one of the many promises that Democrats pledged to follow and now that the time has come to begin fulfilling those promises they once again have become only a blast of hot air for the sake of gaining votes and winning elections. For all of the, "changes, " that Nancy Pelosi promised with the new direction under Democrat leadership as time for that leadership approaches it looks more like political business as usual.

Ken Taylor


I first viewed this at , "Mike's America, " and could not resist using it. Especially as a fan of the Trans Siberian Orchestra whose music you will hear. Enjoy and Merry Christmas!


Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Before all of my conservative readers think that I have lost my mind by agreeing that Global Warming exists please read the whole post first. To liberals who also think they have found a complete ally again I stress read the post. Global Warming exists. There is plenty of evidence of a gradual rise in temperature and it has had the effect of causing glaciers to melt and the climatological changes that have affected the earths weather. Where the farce about Global Warming occures is that man has caused this change and our emissions and polluting of the planet has caused this heating of the earth. Now is where the anger and argument from the left is going to spawn some very interesting comments about this post, because liberals want so desperately to blame The United States and man as a whole for this climatological phenomenon and most are completely unwilling to accept that the earth continually goes through changes as we are experiencing now and that the Sun through increased Sun spots and cycles as the Sun is in the midst of now causes a gradual warming of the earth. The difference in this cycle we are experiencing now and similar spikes in the Suns cycles of the past is that man today has the capability to monitor the changes because of technological advances which were not available thousands even hundreds of years ago. Additionally rather than accepting that the earth consistently goes through these type of changes and has since its creation, certain , "experts, " in the scientific community look for something or someone to blame for these changes and the only logical culprit in their mind is man. I will admit that emissions caused by man have contributed to certain problems that have been experienced on this planet and we have worked to correct those such as water pollution, air pollution etc. but nothing that man has the capability of doing can damage the earth beyond what this planet has the natural capability to repair and even those that I mentioned earlier in this sentence the earth would have corrected over time. This does not take man off the hook of being good stewards of the planet but man cannot through our normal activities regardless of how many vehicles we own and drive or how many plants we build to manufacture goods etc. cause sufficient , "damage, " to the planet that the earth cannot compensate for or repair. The only real capability that man has to do significant damage to the planet is through a massive nuclear war and even then after a sufficient amount of time the earth will recover from the damage, the only difference being that man would not be here to know of the planets recovery.

A prime example of the earths capability to recover from massive climatoligical changes happened in 1815. In April of that year in Indonesia the largest recorded volcanic eruption in history occurred, Tambora. The ash that was spewed from this cataclysmic eruption was forced high enough into the sky that it entered the upper atmosphere causing it to encircle the globe and cause as much as a three degree drop in temperatures worldwide for the next THREE YEARS. 1816 became known as the year without summer as winter temperatures continued throughout the summer months in Europe and The United States causing snow to fall in June and July in the Northeast US and much of Europe. Crops failed as temperatures would not allow a growing season and thousands died of starvation because of the ensuing lack of food. Tambora expelled more toxic volcanic ash into the atmosphere that the combined total of all man made emissions throughout our history and the far extended future yet the earth corrected the imbalance caused by the eruption and healed from the climotological damage caused by this massive natural disaster. Since the earth has the capability of healing from this and thousands of other natural disasters how can one logically think that man has the capability of causing the changes that are being blamed on humanity and used as fear mongering in order to sell the man made Global Warming theory ? Man is not the culprit nor will we be. The earth throughout its history has experienced far more in climatoligical changes and corrected those changes and healed from damage caused by those changes without the help or the assistance in making them from man and will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists. Earth has experienced natural changes that have destroyed entire species of plants and animals yet this heavenly body still survives and we as stewards of this planet cannot stop nor cause these natural cycles from taking place anymore that we have caused or can prevent Global Warming from taking place as part of the natural process of an ever changing planet.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, November 28, 2006


Have the Democrats boxed themselves in a corner over Iraq ? In a few weeks Democrats will become the majority on Capitol Hill. Iraq has moved back to the forefront in the news with the increase in sectarian violence and the trip by President Bush to meet with Iraq's leader in Jordan in order to address the situation. This combined with the anticipated report by the Baker Commission has put Iraq back in the headlines and this time with more than the usual media body count. A re-evaluation of US policy concerning Iraq is also taking place and as Democrats approach the day when they take over as majority, they have been unusually quiet over Iraq. During the campaign they made it painfully obvious that pulling out of Iraq quickly was a priority in their agenda. Immediately after the election this began to fade slowly from pulling out within six months to a fazed pull out to a wait and see attitude after the Baker report and the confirmation of the new Defense Secretary. It was widely reported that the election was a referendum on Iraq and that the Democrats had a mandate by the voters to push their Iraq policy of a quick pull out. Now the Dems seem to be backing away from this idea as the time for the new Congress draws closer.

Personally I believe that as the reality of the election results which were a backlash toward the GOP and not a mandate for the Democrats began to sink in, the Dems realized that though our presence in Iraq is not very popular the majority of the country does not want a quick pull out because Americans as a whole understand what is at stake if we were to just leave. As Dems began polling and finding the true opinion of Americans on Iraq they began redefining their position. This is how they find themselves in a dilemma and backed into a corner. While the majority of voters voted against the GOP and hold the above stated position on Iraq, voters on the left and the hard core Democrat supporters did vote because of Iraq and the campaign promises of a quick pull out and expect the new leadership to follow through on that promise. The pressure from the liberal core of the party will be enormous. The media pressure also will weigh in heavy against this redefinition of policy by Democrats as evidenced by NBC news stating yesterday that they would refer to Iraq now as a civil war and no longer as sectarian violence which is believed by many as a move to change public opinion toward US pull out in much the same way that Walter Cronkite's announcement that we were losing the war in Vietnam changed public opinion toward that war. There has also been a marked voice in the media of lowered expectations toward Iraq policy by Democrats which looks like an attempt to get them off the hook for their all or nothing campaign promises of immediate pull out. Shortly after the election former South Dakota and 1972 Democrat Presidential candidate George McGovern was brought in as an advisor on Iraq policy. He stated at the time that if Democrats did not push for a pull out of Iraq by June of 07 they would not, "be in the majority very long." Democrats now find themselves in a very precarious situation as it pertains to Iraq. Do they satisfy the majority of the American people and work with the President to seek a solution to Iraq while keeping US troops in the theatre to help stem the violence or do they bow to the core of their party and media pressure and push for a quick pull out ? Do they work in their leadership position to find the best solution for the good of the country and our interests in the region or do they fulfill their campaign promises and satisfy their voting blocks and liberal supporters and cut and run? The first 100 days should be very interesting!!

Ken Taylor

Monday, November 27, 2006


Al Gore's Greasey Global Warming (

Sunday, November 26, 2006


As we enter the closing days of 2006 and begin 2007 The United States finds herself debating the future of actions in another part of the world and another country - Iraq. Unfortunately much of the debate is still focusing on the past and how we became involved. The left especially is attempting to fuel the fire of debate by rehashing the reasons that we went to Iraq in the first place with some in the now Democrat majority in Congress wanting to reinvestigate this once again. Those who believe that the President, "lied, " will continue to do so regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Those that support the reasons we fight in Iraq will continue to do so regardless of the opposition and those who are in the middle of this debate will not find their answers by reinvestigating the same evidence that has been scrutinized over and over again sparking the exact same conclusions each time. Why we are there and how we got involved is a moot point because we are there and rehashing this same argument finds no solutions and accomplishes nothing other than sparking more argument. So I will not spend time here showing evidence and making the case again to accomplish nothing. We are in Iraq and now must find a solution that will secure the country and insure that the freely elected Democracy can successfully continue as a sovereign nation. There are many ideas floating about ranging from pulling out to escalation and finding a happy medium that accomplishes the above stated goal will not be easy. One thing is certain a united front is necessary because the enemy that we fight sees indecision and timidity as weakness and uses it to their advantage on all fronts. The escalation of violence that has taken place just prior to and now after our election I believe is a direct result of the change in the Congress and the belief that with the Democrats in the majority there will be a push now for a quick pull out. I believe also that the recent moves by Syria to re-establish relations with Iraq and the meetings and offers of help by Iran too are no coincidence and are the result of a perceived weakness in American policy as a result of the election and the arguments about pulling out of Iraq. The majority of the American people though weary of the situation in Iraq are not in favor of pulling out of the country so continually presenting this as an option by those on the left in this country does nothing but embolden those fighting against a free Iraq. It also gives Syria and Iran the notion that they can now position themselves to control a country that they both have designs on. Additionally it is an option that the President will not back and as Commander in Chief he has the final word.

