I highly recommend this article

The GOP: A House Divided

November 18th, 2007 by Darvin Dowdy
The GOP has divided like some amoeba on a glass slide under a microscope.

There are the Globalists that continue to warn the various GOP candidates and politicians that they will damage their political careers if they take the side of those wanting to seal the border and strictly enforce existing immigration laws.  They blame the discontent by GOP voters on the Iraq War, run-away federal spending and scandalous behavior by elected GOP politicians.  They delight in pointing to the downfall of those who have taken strong enforcement first stances.    J.D. Hayworth lost his congressional seat in Arizona after taking a tough stance on the border.  George Allen of Virginia lost his senate seat, some say for the same reason.  Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. And in the current presidential race the campaigns of both  hard line border enforcement candidates, Hunter and Tancredo appear to be sinking like a rock.  Their fundraising efforts a total joke.  Or so these geopolitical elitists would want us to believe.

And then there’s our side of the divided amoeba.  We don’t really have “advisers” and “strategists” telling us what our next move should be.  We live every day with the reality of illegal immigration and its negative, downward pull on our social structure.  We’ve observed the illegals banding together, marching in the streets of America.  Streets that we as taxpayers have paid to build.  We saw them waving Mexican flags and burning American flags.  Their monumental ingratitude.  We’ve watched our politicians allow these illegal hordes to invade our nation and enjoy rights and privileges that actually accede our own.   And when we dared to raise complaints regarding this dangerous and worsening situation these same politicians, that we elected,  presented us with disrespect, insults and intimidation.  Yet we fight on to maintain and protect our nations sovereignty.

Sadly, we are losing.  The globalists controlling our party seem to be gaining the upper hand.  Both  Hunter and Tancredo are nearly out of cash ( link ).  The other candidates , good men all, will simply not remain on our side in the long term, in my view.  They are making all the correct noises now because they want our votes.  But when the battle gets intense they’ll fall back on they’re long proven expertise – the art of compromise.

So the question begs to be answered – why?  Why have the campaigns of Hunter and Tancredo faltered?   Certainly its not lack of support.  Duncan Hunter recently left the entire GOP pack in the dust in the Texas Straw Poll.  No one was even close.  He’s also won other straw polls. Tancredo did well in the recent Iowa straw.  Why are they so upside down in the fundraising department?  Would it be fair to say that their followers are a bunch of  dunces who go about waving their flags and emotions in the air?  Who are so stupid that they can’t figure out that it takes money to run a campaign?  God forbid as I count myself among them.   Well the jury is not yet in on that verdict yet.  But honestly, something simply doesn’t add up.  About 60% of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws.  Hunter and Tancredo both have large followings.  So where are the donors?

Where the heck are these so called Border Watch groups, I ask?  Groups like the Minutemen Project?  And U.S. Border Watch?  Jim Gilchrist’s  Wake Up America?  And U.S. Border Control?  And these are just a few.  There are many more org’s of this nature.  But when you visit these sites you see no open support for Hunter or Tancredo.  No ads, banners or anything.   You can’t tell me that there isn’t a way to, legally, get the word out to their members regarding the fundraising woe’s of these 2 candidates.   My gosh the entire Borders/Illegals issue is at stake!  Certainly the decision makers within these organizations must have enough snap to know that without enlightened politicians and originalist judges on the bench our cause of U.S. sovereignty is doomed!  Many of the org’s have become bogged down in the details and have lost sight of the mission.  I ask all who read this to begin some kind of email campaign or other correspondence to these org’s immediately.  Especially those who might be members of such  groups.  Put pressure on them to more aggressively work for our 2 valiant candidates Hunter and/or Tancredo.  Withhold your donations to these groups until they regain the correct priorities.  Inform them, if they don’t know, of the dire fundraising situation that our 2 candidates face and encourage them to formulate an action plan to help keep these campaigns effective financially.  These candidates can not be effective without TV/Radio campaigns and that takes money.

