Commander-in Chief AWOL - Obama "Fiddles Around" While American Troops Lose Heart

by Dr. Bill Smith: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

Polling Bad News for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)

by Bill Smith: When polling numbers shows a senior senator in difficulty against potential candidates over a year out from the election, the news is bad news for that senator. And that is what is being projected for Arkansas' U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln who is up for election in 2010 and has been feverishly raising funds and avoiding the public at town halls and TEA Parties in Arkansas. Public Policy Polling latest polling data released August 26th shows that Obama campaigning for Sen. Lincoln in in Arkansas would sink her race. While Barack Obama's National approval rating of 52%, in Arkansas, Obama has only a 40% approval rating. And that is expected to continue to fall in Arkansas. In fact, the polling numbers showed that a majority of voters in Arkansas think Rush Limbaugh has a superior vision for the country than Barack Obama.

Blanche Lincoln's approval rating has dropped 9% since March.  Currently, Lincoln has 36% approval rating and a 44% disapproving rating of the job she’s doing. Currently, with no candidates formally filed for office against her, she's in a statistical tie against three potential Republican opponents. And there are as many as eight candidates considering running against her.

Gilbert Baker leads her 42-40, Curtis Coleman has a 41-40 advantage, and Tom Cotton trails Lincoln slightly 40-39. The numbers of course are more a reflection on Lincoln's unfavorable standing than that of the Republicans at this time.

“You couldn’t get a clearer indication that the national momentum is with Republicans right now than a poll showing some guys with single digit name recognition running even with an incumbent Senator,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “This is going to be a very closely contested race if the eventual Republican nominee does a good job of raising money.

Other indicators of running against Lincoln is that 53% of the people polled were women. In addition, 48% of those polled identified themselves as conservative, and 39% as moderate, leaving 12% of her liberal friends. At the beginning of 2009, voters returned Senator Pryor to a new six term without opposition; however, , his approval rating, although higher than Lincoln, is now only 47% with a disapproval rating of 32%. The voters disappointment with a previously considered "more conservative" Sen. Pryor may weigh heavily on voters in 2010 when considering returning a more liberal Senator Blanche Lincoln .

There is a growing "vote the bums" out feeling among the voters in Arkansas. Also, in Arkansas, continued open endorsement and support of Senator Lincoln by incumbent State constitutional officers (Governor, Lt. Governor, etc.) may place them at risk in 2010 if viable conservative candidates step forward to oppose them.

As summarized by Tom Jensen, Public Policy Polling, "Clearly Lincoln could be beaten, but there are several reasons why she might survive too. The first is that none of her potential Republican opponents have shown the ability yet to raise the money to run a strong campaign. Whoever emerges as her opponent is also going to need to be able to keep their foot out of their mouth, something that's been a problem for some potential foes. The second is that Democrats nationally are in a recession right now and that goes a long way toward explaining these numbers.. . . Republicans have an opportunity here but it remains to be seen whether they can take advantage of it."

Who Should Confront the Iranian Time Bomb - Obama or McCain

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

Arkansas Resident Battles for Ohio Votes

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Al Hundley, a Baxter County, Arkansas resident, asked me "where can I best make a difference supporting John McCain for President." As National Political Director, Let's Get This Right, I asked "are you willing to travel and pay your expenses." As we talked, I emailed him a list of swing state offices and phone numbers. He said "yes I'm going!" and now he is in Ohio! Cleveland's WKYC TV 3 reported last night on Al Hundley's and Bob Klitzkie's work for the John McCain campaign in Ohio:

BRECKSVILLE -- Al Hundley and Bob Klitzkie are both a long way from home helping John McCain try to put Ohio in the victory column. Both men are retired, both are dedicated McCain backers, and both are bankrolling the cost of their travel, hotel room and food out of their own pocket. Both men asked to be assigned someplace where their work could make a difference.

Both are working at McCain's Brecksville campaign office for free, doing everything they are asked. That could include making calls, dropping off signs, running errands and helping set up rallies.

