On the Mike Gallagher show, I heard a debate about endorsing candidates for office. The office in question is the 23^rd district in New York. There is a candidate that went through the nominating process for the party and has the Republican Party endorsement. She is very liberal on most issues. There is also a Conservative Party candidate that has values closer to those of most conservatives around the country. The debate is which should we get behind, the one that got the party nomination and is liberal or the conservative candidate who did not place high in the party nominating process.

Newt Gingrich has endorsed the Republican candidate for the office. He is catching a lot of flak for endorsing her because of her liberal views. His take on the issue is that you sometimes have to accept candidates that are not 100% with you on all the issues. He cited some examples when he was running for Speaker of the House and after he obtained Speaker. Lee Habib, the Mike Gallagher show political expert, seconded the endorsement by Newt. He cited the example of the Democrats recruiting conservative Democrats to run in Republican districts and winning.

Callers to the show were not necessarily so forgiving. Most were tired of having liberal RINO Republicans voting with the Democrats to destroy important legislation or pass Democrat legislation that is equally destructive. Their point is that it is better to have reliable conservative votes than having unreliable RINO votes.

My position is somewhere close to Newt’s position. It is most important to win and be in a position to direct the affairs of the House and Senate. Second is passing or defeating certain legislation. That said, it is also important that people in your party have certain “core values” that are important legislatively. That does not mean that the candidate has to have all Republican “core values”, just those that will enable the important legislation to get through.

Then we have to decide what are the most important “core values” that a candidate would have to have in order to get an endorsement. In my humble opinion, the candidate would have to be a fiscal conservative. That is that the person would only spend federal money when it was absolutely necessary to spend federal money. The person would necessarily need to desire to follow the Constitution. Now, I would not necessarily expect that the candidate have exactly the same view of what is Constitutional. But, a desire to follow the Constitution would solve most questions on whether to fund a particular federal program. That would be about all that I would require the candidate to have as “core values”.

Some of you are going to ask about social issues. Social issues are important to me. I am as pro-life as anyone in the country, but I also am realistic when it comes to politics. If we require all Republican candidates be strictly pro-life, we would deprive ourselves of some good legislative candidates. Notice I said legislative candidates, not Presidential candidates. A Presidential candidate would need to be pro-life to get my endorsement because the President directly impacts life issues. Legislatures only indirectly deal with life issues, so a pro-choice candidate is not necessarily a liability. But a candidate that is not with you on financial issues can destroy your legislative agenda very fast. That is why financial issues are the hard and fast “core values” that I require in a candidate.

If there are two equally good candidates and one only meets the financial values and the other adds the social values, of course I would endorse the candidate with the social values.

In the case being discussed in the 23^rd district of New York, you have two candidates to choose from. One has been selected by the Republican Party and the other by the Conservative Party. From what I know of New York politics, it is impossible for a Republican to win without the endorsement of the Conservative Party. The reverse would also be true. When you look at how the person would vote, both would follow the Republican line most of the time (using a generic Republican, not this liberal one). So in essence, the Republican Party is running two candidates in this election. Since that is the case, I would endorse the candidate that is closest to my position. That would be the Conservative Party candidate, not the Republican Party candidate. My reasoning is that the Conservative Party candidate would vote with my position almost all the time. The Republican Party candidate would vote with the Democrats more than the Republicans. That is not a Republican candidate that is worth endorsing in my opinion.

I am not saying that Newt Gingrich is wrong. He looked at the party label after the name and made his selection on that basis. He did that because he is a Republican first and a conservative second. I, on the other hand, am a conservative first and a Republican second. That is the main difference between us.

Our President has raised or lowered (depending on your point of view) denigrating America to the world to an art form. His latest was to the United Nations. He must think that it is cute to denigrate America in front of people that spend their time tearing down all that America stands for. As for me, it grates on my nerves to have any American, especially our President, denigrate American in front of foreigners.