Iran and Syria - The first situation that presents itself in the , "what to do, " debate is the involvement by these two neighboring countries. It is well known that both have contributed to the insurgency with Iran especially directing much of it. Syria is in many ways a puppet to Iran but they too have their own design for Iraq and it patterns closely to the situation that they control in Lebanon. Iran not only wants to create a theocratic Islamic state much like their own but sees Iraq as part of a greater Iranian Middle East with Iran as the dominate power and leader of nothing but puppet nations in the region and the elimination of Israel in the process. Iran also sees Iraq as a negotiating tool with The United States over their nuclear program. If they are allowed to become involved as an accepted allied country they will use that status to, "swap, " help in Iraq for an unfettered nuclear program with a free hand to create nuclear weapons and hold the region and its resources as hostage with the bomb as leverage. Handling this situation is precarious at best but involving them as an active partner is worse. Closing the border between the two countries and Iraq to stop the flow of material' and fighters should at least be a first step quelling the current situation but with relations established between Iraq and Syria closing that border that is not likely now.

The terrorist element - Al Qaeda has stated repeatedly that it sees Iraq as the center of the battle of their Islamic Jihad and that they want the country as their base of operations in the same way as Afghanistan was. This continual stated goal has been largely ignored by those opposed to our involvement in Iraq and as such it has also quelled the illusion that this is not a part of the Global War on Terror and taken away from that war. This misconception and self deception is one of the key reasons that the country has become so split about Iraq. It is also a misconception that our involvement in Iraq creates terrorism. Those opposed to Iraq seem to forget that terrorist attacks and terrorism existed long before we entered Iraq and that we too were attacked before Iraq became a battlefield. As in any war situation more soldiers are deployed by an enemy as the fight continues. Our presence in Iraq does not , "create, " terrorists but it does deploy terrorists to the fight which is why more have been found in Iraq. They too see Iraq as a battlefield in their Jihad against western civilization and fight and man this fight accordingly. Our pulling out of Iraq will not end this involvement but rather allow terrorism a free hand to enslave Iraqi citizens and create chaos and anarchy. This threat also emphasizes the necessity of strengthening the Iraq Security Force to give the country the capability of dealing with this element when we are no longer there.

Sunni vs Shia - This long standing duel for control of Iraq is not a situation that can or will find an easy nor a quick solution. These two Islamic ideas differ little in their beliefs but greatly over which should be the controlling caliph. Iraqi citizens have expressed through their vote the willingness to allow contribution by both in the government and it is the responsibility of the leaders in the country to control the fighting factions and to work with one another for the full establishment of a free Iraq which is the will of the people. Most leaders have expressed a willingness to follow this direction while there are others who refuse. This is not a situation where dictation by any outside entity will find an answer. This problem existed long before Saddam Hussein and it is a problem that can only find its answer within the confines of the Iraqi people and the constant evolutionary process of their government. We can and should continue as a diplomatic go-between in this situation but the ultimate solution for this must come from Iraqi leaders and their involvement in controlling the passions that have and do feed this rivalry for control.

The answers for Iraq are not easy nor quick. Pulling out now though is not and cannot be an option because there is far to much at stake for the Iraq, the region and The United States. Our involvement and that of our coalition partners does prevent the utter chaos that would ensue were we not there. Whether the answer is more troops, less troops or keeping at current levels our military has accomplished great things in Iraq and they are what is keeping this fragile country in any resemblance of security and stability and offer the best capability of training and the full establishment of the necessary means for Iraq to one day protect herself.

Ken Taylor


The Blog of the Week spotlight falls on, "Sparks Fom The Anvil." I like the description that is found at the header of the Blog, "Illuminating the untempered soul and the blunt mind by hammering out sparks of Clarity and Truth on the Anvil of Debate." "The Wordsmith From Nantucket," does not beat around the bush concerning their point of view, "a radically moderate-conservative point of view, " which is exactely what you will find as you visit this site. Interesting commentary combined with passionate belief. Well worth you time and adding as a link.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006



This morning as I was anticipating what Thanksgiving would offer, great food, time with our families, football, Christmas decorating and reflecting on the goodness that God has bestowed, I was traveling on one of the main highways near my home. A nor'easter is battering the South Carolina coast forcing its way into the area with cooler temperatures and making a rather blustery day. I began thinking about what I would write this Thanksgiving and out of the corner of my eye I noticed a 100 foot pole with what I believe is one of the most beautiful sights on earth waiving in the breeze. Old Glory was at full furl in the wind. As I took in this magnificent scene I began thinking about the marvelous heritage we as American's have that no one else on earth can claim. A heritage that at times we take for granted which has brought us freedoms and liberties that have never been experienced before in human history except in this land we love, The United States of America. Freedoms that began as ideals then flourished into the gathering of some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known who met in Philadelphia in 1776 and displayed the courage to commit treason against the British Crown in placing their names on a most precious document that brought their ideals into reality and gave birth to a nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These are more than just words penned to paper but the birth of freedom and opportunity that began the heritage that on this Thanksgiving Day 230 years later we as Americans can look back with grateful hearts for all that God has given us throughout our short and prosperous history. This heritage though did not come free but with great sacrifice to insure that those freedoms expressed so many years ago and," endowed by our Creator," may continue for us and future generations. I think of those bitter days at Valley Forge when the determination of George Washington held the fledgling Continental Army together to later become victorious baptizing this new nation with the precious blood of fallen hero's. Of those terrible years from 1860-1865 when this young country and her Constitution were put through the ultimate test when brother fought brother, both believing that they were fighting for the same ideals that the Founders intended and when the test was over this nation found a new birth of freedom that, "this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I think of the Doh-Boys living in the filth of the trenches of WW I hundreds of miles from home yet still fighting for the same ideals that their brothers died for in the Revolution. Of the , "Greatest Generation, " who sacrificed and defeated fascism to ring liberties bell loud and long throughout the world as Old Glory flew proclaiming that all men can be free. The men who landed at Inchon and climbed Pork Chop Hill in, "The Forgotten War, " Korea, but who fought for liberties flag with the same determination and sacrifice as their brothers of the past. Those who sacrificed and gave of themselves in the jungles of Vietnam standing true to liberties cause. The thousands of hero's of Desert Storm, Fallujah, and the mountains of Afghanistan who defended liberty and sacrificed for freedom. Then I realized that this marvelous heritage that has grown through history is not just a heritage of the past but a living vibrant heritage that continues to grow and flourish each day that the Red, White and Blue flies, whether here at home, the Middle East, north or south, east or west or where ever the influence of," We the People," and the immortal words of the Declaration penned in 1776 and the Constitution penned in 1788 are expressed by our brave men and women in uniform or by travelers on business or pleasure both at home and abroad. For you see all of us are part of this historical and living heritage that is America. As freedom rings in this land we love, General Washington still strides atop his white horse. Abraham Lincoln shares both his whit and his wisdom to us all. Orville and Wilbur Wright will always be flying at Kitty Hawk, NC. Thomas Edison is inventing the light bulb. Alexander Graham Bell still asks Watson, "can you hear me?" Both making earth changing discoveries. David O Selznick forever directs Scarlett and Rhett. Souza waves his baton to the stiring fanfare of , "Stars and Stripes Forever." The battleship, Arizona and her brave crew still sail the seas. Lucy, Ricky, Barney, Andy and the Beaver always make us laugh. John F. Kennedy eternally proclaims, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Neal Armstrong continues to, "take one small step for a man and one giant leap for mankind." Ronald Reagan will always see, "the shining city on a hill, " and the World Trade Center will forever stand glistening in the sun. Today in distant lands our best and brightest are fighting to keep this heritage of freedom and liberty alive and vibrant so that future generations can forever sing, "My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty of thee I sing." During this time set aside on the long calendar year to give thanks for all that we have and all that we are, let us not neglect to remember the bountiful blessing each of us have known as The United States of America. Giving thanks for our family, our hero's serving in distant lands and here at home. Thanksgiving for our freedoms and the living, breathing heritage that keeps us free. God bless you and yours through this holiday season and may God continue to bless The United States of America. Happy Thanksgiving.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, November 21, 2006


