CONGRESSIONAL LETTER TO THE ENEMY - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

Dear Al Qaeda, Iraq Insurgents, Iran and Terrorists in general,

We the Majority joined with a few in the Minority in the Congress of The United States of America would like to take this opportunity to forewarn you that it is our desire to remove our troops beginning as soon as possible with the final redeployment out of Iraq taking place no later then March of 2008.

In sending this message to you it is our stern desire that while we have given you ample warning as to when you will have free reign in Iraq that we will be instructing the President, George W. Bush and military commanders as to how we expect strategy to be handled until the final redeployment.

We are planning the following:

1. While we here at home claim to support American troops we are placing millions of dollars of needless domestic spending thus insuring a Presidential veto.

2. In placing the above mentioned time line in appropriation bills, this too will insure a Presidential veto.

3. We will be using our Majority position in the Congress to hamper and obstruct any and all military matters until full redeployment is accomplished.

4. In tying up military appropriation bills, necessary monies for American military personnel will be decreased thus making it much harder for our troops to fight you.

5. The lack of monies that these appropriation bills provide will make our forces more vulnerable to your attacks making it possible for your people to prepare for final redeployment of American forces thus making the transition for your taking over Iraq easier and less taxing on you.

We will continue to claim to the American public that we see you as an enemy and a threat in order to deceive them into thinking that we actually believe this and are looking out for their best interests. In doing this we fully believe that just the opposite is true and understand that you are fighting America because we have oppressed you and our forcing military action to end will give you cause to view us in peace and end your desire to kill Americans and our society.

Thank you in advance for not taking advantage of our weakening of the military to kill more American troops but if this is necessary on your part while we force the redeployment out of Iraq we understand, afterall sacrifice is necessary for our ending this war.

On behalf of the Majority in The United States Congress we are:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader

While the above letter is not an actual correspondence to the mutual enemy of all Americans it is the clear message that the Democrats and a few Rino Republicans have sent to the Islamic fanatics who we are waging war with.

I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind does not see that setting dates and time lines for the removal of American troops only sends a signal to the enemy that, " if you wait and bide your time we will be out of the way so you have the ability to do as you please."

Additionally using funding bills that are necessary to best supply our troops and give them the best possibility of protecting themselves while at war, gives the enemy a better chance of killing more American troops.

Is it unbelievable that Democrats who call themselves patriots think more of Spinach and Peanut subsidies, funding Capitol tours and millions of dollars of other Pork Barrel projects then funding the troops knowing that the very act of Pork and time lines will result in a Presidential veto for the funding bill that cannot be over ridden.

Their claim of supporting the troops is shown as absolute hypocrisy as their actions prove otherwise. The message this bill is sending to the enemy will unequivocally embolden the enemy causing them to increase attacks as they see and understand that our troops are being hung out on the vine by a Congress that is more interested in playing political games than protecting America. This enemy is intelligent, cunning and they know exactly how our system works and will use this move by Democrats to their advantage.

Many try to claim that Democrats are representing majority opinion. While polls show that support for Iraq is weak, the majority still believes that we need to finish the job that was started and not redeploy before Iraq is capable of standing on its own. Time lines as set by the Congress does not accomplish this nor does it pass the Constitutional test as is usurps the authority of the Commander in Chief.

Throughout our history even when majority opinion was against certain US action there are times when doing the right thing is in the best interest of the country. If this were not the case then we would have never come into existence as an independent nation as the majority of Americans wanted to negotiate and remain under the British Crown rather than fighting the Revolution.

Fighting for our Independence and the birth of this nation was right then as finishing the job in Iraq is now. It is in our best national interest, it is a vital theater in the defeat of terrorism and it is the right thing to do!

Ken Taylor

IRAN SETTING CONDITIONS FOR THE BRITS ?

In an open act of war, Iran knowingly and deliberately attacked a British Naval Vessel operating in the territorial waters of Iraq with the permission of that government, kidnapped and took hostage fifteen British military personnel and now this country that is defying the world, openly creating international incidents and acts of war is setting the conditions to ease tensions.

So what is the response ? Well the Brits who are the ones in whom this blatant act of war was perpetrated on first called for discussions with Iranian diplomats and basically told them, " you know you really shouldn't have done that. Please, oh please give our people back." The when Iran refused, which was predictable, the Brits run crying to the most corrupt and non result oriented organization in the world The United Nations, begging for help.

I am sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who head this terrorist and Islamic fanatic state are patting themselves on the back once again congratulating each other for holding the world hostage through the Brits and gaining with every passing moment more confidence that they are untouchable and can make the world bow to their will.

Iran is not a big player in the world scheme but because of appeasement and fear this rogue, terrorist state now has been emboldened into believing that they can play on the big stage and the world has no choice but to listen and comply.

The Brits in one of their initial responses to the attack on the vessel and the kidnapping of their people stated that they were, "afraid, " to push the issue for fear of how Iran will act. This is precisely how terrorism controls. Creating fear by fanatical actions thus forcing through that fear the desired response of appeasement and compliance to demands or conditions.

One of the greatest fears that Iran uses to its advantage is the continual threat that if action is taken against them they will shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the small body of water separating Iran from Oman and the only entrance or exit from the Persian Gulf. This act would shut down all oil shipment from the area.

This again is an act of terrorism by Iran creating fear in the markets and oil needy countries that the Middle East oil supply will stop flowing. I ask you, if Iran were to exercise this threat and attempt to shut down the Straits does anyone actually believe it will be allowed to happen ? For instance at this moment the USS Eisenhower and Stennis Carrier Groups are stationed in the Gulf and have been practicing war games in the vicinity of Iran as a show of force. With this much fire power, the equivalent of several COUNTRIES in just the two Carrier Groups, would Iran have the capability of actually shutting down the Straits and if so could it last for more than a few hours? I think not.

Yet daily this rogue terrorist regime is catered to with only weak and meaningless UN sanctions placed against them which Iran immediately ignores and the Mullahs and Mahmoud continue to grow in confidence that they can do what ever they please.

It would not take a massive invasion or even a prolonged attack to put this regime and their continual actions and threats against the world in its place. First there is a strong and growing movement in Iran against the regime and its fanatical Islamic beliefs. A Movement that if given the right incentive and sign from the west has all the indications that it is strong enough with backing to topple the Mullahs and Mahmoud. Second Iran though having a sizable manned force in comparison to others in the region, does not have the capability to withstand or defend against a planned, strong and devastating strike from the Stennis and the Eisenhower to knock this regime down a peg or two.