My attitude is this: in a political argument within the United States anything goes. That means that you can say whatever you want about America and I will defend to the death your right to say it, no matter how wrong you are. But, in a situation where foreigners are involved, all bets are off. There are protocols to be met and standards to uphold. The first among those is that to foreigners or on foreign soil, you do not speak ill of the United States. I know that with the 24 hour news cycle anything said by a President is known all around the world within seconds. But, if it is a domestic political contest, I still stand by the rule that you can say whatever you want. I am very 19^th century about that sort of thing.

What grates about denigrating the United States to the United Nations is that it plays into the hands of the communist dictators like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. They say that kind of thing all the time. Nobody believes them because they can see for themselves that it is not true. But, when an American President says the same thing, it lends credence to the words of the lying dictators.

One other thing that makes absolutely no sense to me is the situation in Honduras. They had a President who wanted to be a dictator like Hugo Chavez. The legislature, courts and military said that would not happen and threw him out. The legislature, courts and military followed the Honduran Constitution in throwing out the dictator. The communist dictators in the hemisphere protested the ouster of Zelaya and called it a coup. Barack Obama picked up the cry from the communist dictators and declared the constitutionally legal ouster of Zelaya to be a coup. This is crazy. We are aligned with the communist dictators and against the cause of freedom. It should be exactly the opposite of that situation. We have now forced Zelaya back into the country. He is being housed at the Brazilian Embassy until things can be worked out. Even the communist leaning Brazilians know that Zelaya is a thug and are giving Zelaya the cold shoulder. I am just afraid that we will force Honduras to throw out their Constitution and take a communist dictator.

Glenn Beck has been having a series of shows on the people that surround Barack Obama. Since we do not know much about Obama, the only way to know much about him is to know who he associates with. Most of the people that are in his inner circle have some ties directly or indirectly to communism or Marxism. In my mind, those are two sides of the same coin. Since that is the inner core of people working around Obama, can’t we make the jump and say that Obama leans heavily toward the Marxist philosophy. Looking at what Obama is saying and doing would also lead one to believe that Obama is at least leaning heavily toward the Marxist philosophy. My opinion is that he is a Marxist. But that is my opinion, not necessarily a true fact.

As Glenn Beck pointed out on his show yesterday, Barack Obama has all the parts set up to fundamentally change America, if we do not find out what he is doing. Unfortunately for Obama, we have started to figure out what he is doing. Because we are starting to figure out what he is doing, we are starting to fight back against the onslaught of socialist programs. Because of that push back by the American people, we just may regain the America that we had for over 200 years. Even catching it this early, we gave up a lot of ground. That will have to be reclaimed to get America back. The conservative American has awakened. The time for the conservative American to take back this country is coming in November 2010. Then, it will take a lot of hard slogging to get America back on the right track. We would have to rid ourselves of all these socialist programs, one at a time. That will take time and will involve a lot of yelling and stamping of feet. It will be worth it in the end, but hard to take at the time. I hope to be around to see America back in the saddle as the greatest nation on the face of the earth. That is where she belongs and where she should stay. Obama is wrong to apologize for America.

First, a little background before I get to my point, it is a bit long but will help to understand how I got to that point and why.

For a while I had been playing games on iwon.com. Then, about a year ago they decided to let people form challenge teams to raise funds for different charities. I looked around for a cause that fit me and what I believed in. I settled on the Wounded Warriors Project Challenge group. For the first few months, we were first place every month. Then, we started taking second place. We were the largest group in our category, so I could not understand what was going on. About this time, I was contacted by Ron Kohn who was forming an iwonwoundedwarriors.com group. This group was for the most dedicated players and was to help us increase our scores to the maximum.

I joined the group and after a short time, my score reached the maximum level. That is not important, except that it shows I am committed to supporting the cause I selected. Then last Monday, Ron contacted me and invited me to join an online game over Facebook, called Mafia Wars. I joined his team thinking I would be helping him and would be spending an hour or so a day. Boy was I wrong.

At first, I did my usual thing. I played the game and generally did not involve others. I found that others attacked me and I always lost. So, I decided to do something about it. I decided to grow my team to the 500 member level that you need to be really successful. You can have larger teams, but only 500 members count when you fight other teams. I have team mates from all over the world. It really is impressive to me how international this game really is. It was during this rapid expansion phase that I came across a person that had his priorities straight. He had his political leanings listed as: 1. American, 2. Conservative, 3. Republican. I sent him a message that I echoed his opinions. This is my point.