Hundley says, "I'm here to help John McCain win the Presidency. Whatever I can to to turn the tide and carry the day." Bob Klitzkie is from Guam in the Pacific. That means he cannot vote for President. Al Hundley is from Arkansas. Both men plan to stay through the election and both predict they'll be celebrating the outcome in Ohio. "The Klitzkie poll says Ohio's going for John McCain," Klitzkie predicts. [Video available]

Want to Help: Would you like to join Al, Bob and others in sharing John McCain’s plans for a prosperous America with Democrats and Independents? Citizen's for McCain will be knocking on doors, walking precincts and making phone calls in preparation for election day. You can join them in this effort through one of the many field offices in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida:

PENNSYLVANIA Northeast PA 420 North Main Ave Scranton, PA 18504 (570) 951-9223 Southeast PA 420 Norristown Rd Blue Bell, PA 19322 (717) 222-9804 East PA 2285 Schoenersvillle Rd, Space 27 Bethlehem, PA 18017 (717) 644-8778 Southwest PA 23 North Maple St Greensburg, PA 15601 (724) 836-0570 Northwest PA 125 Hillvue Lane Pittsburgh, PA 15237 (414) 458-1562

OHIO Northeast OH Near Youngstown) 621 Boardman-Canfield Rd Boardman, OH (330) 629-70006 Northeast OH (Near Cleveland) 7630 Chippewa Rd Brecksville, OH 44141 (440) 792-4704 Western OH 102 West Main St Springfield, OH 45503 (937) 322-4223

FLORIDA Greater Orlando 234 South Semoran Blvd Orlando, FL 32807 (407) 277-0880 Southern FL 2021 Tyler S. Holywood, FL 33020 (954) 397-6369 Tampa – St. Petersburg 142 West Platt Tampa, FL 33606 (813) 451-3857 Jacksonville 4963 Beach Blvd Jacksonville, FL 33207 (904) 716-0107

No Disrespect Meant - But Think About It

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

Liberal News Media & Obama Supporters Promoting Racism

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Why are the liberal media and Obama supporters promoting racism? If I said whites are voting only white, I would be using race to influence the election and could well be called a racist. The liberal news media and supporters of Obama’s campaign have repeatedly reported that black Americans will be voting for Barack Obama. They continue to say this because Barack Obama is black. This is classic racism!

In the United States, we have a problem of labeling of our fellow citizens. The government has aggravated this problem by creating reporting classifications. It is understandable that a person may seek out their genetic cultural ancestry / heritage. Barack Obama may have more right under our present classification system to call himself African American since his father was actually from Africa. But if born in the Unites States, what does this have to do with running for office? Calling someone African American is somewhat confusing in that a native born American descendant of someone from Morocco or South Africa could rightly be called African American even if white or black.

Years ago while stationed in Belgium, I attended an international church which had members from 22 countries (nations), 11 of which were African countries. One of my American military co-workers was a fellow member in the church. He said that several church members from the African countries had told him to stop calling himself an African American. They told him that he was not African and should feel blessed to be an American. What an eye opener and an opportunity for us to discuss at length the complex labeling system that we have in the United States. What was even more interesting is that these African brothers said if we were going to hyphenate our heritage, we should call ourselves US-Americans. None of the members from African countries called themselves African. Yes, they obviously knew that their countries were on the continent of Africa. Each of them identified themselves with their specific country and often with their local tribal or people group. Regardless of our countries of origin, we found a solid foundation upon which to build friendships and relationships.

Back to the subject of the biased liberal news media which appears to constantly promote racial bias for or against a candidate. Obviously, the media could “not” get away with saying all Iowans are voting for a specific candidate. However, they have no problem stating that almost all blacks are voting for Barack Obama. What they really are presumptuously saying is that blacks will be voting for Obama because he is black! Hogwash!

Some of the most ardent conservatives I know are black. I can assure you they will not be voting or supporting Barack Obama. Does the media believe that Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Ken Blackwell, Erik Rush, Larry Elder, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Gen. Colin Powell, Star Parker, Alveda King, Michael L. Williams, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, the black members of conservative think-tanks and conservative political groups, the elected black Republicans, and a multitude of black evangelical pastors and all the people they reach and influence regardless of skin pigmentation will be voting for Obama? To the liberal media, only their biases matter and they believe blacks should vote for a black. It makes me wonder where the liberal media acquired its Southern plantation mentality. By their actions and statements, the liberal elites appear to be people that would be fine measuring the shapes of people’s heads and claiming that only their criteria results in an acceptable outcome. I believe the world has seen this failed approach before.