President Reagan proved that these fanatical regimes can be kicked in the pants and put in their place when Libya's leader Muammar Al-Qaddafi was acting similarly to the leaders of Iran today. In 1986, Lybia was a small player using terrorism as a tactic to play on the big stage and creating fear just as Iran is today. On April 15, 1986 President Reagan ordered a quick and decisive air attack on Lybia in retaliation for a West Berlin discotheque bombing April 5, 1985 and other terrorist acts committed by this regime. This action not only knocked Qaddafi down to size but his fear of further retaliation took him off the world stage completely and he has been virtually quiet ever since.

Iran is the Lybia of today and are using terrorist threats and actions as Qaddafi did, creating similar fear and appeasement. Until action is taken to put Iran in its place they will continue to hold the world hostage over the Straits of Hormuz and the regime with be further emboldened into believing that they are untouchable.

Additionally a quick and decisive strike coupled with what I am sure is covert activity with the growing groups against the current regime would most likely be the catalyst to the collapse of the Mullahs and the end of the reign of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ken Taylor

THE CONSTITUTION PART VII - ABORTION

Fourteenth Amendment Section I- Due Process Clause -"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

One of the most controversial Constitutional decisions and questions that has continually perplexed this nation since its first introduction is the Supreme Court's Decision in 1973 on abortion in the famous case of Roe vs. Wade.

In this landmark case the nine Justices of the Supreme Court using the Due Process Clause stating a right to privacy ruled that all state and federal laws outlawing abortion were unconstitutional and therefore since that time because of this decision abortion has been considered, "the law of the land."

First let me state for the record that as a conservative I am opposed to abortion but in writing this article my views on the matter are not what will be expressed nor will this be an article that argues the merits pro or con of abortion.

The sole purpose of this series is to look at the Constitution from an original intent view point and from the fact that the Framers in their collective wisdom in establishing the Constitution provided laws to govern this nation and provisions within the Constitution to adapt through the amendment process this foundation to societal changes. Additionally through this in depth look at our Constitution this series is attempting to reveal misconceptions in what is believed by many to be Constitutional fact and what is not.

The misconception from a strict Constitutional stand point that abortion is legal and the law of the land is arguably one of the most misunderstood and has created the greatest fire storm in our nations history.

Let me explain why. Regardless of ones view point concerning abortion the case of Roe vs. Wade which outlawed all state and federal laws banning abortion, while eliminating laws that prevented abortion DID NOT create any law legalizing abortion either.

The great misconception concerning a woman's, "Constitutional right, " to an abortion has created the idea that it is also a legislated fact that abortion is because of the Supreme Court decision, "law." Which is not the case at all.

Under the first three Articles of the Constitution the Framers of the Constitution established a well defined Separation of Powers between the three branches of government, The Executive, (the President), The Legislative, (The Congress), and the Judicial, ( Federal Courts). Additionally Section IV of Article IV also allows for the institution of this, "Republican Form of Government," (referring to our being a Constitutional Republic and not the party by the same name), for every State that is admitted to this Union.

In order for any matter to become law in The United States it first must be established and passed by the duly elected Legislative officers of the government. In the case of the Federal government this is the sole duty of the Congress. On the State level this duty falls to the individual state legislatures.

While many states have established legislation concerning abortion since 1973 and the Roe vs Wade decision on the federal level only a ban on Partial Birth Abortion currently exists and is being challenged waiting hearings by the Supreme Court. Also FACE, (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act), which provides for criminal and civil action against obstruction of entrance to an abortion clinic. This to is facing a First Amendment challenge before the Supreme Court. Other legislative initiatives that are pending cover a provision for elimination of federal funds for abortion.

The misconception that Abortion is, "the law of the land, " has thus created ongoing argument between Pro - Life and Abortion activists, continual debate within Congress with much discussion as to whether Roe vs. Wade should or should not be over turned but with the exception of the above mentioned duly voted on and passed federal legislative decisions there are no federal laws establishing whether abortion is legal or illegal therefore there is NO law stating that abortion is, "the law of the land." Only a Supreme Court decision on a particular case that over turned all existing anti-abortion laws that were in existence at the time of the decision in 1973.

While the debate concerning abortion and the protests for or against will continue in the nation the fact is the from a strict Constitutional stand point abortion in neither legal or illegal in this country because there have been no laws passed other than those already mention that legislate the status of this much argued and controversial subject.

Lawmakers in Congress realize this but because of the great controversy that abortion creates nationwide have as a whole refuse to address this subject from the stand point of the law as Congress Constitutionally establishes law thus allowing the misconception from a Constitutional stand point that abortion is, "the law of the land."

Ken Taylor

THE WAR AT HOME - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

The war continues and it is taking its toll on the American people, Washington , politics, our free society and of course the troops. I am not referring to The War On Terror, or any aspect of it whether Iraq, Afghanistan or the continuing process of finding and flushing our the Islamic fanatics who wish to terrorize our nation and destroy all that we are.

The , " war, " I make reference to is right here at home within our very borders. It appears daily on the news. Every time the radio brings the top and bottom of the hour news break this , "war, " is front and center. It dominates the headlines of every newspaper in every city and town. Nearly every commentary on the web makes reference to it in one form or another.

This, "war, " fights for the very soul of our society and in the process it hampers the real battle against the true enemy of every American, Islamic fanatics. And the true enemy is taking advantage of this, "war, " to position, arm and recruit to better kill Americans.

The, "war, " that we are fighting, while headlines mention Iraq and other battlefields in the real war, is right here at home and the center theater of this, "war, " are the halls of Congress and the 24/7 news cycle which broadcasts the daily confrontations to the American people.

We are at war with ourselves and there never can be any winners in this type of war. It happened once before in the sixties over Vietnam and many on the left have tried to use the current fight as a comparison to that war. But truly there is no comparison between the two except that those in opposition to the current fight are turning on the troops as they did in the sixties.

Instance after instance are surfacing where the troops themselves are becoming the focus of protests, talk shows and now the actions of the Democrat controlled United Sates Congress. Sickening pictures of protesters with signs like, "F*** the troops, " and burning a soldier in effigy are showing their ugly face. Instances of spitting and name calling of honored heroes who come to protests to show their support for the mission and express their belief in the current fight are becoming more and more prevalent. Liberal talk show hosts like Rosie O'Donnell are constantly claiming that our troops are torturing innocent civilians or prisoners and arguing that rather than this being isolated incidents which always happen in war , the entire military is blamed and not just the few. 60 minutes sets up and destroys a soldier during a program advertised as an investigation into one particular incident.

Now the Congress under Democrat leadership is using the political process to rob troops of necessary funding to protect themselves and best fight the war against our real enemy Islamic fanatics. The leadership in the House in order to force passage of the current, "funding, " bill with unconstitutional provisions of time lines and manipulation of strategy which is the Constitutional Authority of the Commander in Chief and not the Congress, has used millions of dollars in pork barrel bribes added to the bill to twist members of their own party into voting for the bill instead of following their conscience. And sadly the spineless members have been bought and paid for by the bribes and the bill passed, leaving the President no alternative but to veto a funding bill for the protection of the troops!

It is time to wake up and realize what is happening. We are not at war with ourselves but instead with an enemy who will stop at nothing to kill every single American regardless of politics or philosophy or appeasement. The truth is the real enemy of America wants us dead and our country destroyed. Yet liberals and Democrat leadership would rather fight Americans that the radical Islamic enemy who does not care about even their politics except as a diversion from the war against terrorism.

Are we so removed from the terrible events of September 11 that we have forgotten why we are fighting in the first place ? I am tired of hearing the liberal argument that, "we support Afghanistan and all of the troops, " while the Democrat Congress plays games with funding for , "all of the troops." The lie is evident and the troops are the victims of this war at home. The lame arguments for political gain and the destruction of the President because of a continual brewing anger over the 2000 election has turned Iraq into a battle of politics instead of a fight for freedom and against an enemy that has stated that Iraq is the center of the, "Holy Jihad, " against the infidel. The very person that the left cries fowl because he is still at large stated this, Usama Bin Laden.

The war we fight is not just against Al Qaeda because they attacked us but against fanatical Islam who seeks our destruction. Al Qaeda's attack on September 11 was the catalyst to wage war against this fanatical enemy whose real purpose was not understood until the Towers fell. This enemy includes Al Qaeda, the current Iranian regime and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who just this past week committed an out right act of war by taking a British vessel in open waters and all 15 crew members hostage. Other groups such as Hamas, and Hezbollah are just the more well know members of radical Islam whose numbers are more than the many who make the news and who have as their goal and sole purpose our death and destruction.

While we wage this war at home against our troops, and among politicians who fight for the vote of the American people our real enemy is watching, arming, recruiting and planning. While we fight among ourselves they wait in sleeper cells, some in our own country, cities and towns, for the next 9/11 or worse. They are patient and cunning and the pure essence of evil. It may not be tomorrow or next week or even next year but this enemy will strike and will strike hard against us again. Then we will wonder how it happened and attempt to place blame but the real reason will escape us because in our debates and infighting here at home we have forgotten what they did to us and wish to do to us again. We are being lulled to sleep to the threat of a very dangerous, systematic and ruthless enemy. An enemy that we have the power and the means to defeat and utterly destroy but sadly lack the will and resolve to fight until final victory.

But we are to busy fighting among ourselves to finish what they started. To busy playing politics to fund the troops. To busy arguing about federal attorneys and Karl Rove and Global Warming. They are not too busy to wait and watch and plan and one day sooner then later while we sleep in the midst of our politics they will kill again and again and again, until we finally wake up and stand together and destroy the real enemy of all Americans. Let us hope that it will not be to late!

Ken Taylor

PRESIDENT 08 AND SOME OF THE CANDIDATES

• The genealogy of Al Gore and his Gorwellian beliefs have been with us for quite some time. Now the above Gore's ancestor makes his way to Capitol Hill and says, "the earth has a fever and needs a doctor." Maybe this is why the Dems are pushing Universal Health Care so they can find a provider for Gorwellian Global Warming. Or is the Alster making a platform for 08? Maybe the Dem run for 08 will soon be , "heating up, " with the induction of the Alster. Hey now I get it heating up a Presidential race....that's what he means by Global Warming being man made and not a natural cycle!
  McCain has always lead the way with, "straight talk." Straight to the press, straight to the cameras and straight to the Benedict Arnold school of politics!
  The true platform that the Hildabeast bases her 08 run on. At the rate she is going the only Mountain that will compete with her pile of lies is, (choose one)
  
  A. Mt. Everest
  B. Al Gore and his, "evidence," of Global Warming
  C. Her husband and his entire Presidency
  D. All of the above
  
  
  Ken Taylor

DEMOCRATS AND THE DANGER THEY POSE

While I am sure that many in the Democrat Party consider themselves as Patriotic as the next guy or gal and that what I am writing hear does not apply to all Democrats or liberals, many of the actions especially of the leadership and those elected in Washington and the far left makes one wonder just who they believe is our enemy.

When the Democrats were in the Minority most of the rhetoric that they spewed was harmless enough since they did not have the power to actually put action behind many of their words. Now don't get me wrong I fully believe that while their Minority status did not afford them much as far as the legislative process is concerned, their rhetoric did cause unmeasurable damage in the fact that it has succeeded in turning the country against the war and has hindered the way in which we are fighting the war in order to appease these appeasers.

Now that they are in power their words have the strength of policy making, legislating and using up tax payer time and money for endless hearings which legally have no leg to stand on, ( and they know this), but succeed in crossing the Separation of Powers and possibly placing the country in a Constitutional crises because of their demands in continually and needlessly investigating the White House.

So the question comes to mind, "just who do the Democrats believe is our enemy?"

We are at war. A war like no other. We face an enemy on may different fronts whose only goal is our destruction if we do not assimilate into their radical Islamic beliefs. They do not negotiate except to possibly buy time to build a nuclear arsenal as is the case with Iran. Talking in any manner has no effect because they view us as infidels who are ignorant and are no better than the lowliest of animals. They continually plot and plan to find any means available to kill us. They use unconventional means like airliners, pleasure boats, chlorine laced explosive devises and their own children and women with bombs strapped to them. They hide among civilians around the world and even live as Americans waiting for the call from Allah to kill the very people that they have called neighbor for years.

This enemy is the most devious and dangerous that this country has ever faced yet to most Democrats especially in Congress and liberals who are anti-war, anti Bush all for the sake of being just that, this enemy of America is not their enemy.

Sure to the public they talk the right game against this Islamic enemy but their actions and their politics state otherwise. The enemy of the Democrat in Congress and the liberal left wing is none other than George W. Bush and in many cases America herself.

The President in their eyes is the evil in this world and not the Islamofascists who seek our destruction. To many in the far left The United States itself is the enemy and the cause of all of the worlds problems. Congress under Democrats are spending every moment available searching for ways to scandalize the Bush Administration without a legal leg to stand on while playing games with pork barrel politics with spending bills that fund our troops and fight the true enemy!