As a conservative, I too have the priority listing of American, conservative, and then Republican. It is that way because there are way too many liberals in powerful positions within the Republican Party. That means that the Republicans frequently do not take the conservative position or even support the conservative candidate in a race. Liberal Republicans gave us this new drug benefit for Medicare during George W. Bush’s term in office. Any conservative could see that it was a bad idea, but Republicans could not see it because it was proposed by a liberal Republican and there was a moderate Republican in the White House. Liberal Republicans love to hear the cheer from the liberal establishment in Washington. Conservatives know they will not receive love from the liberals in Washington, so they do not care to encourage the entanglement with them.

As an American and a conservative, I am appalled by the path that the country is headed. Where we should be going and how to get there is clear. The muddle-headedness of the Republicans is more evidence that the Republican leadership is not conservative. The Republican leadership is basically a liberal group or they would have figured out how to get out of the messes that Obama has put us in. That they have not figured out how to get out of the mess is all the evidence you need that they are really liberals.

The liberal Republicans still hold the policies of the past as sacred. What we need to do is plow a new path. Any conservative could get us out of this mess pretty quick. Liberals cannot do it because they secretly like the way things are going. That is why I am an American and a conservative, who happens to be a Republican. That is probably the best way to put it.

Yesterday, there was a shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It was done by an 88 year old man who was filled with hate. He was a white supremacist. That makes a number of hate killings in the past few weeks. In the ones that were supposedly done by conservatives or conservative leaning killers, the left has demanded that the right state that they detest such killings. Those statements are forthcoming from the leaders of all conservative groups. When the killings were done by those with supposed liberal leaning ideologies there has been universal silence from liberal groups. Why is that?

Here in the Phoenix area, the Mayor of Phoenix had to step into the controversy by denouncing the killing. That is just fine as far as it goes. I abhor this killing and any other killing. But, the mayor had to add something to his statement that was completely uncalled for. He called on the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, to denounce the killing. Again, that is just fine as far as it goes. But again, the mayor had to add something to his statement. He went on to say that Joe Arpaio had been consorting with white supremacists in the past and had his picture taken with them, thereby implying that Joe Arpaio supports the white supremacist movement. Joe Arpaio does not support the white supremacists. He has arrested them on numerous times in the past. Joe has denounced their philosophy and their tactics on numerous occasions in the past. Evidently Phil Gordon (Mayor of Phoenix) does not have a memory that goes back that far. What Phil Gordon is trying to do with the statement is paint Joe Arpaio with the brush of the white supremacist movement. If he can do that, he might be able to stop Joe Arpaio from rounding up illegal aliens and prosecuting them for breaking the laws of Arizona. That is a disgusting display of idiocy from a politician. Unfortunately, it is par for the course for a Democrat these days.

Killings by supposed right wing nut jobs have been on the abortion doctor and the Holocaust Museum. All Right-to-Life organizations have denounced the killing of the abortion doctor. All prominent conservatives have denounced the killing of the abortion doctor. The killing of the guard at the Holocaust Museum was only yesterday, so denunciation of the killing will take time.

Killings by supposed left wing nut jobs include the Muslim killings of the soldiers outside the recruiting station in Arkansas. If anyone, other than conservatives, has denounced these killings I am not aware of that statement. Of course, there is a caveat to this killing. If you denounce a killing by a Muslim, you might be subject to a killing yourself as defaming Islam. That might be true, even if the denunciation is justified. So, most people will keep quiet about killings by Muslims. They will also keep silent about other atrocities by Muslims for the same reason. In that way, Muslims gain power over large portions of the population. You have to stand up to radical Muslims if you ever expect to keep the country.