The governments of Iraq and Syria have signed an agreement restoring diplomatic ties after twenty four years of broken relations between the two countries. Many see this as a breakthrough and a possibility of quelling the violence that has been troubling Iraq and especially the entrance of fighters from the two neighboring countries of Iran and Syria. From a strictly diplomatic stand point this on the surface looks like the major breakthrough that Iraq has been seeking as they work to build a Democracy and allow their citizens the protection and security that any country would want yet has evaded Iraq because of terrorism and sectarian violence. The problem as is well known stems from the participation of both Iran and Syria in supplying arms and personnel to continue the fight against a free Iraq. So again on the surface this looks to be a breakthrough in ending the insurgency and insuring a free Iraq. Beneath the surface there are several questions concerning the true intentions of Syria and Iran. I mention both together even though the agreement was with Syria since it is also well known that the two countries work in conjunction with each other so this agreement was not without the consent of Iran.

Question number one - is Syria serious about becoming a partner in a Democratized Iraq ? Democracy is a far cry from what the Syrian government offers to their own citizens and they have also shown that it is a form of government that they do not desire in the region. Evidence this by their continued involvement in Lebanon. Inspite of an elected government in the country Syria has undermined through Hezbollah the overtures for Democracy in Lebanon and caused the current government to collapse. Why would one think that they have different intentions and design for Iraq ?

Question number two - as a new partner will Syria stop the flow of 50-75 new insurgency fighters that enter Iraq each day seeking to destroy the fledgling Democracy ? Syria and Iran despite the fact that the entire world knows that they are behind much of the violence that is taking place in Iraq and calls by The United States and other countries for their involvement to end continue to pour fighters, weapons and financing into the insurgency. If Syria is serious about becoming a partner in the new and Democratized Iraq then they must show a willingness by stopping the flow of insurgency from their borders.

Question number three - is Syria sincere or is this another ploy by Syria with the backing of Iran to deceive Iraq into a false sense of security with her neighbors to give them opportunity to make a move in over throwing the Democracy of Iraq ? Both countries have a history of using diplomatic means as a ploy of deception to allow time to develop weaponry, military strategy or just to bring a false sense of security in order to allow Iran and Syria to make a move against those with whom they are sending diplomatic signals. Iran is using a similar strategy in the current nuclear situation in order to continue unabatedly to develop their nuclear program. Why would either country who have been proven untrustworthy in the past change their stripes now to create a diplomatic and peaceful relation with a Democratized Iraq ?

Question number four - is Iraq and the coalition so tired of the situation in Iraq that they are willing to accept this agreement with Syria at face value and not with a great deal of apprehensiveness and caution ? To be quelled into a false sense of security with Syria and Iran especially with the deceptive history of both countries would spell disaster for Iraq and all possibilities for the full establishment of the Democratized government and stability in the country.

Iran and Syria have proven that they are countries that cannot be trusted. Signing a diplomatic agreement to restore relations with Syria is a good step but this new found, "partnership, " should be watched as a soldier would watch as he tries to sleep on a battlefield, with one eye open and weapon at the ready and his buddy standing guard.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, November 19, 2006


2006 is quickly approaching the beginning of 2007. Politically speaking it has been a very interesting year culminating in the Mid Term election and all of the news revolving around the process of forming new leadership under the Democrats and the Lame Duck Congressional session as Republicans ponder their prospects as Minority. Thrown into this political mix are questions concerning the next election in 2008. Elections have become so involved now that when one is over the next campaign begins and that is exactly what has happened and most prominant is the run for the successor to President Bush. Several have already thrown their, "hat in the ring, " to coin a phrase first used by P.T. Barnum when he ran for political office and actually threw his hat into one of the rings of his, "Greatest Show on Earth." On the GOP side former New York Mayor and long speculated candidate Rudy Giuliani formed his exploratory committee as did Arizona Senator John McCain. Other Republicans who have either taken steps to run for President or are considering a bid include former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and California Congressman Duncan Hunter. Democrats have also complied a number of possible candidates. Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa has formed an exploratory committee yet is not considered one of the top contenders. That position belongs to Senator Hillary Clinton who denies a run yet has been campaigning for it for two years. Another top contender is first-term Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Other Democrats who have either taken steps to run or are considering a White House bid include Senators Joseph Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Evan Bayh of Indiana, John Kerry of Massachusetts, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Quite an exhaustive field from both parties with equally exhaustive speculation as to who has the best chance and the most popularity as a Prsidential candidate and then as President. There is a certain amount of historical presidence that may also reveal who has a better chance of winning the Presidency besides ones personal preference or party affiliation. If followed this may also be a clue as to who each party selects to run as nominee for 2008.

First - A sitting Senator is doomed. Of the 43 men who have had the high honor of serving as President of The United States only two sitting Senators have been elected to office. The first was Warren G. Harding and the last was John F. Kennedy. Thirteen Senators including Harding and Kennedy have served as President but with the exception of the two mentioned all served in another capacity before election to the Presidency. Several were Vice President after the Senate and prior to the Presidency. Included in this number are Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Andrew Johnson. From a historical stand point unless a Senator leaves the Senate for more electionable pastures the Presidency looks beyond their reach. Yet in the 08 mix eight sitting Senators are considering a run with two more recent former Senators, Republican Bill Frist and Democrat John Edwards one of which, Frist, left the Senate to prepare for the run while Edwards has been in the private sector since his unsuccessful run as Kerry's VP. This by far is the majority of the candidates for 08 and historically this nation does not elect Senators. Why ? Well the best explanation that I have heard and agree with is that bickering from the Senate floor and maneuvering to pass a bill does not make a leader nor qualify one for the highest office in the land and the most powerful position in the world.

Second - Governors are very electable. Seventeen Governors have been elected to the White House and of that number eleven went straight from State Chief Executive to the Presidency. Recent history also favors Governors for of the last five Presidents only Bush 41 was not a Governor and three of those four were Governors as they ran for President. Only Reagan was eight years removed from his Governors chair in California before the Presidency and in that time he was running for President for 1976 and his election year of 1980. Several of the seventeen served as Vice president before the Presidency including Teddy Roosevelt and Martin Van Buren. Four of the current crop of 08 , two Republicans and two Democrats are or have recently been Governors. I include as the fifth in that number Giuliani because as Mayor of New York City he precided over a city government that is larger than many US states and as such offers similar executive experience. If Giuliani is elected he will join Grover Cleveland as the only former Mayor elected to the Presidency. Cleveland served as New York City Mayor also but went from Governor of New York to the Presidency. Executive is the key word concerning the viabilty with the voter for Governors winning the Presidency. The nation historically views the executive experience of a Governor as a strong qualification to step into the Presidency since each has governed at the helm of a state government.

Third - House members fair poorly. Seventeen House members have been elected President but only two, Lincoln and Garfield served in the House just prior to the Presidency with Garfield being the only sitting House member to ever be elected President. One President, John Quincy Adams was elected to the House after his Presidency and John Tyler served in the Confererate House after serving as President of The United States. From a historical stand point this does not bode well for Newt Gingrich whose last elected office was Representative from Georgia and Speaker of the House. Of course his possible candidacy could be a history making presidence as aSpeaker of the House has never been elected President. It would seem historically that the same applies to House members as Senators, maneuvering and bickering on the House does not an executive make.

Fourth - Vice President's do well. Fourteen Vice Presidents have been become President. With the exception of Richard Nixon each served as President immediatly after their Vice Presidency. Four assumed office by Constitutional law after a Presidential assasination of which two were elected in their own right in the next election. Four others assumed the Presidency after their predeccesor died in office again two were later elected in their own right. One, Ford assumed the office after Presidential resignation and was not re-elected. As a whole though the office of Vice President of the United Sates receives a good deal of electability for President. Of the current crop that has shown serious asperations for 2008 none are or have been Vice President. Only speculation by certain pundints places former VP Al Gore in the mix as he has repeadedly denied entrance for 08 but some of his actions have shown otherwise. Until the Truman Presidency the office of Vice President has been one that was more a Constitutional necessity that an active and involved member of the administration. The last fifty years has seen the emergence of a highly involved VP which has made the selection of a running mate a far more important issue than prior to Truman since the VP is now involved in policy and action taken on that policy. Being the number two seems to give the electorate the confidence to allow the office of Vice President as stong contender for President.