Is this a dangerous path to follow ? Absolutely ! The focus of the nation and the Administration shifts from the war and fighting for our very way of life to having to consistently listen to daily tirades from canned and rehearsed testimonies sighting the improprieties of the Bush Administration.

Our Founders made a distinct Separation of Powers in government to allow the President to have the ability to receive candid and direct advise from Presidential Advisers. But when Advisers fear that anything they tell the President will be used by political hacks in the Democrat Majority as a means of investigation or attempts to create scandals does that advise then become hesitant or far less candid ? The answer is yes because we as humans have an instinctive right and natural response for self preservation and protection. If an Advisor thinks he/she will be investigated they are less likely to give the President the constructive advise he needs to best serve this nation.

The current hearings climate created by Democrats reveals their true face and their true enemy. The American people and the President. Al Qaeda, terrorism, Islamic radials all fall into the second tier of consideration when Democrats and the far left are fighting for power and pushing to force the American people to adhear to their ideals, agendas and philosophy. Anyone who disagrees with the left is the enemy and whether we are at war with Islamofascists or not matters little to those in Congress and on the left who deem American as the enemy and the President as the evil leading that enemy.

Ken Taylor

THE CONSTITUTION PART VI - ARTICLES IV AND V - THE STATES AND AMENDMENTS

Article IV - Section I "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Article V - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution"

This particular part of this series will cover two of the articles within the Constitution and will be the last part covering the individual articles as the final two articles numbers VI and VII cover the basic pretext of debts and the ratification of the Constitution.

Article IV specifically addresses the rights of the individual states and the rights under the Constitution that are afforded to individuals within those states. This article establishes that we as citizens have the same rights, privileges and immunities regardless of which state we reside or whether we choose to travel or move to any other state in the Union. Within this country our Constitutional rights and privileges are universal within the boundaries of this nation and we cannot be denied those rights by law.

At the time this was established by the Founders, this one article created a singularly new precedence for a nation or a collective of states. European law for example did not cross national boundaries and the individual provinces even within countries did not recognize many individual rights from one province to the next. One could feasibly find that when crossing into another province in ones own country they could violate a law that was legal within their home province.

Not so in The United States. Under our Constitution the laws of this land apply to every individual in an equal manner regardless of his home or the state that he may abide in. Equally so are the rights that are afforded us in the nation. These rights do not end at city or state boundaries but cross all boundaries and jurisdictional limits thus giving us freedom to travel and move without fear of violating an unknown law or having our freedoms denied because of our location.

The thirteenth Amendment changed a portion of Section 2 in Article IV as this amendment abolished the practice of slavery. Article IV stated that any, "person held in service or labour in one State, " would fall under the same consequences of law in the next State if they escaped. In abolishing slavery the thirteenth Amendment made this provision obsolete and unconstitutional.

The final Section of Article IV establishes that it is the duty of the federal government to guarantee that every state have the ability to have a, "Republican Form of Government, " which coincides with the Constitutional Republic that we live in and that each State shall be protected by the central federal government.

Article V establishes the Amendment provision for the Constitution. Any Amendment must be met with a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House and then is passed on to the State Legislatures who then must also consist of a three fourths majority of the collective States in order for any amendment to become part of the Constitution.

The process to Amend the Constitution was deliberately created as an exhaustive and consuming process to prevent the amending from becoming not only politically based but fleeting with the whims and fancies of the time. By demanding a two thirds majority in the Congress and a three fourths in the States, amending the Constitution requires much contemplation, debate and consideration before any changes can be made.

This provision and the fact that the Constitution is as viable today as it was the day it was written are what truly constitutes the reference of the document as being, "a living breathing document." Many though see this phrase as a way of more or less bypassing the Constitutional provision of amending by liberally interpreting the Constitution rather than following the set procedure to adapt in accordance to societal changes.

The Founders realized that society and the needs of the nation would change as we grew as a country. Thus the exhaustive amendment process made the Constitution able to adapt to the changes that have and will take place in our society. Liberal interpretation of the Constitution has in many forms usurped the amendment process and made adaptations in the way the Constitution is used to bend to ideas or agendas that would not necessarily meet the Constitutional test.

This very liberal interpretation has caused a basic dumbing down of America in knowing what the Constitution actually states and what the Founders intended when it was written. The majority of Americans now depend on their elected officials to interpret and define the Constitution rather than knowing it themselves. Liberal interpretation also allows for many misconceptions and the misleading of the nation as to what our rights and privileges are.

Several instances come to mind but one in particular that I will mention is the liberal interpretation of eminent domain. The Constitution provides for private property to be used for the ,"public good, " after the individual who owns the property is compensated fairly and due process is served accordingly. Today this is being liberally interpreted to allow developers to take private property to increase the tax base by building higher priced business or dwellings on that particular property. Many long held family homes and homesteads are falling to this unconstitutional practice.

The Founders realized that if changing the Constitution was a simple task then it would become common place for citizens to continually have our rights, freedoms and liberties abused and violated. Liberal interpretation is doing just that by bypassing the amendment process and twisting the true intent and meaning of the Constitution in order to fulfill an agenda or usurp and bend the law.

Ken Taylor

DEMOCRATS SCRAMBLE.....(SCANDAL)......FOR THE WHITE HOUSE - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

Remember the Mid Terms of last year ? There was much speculation from many sources that if the Democrats were to win the House and/or the Senate there would be a secession of endless investigations and hearings that would dominate Congress and bog down the legislative process. To this then Minority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid quickly replied, "NO."

Just after the election and the results showing the the Democrats had won majority status in both the House and the Senate the speculation concerning endless hearings continued. This time in addition to Speaker to be Pelosi and Senate Majority leader to be Reid the scratchy voice of New York's Chuck Schumer chimed in to again cry, "NO," to the speculation.

It is now March and Democrats have been in the majority for nearly three months and we have been inundated with endless hearings with cries of more to come. The latest concerns the firing of eight federal prosecutors who as everyone knows serve at the discretion of the President and as has been reported by the Washington Post and the very liberal Los Angeles Times were fired AFTER extensive, ( nearly one year), review of the job performance of the eight.

I am not going to get into these hearings per say because those who are liberal and read this have already come to the conclusion that this was a huge Bush scandal which is yet another in a long line and nothing I write or state as factual evidence will convince you otherwise and that this is just another Demcorat witch hunt.

What I do intend to conclude here is based on a memory that came to mind concerning a memo written in 2003 that was leaked from the office of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller on a Democrat strategy leading up to the 2004 Presidential election.

The memo which was issued to party and Senate Democrat leaders and members outlined a strategy that would use independent investigations to politicize Iraq intelligence and bend the truth a little leading up to the election as a means of harming the Bush administration before the election.