And one might ask, where is corporate America?  Why no help for the Hunter and Tancredo campaigns from large U.S. companies?   One of the main thrusts of the Hunter campaign is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.   You’d think large companies would be all over that and the donations would be pouring in.  Not so.  You see the corporate fat cats see the blood in the water.  Republican blood.  So the corporate cowards are shifting over to the dem’s thinking that the GOP will be devoured by the sharks.  The CEO’s like the idea of Hillary Care.  A huge chunk of their annual budget goes toward medical insurance benefits for their employees.  They like the idea of that massive expenditure instead being diverted into their quarterly bonus’.   Additionally, they love the continued flow of cheap labor coming from across the border.   This is why both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are persona non grata in the eyes of the corporate fat cats.  And the dem’s are wallowing in money.

So while the fundraising efforts of our valiant candidates Hunter and Tancredo continue to sink into the quagmire, the globalists that have hijacked “our” GOP are standing around in the shadows having a good laugh at our expense.  Snickering at us. Also sinking into the quagmire is our cause of sealing the borders and insisting that our elected officials see to it that immigration laws are strictly enforced.  Why should they listen to us?  We can’t even keep our own candidates in a liquid financial state.    So to all of you who still believe that the notion of national sovereign borders is not an antiquated, obsolete concept,  I ask you, do you enjoy the sting of defeat?  How do you like being laughed at, rebuked and put back into your place by the elitists?

I also put forth the question – is it too late to reverse this negative trend?  Is there still time? I believe there is time but none to waste.   I welcome your comments.  And who is your least-favorite GOP open borders globalist? Leave a link.   DD

Please pass along.

OPEN LETTER TO DR. MICHAEL FARRIS AND THE HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION

Dear Dr. Farris, Michael Smith, and the HSLDA,

My name is *SK Johnson and I am an 18 year old home educated student from *************.  I have been home schooled my entire educational career, and am preparing to graduate this coming May.  During my time as a home schooler I have been impressed with your organization and its tireless work to defend home schooling.  I know your organization to be a true friend to families who want to have the ability to raise their children in their own homes.

I am a very politically aware and involved individual, and was interested to read your letter endorsing Governor Mike Huckabee for President in 2008.  I was excited that the HSLDA was taking an early interest in the upcoming election.  At the time I received your letter I had been supporting a different candidate, but your letter did encourage me to take a closer look at Governor Huckabee.  I liked a lot of what I saw in his positions and rhetoric.  Yet, and I say this with the utmost of respect for you and your organization, the more I investigated the more baffled I became by your endorsement.

The first thing I noted was Governor Huckabee’s own words from his book, From Hope to Higher Ground. He states in this book, “While many elected officials pontificate proudly about their deep interest in and commitment to public education, so many put their own children in private schools.  If the public schools are so deserving of their (and our) support, why aren’t they deserving of the ultimate support–having confidence enough in them for their own children to be educated there?….Although the teachers’ union in Arkansas never supported me (mainly because they have so long been controlled by the machinery of the Democratic Party) improving education in the public schools has understandably been a priority for me.”  I was somewhat bothered by this statement, especially because of the point that he makes that the reason the teachers’ unions never supported him was because of politics, but not because of differing policies.  So I decided to dig a little deeper.

At Governor Huckabee’s State of the State address to the Arkansas legislature of January 9, 2001, Governor Huckabee said these words about teachers’ salaries:  “Our basic constitutional responsibility is to provide for free, equitable and adequate public education for students through the 12th grade. I would recommend that we set for ourselves the task of raising teacher salaries in this state by $3,000, recognizing that’s not enough and it’s not the finish line but it’s a good starting point. If we don’t raise those salaries at least by that kind of money, we are going to be further and further behind.”

In defense of Mr. Huckabee, some have argued that he was forced by the Arkansas judicial system, and by the State constitution to raise taxes to go towards the public educational system.  On this issue I am not an authority, and have no strong opinion.  I however find it telling that regardless of the circumstances surrounding these decisions, Governor Huckabee took the liberty to ‘brag’ about these decisions and actions.  The quote in the last paragraph is one example, as is Governor Huckabee’s speech to the National Educational Association (an organization, as you know, that is vehemently against home education, and many of the HSLDA’s main positions).  A clip of the speech can be found here: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO4_5XOSzKk ).  Whether he was forced to do it or not, he was proud of it.