To this point none of the field of possible 2008 candidates whether Republican or Democrat has shown the backing of the electorate to make them stand out as the leading contender to follow President Bush. Recent polling has Giuliani leading among those who have made their Presidential asperations known. If history holds true to the election of a President most of the current contenders are not electable. The nation favors candidates who have had executive experience in government and House and Senate members fall short of that qualification in the eyes of the electorate and this represents the majority of the 08 possibles. Of course the final word for Presidential election comes from the voter. With history as a teacher party officials and candidates would do well to back a nominee with executive experience in governing which looks very good for Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee for the GOP and Richardson for the Democrats.

Ken Taylor


The Blog of the Week spotlight falls on, "Conservative News And Views." The title of this site says it all, "Conservative." Each contributor to this site adds interesting commentary on various subjects with insight and candor. I have been honored to be invited as a contributor to this excellent blog and have accepted the invitation. Well worth you reading and adding as a link from your blog!

Friday, November 17, 2006


Best Bob Hope movie line

Thursday, November 16, 2006


Democrats voted today and elected to no ones surprise Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. She then nominated John Murtha as Majority Leader and by a vote of 149 - 86 House Democrats elected Steny Hoyer former Minority Whip to the leadership position. Pelosi put her prestige as incoming Speaker on the line by backing Murtha and House Democrats defied her as they overwhelmingly voted for Hoyer. This was the first test of Pelosi as Speaker and she failed in every respect. She went against House members in backing Murtha and has shown that she has an agenda of her own that may not necessarily agree with the majority. Pelosi in her acceptance speech for Speaker also called for untiy in the party yet when the first opportunity for party unity under her leadership was put to a test party unity was furthest from the result. This does not bode well for Democrats since the caucus was looking to put on the face of total unity of purpose. As I write this Pelosi in her first public statement after the vote casually mentioned the Hoyer win and at length praised John Murtha only stating after the praise that she and Hoyer have had there differences and, "that is over." Sounds more like a bitter woman who has had her hand slapped when she finally gained her long sought power as Speaker. This discourse could be the beginnings of in-fighting yet to come.

Ken Taylor


Senator Mitch McConnell by a very slim margin was elected Senate Minority Leader yesterday with Mississippi Senator and former Majority Leader Trent Lott as Minority Whip. While I was never very impressed with Lott as Majority Leader, and not because of the Strom Thurman comment, Lott is one of the most politically savvy Senators the GOP has known. As Majority Leader he had a weak side that allowed him to be run over many times when he should have fought if for nothing else other than principle not unlike his successor Bill Frist. But as Minority Whip his primary responsibility will be to count Senate votes and convince undecided Senators to vote for or against pending legislation based on the minorities stand on that particular bill. At this Lott has no equal. His ability to convince opponents as well as party members who may be teatering is well known and he knows the ropes in the Senate and how the legislative system within the Senate works which makes this the ideal position for him. Mitch McConnel as Minority Leader is an excellent choice. He appears to have a backbone which Senate Republicans have been in diar need for since Bob Dole left the Senate to run for President in 1996. McConnell has stated that he will not be run over and sees the minority of 49 as a strong force in for the GOP as the minority. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt at Town Hall, McConnell stated that Majority Leader Harry Reid could expect , " all the cooperation that he extented us in similar circumstances." It is obvious that McConnell does not intend to just roll over and allow Democrats to have a free hand in the Senate. Concerning the statement made by Chuck Schumer who will head the Senate Judiciary Committee, that under a Democrat majority there will be no Samual Alito appointments, McConnel countered that cooperation for any legislation by the GOP will be tied to fair treatment of Bush judicial nominees. Again an obvious reference to not being a push over. All in all a choice that will be strong and conservative in leadership.

On an additional note the choice of Mel Martinez as RNC General Chairman remains to be seen as to whether this was a wise choice or not. Martinez is an amnesty proponent which is to his detrament as RNC leader. But as General Chairman he is a spokesman and not director of daily operations as Ken Mehlman was. That responsibility will fall to others which may make this a stronger choice. There is also strong speculation the Senator Joe Lieberman is considering switching to the Republican Party. While he has not decided yet he is also not ruling it out because of the strong GOP support that he recieved in his re-election and the abandonment of him by the Democrat Party. While his more liberal stance on social issues will not help the GOP his annnouncing that he will be a Republican rather than an Independent will change the majority status of the Democrats. Both the Martinez appointment and the Lieberman situationl are worth watching closley as we enter 2007.

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, November 15, 2006


Speaker of the House to be, Nancy Pelosi took an unusual step yesterday as she endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader rather than Steny Hoyer the current House Minority Whip the number two man under Pelosi's Minority Leader status. As Minority Whip the transistion to Majority Leader usually follows when the minority party wins the majority in a new Congress. When Pelosi became Minority Leader, Hoyer was her main rival who gave the California Democrat a run for her money for the Leaders position. Some believe that her endorsement of Murtha is pay back for his earlier opposition to her for Minority Leader. Others believe that Murtha's well know stance and controversial statements about the war came into play in her decision to back him because of the Democrats developing posititon concerning a pull out of Iraq by June 07.

Pelosi during her reign as House Minority Leader coined the phrase, "culture of corruption, " in reference to the House Republicans and the problems during their tenure as majority. For her to now back John Mutha shows a very hypocritical move on her part if she was truly sincere about an ethically pure Democrat leadership of the House. Murtha was investigated and aquited in the ABSCAM scandal, ( The FBI created a front (Abdul Enterprises, Ltd., hence, Abscam) for its agents, who, posing as associates of an Arab sheik, offered selected public officials money or other considerations in exchange for special favors), in 1980 but was caught on tape stating that though he was turning down a $50,000 dollar offer he would be open to future possible pay offs after working with the company for awhile. Murtha has also blocked ethics proposals and is well known as a back room dealer. In endorsing Murtha, Pelosi has dealt a damaging but not fatal blow to Hoyers run for Majority Leader. She has pulled out all the stops even calling incoming Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel because of a New York Times report than Rangel was backing Hoyer. The vote for Majority Leader will take place tomorrow and a Murtha win will give total control of the House to Pelosi.

Another indicator of the, "ethics, "situation as Demcorats appoint lesser leadership positions is the House Intelligence Committee. The ranking member of the committee is Pelosi's fellow Californian Jane Harman who Pelosi has already indicated she does not favor to move into the leadership position because she is not partisan enough in some of her positions. The next ranking member is Florida's Alcee Hastings who in 1989 was impeached as a federal judge for bribary charges. An impeachment which was instigated by Pelosi. She now favors his appointment as House Intelligence Committee Chairman .

Democrats are showing with each day that passes post election that the stances that were taken during the campign in order to win votes are obviously NOT the platform that they will take into and push as they assume the leadership of the House and Senate. They have made a reversal in their campaign stance on the war from a re-evaluation of strategy and a gradual redeployment as the situation warrents campaign stance to a full pull out by June 07 now. From a promise to not touch taxes except those effecting, "only the rich, " campaign stance to a repealing of all Bush tax cuts now. A no impeachment and investigation stance while campaigning to a hearings and investigation stance now to look into possible impeachment of the President. A conservative ploy as they campaigned on conservative ideas and now preparing a very liberal agenda as they approach the next Congress. Claiming bipartisan work with the President to his face in the two days after the election and now planning a very partisan agenda to fight the President. Claming the most ethical Congress in history and now backing very unethical House members for leadership positions. So which face are we to believe. The one shown to gain votes or the one that is showing now as they prepare for the next Congress. The face showing now is much more in line with typical Demcorats of the past and especially during the forty years that they held Congressional leadership. So it looks like at least for the next two years House and Senate Demcorats will return to the status quo that their their predecessors from the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies and Eighties pioneered for them. Well as the saying goes, " you can't teach a dog new tricks." Democrat politicians are proof of that!