Now we are into another election cycle leading up to another Presidential election in 2008. This time the Democrats are the majority in Congress and no longer have to depend on, "independent investigations." As the majority it is their prerogative to hold hearings and investigations on any subject or scandal whether actual or perceived as they wish.

The current investigative hearings climate created by the Democrats seems to be following the strategy as outlined in the 2003 Rockefeller memo. Hearing after hearing continues on Capitol Hill investigating anything and everything that originates from the Bush White House.

Democrats are not nor ever have been exceptionally strong on discussing the issues. Sure they fleetingly mention them from time to time especially when campaigning and then only in a manner that is sure to provide a sound bite for the media. So what better way to manipulate the public into turning toward whomever gains the 2008 Democrat nomination but to use the Congressional Majority status and its power to investigate, creating scandal after scandal with the current Republican administration and place the idea of perceived corruption in the public eye with the eventual goal of gaining the White House.

I can see future headlines now. "PRESIDENT BUSH DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING"

Dateline Washington. In yet another scandal to rock the Bush White House Democrats in Congress are conducting investigations into possible intentional plans by the President to destroy the planet through global warming. Sources from within the White House have revealed that the President ordered broccoli to be a regular feature at all White House meals at both private and state functions.

Broccoli in its digestive form is scientifically proven to cause methane gas which is key to the creation of the , "Greenhouse effect, " that is causing the rising of global temperatures.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer stated, "the President is flagrantly using the executive power of the Presidency to create global climate change and it is our duty to investigate this and bring those involved to justice." Majority leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a joint statement calling for the President to, "cease in this immoral and deliberate attack on the environment."

Democrats are calling for the resignation of the White House Chef who has apoligized for the manner in which he cooked the broccoli.

While the above is a satirical reference to the Democrat's endless investigation and hearings agenda it is very reflective of the trivial nature of this entire process. The Democrats in a mad scramble to capture the White House are using the Congress as a means to create a scandal ridden climate and in the mean time consuming tax payers money and time for political gain while accomplishing nothing because there is nothing to accomplish!

With the current seemingly endless election cycle which finds one election over and the campaigning for the next beginning almost immediately is this the wave of the future ? Democrats historical thrive on scandal as a means of gaining political points with the electorate. Now that the run for the White House has already begun, their current hearings driven agenda makes it obvious that we are experiencing just the tip of the iceberg of the perceived scandals and investigating, hearings and scandal strategy of the Congressional leadership and their scramble to win the Presidency!

Ken Taylor

LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES -YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE!

So as Democrats in the Senate introduce yet another plan to pull out the troops, let's see I believe this in number 17 and running, just exactly WHO are they really supporting. They say the troops but.........
The Democrats idea of Capitalism. Support the Unions, bleed business, tax employees, regulate industry and of course hold hearings on ways to slap a, "windfall profit tax, " on the oil companies and anyone else who actually thinks that making a profit is why you get into business in the first place!
An entire week has gone by and believe it or not no one has announced that they are running for President in 2008. So how many of you are really excited about the prospects ? Do I hear a collective HO HUM ? The only question I have at the moment is a paraphrase from the title of an old sixties sitcom called, "Car 54 Where Are you ?" " Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich Where Are You ?"

Ken Taylor

THE CONSTITUTION PART V - ARTICLE III - THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

Article III, Section I, "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

The third Article of the Constitution which established the federal court system of the United States and which I might add is the pattern for the individual state systems, has been at the center of much discussion and political meandering for the last several years.

In fact a term that is applied to this particular branch has evolved because of the controversy surrounding the courts and what their true authority as the third branch of government is. That term is "legislating from the bench." Referring to the practice by many of the lesser courts and a few instances from the Supreme Court where law was actually established from the courts through court rulings and not from the Congress which is the duly Constitutionally appointed branch of the government to create and in act the laws of the nation.

Of the first three Articles of the Constitution which establish the three branches of government Article three concerning the Judiciary is the most concise because the powers of the Judicial Branch are plain and simple. It is the responsibility of the federal courts to have judicial power over cases of law and to apply the law in accordance to the Constitution to each case as the enforcement of that law.

The Judiciary reviews each case that, "arises under the Constitution, " for the sole purpose of applying the law as the judges on the court interpret the law for that particular case. The Federal Court system consists of several different levels with the final level consisting of the Supreme Court which is the last stop of appeal from a lesser court judgement. Of course each level has the ability to deny a hearing to that court if the case being reviewed is seen to have been settled in accordance to the law by the preceding courts judgement.

One of the many misconceptions concerning the Supreme Court is the number of Judges appointed to the Court and whether that number is specifically established by the Constitution. The actual number is not stated by the Constitution and throughout our history has varied according to the appointments of the sitting President. In many instances when the number was larger the size of the Court was determined by how many appointment favors that the President was inclined to make. The Court has had as many as twelve Justices but the current number of nine began during the administration of FDR and has remained consistent since then.

The Judiciary because of its very conception and reason for existence is supposed to be non-political but again the historical evidence shows that many of the decisions of the court were based on the political climate of the time.

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 is one example which in today's political climate would be considered very unconstitutional. The Court ruling in the case established that all blacks were not nor ever could be citizens of The United States and it declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional which allowed that all US territories were considered free. Thus creating slavery as , "law, " in all territories. This is but one of many decisions based on political climate and not the Constitution.

This example also shows that the practice of, "legislating from the bench, " has been in existence throughout our history, but it would seem never as blatant or consistent as it is today.

The practice by the courts at any level of creating legislation or law through a particular court decision has become common place both at the state and federal level with certain courts becoming quite famous for the practice. The most obvious is the Ninth Circuit Court which is in San Fransisco, California who have continually established law through their decisions but fortunately when appealed to a higher court have had many over turned.

Nowhere in the third Article does it state that the Judicial Branch has the ability or the power to create law, establish legislation, or enforce a law that was not created through the proper Constitutional provision from the Congress which is the Legislative Branch.

Yet despite this very well defined Constitutional provision and the equally defined separation of Legislative and Judicial powers of the Congress and the Courts, it has become the practice that when political parties, action groups, lobbyists, powerful financial interests, etc cannot get legislation passed through Congress, they will in turn take the matter to the Courts. The Courts then will pass judgement on the case and establish through that judgement a particular law and rule that the law established by the court will be enforced as such, which is a direct violation of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.

If the judgement by the court is in conjunction with defining the legality or lack thereof of EXISTING law established by the Legislative Branch whether state or federal then the ruling of the court is Constitutional. But as has been the case especially in recent years if the judgement is in conjunction with a legislative agenda that has not followed Constitutional procedure of passage into law by state or federal legislative branches then the ruling if deemed by the court to be, "law, " is unconstitutional.