The biased liberal media hopes that the voting public doesn’t notice that it should be character, past performance, beliefs and ideals that should be considered. The liberal media uses its position to "bully" people to vote the way that they the liberals wishes for them to vote. The liberal media is not reporting but is actively endorsing and promoting a candidate for the president of the Unites States. Why? Good Question! The programs of socialism being pushed include the redistribution of wealth, limiting free speech, controlling banking, business, employment, housing, medical, retirement, etc. All of these lead to a socialist “womb to tomb” control with no one having the individual right to be oneself and to control one’s own destiny. We all become enslaved to those controlling the socialist structure. Man’s free choice dies and with it the real hope of mankind.

Below are interesting posts written by fellow conservatives and recommended by a fellow conservative Frances Rice, Chair, National Black Republican Association:
Lewis, A Lazy Media, And Their Race Cards by Bob Parks
WSJ - Whitewash - The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget by Bruce Bartlett
WSJ - The Democrats' Missing History By Jeffery Lord
Democrats refuse to apologize to blacks By Frances Rice
Will Republicans Wimp Out On Race? By Clarence V. McKee

Is The Death of Posse Comitatus at Hand?

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and has been an important law. Read an educated review by a military career veteran, Dr. Bill Smith, who addresses the recent official assignment of a U.S Army brigade to "the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." He covers several historical points and the potentials. His conclusion as to why "the year 2008 may become identified in history as the year that the doctrine of Posse Comitatus ceased to have authority" may surprise you. [Is doctrine of Posse Comitatus coming to an end? ]
---------------
William (Bill) Smith, Ph.D. is editor of the ARRA News Service and National Political Director of Let's Get This Right. He is a conservative political activists working for limited government, traditional family values, individual freedom and responsibility. He is a retired Air Force officer who served as Director of the $2 billion European F-16 co-production program. In his career, he also taught military political science and spent a 3 year tour with the U.S. Army. After retiring, he was a graduate professor and held varied administrative and faculty positions. He has authored professional journal articles on varied topics. He also blogs as Ozark Guru.

Slate of Candidates - Focuses on Florida

Boston, MA - The National Leadership Team of Let's Get This Right, a coalition of conservative political activists, announced today the endorsement of four additional candidates for US Congress. The candidates are Congressman Vern Buchanan, (FL-13th), Ed Lynch, (FL-19th), Lt. Col. Allen West, U.S. Army (Ret.), (FL-22nd) and Dr. Marion Thorpe, MD. (FL- 23rd.)

The announcement was made on a conference call to reporters and bloggers with Co- Executive Directors Sheridan B. Folger and M. Brad Marston, National Political Director Dr. Bill Smith and Florida Political Director, Yomin Postelnik. Let's Get This Right has previously endorsed Congressman Gus Bilirakis, (FL-9th) for re-election as well as thirteen other candidates for the US House and Senate.

In announcing the endorsement Dr. Smith stated that all four candidates are "strong fiscal conservatives who espouse smaller government and market based solutions to issues such as healthcare and job creation."According to Mr. Postelnik, the decision to support these candidates was due to their commitment to ethics and to the community at large. Congressman Buchanan has been a pillar of fiscal and moral responsibility and Candidates West, Thorpe and Lynch represent platforms of true reform and have made tremendous inroads into minority and disadvantaged communities.

Mr. Folger noted that all had "been targeted by the Democratic National Congressional Committee for defeat." The DNCC has committed to significant television ad buys in these districts. Their Democratic opponents have also received "significant amounts of P.A.C. money from groups outside of Florida. "Supporting congressional candidates in key battleground states is a major part of our overall strategy of running a unified campaign at the grassroots/netroots level" added Mr. Marston.
Press inquiries should be directed to Florida Political Director, Yomin Postelnik at 1-954-946-4442 or mediarelations@LetsGetThisRight.com . Let's Get This Right is a political networking organization dedicated to promoting the conservative principles of the Republican Party and candidates who support them. Let's Get This Right raises funds for candidates through www.Slatecard.com, a federally registered PAC.

John McCain Speaks to America

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, Reporting at the RNC 2008: Tonight, John McCain accepted then nomination of the Republican Party the presidency of the United States. McCain reintroduced himself to his fellow Americans. Long known as the courageous POW who refused early release, a maverick in the Senate, and a devoted reformer, tonight Americans saw John McCain in yet another new light: as our nominee for president. He shared his story of courage, his plans to fix Washington, and his desire to strengthen our security. It is this record, this vision, this experience and ability that will compel millions of Americans to support John McCain and Sarah Palin this November. Tomorrow, John McCain and Sarah Palin will begin their journey together, meeting with voters and talking about their plans to make our nation more prosperous and more secure.


The Full Text of the Remarks by U.S. Senator John McCain: (Thursday, September 4, 2008 is available at the ARRA News Service - Click Now.

Democrats Hidding Behind Bush

Bill Smith, Editor: Congressional Democrat leaders attending the DNC 2008 in Denver are attempting to transfer their failures to President Bush in an effort to distract voters by claiming their candidate is running against the Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush ticket. America is not stupid. Bush is retiring to Texas. And, Sen. John McCain as a maverick has never been part of the Bush team. It is true that Bush and McCain have conservative principles on which they agree. However, McCain as a maverick never placed party line first and often reached across the Senate isle to work with Democrats on critical issues. McCain has a leading democrat backing him and even the current identified Democratic vice president said positive things about McCain's qualifications to be president. Allegiances are shifting everywhere but with the Democratic leadership in Congress

While the candidates carry out their campaigns as they determine best, the Congressional Democrat leadership hides their failures behind George Bush. They are pursing a "con" job on the voters. They are working hard to sell their head-in-the-sand approach to energy policy to the American people. This may prove to be difficult with the divisions in their party who are deciding whether to continue following the inept Democrat leadership's refusal to produce more American energy. Some are tired of their leaders' ineptness and are considering joining with Republicans and sensible Democrats in support for policies like opening more areas to offshore drilling. ABC News reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is concerned that Democrats’ lack of action on a comprehensive energy solution could cost them politically. Abercrombie has joined with his GOP colleague Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania to urge a vote on an offshore drilling proposal.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is paying attention. Pelosi has not been bothered by these situations and has even advocated for Democrats with competitive races to lie and side with the Republicans because she can still stall and control things back in Congress. Though she’s been saying that drilling could be part of an energy package, she refuses to commit to a specific vote. Reuters reports, “She criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree. ‘I don’t think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about’. . .”

Non-leader Pelosi would rather deal in distractions than grasp the laws of supply and demand. She says that drilling is not in her DNA. She would do well to read today’s New York Times, which discusses the recent rapid increase in American natural gas production. The Times writes, “Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.”

Although doubtful, Democrats who understand how supply and demand work will be able to use their time in Denver to convince Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to that a “find more and use less” approach to energy is the best way to lower gas prices and provide more energy to America. Republicans have put forward a number of serious plans to do just that. It begs the question, when will the wiser more reasoned Democrats stop being lead by people who are disgracing their positions and hurting the American people? Also, noticeable is that five Democrat senators put themselves forward as qualified to be President of the United States and yet, not one of them would lead the effort to replace an inept Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid, democrat agents of "no" change!

John McCain Gains Strength in Polls

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A Zogby poll released today depicts John McCain leading Barack Obama among likely voters by 46 to 41% which removes the prior month's seven-point advantage for Obama. Also, a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll that gave Mr Obama a 12-point lead in June found that the McCain and Obama were statistically tied. RealClearPolitics average of polls has McCain trailing by less than 2% and in today's electoral college match up with no toss-up states has McCain winning the electoral votes for the first time (see image)

American voters will soon be focusing on the DNC 2008 in Denver and Obama's selection of his vice presidential running mate. McCain is expected to select his vice presidential running mate immediately after the DNC and American voters will then shift their focus to the RNC 2008 in St Paul. Therefore, we can expect the polls to flex a lot in the coming days. However, the current polling results may evidence that Americans have taken notice of Obama's significance lack of experience which calls into question his ability to address national and global issues. They may be admitting that novelty is not necessarily a better choice over proven experience.

Voters have noted McCain's ability to address critical issues and to take clear positions while having a willingness to adapt over time to changes in positions due to changing national or global needs. Most likely voters are sharing with pollsters that McCain would be the better choice for president of the United States for the next four years. Obviously, the candidates' choices of their vice presidential running mates will be critically evaluated by voters. But, vice presidents are NOT presidents but presidents in waiting. And, America has proven in the past its willingness to select someone other that a former vice president or even former president to be their next president of the United States.

Many Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, did not like former president "give 'em hell" Harry Truman. However, they knew that Truman understood that he was responsible for the leadership of America and for making difficult decisions unthinkable to them. As Truman said, the "Buck Stops Here." He understood his leadership responsibility. Whereas, the recent words by Sen. Obama that some issues are "above his pay grade" evidences that he is not ready to lead with competence and convictions and may be easily swayed by politics and others when America needs a man of conviction. Hopefully, American is awakening from a period of game show electioneering picking the next "American Idol" to electing the best person to lead and protect America as the President of the Unites States.

GOP Senators Join Gang & Fail the Team & U.S.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.

Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.

Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.

And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans. . . . [Read Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal]

Seven Positive Signs for McCain

What's really going on in the presidential election . . .Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Glenn Thrush at the Politico has an interesting read about "7 Worrisome Signs for Obama." Since these are making the rounds today in the media, Below is very brief summary with additional notes by Stephen Maloney and myself:

" . . . His [Obama's] supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls -- with Rasmussen's most recent daily tracker showing a statistical dead heat."

The seven worrisome signs for Obama:
1. The role Obama's race will play in voters' decisions; "How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem." (Note: In the 2006 Senate race, Republican George Allen, who waged a terrible campaign, lost by only 9,000 vote to a "moderate" Democrat with a military background. Race is not an issue for a qualified candidate. But Obama's own words of allegiances to his African family, questionable issues concerning his prior Muslim education, and anti-white racist comments by Obama's associates and pastors may affect him with many voters. The issue isn't race but the "cling-ons" of numerous negative factors. America is ready for president of any race and for female president. However, America may not be ready for a person of color forced upon them when that person is definitely not qualified except for his age. Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are still suffering from after-shock that a female with more qualifications was defeated by Obama primarily because of her last name.)

2. "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be over hyped"; Obama staffers look at the state as a 50-50 proposition, and his odds of winning may be less than that. [If Obama doesn't do very well in the DC suburbs, he will lose VA.)

3. "Michigan's in play for McCain"; the Democrats probably can't win without Michigan. There, "McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate." (Note: Michiganders would have much preferred Hillary Clinton as the candidate.)

4. Difficult times can engender fear among voters, and that could benefit McCain, who is more of a known quantity than Obama. (Note: Economics may not be McCain's strongest suit, but he has proven that he has an understanding of the concept. He knows high gas prices hurt the American people and our economy. But it also doesn't look like an Obama strength.)

5. McCain doesn't have to face the "Ross Perot factor" that helped Bill Clinton greatly in bringing down George H. W. Bush in 1992; Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states. (Note: However, the maverick conservative or libertarian who places his or her own interest above those of the country, may indeed sacrifice their vote in an effort to punish the other conservatives and Republicans for not agreeing 100% with their positions. They may be be a spoiler that advances socialism under Obama. These folks will not win in the long run and unlike Ross Perot helping to elect Bill Clinton with A Republican congress, those supporting Barr are willing to send Obama to the White House with a the Democrats in full control of Congress. Even a major libertarian Republican like Rep. Ron Paul has recognized this danger and has tried to rechannel the efforts of his followers to more reasonable avenues of influence for the future.)

6. Obama is NOT a white Southerner with border-state strength, the only kind of a Democrat who has won the White House in the last 65 years (LBJ, Carter, and Clinton);

7. "Americans may WANT divided government"; as one Democratic strategist puts it, ". . . nobody wants a pair of Pelosis [Nancy and Barack] running things." (Note: not to leave out Reid as part of the socialist liberal trio: Reid, Pelosi & Obama. In addition with "No Will To Drill" America will faced with higher prices for not only gas but for the very basics: food, home/rent, utilities, etc. Transportation costs are going no where but up if this 'trio is in office" together.)

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey puts it this way: People "want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans." (Note: Many, including democrats, know that youth has never proven to be a prediction of success and McCain, a maverick in his own party, has reached across party lines his experienced career when doing so benefited the American people. Having served America most of his life, McCain not Obama should be the run away candidate. But, left leaning biased media continues to promote a younger glamor candidate with no almost no experience candidate over the candidate who is better prepared and qualified to confront the global military and economic dangers already on the horizon for the United States.) . . . [ 7 Worrisome Signs for Obama]

Obama Latest Gaffe - A Red Flag!

Bill Smith, Editor: Remember Dan Quayle and the alleged gaffe over misspelling the word potato which later proved to be an alternative correct spelling of the word. The news media hounded Quayle to the ground. Over the years the only conclusion I could find for the intensity of the main stream media is that Quayle was not a liberal. After suffering through the election losses of liberals Al Gore and John Kerry, the "main media" networks (the ones existeing before Fox) have identified their problem. They reported too much truth about their former liberal boys. This year they seem to be wearing 'duck tape" over their months and to have locked down their "keyboards" when it comes to reporting truth about stupid comments, errors or flop-flops made by Barack Obama. They are following the new liberal craze of speaking no ill of the Obamassiah.

Obama has continually tripped over his tongue in expressing facts and ideas and perfroming flip-flops on issues. Now, consider the latest Obama gaffe that will not be "jumped on" by the main stream media. They are not going to ridicule and insult Obama as they did Quayle. Even though the spelling potato had nothing to do with being president, it was reported and reported and reported. However, Obama's latest gaffe has everything to do with understanding the constitution and the presidency -- consider the gaffe!

H/T The Pink Flamingo for the following comments:

. . . well, it's just another day and another dumb to dumber remark.

"...Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years..."

Yes, you read this correctly. Barack Obama is planning on being in office for at least eight to ten years. Jack Tapper's blog picked up this latest Obamassiah gaffe. I would like to remind Pink Flamingo readers that Barack Obama was allegedly the editor of the Harvard Law Review. As such, he should be even remotely familiar with a little ditty called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's get this, he is an attorney, former head of the Harvard Law Review and is a sitting senator. He Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years and was a lecturer for four years for 12 years. We can conclude that the news media should have grasped that Obama should have known the fundamental fact that a President of the United States serves no more than eight (8) years. But after noting many of his other statements and proposal, one should ask if he plans to be around as "leader" more than eight (8) years.

To name just two proposals, Obama advocates the creation of a government funded and controlled Civilian National Security Forces equalling the US Military. Obama's Global Poverty Tax Bill has passed the House and Senate Committees and waiting for a vote in the Senate . The bill would subject the United States to UN provisions including banning “small arms and light weapons.” Obama has said he would disarm America with respect to our nuclear defense missiles and would stop actions for a protective missile defense shield. All these actions and many more should be flags to a "free press." Why aren't they red flags? As stated before, the liberal news media wants to elect a liberal president. The value of a "free press" like all of our other personal freedoms is does not appear to be their concern.

Speaker Pelosi Clueless! Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross Gets it!

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: When it comes to addressing our national energy crisis, drilling for oil and protecting America and American interests, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representative is clueless. Even the liberal New York Times has taken notice.

On Friday, Carl Hulse in an NYT article title "Democrats Dig In as G.O.P. Presses for Oil Exploration in Protected Areas" depicts the logger-headiness of Pelosi. The article is long but worth reading. Some limited excerpts will reveal Pelosi's failure to comprehend our internal National crisis and her inept understanding of the role of the National Strategic Petroleum Reserves in a time of global crisis with existing threats against America and American interests:

House Democratic leaders took a hard line Thursday against opening up restricted areas to oil production as Republicans threatened to try to keep Congress in session this summer unless they got a vote on new drilling opportunities.

As the political and policy fight over gasoline prices escalated, the White House rejected a call by Democrats to release oil from the nation’s strategic reserves in an effort to lower prices by increasing supply. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said, “We’d like to see members think a little bit more long term and take advantage of the opportunity that we have to do drilling from our domestic sources.”

Even as some Democratic lawmakers called on Congress to open up restricted areas to drilling, . . . “This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this Bush administration.” . . . But with public anxiety growing over gasoline prices, some Democrats say their party has to move beyond encouraging exploration on tracts already owned by oil companies and open new, potentially productive areas to exploration. Leaders of a coalition of moderate and conservative

Democrats known as the Blue Dogs have stepped up their push for drilling both in the Arctic refuge and offshore, saying the oil royalties produced could pay for research into new energy technologies. “I propose that we drill in ANWR,” said Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas, referring to the refuge. “We’ve already got a pipeline going to Alaska, the ANWR, that can handle two million barrels a day. We’re only putting one million in it. Let’s fill it up.”

But Ms. Pelosi, who considers energy legislation a personal priority, does not appear ready to shift her view, based on discussions in a private meeting with members of the leadership on Thursday. According to accounts from those present, Ms. Pelosi said that if Democrats relented on drilling, “then we might as well pack it up and go home.”