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, November 14, 2006


Now that the election is over and the Democrats have gained the majority in the House and Senate they are starting to show their true colors concerning Iraq. During the campaign and the few days after the election Democrat candidates and leaders portrayed a picture of working with the President to find a solution to Iraq while backing off earlier calls by most Democrats for an immediate withdrawl and redeployment to places like Okinawa. As the election fallout started in the days immediatly following November 7th Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid met with the President claiming bipartisan cooperation with the administration on Iraq policy and again stating that the Demcorats did not favor an immediate withdrawl and would work in conjunction with Bush to secure the country and support the Iraqi government until they could support themselves. Now we are a full week away from the election and the Democrats have celebrated and put on their , "conservative, "face long enough to satisfy the voters who pay close attention to the news just prior to and immediatly after an election and have satisfied them with the bipartisan talk. With that done they are beginning to reveal their true intentions about Iraq and , "amazingly, " they echo what they had been saying well before election day, " pull out immediatly." The left wing of the party and those on the fringe believe that they were responsible for bringing the win to the Democrats and have begun pressuring the leadership by calling for the immediate pull out. Of course it does not take much pressure from these far left elements to convince the leadership into doing what they had planned all along, it only confirms their own ideas. This is combined with the Democrat belief that they recieved a mandate on their Iraq policy by the voters rather than the truth about the election which was only a backlash to the GOP and NOT the mandate Demcorats believe. Democrats have also installed in an advisory position for Iraq policy former South Dakota Senator and 1972 Democrat Presidential candidate George McGovern. For those who do not know or do not remember, McGovern ran an anti-war and immediate pull out from Vietnam campaign against Richard Nixon in 1972 a policy that then was unpopular from the immediate pull out stand point with the American people who favored an honarable end providing security for South Vietnam. McGovern lost in a landslide to Nixon. McGovern has stated in his response to his new advisory position that Democrats should develop a policy for a complete pull out by June of 2007 or ,"they would not be in the majority very long." This additude does not match the majority of Americans who though weary of Iraq are NOT in favor of an immediate pull out but rather developing a strategy that will insure Iraqs soveriegnty and capability to govern and protect herself keeping US forces in the country until this is fully accomplished with a gradual redeployment as the situation warrants it. Senators Carl Levin, Harry Reid and Joe Biden all Democrats have called for a pull out, "within the next few months." Democrats have also called for Iraq to be partitioned into semi-autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions with the help of neighboring nations this inspite of the fact that millions of Iraqis under death threats have voted for a centralized government with a single Parlament and leadership that is represented by the three different influences in the country. With an announced , "redeployment, " timetable over the next few months, what is to prevent the terrorist entity and the insurgents from just waiting it out until we leave ? Additionally there has been talk of bringing Iran and Syria to the table seeking their input and assistance in stabalizing Iraq. Both countries have stated that they are more inetersted in controling Iraq in much the same way that they do Lebannon. Iran has been supporting the insurgency with weapons and manpower in an attempt to destabalize the country and force the US out so they can take over. Bringing Iran and Syria, "to the table, " in Iraq would be tantamonut to inviting the fox to the hen house to ask him how best to take care of the chickens. While there are problems in Iraq a quick and immediate pull out as the Demcorats are wanting would be a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East and The United States. Iran, Syria and terrorist entities like Al Qaeda would quickly move into the country taking over and imprisoning the people under tiranical rule and subjegation to Islamic fascism which has been promised by all three if they could control the country. Many on the left beleive this idea of a take over of Iraq by terrorists elements and Iran/Syria to be only a political ploy used by the President to support administration policy. Even Nancy Pelosi stated in her famous 60 Minutes interview before the election that she believed that the insurgency would stop or would not increase after the US left. Both beliefs are fallacies believed by the left that terrorists and insurgents have both stated was not true. In fact both have promised just the opposite. Iran has had as a stated goal the take over of Iraq forcing a theocratic Islamic rule on the country since the 1979 Islamic take over of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini.

The first few months of 2007 as Democrats take control of the House and Senate will determine the fate of Iraq the Middle East and in a very real sense The United States if they follow their plan to pull out of Iraq in the first few months of the year or by June at the latest. We will soon see a complete collapse of the country into anarchy as terrorism reigns and Iran begins its push to dominance in the country and the region. Al Qaeda will once again have a base of operations, a base that was eliminated by US forces in Afghanistan. The Iraqi people will once again fall under forced rule rather than the Democracy they desire. Whether the Democrats believe it or not these are the facts and realities of the situation and their wishful thinking and false beliefs will not stop it. We are the buffer that is preventing this until Iraq can prevent it on their own. Re-evaluating the current strategy and designing a working policy that stabalizes Iraq, strenghtens the voted for central government and protects the country from Iran and terrorism will prevent the scenerio I have mentioned above. A pull out as called and planned for by the Democrats will only hasten it!

Ken Taylor

Sunday, November 12, 2006


" So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.........Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work-work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back......As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it--now or ever.
Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength." Selected Form President Reagan's first Inaugural

2006 will long be considered a disappointing year for Republicans and the Republican Party. Not just because of the results of last weeks Mid Term Election but because it was the culmination of a gradual process in which the party lost its soul. A soul that the party base continualy reminded leaders of, a soul that every leader of the past spoke of, a soul that now must be rekindled if the party if is to ever be what it once was. Without this soul the Republican Party is no different from Democrats in many ways. Without this soul the Republican Party lost sight of the very core of ideas and principles that made them the strong and the consitantly leading political party of the nation. Without this soul the Republican Party was a ship without sails floudering in the midst of a political storm that sank the, "Grand Old Party, " last Tuesday. What is the soul of the GOP, the soul that the leaders forgot , the soul that elected them to office and that because of its loss isolated them from the very voters who placed them in power ? That soul can be found in one word that expresses the very core of the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. That soul is conservatism. A philoshophy of thoughts, values and ideas that those who believe in them, live by them and expect the leaders that they vote into office to govern by them. A philosophy that the Republican Party leadership and many of those who are elected as GOP in Washington have forgotten and neglected for some time and Tuesday they paid the price for their memory loss and neglect. President Ronald Reagan is the father of todays conservative movement in this country and we who were of voting age in the 80's have passed this onto the next generation and as such as the GOP began disconnecting with the conservative majority they began losing sight of why it works and what made this philosophy the driving force in the GOP winning elections. A philosophy of less government, less taxation, strong defense, strong moral and ethical principles, giving power to the people of the nation rather than the government regulating or deciding for them because of less government intrusion in our daily lives. As the GOP began listening to the inside the beltway crowd in Washington and not to the citizens of this country who are not of the beltway philosophy that is when the disconnect began and the GOP lost its soul.

How then does the GOP recover ? The answer is simple and it is an answer that the base has been yelling to no avail until the wake up call of last Tuesday. Return to the conservative values and principles of governing that placed the GOP in office from the beginning. Conservative do not want large government entitlements and programs that boom the growth of the Federal government combine a smaller government with with less taxation allowing the people to determine how their money is spent and not the government. Less Taxation is one of the few areas that the GOP was consistant. Conservatives demand and expect a total accountability of their representatives from a moral and ethical stand point. Because government is run by people who have flaws as we all do, individuals will become corrupt because of the power that they yield as government officials regardless of party. There are as many corrupt Democrats as Republicans. The only way to prevent this inevitability from reflecting on the party is by dealing with every instance quickly and openly to prevent the look of impropriaty. While the GOP had its problems and I beleive they dealt with them the fact that they did it in secret allowed the opposition to portray a culture of corruption that stuck. By dealing with anything openly the look of impropriaty disappears and the public as a whole accepts the judgement of the leadership upon the individual in question because of the transparency and the trust that the leadership shows to the people of this nation by revealing everything. Reagan connected with the American people because of his ability to express to us why he was doing as he did what his intentions were and what his policy would bring for the betterment of the nation. When he faced a difficult situation he shared it with the American people. When he made a decision that would affect the nation he shared it with the American people and most importantly he listened because he realized that he worked for us and that government was by the will of the people and not the other way around. His openess was one of his greatest strenghts.

Finding and placing good strong and conservative leaders who follow the Reagan example is the first step to the recovery of the Republican Party. A good start was announced this week as the RNC stated that they were seeking Michael Steele a strong conservative and the current Lt. Governor of Maryland and 2006 Senate candidate to replace outgoing Chairman Ken Mehlman. Strong conservative leadership that listens to the people and make decisions based on conservative ideas and values and never waver from this philosophy are necessary. Compromising conservatism was the downfall of the GOP because the leadership did not steadfastly stick to those ideals and as they wavered from this they began ignoring the people. The new leadership must adhear to the conservative platform and ideals in order to regain what was lost and the only way to insure this is by placing strong and consistant conservative leaders in the RNC, the House and the Senate then listen to the people in all matters because the very strength of this nation are the people who live by, work because and breath the freedoms that we have and when our voice in neglected then government gets out of control. This is one of the core principles of conservatism.

Less government and government intrusion, tax releif and a strong and consistant national defense are key to a GOP recovery. By working toward and pushing ideas that consistantly call for and fight for smaller government with the people determining how best to live their lives and spend their money the GOP will again find its soul of conservative ideals. While implimenting these ideals will be difficult under a Democrat majority the fact that the GOP stands for and pushes for this in government will not go unnoticed by the voters. But garnering votes should not nor ever be the reason for this stand. Believing it because it is right and it is at the core of values and ideals is what will win the day then fighting for those reasons and not just a goal of gaining political points. Fighting for and supporting the defense and security of this nation whether it be over seas or along our borders to insure the safety and prosperity of the American people is not only a essential core to conservative values but a neccessary policy for this nation and a GOP stronghold that once again demands the attention and time of the new leadership.

Take the fight to the people ! With the exception of the first two years of his Presidency, Ronald Reagan had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. His first two years found a GOP majority in only the Senate. How then did he accomplish so much with consistant opposition ? Because he believed so strongly in conservative principles and ideas he was willing first to fight for them and second he trusted the people of the country. When he faced an uphill battle with Congress for his agenda he went to the people and spoke to, talked with and most importantly listened to the people. By trusting the people as he did the people inturn trusted him and fought by his side for the conservative principles that changed this nation and the world. By taking the fight to the people of the United States following the Reagan example and trusting the people to understand, evaluate and then decide on the issues the GOP will once again gain the trust of Americans and move foward with the conservative agenda.

Now is a time for new beginning yet a return to old values for the GOP. Without a return through a rebirth to the conservative principles and ideals that made the GOP strong and successful they will continue to flounder as a party. From all indications they finally understand this. Now comes the job of making that understanding a reality not just in word but in deed and in fighting for leadership and policy that reaches the strength and soul of the base, yes even the majority of the GOP and much of America - conservatism.

Ken Taylor


The Blog of the Week spotlight shines on , "Mr. Minority." I have had a link to this great conservative site from the very beginning. As a matter of fact Mr. Minority was the first blog to link to this site for which I will always be grateful. Many of you who now visit this blog are not familiar with Mr. Minority and now is your opportunity to discover him and for you old timers a chance for re-discovery. He offers conservative opinion with a very pointed approach on todays issues and his writings always make you think. Be sure to visit Mr. Minority and add this fine blog as a link to your site.

Friday, November 10, 2006



As we find ourselves at the end of this election week, there are just a few final election observations that stand out which pose the question, "are Demcorats sore losers ?" I realize that this question seems odd considering that Tuesday was a day of victory for the Dems but since 1994 with the exception of the two Clinton wins for the Presidency, Democrats have been in the loss column. In each loss and especially since the 2000 election after the results were in and it was a certain GOP victory charges and accusations of stolen elections, voter fraud, voter intimidation, disinfranchisment, endless law suits and demand after demand for recounts ruled the day after a Demcorat loss. Has the voting process so improved that this year everything was perfect or are the Demcorats really just sore losers ? Personally I believe it is the latter. During election day when the outcome was still unsure there were plenty of reports of possible voter problems and the gathering of lawyers to handle law suits and recounts but as the day progressed and the outcome was obviously giving the Democrats a win these stories disappeared and the only discussion of a recount came in Virginia which by law allows for a recount when the result is a difference of less than 1%. Additionally when one precinct in Virginia was reviewed, again according to law, to determine if the information was given to the Secretary of States office correctly which is a process that is done after any election and for all precincts, it was discovered that numbers had been reversed and Allen gained more than 1000 votes in this one precinct alone. So he was justifed in waiting to conceed yet though the law allowed him to ask for a recount he did not inspite of how close the election was. The same held true for Montana which was and even closer race. So it would seem that since the Democrats have won and there are no pending law suits or running stories about voter fraud or stolen elections or consistant demands for recounts that Democrats are just sore losers and only accept election results and the voice of the people when it is in their favor. As a matter of fact the only complaint that I have heard about this election is a charge of racism by supporters of Harold Ford Jr. the Democrat candidate who lost to Republican Bob Corker. Claims that Ford lost because he was black and the voters of Tennessee turned him away because of racist views. Yet Republicans lost elections in the Maryland Senate race with Steele, the Pennsylvania Governors race with Swann and the Ohio Governors race with Blackman all blacks but not one accusation of racism by anyone just the acceptance of the loss due to voters choice. Another aspect missing from this election is the absense of groups like PEST, (Post Election Stress Trauma), that were wide spread after the 04 election for Democrats who were suffering mental anguish because of the loss. I also have not heard of Hollywood stars like Republicans Bo Derek, Mel Gibson or Tom Selleck threatening to move to Canada or elsewhere like Alec Baldwin, Robert Redford or Barbara Streisand did after the 04 election.

Democrats have won there is no doubt but there is also no doubt that Republicans are more willing to accept the voice of the people when it comes to elections than Democrats because they are not protesting the results with never ending accusations and law suits as has been the case after a Demcorat loss. When the Democrats lose again we shall see if they are as gracious in defeat as they seem to portray in victory. Judging from past evidence I think not!

Ken Taylor

Thursday, November 09, 2006


With the announcement late yesterday by the AP declaring Webb as the winner in the Virginia Senate election over GOP incumbant George Allen the Democrats now have a majority in both the House and the Senate. There are several underlieing reasons why it happened that have been discussed at great length ranging from discord with the GOP to the war. Each reason has its merits and can be traced back to facts that support them. Yet there has been little discussion as to how the Democrats actually won this election only how the GOP lost it. There is quite a bit of blame for the later but three strong reasons for the former. First the Democrats managed to take what is traditionally a localized election because it does not involve a Presidential run and nationalized the election. Second in most cases Democrats who ran and won did so by talking a conservative game. Throw into the mix the traditional loses during the sixth year of any Presidency in the Mid Terms and you have a menu for a change in the Congressional majorities.

Beginning with the last, the traditional sixth year loses - In 1958 Eisenhower was in his sixth year and Republicans lost 48 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate. In 1966 Johnson in what was the sixth year after the Kennedy election of 1960 had a similar loss on the Democrat side. The same happened in 1974 and to a lesser extent in 1986 when Reagan lost seats but not as many as in previous sixth year elections. Historically the losses this year are comparitavely small though this does not change the balance of power that it has brought. The one exception to this six year cycle was a slight gain in 1998 in Clinton's sixth year but the majority was still with the GOP and not the Democrats.

Nationalizing the Mid Terms - In most instances the Mid Term election because it does not involve the election of a President revolves around local issues because the majority of Governorships are in play which brings with it the State elected positions and of course all US House seats. Both run on local issues since they are seeking election on what they can achieve for the local constituency. The only national issues that usually surround a Mid Term election are the third of the US Senate seats in play yet traditionally they to because of the local flavor of the Mid Term run a more localized campaign. This year was far from that. Even in many local campaigns such as Governorships the national picture appeared. In attending a debate for the South Carolina Governors race I was surprised that many of the questions asked of the candidates covered national issues and not just SC issues. Because of the war especially Democrats managed with the help of the media to nationalize this election using negativity about the war to a war weary electorate. It became a referendum on US policy and the President even in House races which usually concentrate only on local issues. In a sixth year election which is traditionally bad news for the party occupying the White House stearing the election to a nationalized tone which is what the Democrats have been doing for the last two years gave them the political momentum needed to win the majority.

Running as conservatives - one of the key strategies that the Demcorats put together for this election was fielding a large number of conservative candidates. Every indicator that judges the moral and political feel of the country has shown that the majority either is or leans conservative. The results of many ballot issues this election also gives evidence to this. This is one reason why the GOP has been so successful in past elections and also why it was part of the downfall of this one. The GOP in the last few years has been sliding away from its conservative base which brought much of the discontent. The Democrats capitalized on both of these factors and ran conservative candidates to appeal to the majority of voters. A large number of the Democrat candidates ran on traditional conservative issues and many even labeled themselves by being pro-life, pro-gun and fiscally conservative. Whether this was a ruse to win the election remains to be seen. As a conservative I tend to think that it was. The traditional liberal and left leaning voter blocks have and will always vote for Democrats but in past elections conservatives and voters who lean conservative have voted for the GOP regardless of party affiliation. This tactic may come back to haunt Democrats in the next two years. The leadership of the party both at the DNC and in Congress is decidedly liberal. Nancy Pelosi who will lead the House as Speaker, Herry Reid who will be the Senate Majority Leader and Howard Dean the DNC Chairman are obvious in their liberalism and state as such whenever possible not by necessarily using the word but in their policy statements and the political atmosphere that they create. Voters who elected Democrats because of the conservative platform that they ran during the election expect their representative to vote on legislation following that platform. The GOP has suffered the consequences of not adhearing to this and now find themselves in the minority. Democrats who are now in the majority leadership believe that they have won the election because of a mandate for their liberal policies and not from a conservative backlash to the GOP. As such as they have already indicated their liberal agenda will be pushed. Pelosi stated yesterday to the President that in the first 100 hours they will raise the minimum wage and look at the repealing of tax cuts which are part of a liberal platform. The conservative Democrats will be expected to vote with the majority on these type of issues which will anger the voters who placed them in office. The backlash that the GOP suffered will hit the Dems quickly. The GOP leadership did not realize this until it was too late and as such that leadership will change . The Democrats will also not understand this especially since they believe they have a mandate for their agenda.

The next two years will be interesting to watch with Democrats in power. Either we will have a shift in policy matching the liberal agenda or grid lock because of a GOP President and Democrat House and only a slight majority in the Senate. I think there will be a combination of both with more of the latter. We shall see.

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, November 08, 2006


As the old saying goes, "give the devil his due, " they pulled it off you've got to hand it to the Dems the results are in and with the exception of the Montana and Virginia Senate seats and a handful of undecided House seats which have yet to be figured into the final results last night was a Democrat night. The Dems now have the House and unless there are a good number of remaining votes in Virginia and Montana that can shift either state the distinct possibility of taking the Senate also is within their grasp. Many are calling this a backlash against incumbants yet if that were the case then the Democrats would have suffered in the House as did the Republicans. So far all House Democrat incumbants have been re-elected. Actually I think that this election became a two fold turn around. First a general discontent with the GOP Congress and the slide over the past several years from the conservative platform that they were elected on and a general trend of a war weary America. Second a powerful Democrat spin machine headed by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean with the continual assistance of the liberal media that convinced much of the electorate that the war is lost, not just Iraq but in general, the economy has tanked inspite of numbers that show otherwise and that the President has lied since he first took office in January of 2001. I had thought that generally the country had not bought into this spin but last nights results show otherwise. I will be the first to admit that the GOP majority in both chambers were weak in following a conservative agenda and failed in holding the very principles of less government and spending that they were elected on as far back as 1994 and even to the Reagan years. I will also admit that mistakes have been made in the war but the continual negativity that has been portrayed by the media and the Democrats without showing any of the progress and played down victories has turned much of the country against the war and brought with it a false sense of security concerning the enemy whose goals of destruction have not changed.

What does the future hold ? Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker unless a rebellion among the incoming Democrats takes place but politically I do not think this likely. Those who have been elected to House majority are beholden to Pelosi for orchestrating this victory and this very savvy politician will not let them forget it which should bring about her election to Speaker. Though they try to attempt to preach a moderate game plan she holds the power and control of all House legislation and you can bet that she will use that power to her advantage. Democrats have already promised that one of their first orders of business is to increase the minimum wage by more than $2.00 which will slow the economy upon its implimentation. Employers who have people on their payroll who are on minimum wage, ( a starting wage and not a living wage as the Dems try to spin), will make cut backs and raise prices to pay for the payroll increases which will change the employment picture, slow job creation and quell consumer confidence as prices rise to meet payroll demands. The next order of business will be to follow Charlie Rangels promise as Ways and Means Chairman to repeal all Bush tax cuts. Which equates to this and I will give but one example. A family of four making $50, 000 dollars which is not rich by any means now pay $1300.00 in taxes without the Bush tax cut that same income will have to pay$3300.00. Though the tax cuts are in place until 2010 because they have not been made permenant the House does have the means to repeal them as Rangel has promised.

Concerning the war Democrats now have the capability of defunding the war if the President does not follow their direction on how to prosecute the war. Their redeployment ideas range from going to Okinawa to being station just outside of the borders of Iraq thus in truth pulling out of the country. The insurgents and the terrorists would then have a free hand against a still unstable Iraqi Defense Force and gain a strong foot hold before troops could be moved back into the theater thus costing more American lives trying to quell the promised actions by insurgents and terrorists. Senator Biden has also been pushing for a four fold Iraqi government with each tribal faction governing their own with four distinct governing bodies and not the centralized government with all factions participating which is what the Iraqis have voted for. This plan will cause tremendous division and anarchy in the governing process which will totally destabalize the country and much of the region. Far more than what is already happening.

These are just a few issues that I see changing with the House take over and a Democrat majority or evenly divided Senate as now seems the case. On the bright side for conservatives and the GOP, Republicans now have the opportunity to re-establish conservative ideas and leadership within the party and to eliminate those who have grown drunk on political power and cause the slide away from conservatism. This will enable the GOP to once again position themselves with the electorate as they did in 1994 and with what will be happening in the House especially under Democrat control usher in a truly conservative GOP leadership in 2008. The next two years will remind Americans why they ousted the Democrats in 1994 as they in thinking that this was a mandate for Pelosi, Reid and Dean legislate from the left and their true colors finally shine forth.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, November 07, 2006


I am sure that all of you are aware that today is Election Day. Across the nation people will be entering the polls to cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice and the world will see American freedom and a Constitutional Republic at its best. I have already voted and urge everyone to do the same. Of course as anyone who is familiar with my writing might expect I ask for your vote to be cast for the Republican candidates, but regardless please vote. To understand my reasoning for my vote I refer you to the post under this one. Make your voice as an American heard today and VOTE!

Ken Taylor

Sunday, November 05, 2006


Tuesday is a very important day for this nation as is every election day. In a Constitutional society like ours there are two days that prove how great this country is and show the world what a truly free society is capable of. One is Presidential Inauguration day which portrays a smooth transfer of government based on a Constitutional provision that began with George Washington. The second is Election Day. Whether it is a Presidential year or a Mid Term election when the American people vote the entire world watches and observe how a free Constitutional society voices the will of the people to the government. Election Day proves that regardless of partisan politics or the ramblings that take place in the halls of Congress, the White House or the media the people of this nation still decide who will represent them at all government levels. We have the freedom to voice our opinion, disgust, favor, ideas or rantings to our elected representatives at any time by mail, phone, e-mail or even personal visit. Our representatives also have the freedom to listen or not when we express out thoughts to them. But on Election Day the will of the people truly shines, for elected representatives are bound by the law through our Constitution to listen to the people as our vote either removes or places them in office. This power by the people given to us by the Founding Fathers also insures that those same representatives in order to keep their jobs must listen to us even when they are not running for office. When they do not listen then we the people have the freedom to remove them from office by our vote or keep them in office if they listen or offer to us the best course that we as individual voters believe will best lead this nation. This is a fundamental privilege given us by the Constitution and as free Americans one we should exercize whenever possible. This Tuesday is one of those opportunities and as free Americans we must choose who we believe will offer what is best for this nation. So as a free American I will now share with you why I choose to vote Republican on Tuesday.

There are several issues that voters will base their decision on as they enter the voting booth on Tuesday. Some of those pertain to their individual locality or state and will influence their vote on that level. Their are also issues that pertain to the nation as a whole and those are what I base this commentary of my vote upon.

National Security - This is the foremost issue facing us today and while both parties have made claim to this issue only one by word and deed has proven that they are the party of National Security. Republicans with admitted mistakes have followed an agenda that provides for the security of this nation in light of the current threat posed by Islamic terrorism and its implications to this nation and the world which also involves The United States. Republicans do not see any answer to our nations security being found in the United Nations alone as do many Democrats. Though we work in and with the UN to find solutions when the protection of this nation is considered the GOP understands that we alone decide what is best for America. Democrats have continually called for the United States to bow to the wishes of the UN and as such yield much of our soverienty to this corrupt world body. We are a nation at war, a war that is different from any ever fought. Wars of the past have been fought to reclaim land, to defeat a dictator, to end attempts by countries to force other nations to come under their rule. This war threatens not only our society but the very principles of freedom that we were founded upon. We fight an ideology that desires the end to those principles and everyone who lives by them and basks in their freedom. This fight has taken on global purportions and requires every means available to defeat this enemy. Republicans understand that the only way to defeat this enemy is to meet them at a place of our choosing rather than waiting for them to once again attack our home. That is why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries have been identified by this enemy as battlefields in a war they declared on us long before we understood that we were at war. The enemy has expressed through its leaders their desire to defeat the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan and their proclamation that leaving either would be a victory for them and a defeat for us. Republicans know this and will continue the fight while adapting to every situation in this war as that situation demands. Democrats believe that leaving Iraq would stop the , "insurgency, " though the enemy has declared otherwise. Many Democrats believe that courts alone with useless indictments will stop terrorism, a policy that has failed in the past. Many Democrats believe that a redeployment to Okinawa will give the US the necessary means to fight terrorism, this while the battlefield in Iraq still rages. They believe that Iraq is a failure. I ask them then to ask our men and women in the military who believe otherwise and the Iraqis who though facing much have prospered and found freedoms they have never before experienced. Republicans know the necessity of staying until the mission is complete and that it takes the courts, the military, law enforcement and terrorism survelience programs to gather intelligence to defeat this enemy. Democrats would remove many of those capabilities and cut and run. If you still believe they won't then ask Senator Joe Lieberman, (I CONN), a life long member and supporter of the Democrat Party and has voted with Democrats 95% of the time who understands as the Republicans do the necessity of Iraq and this war and has based his position on personal visits and his conscience, yet because he disagreed with the party they cut and run from his re-election bid forcing him to run as an independent, an election he will win despite the party abandonment.

Illegal Immigration - While both parties have a less than stellar record on this subject the Republicans are now making steps to begin dealing with the situation. This particular issue is one of the most important reasons for a GOP majority in the House. Senate Republicans along with a majority of Democrats support a comprehensive idea that includes amnisty porgrams that anger much of the country. House Republicans who disagree with this approach favoring instead border protection first and then dealing with employers and illegals already here as individual issues forced the Senate to yield and thus the Border Fence bill passed both Chambers. While many argue that this fence will never be built, there is a 1.2 billion dollar allocation in the Homeland Security budget to start the fence and the next Congress will allocate funds as necessary for its completion. Another aspect of this debate is the idea by many Democrat leaders to allow illegals to register to vote and have drivers license along with eligability for all social programs and in-state tuition discounts for college. This would provide the Democrats with a dependent constituency from illegals which is the true goal for these proposals. Republicans in the House are also looking into employment enforcement provision which too will force the Senate to compromise. House GOP members have consistantly been tough on illegal immigration and their stance has re-directed the Republican position and also forced many Democrats to follow suit. Most House Democrats especially the leadership, favor the much weaker Senate proposals.

The Economy - Wayne Rogers know best as Trapper John of Mash and a well known liberal Democrat has become a sought after financial investment advisor because of his success as an investor. Rogers recently admitted that if the economy was the major voting issue that one would have to vote Republican because of their handling of the economy and the phenomenal growth that has taken place under GOP leadership. While Democrats have attempted to portray this economy as a disaster the evidence proves otherwise. Unemployment is at its lowest point in decades. Jobs are being created at a record pace and the country has been at what is considered, "full employment, " 5% or less for more than two years. Economic investment is also at record levels with the Dow reaching a historic high several times in the last few weeks and continues to remain strong. Consumer confidence continues to remain strong as Americans realize the reality of the strength of the economy. While the deficit is still a problem it too has been reduced by half and that well ahead of projections which also testifies to the strength of the economy. Republicans reduced taxes and favor making all tax cuts permanent while seeking further reductions which spurs economic growth. Democrats have called for repealing all tax cuts as well as instituting new taxation and their efforts in Congress are the reason that the current cuts have not become permanent.

Though there are still several reasons why I disagree with the GOP they offer the best leadership for this nation for all of the reasons that I have stated above and for personal moral reasons which I will not mention but those who understand the conservative view point will realize. When we step into the voting booth and exercize our Constitutional privilege on Tuesday I will vote GOP and urge others to do the same but regardless of how you vote make sure to find time in your hectic schedule to take the few short minutes it takes to cast your voice through your vote and show the world the greatness of our Constitutional Republic.

Ken Taylor


This weeks blog spotlight falls on, "They Call Me Vonski." Interesting conservative blog from the,"left, " coast found in Oregon. Vonski combines a mix of politics and personal observations and thoughts on everything from a visit to Wal Mart to who he believes will best serve this nation in Congress. Well worth your time and adding as a link.

Thursday, November 02, 2006


If you still believe that Demcorats are strong on National security and their policy of , "redeployment ," out of Iraq is not dangerous and a threat to The United States then read in full this interview borrowed from Mike's America as reported by World Net Daily and see if you still believe that Democrats should be in the majority.

Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote DemocratWithdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, AmericaBy Aaron Klein November 2, 2006JERUSALEM

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance. The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed. They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel."Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam."[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the regionThe debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgencyMany Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated,

"There is no chance that the resistance will stop."He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party."Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."


I heard a very interesting statistic yesterday that coincides with this particular election but portrays an overall picture that gives further light to media bias toward the left. An independent group looked at all of the articles and reporting concerning the 06 Mid Term election and found a very interesting fact. According to this study 90% of the reporting during this election cycle has been positive toward Democrats while 80% has been negative toward Republicans. I realize that to many this does not come as a suprise since it has been obvious that the media as a whole is liberal and use their media outlets to push the lefts agenda and take every opportunity whether factual or not to criticize and negatively report news concerning Republicans. Some who read this will think that I am no different as I write negatively toward Democrats and the left and positively toward the GOP and the right. The clear distinction and example is this, I make no claim that I am reporting the news nor claim being a journalist. Additionally even by the very title of this Blog it very clearly states my political bias and as a commentator I clearly express my conservative political views and beliefs and one who reads anything on this site clearly understands the political view and direction that the commentary originates. The media in contrast claim unbiased reporting of the news while clearly giving a decidedly left leaning opinion and reporting of every issue that affects this nation and the world. It is a deception that thankfully much of the public is seeing as opposed to 20 years ago when what the media reported and their view was taken as political gospel and seldom if at all questioned. This too is yet another reason why I have confidence that this election is not a sure win for Democrats as is being reported regularly and often in print and the airways. The liberal bias though quickly denied by the majority of the press gives a decidedly negative view to the outcome of this election for the GOP and has all but given the election to Democrats. They have readily reported that conservatives were not going to vote this election when the evidence shows otherwise all in an attempt to discourage GOP turn out to favor their, "unbiased, " support of Democrats. Unfortunate for them is the fact that regardless of their obvious bias the media still do not control the mind of the voter contrary to what they seem to think as they attempt this manipulative style of reporting to favor their liberal bias. Voters have the intelligence enough to make up their own mind inspite of media reporting and will vote their beliefs, conscience and personal evaluation of the issues that face this nation along with who they feel is better qualified to lead the nation. Media or no media the voters are still the only deciding factor of this election and come November 8 even the left biased media will have no choice but to report favorably for the GOP if that is what voters decide on election day.

Ken Taylor

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.