The purpose of legislation being created by the elected Legislative Branch rather than the Judicial Branch was to allow representation in law by the people of the country. Judges are appointed and as such are not answerable to the people therefore the responsibility of legislating does not Constitutionally fall within their powers. Their sole and only responsibility is enforcement and interpretation of existing laws.

This strict Constitutional division of powers between the three branches of government defines our protection as citizens from the power of the central federal government. Establishing representation for the people as elected by the people. And allows us as citizens an avenue through the courts to legally question a law which we consider a violation our rights and our freedoms.

Ken Taylor

IRAQ - HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER ?-THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

As has been the case for quite some time Iraq is front and center in the news. But an amazing thing is taking place despite the usual rhetoric from the left and some of the media. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported from Iraq during the Nightly News broadcast and more extensive reports on Dateline NBC the evening news magazine show. Williams reported that the , "surge, " the name given the recent troop increase by President Bush, was working.

The shocking aspect of this one simple admission by Williams is that it comes in the midst of a concerted effort by the Main Stream Press and the left to portray anything from Iraq as a total failure and report only bombings, violence and body counts. Also this report aired as Democrats were preparing the latest in a long line of Democrat legislation to pull out of Iraq claiming that the new strategy which has just begun was a failure.

So the question arises, if Williams reported this success, have we then actually turned the corner toward the end game and final victory in Iraq ? Personally this writer understands that there is far more evidence of success in Iraq than failure and that Iraq has come far from the days of Saddam Hussein with ample progress to prove its success. But for the sake of argument let's say Iraq has been a total failure and now the new strategy is turning that around.

General David Petraeus recently appointed commander of multi-national forces in Iraq stated last week that along with the military intervention there must be a successful political solution to the situation in Iraq. To this the MSM and the left misrepresenting the Generals statement immediately followed by claiming even the commanding General admits that the military avenue is failing.

Petraeus was simply stating fact that this as in any war cannot be successful simply by the use of the military but must work in conjunction with a political solution especially in the Iraq situation where an infant government is growing from the diaper stage to that of a toddler.

While the Maliki government has not been exactly flamboyant in its handling of Iraq it is imperative to remember that it IS the duly elected government by the people of Iraq and we as the adult advisor for an infant government do not have the luxury of removing the child since it is the people's choice but to help nurture it through the growing stages of life. As with any infant there are pains in growing and this government is no exception.

During and immediately after our own Revolution our infant government went through several changes that were extremely painful and nearly saw the collapse of the fledgling nation. Our first attempt at organized government under the Articles of Confederation which depended on the combined will of each state was a total failure. After the British surrendered in 1781 the nation suffered through tremendous economic depression, anarchy and even rebellious insurgency which almost ended this , "Grand Experiment." It was not until 1787 with the establishment of the Constitution and then its ratification in 1788 the we began the slow march to full success.

George Washington became the first President in 1789 fully eight years after the surrender of the British and 13 years after Independence was declared giving birth to a new nation. Iraq's government is but FIVE YEARS old and for the first time in the history of this ancient nation which reaches back to ancient Babylon, a free Democracy has risen with all of the growing pains of not only a new nation but a nation that has never experienced this form of government before.

As with any new nation there are many who will fight to prevent change opting to kill rather than accept the new. The insurgency that is taking place is just that, a refusal by many to accept the new and the will of the people. While the factions who fight have rivalries that can be traced for centuries, the root of the trouble is the refusal to accept a Democratic form of government which balances power among all people and does not favor just one faction or group. With Saddam and before Iraq was ruled by the stronger faction whether Shiite or Sunni and now they are by the will of the people seeking a balance in government between the two.

It also now appears through much evidence that the violence associated with the insurgency is decreasing, because of the troop increase and change in strategy allowing troops to operate more freely in areas deemed untouchable before. Muqtada al-Sadr has fled to Iran to avoid possible capture under the new plan. Areas especially around Baghdad are now seeing less violence and a semblance of peace and stability that has not been the case prior to this strategy. Also Al Qaeda has decreased in its attacks with additional capture of higher ranking leaders and the further elimination of terrorist fighters.

Iraq is far from a total success but it is also very far from the complete failure that has been portrayed by the press and the left. Our presence there is a necessary element to insure the completion of the transition from tyrannical government to that of a Democracy. Our troops are successfully training Iraqi Security Forces so that one day soon Iraq will stand and defend her own government with a force trained to handle insurgency, terrorism and rebellion. Pulling out before the government and forces are prepared to handle the situation will only insure the collapse of the freely elected government of the people and the return to a dictatorial regime with Al Qaeda freely operating in the country using it as a operational base.

Ken Taylor

MARCH BLOG OF THE MONTH

The Blog of the Month spotlight for March falls on , "Our Country." An interesting combination of video, commentary, political cartoons and news and information from a more conservative view point. The list of resources for political junkies is exhaustive. Well worth linking to and adding as a source for information and reading.

DEMOCRATS AND THE TROOPS!

Borrowed this from, " Maries Two Cents, " and thought it very appropriate in light of the legislative move by the Dems in the House and the 17 plans by Dems in both the House and the Senate to stab the troops in the back!

Ken Taylor

DEMOCRATS PUSHING SURRENDER BY WITHDRAWAL

In a move that once again challenges the Constitutional authority of the deployment of troops by the President, House Democrats are preparing legislation that calls for a fazed troop pull out by the fall of 2008.

Additionally if the Iraqi government does not meet certain security goals the Democrat plan will escalate the pull out as a punishment for not complying to the planned security take over by the Maliki government.

This troop pull out is being tagged to the current request by the Bush Administration for an additional 100 billion dollars for the Iraq theater. In essence the Democrats are holding hostage funding for Iraq with unconstitutional plans for redeployment of troops which does not fall under their authority concerning the military.

By setting a date in this Democrat surrender move the House will give enemy forces both insurgent and terrorist a time line for American troop withdrawal which will allow this enemy to wait out and bide their time until next fall. Then after American troops leave have a virtual free reign to establish a terrorist haven in Iraq along with the militant Shiite's taking control of unprotected provinces.

Any military strategist will readily state the fallacy of this Democrat move because it clearly telegraphs to the enemy strategy because of this timetable. It also removes much of the decision making on the ground by command and control under General Petraeus as his decisions will be forced to comply with the Congressionaly mandated time line.

Democrats are attempting to usurp the Constitutional authority of the President while tying the hands of commanders in theater by forcing them to this timetable for withdrawal. Additionally the Maliki government will be held hostage to Democrat views of its progress. Democrats who have long opposed our presence in Iraq will deem anything that the Iraqi government does or takes longer to do than planned as evidence for an immediate pull out of American troops for non-compliance to the goals set for the government. Democrats will be looking for any reason to exercise this provision.

In conjunction to this benchmark provision for the Iraqi government, the bill also calls for the President to certify to Congress that the Maliki government has met the benchmarks and if not the immediate withdrawal of a certain percentage of troops will follow each certification that did not meet with the standards called for by Democrats.

This once again over steps Congressional authority over the military. The President is not required to certify military progress to the Congress but only to report on a regular basis. This certification process removes military control from the Commander in Chief and hands it over to the Congress as they will become the governmental branch that decides troop deployment and whether strategy is being accomplished.

There is some dissension with Democrats in the House for this move and Nancy Pelosi and House leaders are meeting behind closed doors to use the usual strong arm tactics to , "change, " the mind of Democrats who disagree. The vote is to take place later this month and a defeat would be considered a blow to Pelosi's leadership and her stance for troop withdrawal.

This blatant attempt by the Democrat House to hold funding hostage, usurp the Commander in Chief authority of the President for strategic and deployment use of the military and benchmark punishment of the Maliki government by holding troop withdrawal as the price of meeting goals is a dangerous precedence for the military, the nation, the Presidency and the Constitution. Democrats in this one move are attempting to rewrite the Constitution with legislation designed to cross the separation of powers and in the process raise the white flag of surrender to the enemy.

There is rejoicing in Baghdad today by insurgents and Al Qaeda as they have found an American ally in the Democrats of the House of Representatives.

Ken Taylor

THE CONSTITUTION PART IV - ARTICLE II, THE PRESIDENCY

Article II, Section 1, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Probably the best know Article of the Constitution, Article II which established the Presidency is one of the most misunderstood and in some cases the most scrutinized as it out lines the authority, responsibilities and so called, "powers," of the most powerful individual in the world, the President of The United States of America.

The President is elected directly by the people which in itself is a singular identification for a national leader in the world. Monarchy's follow a blood line or an ascension if that blood line no longer exists when there if no heir to the throne. Prime Ministers as Heads of State are chosen from the majority party of the particular Parliament who were elected by the people. Dictators are chosen through their own means whether by over throwing a reigning government or simply killing a leader and taking their place. In some instances as in Nazi Germany a dictator rises to power through a parliamentary process and then eliminates all other power but his own.

The President of the United States is elected to office directly by the people every four years and as such is also directly accountable to and responsible to the citizens who elected him. While in certain circumstances he must report to the Congress he ultimately answerable and responsible to the people.

His very oath of office which is taken directly from the Constitution out lines the primary responsibility of the President. "I (stating name), do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." While this is the primary responsibility of the President it is at times also the most controversial since it involves in most instances his use of the military as Commander in Chief as well as intelligence agencies whose very purpose is the secretive gathering of information to allow the CIC to make the best decision in the protection of the nation.

The protective responsibilities and authority of the President are not out lined in detail in the Constitution since the Founders could not have know the ramifications that the future could bring to the powers of the President. As Commander in Chief he is the sole civilian authority for the military and as such he alone is responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States" This authority consists of all command decisions which include deployment, strategy, execution of that strategy, and all aspect of command and control while the military is in action.

While the Constitution states that he may, "require the opinion," with the key word being, "opinion, " from , " the principle officer in each of the executive Departments, " the President bares sole authority for the use of and the action of the military. He must report to Congress concerning the use of and the actions of the military in time of war, or other hostilities, but he alone is the responsibile party of the government and the Congress had no authority concerning military matters other than provision and maintenance.

Another source of contention in Article III is the establishment of what has become known as the Electoral College. Especially in light of the 2000 election there has been considerable controversy over the College and calls for amending the Constitution for its elimination.

The Founders original intent with the Electoral process which is still very valid today was to prevent the election of a President solely by the most populace cities and states in the Union so that every state through the election process could have a voice in the election of the President. Without the electors even today the most populace states like California, New York and Florida to name a few would by the size of their population alone give cause for campaigns to visit these states only and when the final tally was in on election night these few states would decide the Presidency.

The Electoral process allows for lesser populated states to have an equal voice in the election of a President as that of the more populace states which makes for the election of a President by the entire country instead of a few choice populated states.

The President is given Constitution authority for the appointment of Ambassadors, Department Heads and all federal courts which includes the Supreme Court. This appointment is with the, "advise and consent, " of the Senate which means exactly what it says. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to force a Presidential appointment to a two thirds vote in order to block an appointment. The two thirds vote applies in accordance with the Constitution only for the implementation of treaties negotiated by the President.

The advise and consent responsibility of the Senate is solely to review with the President the appointees qualifications and not to block or eliminate the Presidential authority for this appointment.

If this were not the case then the next paragraph of the Constitution would not allow the President the authority to make appointments while the Senate was in recess. While this appointment expires at the end of a particular session of Congress it does place emphasis that the sole authority for appointment is that of the President and not the Senate.

The President is also responsible to the law. As such the Founders instituted the ability to impeach and remove a President from office. Most believe that these two actions are one in the same. They are not. Impeachment is undertaken by the House of Representatives who if presented with indictments of, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, " by the President then present to the full House Articles for Impeachment and after debate vote for or against.

This does not remove a President from office. The Senate then places the same indictments and President on public trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the presiding officer of the court and if found guilty the President then is removed from office. Two President's have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, but when tried in the Senate were not removed from office.

The President of The United States while a singularly powerful Executive office for the people of this nation has by design of the Constitution checks and balances through being responsible to the people first and reporting to the Congress, which prevent the Presidency from becoming a dictatorial office or a monarchy. This also is a distinct reminder of the freedom of our Republic as no one man though the most powerful in the world can trample the rights and liberties of the citizens of our nation.

Ken Taylor

TEMPORARILY AWAY

This morning an accident occurred that resulted in my waking to a car in my front porch. The driver was not injured but my porch and the telephone and cable junction box for the area is gone. She was rear ended while turning left and hit the gas then hit my house.

I am using a friends computer to post this because my DSL is gone and will be down until the phone company comes to replace it. So needless to say posting will be delayed until then. Thanks for your understanding and hope to be back soon.

Ken

THE GOP - HAS IT FORGOTTEN REAGAN ? - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

He gave the GOP its conservative soul and began a movement that elevated the Republican Party to political prominence. Ronald Wilson Reagan the 40th President of The United States presented a philosophy of conservatism that politically called for reducing government then limiting its influence in American society, cutting taxes and giving the people back their money. Providing for a strong defense to protect America while reaching out to the world with the American ideal if freedom.

More than this political philosophy President Reagan brought an optimism in America that saw this nation as the, "shining city on a hill," the last best hope of the world for freedom. His optimism and belief in the American people was contagious and when he said we could accomplish anything, we believed him and we did. When he said, "tear down this wall, " we knew that it would happen. When he told us America's best days were ahead, we knew he was right. Reagan made us believe, Republican, Democrat and Independent alike in ourselves, our country and in the American spirit and because of this belief America became the, "shining city on the hill."

Under Reagan's leadership the GOP adopted conservatism as its core of values and the very soul of the party. Even after he left the White House this core continued and the American people understood that this was the America they wanted and the GOP grew with conservatism. Has the GOP forgotten Reagan and lost its soul ? While the party still loves and remembers the man, I believe they have forgotten why he was so admired and how his philosophy of conservatism gave the country and the party its strength.

As we begin the race for the 08 Presidential run most of the candidates while expressing some conservative values and ideas leave much to be desired in understanding and following true Reagan conservatism. Many claim to be Reagan Conservatives like John McCain but their record and their ideas prove otherwise.

Those elected in Congress as a whole have drifted so far from Reagan conservative ideals and policies that the electorate chose to cast them out of the majority accepting the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid liberal agenda rather than allowing the GOP to continue to meander in the soulless state that they now find themselves.

Poll after poll show that the majority of the country is or leans more conservative yet the GOP has to a certain extent ignored this and we now find ourselves with a Congress that has already begun a greater march to big government, exhaustive regulations, the gradual dismantling of business which drives Capitalism and a successful economy. Threats of taxation which will eventually find fruition in the present Congress and the weakening of our national defense pressing for a slow strategy of surrender in the war to defeat an enemy whose desire is our destruction.

The optimism that President Reagan shared with us has turned, because of a constant barrage of negativism from the media and the left into a pessimism in our nation that even doubts whether we can win this war and despite a strong economy this pessimism cries foul and most believe the economy is weak.

President Reagan reminded us of who we are as a nation and the greatness of America. The GOP understood this and followed his ideals and political philosophy and continued both even after Alzheimer's had taken him from public appearances. Then gradually as time went by the GOP lost touch with Reaganism and soon the distinction between parties began to fade as the GOP grew government, spent wildly and forgot its soul. The American people seeing no distinction last November threw out the GOP and now we face a liberal agenda that is opposite of what conservatism brought to our nation.

Reagan Conservatism continually gave us the optimism and belief that we as Americans could achieve anything. It rekindled the spirit of 1776 which gave birth to our nation and the establishment of freedom as a form of government by the people. We understood that a strong defense coupled with a limited government protected and allowed these freedoms to thrive. Reagan knew this and through his flamboyant personality we accepted it and lived it.

The GOP can bring this philosophy of Reagan Conservatism to America again and regain its soul. It will take a steadfast discipline of mind and politics to do so but it can be done. While there will never be another Reagan his ideals and his philosophy of government and belief in the people still remain. It is just beneath the surface of the current political climate and all it will take is a demand by the people whom Reagan believed in with all of his heart to rekindle the soul of the GOP and the conservative optimism that changed the nation and the world.

Ken Taylor

THOUGHT PROVOKING ?

Could this be the future for The United States with the invasion from Mexico?????
Al, "Thurmon, " Sharpton. This one will be fun. A big part of me wants the DNA test Sharpton is getting to come back positive just to see what sort of reaction Sharpton and his buddy Jesse will have. I can almost guarantee that one of their first orders of business will be to seek reparations from the Thurmon family!

Ken Taylor

PRESIDENT 2008 - TO MUCH TOO EARLY ?

It is March of 2007 and already 12 Republicans, 11 Democrats, 8 Libertarians and 8 Independents have either officially announced, formed exploratory committees or expressed serious interest in running for the Presidency in 2008. One candidate Democrat Tom Vilsak has already bowed out and we are, including this month, still TEN MONTHS from the FIRST Primary.

The first primaries, or caucuses of Iowa and New Hampshire have moved into January from late February with South Carolina also moving into January for the Democrats and early February for the GOP. Additionally 19 states have either already passed or have bills pending in their state legislatures moving their primary to February 5, 2008 with more than 125 MILLION registered voters having the possibility of casting ballots on that day. It is also expected that because of the large number of states involved on the fifth that other states will follow suit.

Is this anxiousness to throw the, "hat into the ring, " to much too early for the voter ? While this early influx of Presidential politics plays perfectly to the 24/7 news cycle it is finding little interest with the voting public and by the time the primaries actually arrive the electorate will be burnt out with the actual burn out most likely beginning this summer. Will this burn out also cause a lack of numbers at the polls in the primaries and in November when the actual election takes place ? Very possible.

The early primaries and the sheer number of primaries will also cause the candidates to dwindle early for two reasons. One is the money. With this many candidates there is simply not enough money to go around especially with the exorbitant cost of a Presidential campaign. So the front runners will find the greatest financial support with the remainder left to whither on the financial vine. Second with the number of early primaries the nominee will be decided most likely by March and the conventions are not until August and September. Both of these factors severely hamper the choice that voters have in candidates and satisfaction in addressing issues important to each individual. We may very well be faced early next year with having to settle for whom ever is in the lead whether we fully support them or not. Which too could attribute to lesser voter turn out in November.

Prior to this year most candidates did not announce their candidacy until at least the fall of the year prior to the first primaries. Those who did announce earlier found little interest in their campaign and in most cases bowed out early or had extremely poor showings in early primaries . In 1960 President Kennedy for example did not announce until January of the year of the election. For 2008 the candidates have placed their campaigns in full swing so much earlier than usual that the back lash in interest and in actual voting could mean that the next President could be elected by a decided minority of eligible voters.

Those possible candidates who are waiting to see how the field plays like Republican Newt Gingrich could find themselves, even if there is strong interest by the voters, blocked out of a viable chance because of the lack of money for their Presidential run. Which again could very well cause voters to settle for candidates rather than heartily support them simply because the finances and the early announcements favor the front runners.

Has the process to become President become to much of a media and big bucks circus ? Absolutely! The three rings that are already in full force for next years election is proving that. The ultimate losers in this circus are the American people who for the first time in our history could find ourselves with a new President who is elected by the smallest percentage of eligible voters and one in whom the American people settled because the haste for candidacy leave us with little alternative.

Ken Taylor