Ms. Pelosi instead forged ahead with the effort to encourage the White House to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, even listing the White House telephone number and e-mail address on a poster at a news conference to encourage consumers to join the appeal. She said the release of less than 10 percent of the 700 million barrels of oil in the reserve would influence the price at the pump “now, within 10 days, not within 10 years.” . . .

Pelosi continues to prove time and again that she is a masochistic politician who is heartless in her un-willingness to do anything and everything to help the American people while at the same time she insists on placing our National Security at risk. She welds her dictatorial control over house democrats and refuses to allow anything that might in any way give partisan credit also to the Republicans. She has helped lead the U.S Congress to its lowest approval rating ever.

Let's clarify the risk that Speaker Pelosi is willing to take even though it is not a solution to our petroleum resource needs. Lee S. Gliddon, Jr in Desert Conservative hits the nail on the head regarding Pelosi approach of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

If you really think about Nancy Pelosi’s demands that we use our nation’s Emergency Reserve Oil Supply as a, ‘fix,’ you will see that she has no thoughts of the real ‘why’ this Emergency Reserve exits in the first place! Should Iran actually close the Straits of Hormus after were used the Emergency Reserves, then what? Nothing to be used and what would our military do? Nancy Pelosi has ideas but her ideas are going to destroy America!

Pelosis is clueless as Speaker of the House. And that is being nice. Because if she were not clueless, then she would be a traitor based on her past actions and comments while Speaker of the House. It is time for Speaker Pelosi to step down. If unwilling to step down, we can only hope there exists enough uncompromised Democrats like Rep. Mike Ross to lead in establishing a coalition of House Democrats to replace Pelosi. The United States needs a new Speaker who is a statesperson; a person more dedicated to the people than to liberal party pandering. America deserves and needs a better person speaking for the House to the public!

Obama's Mile High Fantasy Flight

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: My Opinion! Barack Obama's move to Mile High is an exercise in stagecraft and a smoke and mirror job for the American people.

First, it is an affront to the Hillary Clinton delegates who would have comprised half the room if Obama were to appear at the Pepsi Center.

It is a calculated move to force networks into the very real choice of only covering his speech on the final day - denying the American people a true look at what the Democrat's platform and policies are all about, and denying the American people a true look into the divided nature of the convention.

If Obama's choice results in the networks only covering one day, would they then feel obligated to curtail coverage of the GOP convention? If so, Obama's calculated move then denies the American people a fair look at John McCain.

This begs the question of the true nature of Obama's calculated decision. Is it because he wishes to keep voters in the dark over real issues and only provide them spectacle? Is it because he is afraid Hillary's supporters might not provide applause (or even boo) a speech in a room that wasn't guaranteed to be stacked with his zealous followers?

What do you think? Leave a Comment!

Kennedy & Reagan Agree - It's the Economy Stupid!

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following insightful words of two former revered Presidents shows clearly the track to National economic success which has developed the most vibrant economic system in the world:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” — John F. Kennedy

“First, if I may, I’d like to establish the scope of the topic under discussion. For when we speak about the economy, we’re dealing with more than mere numbers, more than statistics about productivity and employment. We’re dealing instead with one of the most basic aspects of human existence: We’re dealing with the way the great majority of men and women spend most of their hours, most days, throughout the most productive years of their lives...I believe it’s important to remind ourselves that in dealing with the economy we’re dealing with human creativity. This insight has represented the underpinning of our economic expansion. We cut tax rates, reduced government regulation, and restrained Federal spending; and we unleashed the creativity of individuals and businesses. We gave them freedom to create; to keep the rewards of their own risk-taking and hard work; and to reach for new, bold ideas.” — Ronald Reagan

Two years ago, Congressional Republicans paid the price for following the wide path of their Democrat colleagues and pursuing the "congressional pork gravy train." Wastefully and increased spending by the Government has eventually slowed our economic growth. If it were not for the Reagan-Kennedy type Bush tax cuts, the economy would have slowed to a stop.

The present liberal Democrat leadership of Congress appears hell-bent on destroying our economy by pursuing increased taxes, spending via redistribution of wealth schemes and restrictions on business. The liberals hatred of President Bush exceeds their ability to do right by and for American citizens. Although Bush will be gone in less than seven months, these liberal, progressive democrats are focusing on the killing America's golden goose - our economy.

Our economy is the envy of the world and has raised the American standard of living to an all time high. To save our economy, our leaders need to listen to the words of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan: cut taxes, retrain government spending, reduce government regulation, and unleash the creativity of individuals and businesses.