I have subsequently been made aware that Governor Huckabee has been specifically against many of the HSLDA’s positions on education.  The HSLDA website says the following, “It is HSLDA’s firm belief that federal government spending on education is unconstitutional and must be eliminated. While we support the position that the federal government should not be involved in education at any level, we also support measures that incrementally reduce the control of the federal government over education.”  This is in complete contradiction with the quotes stated above, in addition to Huckabee’s initiation of the Smart Start program in Arkansas that increased funding to the public schools.  He also has supported mandated testing, which the HSLDA has been against.  Governor Huckabee said, “You wouldn’t go to the football game or the basketball game or the baseball game and say, ‘Just turn the scoreboard off,’ and neither could we realistically say we’re really interested in improving the quality of education, but we’re not going to keep score. So do we need tests? Yes.”

At this point in my research into Governor Huckabee’s history on education I came to the conclusion that although his support of public education goes against my personal views and the views of the HSLDA, perhaps his support of homeschooling was what matters.  I read with keen interest the news stories about Huckabee’s home school legislation, and when he appointed a home school mom to the school board.  I have immense respect for those actions.  Yet, once again, some more frustrating information came to my attention.  There is an article on the HSLDA website from around the year 1999 when Arkansas gained the “unique distinction of becoming the first state in the nation to add restrictions to its existing home school law….The new law, among other things, establishes notification deadlines and imposes a 14-day waiting period before parents are allowed to withdraw their children from public school to begin home schooling mid-semester.” *   The article commends Mike Huckabee’s original work to support home schooling, but clearly points out his support of Act 1117 (the legislation mentioned above), which he signed on April 5th, 1999.  Even Mike Huckbee’s true commitment to home schooling is questionable.

I think it is also noteworthy, though possibly grasping at straws and/or coincidental, that before your organization’s endorsement, Mike Huckabee’s position paper on his website stated that “I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education”

You are correct when you make the point that a moderate nominee can not win the 2008 election.  The Republican party MUST elect a consistently conservative candidate if they are to have any chance to win the 2008 election.  In my investigation into Mike Huckabee’s prior actions and positions, I continue to be convinced that Mike Huckabee could be more easily exposed as a moderate liberal than even Rudy Giuliani.  Could Hilary Clinton be just waiting for Huckabee to get the nomination, knowing how easy it would be to beat up on him?

For one thing, while Governor in Arkansas, Huckabee initiated and supported the ARKids First program.  This program was a child healthcare initiative that has been compared to the S-CHIP.  Similarly, when the candidates were asked if they supported President Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP, Governor Huckabee kept his hand down.  Once, in Arkansas, Governor Huckabee stood side by side with John Tyson of Tyson foods applauding our government’s ‘open door policy’ and joking about the fact english speaking, white men would soon become a minority because of all the hispanic workers we NEED.  He also believes that there is not a problem with mexican workers taking our jobs.  He was against legislation in Arkansas that would deny public benefits and the right to vote to illegal immigrants, saying it “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.” He also made it clear that he did not think the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was amnesty.  He has also supported allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, smoking bans, food content regulations,  and public funding for alternative fuel sources.

Although Mr. Huckabee has been relatively steadfast on social issues, I was surprised to find the following quote about abortion made by Governor Huckabee in January of 2001, “I’m pro life, but I know not everyone agrees with me on that particular topic, and I respect that.”   He also said on a more recent occasion, “You know, I’ve never hated the Clintons.  I still don’t, I have great respect for them.”

The loss of jobs, the discovery of dangerous materials in Chinese products, and the current trade debt because of increased trade status with China is quickly becoming a hot button conservative issue.  More and more conservatives are against our current free trade policies and are advocating more Reagan-like trade policies.  Governor Huckabee said this about trade with China in April of 2007, “The good news is that China is becoming much more a part of the mainstream.  In its economic development and even in giving greater liberties to its people.”  Ironically, it was announced just yesterday (at the time of this writing) that China would not allow Beijing Olympic attendees to bring in more than 1 Bible into the country.  Christian persecution has not ended in China, and neither has countless other human right violations that occur in that country.  Beyond that, China is sending our trade dollars to make weapons going to Iran, which is ending up in the hands of Hezbollah, Afghani insurgents, and Iraqi insurgents.  Some of the weapons, however, came directly from China and not through Iran.  These statements by Governor Huckabee are naive and dangerous to say the least.