This uneven outrage is common in every situation. Conservatives will express outrage over any incident that requires it. Liberals will shout that conservatives need to show outrage when then perceive that conservatives need to show outrage. Liberals never show outrage in any situation, except when a perceived conservative does something. Then their outrage is not with the act, it is with the conservatives. It shows what their agenda is. Their agenda does not care what someone does, they just want everyone to think and act alike. Anyone who does not is dangerous.

You can examine any situation and see this uneven response. If a prominent conservative does something wrong, conservatives will take responsibility and remove that person. If a prominent liberal does something wrong, liberals rally around that person and demand that conservatives retract their defamatory statements against this liberal. They then put this liberal that did something wrong into a place of power and authority. The more you do wrong, the higher you go in the new Democrat party. There was a time when Democrats had standards of behavior like conservatives. Now, the situation has changed. Democrats only have standards of behavior for Republicans and conservatives. They have no standards of behavior for themselves. That is one major reason our country is in the fix it is currently in.

Conservatives by nature do not covet power in the way that Democrats covet power. Because of that inherent difference, Democrats have a distinct advantage when it comes to elections. In general, Democrat voters are more motivated than conservative voters. In general, Democrats are more motivated to actually become candidates than Republicans. Those advantages are difficult for the average Republican candidate to overcome when it comes to elections.

It is time for conservatives to become interested in elections. Elections have consequences. If you were a conservative voter who stayed home on Election Day because of some slight, is Obama leading the country in the way you want it led? Are you happy that the country is taking over the auto industry and the banking industry? Are you happy that the country will be deciding how much money you and I can make? If so, then you were justified in staying home, you got the government that you wanted. If not, then you better wake up and decide that you will not take another election off.

The best conservatives in the country need to become candidates for office. I know that getting a root canal done without anesthesia is better than running for office, but the alternative is losing the country forever. It is 2009, 2010 is just around the corner. Candidates for office need to start now, if they have any chance of being elected to political office. They have to raise a lot of money and get their names out before the public. The candidates that will win these elections over the Democrats in power will be the ones that have innovative conservative ideas and stick to their guns. We cannot have candidates that cozy up to Democrats or think that big government is the answer. Those are the ones that brought us to this point.

Winning an office in 2010 will put some people on the map for Presidential consideration. We need a Republican candidate for office that is articulate in conservative principles and not Democrat-lite like our last Republican candidate. I do not know who that will be. I know that people are talking about Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal in that vein. They both have strong backgrounds and would make excellent candidates. Sarah Palin has made some mistakes recently, though those can be forgiven. Bobby Jindal was not as dynamic as I would have liked in the answer to Barack Obama recently. That does not mean either is out of the running. Both are well in front of the pack for 2012. If Bobby Jindal is not as dynamic as we would like, maybe he could be a VP first. Then he could grow into the job and show what he can do.

Conservatives perceive power as a way to empower the individual. That results in the conservative giving away his power over time. Since a conservative wants to take care of his corner of the world, that suits conservatives just fine. Conservatives also expect that everyone else will want to take care of their part of the world. That is called individual responsibility. That is the entire premise behind conservative principles. Conservative principles are best outlined in the Constitution of the United States. We need to have candidates that stand behind the Constitution.

Democrats, socialists and liberals all perceive power as a way to make others do what they are supposed to do. They perceive power as a way to make the world into what they think the world should be. They believe the government should be there to take care of everyone and force everyone to conform to some set standard. All socialists (Nazi’s, communists and just socialists) believe that the government should run everything and that everyone should be dependent on the government. Classic liberals are somewhere between the socialist and the conservative. They believe in individual rights, but that the government should be there as a safety net to help anyone in “need”. It was a small step for liberals of the past to become socialists of the now.

We as conservatives cannot let socialists run our government. We have to step up and be the “citizen representative” that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If you ask why I do not step up and be a candidate, I am older and in ill health. I would not be able to defeat a socialist that was younger and more vigorous.  It is up to those of you between 20-40 to step up and hold the banner high. Veterans make the best candidates because they have been taught that honor and courage can win the day. We can take the country back if we act quickly. We have not gone too far down the socialist road to turn back and be America again. But, we have to rally around “good” strong conservative candidates, not these Democrat-lite Republicans that masquerade as conservatives.