Mike Huckabee Joins Fox News - NO VP for Huck?

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: Former Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is bringing his political expertise to Fox News Channel as a a political commentator. Huckabee, Arkansas' governor for 10 1/2 years, pulled off a stunning victory in the Iowa caucus and followed with primary victories in seven other states despite running his campaign on a shoestring.The Hope native ended his campaign March 4 after McCain attained the requisite number of delegates to clinch the party's nomination.

Bill Shine, the senior vice president of programming for FNC, calls Huckabee "a great addition" to the cable network's election coverage. Huckabee will regularly contribute to FNC's America's Election HQ coverage. In a statement , Huckabee said:

”I have signed on to be a part of the Fox News Channel family. I hope to bring the unique perspective from “inside the dragon’s belly” as well as to try and speak for the millions of hard-working middle class Americans who really do feel that their voices are not being heard. I saw that on the campaign trail and continue to see as I speak to groups of all kinds around the country as well as campaign for other candidates.

I’m looking forward to what I hope will be a very satisfying relationship not only for the Fox News Channel and me, but even more for the people of America.”

Previously this year, Huckabee launched "Huck PAC." So, Huckabee will both helps provide election coverage and will work to help elect conservatives to office. Although not detailed in by Huckabee's or Fox New's press releases, one wonders if Huckabee would have accepted this position if he was still a contender for Vice President. It appears there is No VP for Huck's near future with the convention being only a few months away. But don't count Huckabee out either in the short term or for future elections as a U.S. senator, U.S. representative or a future presidential contender. Hucks' Army remains ready in the wings!

Obama's Lacks Support in Arkansas & Oklahoma

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: John Brummett is an Arkansas political columnist who continually displays a nostalgic belief that Democrats Party still reflects conservative ideals. There may be some conservative democrats in the region, but they are floundering in a party controlled by liberals. Brummett, being pro-democrat and an associate of democrats, appears to understand his local brand of democrats. He appears to find Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be more conservative than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. While Obama is a black male and Clinton is a white female, remove their sex and race and they are both equally suited liberals. Hillary Clinton does have more "life experiences" than Barack Obama and is clearly "native born." But being tired of us Arkansans, Hillary kept her beloved ex-president, migrated to liberal-land New York, and walked right into the Senate a full fledged liberal.

Brummett's association with the people and attitudes within the Democrat Party in Arkansas and Oklahoma affords us insight into the region's Democrat backlash against Barack Obama as their presidential nominee. The backlash even seems more strident with the likelihood that Clinton will not be their vice presidential nominee. In a recent article that appeared in The Morning News, Brummett comments:

"I wrote about a palpable lack of fire for Obama among Arkansas Democratic officeholders -- such as Gov. Mike Beebe, who cited a "deep-seated fear" of Obama in Arkansas, and U.S. Rep. Marion Berry, who said his tank of enthusiasm had pretty nearly run dry -- there was a related development in the section of Oklahoma that abuts the western Arkansas border.

"U.S. Rep. Dan Boren is a third-term conservative Democrat representing the 2nd Congressional District of Oklahoma, which starts at the Arkansas line and runs to Kansas on the north and Texas on the south. It's just across the state line from Siloam Springs and Fort Smith and Mena and De Queen, not so far from Texarkana. It bounds our 3rd District, which is Republican already, but it also bounds our 4th District, which has a Democratic congressman in Mike Ross. . . .

"Boren's is a conservative district and one of the largest geographically in the country, owing to the sparse population. It went 66 percent for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary on Super Tuesday and it went heavily for George W. Bush in the general elections in 2000 and 2004. Boren, son of former U.S. Sen. David Boren, can read those returns. He told the Tulsa World that he could not endorse Obama. He said he admired Obama's rhetoric about a new politics, but pointed out that Obama had been rated the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. He said that didn't seem so new to him. He said he had to respect the will of his constituents.

"In a way this means nothing. Obama can't compete in Arkansas without Hillary as his running mate. Obama is going to get pummeled in Oklahoma either way because Oklahoma is Arkansas without those enlightened (or static, if you prefer) Democratic influences. The point is that, for all the talk of a new day and of a race that is the Democrats' to lose, the Democrats find themselves in old and familiar territory. That is to say they have a nominee whose competitiveness seems foreclosed in large sections of the country, primarily ours. . . ."