Although the bulk of my letter has been in opposition to Mike Huckabee, I would like to take a moment and discuss the candidate I am supporting: Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Duncan Hunter has spent his career standing up for families, freedom, and for a strong and secure country.  He is considered the ‘father of the border fence,’ as he has been the leader for immigration reform and border security.  He was Chairman of the Armed services committee, where he worked hard to make sure our troops got the support and equipment they have needed to keep us safe.  He accurately predicted the dangers that would ensue with increased trade with China, and has been against our current trade deals with them from the beginning, himself advocating Reagnesque mirror-trade.  He authored the bill to define life at conception over 5 times, and once stood up the ACLU’s attempts to take down a cross at a veteran memorial.  Focus on the Family commended Congressman Hunter on his creation of the Parents’ Empowerment Act which gave parents the right to sue organizations over pornographic material that is too accessible to children.  He was also an original co-sponsor of the Fair Tax.

Duncan Hunter has perfect ratings from Americans for Better Immigration, the Eagle Forum, the NRA, the National Right to Life, and Concerned Women for America.  He has been labeled the most conservative member of Congress in the race.  Ann Coulter has already announced her support of him, and Michael Reagan said Congressman Hunter is “everything conservatives want.”  According to trusted friends of mine, Michael Reagan even compared Duncan Hunter to his father, Ronald Reagan, in a conversation with him after a particular debate.

When it comes to home schooling and education, Hunter has always supported school choice endeavors, decreased federal involvement in public education, and the rights of home schoolers.   He is rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes and he said the following about home education, “Taking into consideration that approximately 2 million children are taught at home, it is important that we make every effort to ensure these students have the same access and opportunities to federal benefits, such as financial aid, as those who attend public school.”

It is not too late for Duncan Hunter to gain massive support.  Ronald Reagan himself was at a similar position at this point in his campaign for the 1980 presidency.  Congressman Hunter won the Texas straw poll by a landslide with only a few days of campaigning, beating Fred Thompson (the runner up) 2-1.  According to selectsmart.com, Duncan Hunter is the candidate most consistent with the general public’s positions 69% of the time.  Congressman Hunter can still win, and it is up to us to put him in the White House.

I have no doubt that your endorsement was made with integrity, and I have great respect for your reasoning and your desire to become involved in this election.  The upcoming election could be a very defining one for our country, and it deserves our utmost attention and involvement.  I do not wish this letter to come as an embarrassment or a ridicule against you or your decision.  I merely hope that you can consider either taking back your endorsement, making a second additional endorsement, or at least help promote the positions and viability of Congressman Duncan Hunter.  He is a true friend of the family, of freedom, and of home schooling.

You and your organization are in my prayers, as is our country.

God bless,

**** *******

To find out more about Congressman Hunter, visit www.gohunter08.com or my own website, www.dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com

*http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v15n3/V15N3AR.asp?PrinterFriendly=True

I thought you guys might find this quick history lesson/quiz interesting.

A little history lesson :
It’s just a short one, only 6 questions.   If you don’t know the answer make your best guess. You don’t need paper or anything.   Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
Who said it?

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A.  Karl Marx
B.  Adolph Hitler
C.  Joseph Stalin
D.  None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few… a nd to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

A.  Lenin
B.  Mussolini
C.  Idi Amin
D.  None of the Above

3) “(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A.  Nikita Khrushev
B.  Josef Goebbels
C.  Boris Yeltsin
D.  None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own…in order to create this common ground.”

A.  Mao Tse Dung
B.  Hugo Chavez
C.  Kim Jong Il
D.  None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A.  Karl Marx
B.  Lenin
C.  Molotov
D.  None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A.  Pinochet
B.  Milosevic
C.  Saddam Hussein
D.  None of the above

Answers:

(1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004
(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007
(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007
(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005

Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid