The House of Representatives recently passed a resolution “expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti” by a vote of 411 to 1. That 1, of course, is the biggest fathead in the Republican Party, Representative Ron Paul. Big surprise.

I’m not entirely sure if Ron Paul is representing himself and his conspiracy theory nutjobs around the country or the Texans in his district who voted Republican, but either way the man is a really horrible joke. We used to laugh at Ron Paul, but now we just feel sorry for the Republicans who have to deal with him as their Representative in the House.

At least we were able to laugh with Jim Traficant and his voters. Perhaps the only slightly humorous thing about Ron Paul is that he has his head so far up his rear end that he actually believes the majority of Americans take him seriously. We might laugh again if a Haitian actually punches him in the throat (who am I kidding? We WILL laugh), but until that happens, the charm of the village idiot has worn off and we’re no longer amused by the radical stooge.

In the first half of 2009, HuckPAC bragged about their abysmal fundraising numbers. When the numbers came out before, I was still on board as a State Volunteer Coordinator for HuckPAC in Indiana. If you were around then, you’ll likely remember that I didn’t hold any punches, calling the numbers completely unacceptable for a PAC belonging someone who will be a top tier candidate entering the 2011/2012 Presidential Race.

In the first six months of 2009, HuckPAC raised just $304,000 compared to Mitt Romney’s PAC, which raised well over $1.9 Million. HuckPAC was also spending money faster than it was bringing it in, prompting them to get rid of a long-time staffer.

Recently, Romney’s people announced that their Free and Strong America PAC raised just under $3 million for the entire year. The fundraising numbers aren’t due out until Sunday afternoon, and those of us who have been close to HuckPAC know that they don’t release this data until the absolute, very last minute humanly possible. And yes, every time it has been because they’re trying to delay the bad press they’re going to get from it.

Anyway, I thought it would be fun to play a bit of a game in this one based on The Price is Right!

The person who comes the closest to guessing how much HuckPAC raised in 2009 without going over will get to be a guest writer on this blog for ONE WEEK! If you’re a blogger, that means you can shamelessly promote your own blog on our website! If you’re a Huckabee fan and believe that I’ve given the guy a bad shake, then you can defend the guy until your fingers start falling off on your keyboard.

All you have to do is leave a comment with the guess closest to how much HuckPAC grossed throughout the entire year in 2009 without going over.

As some of you remember, I never condemned Scott Roeder for killing the late-term abortion doctor George Tiller in the State of Kansas. My reasoning was that by killing the abortionist, Scott Roeder saved the lives of many unborn children. Once again, I was right. George Tiller’s abortion clinic has been shut down and women who want late term abortions no longer able to get them in this geographic part of the United States. Scott Roeder did what he felt was right and I agree with his objective.

The problem is that, though effective, the means to the ends in this case were not justified from my perspective. As I argued before, if every pro-life person started killing abortion doctors, nobody in the country outside of San Francisco would have the stones to provide abortions, thus eliminating people’s access to abortion and thus eliminating abortions in our country… minus San Francisco. The problem pro-lifers, including myself, have with this strategy is that we’re pro-LIFE. That means killing someone isn’t the pro-LIFE thing to do… even if in the long run thousands of more lives are saved by those killings.

Now for some reason, Scott Roeder didn’t have that problem that the rest of us do. Was he a psychopath? His family and the court didn’t seem to think so. Was he overcome with love for the children he was saving? Well, he threatened to kill the ushers in the church – which suggests to me that probably wasn’t the case. Still, the fact that he did it in a church suggests an absence of guilt, if not a sense of divine permission. Did the guy just think about the numbers too excessively and then use morality to explain what those numbers demanded? I really don’t know and it really doesn’t matter for anyone except Scott Roeder, who believes he’s done the right thing.

With that highly controversial bit said, there’s something in this country called “the law.” And the law says that you can’t kill someone who has killed and will kill more unborn children. The second they pop out, then you can kill them to defend the children. But in the womb, killing the guy who would kill the children is illegal. Agree with it, disagree with it – it doesn’t matter because it’s the law. Do I agree with the tax code? Hell no! But I adhere to it when it’s tax time. Do I agree that women should be required to wear tops while men aren’t? Hey, I’m a supporter of equal rights and women should have the right to not wear shirts, just like men. But it’s the law and women across the country (except in San Francisco) adhere to it.

Have you ever noticed how you only see Nancy Pelosi in Washington and never in San Francisco? Be thankful.

Likewise, it was against the law to kill the “baby killer” and just as the law requires punishment for not following the tax code (unless you’re a high-ranking Democrat), the law requires punishment for Scott Roeder. And to be honest, Roeder’s crime should have been punished with a lot more than 25 years. In fact, if you’ve ever read my position on the death penalty or have talked with me in person about the death penalty, you’ll know that I’m generally opposed to it unless the person has a violent ideology that can be spread to others who he will meet in prison and who will get out before him. In other words, although I won’t condemn Roeder, I say he likely deserved the death penalty instead of a mere 25 years.

Assuming he serves the full sentence, Scott Roeder will be 76 years old when he is released from prison. To be honest, that really doesn’t sit right with me. Although he’ll ironically be spending the next 25 years surrounded by criminals he’ll wish were aborted, he deserves to at least be spending the rest of his life surrounded by those people. 25 years just seems like too light of a sentence.

I watched the State of the Union on CNN. Was it just the colorful clothes women in the Democratic Party were wearing, or was CNN using a different color filter to make everything really pop? Seriously, President Obama almost looked like an orange crayon at times.

Anyway, was anyone else floored by the proposal for a 3 year spending freeze starting in 2011? According to the President’s State of the Union Address, President Obama wants Congress to freeze spending for three years, starting in 2011, on all spending not related to National Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Most shocking, he said he was willing to enforce this by veto if necessary.

Now, there are several things to consider here. First, the President sees the coming storm of conservative, anti-government involvement momentum that’s on the verge of throwing all Democrats out of office. By 2011, when the spending freeze will start, Republicans will likely have one of the two Houses of Congress under their control. Likewise, at the state level, Republicans are going to take back a large number of Gubernatorial and State Legislative positions. This plays well for the President politically in that it will severely hurt the states (which get a tremendous amount of money from the Federal Government) and it will prevent Republicans from forcing the President to sign any legislation that he may be ideologically opposed to, since there’s ALWAYS a cost. By 2014, a lot of people are going to be really annoyed by this policy and it could potentially do some long term strategic damage to the Republican Party’s “limited government” platform… not that the party actually advocates it anymore.

Here’s my concern, however. The government spends a lot of money maintaining interstates and highways… is that a national security asset? That can be argued. But what about our National Parks? Is the Grand Canyon going to be closed along with every other National Park? What about education funding? What about the Post Office? Will our mail boxes become our FedEx or UPS boxes? Can Amtrak survive without government investment for three years?

Don’t get me wrong, we need to curb spending and eliminate programs. I also believe spending freezes is a good first step to getting there. But shouldn’t there be a transition beyond, “Republicans won a lot of elections, so we’re not going to spend any money except for what’s absolutely necessary anymore?” This was one of my problems with Ron Paul and his army of idiots armed with tin foil hats. Granted, Ron Paul would have probably banned national security spending because it’s all part of a CIA conspiracy or some nonsense like that.

If he stays true to his word, which is not exactly a given with this President, the political fallout could be very interesting to watch. If you’re a conservative Republican running for President and the incumbent Democrat has literally stopped spending money, how exactly do you campaign against him? I mean, how can you beat a big government liberal who, for the last two years before the election, stopped growing the size of the government and stopped spending money?

How do you run an aggressive campaign against a pro-abortion President who isn’t spending money on abortion? Making Supreme Court Justices a political issue is too boring and dry for effective campaign messages.

Before he died, Governor Frank O’Bannon of Indiana gave something like this a try. At one point during his time in office, the Governor refused to sign any NEW spending legislation. I was actually in the process of abandoning my Democrat identity at the time and adopting a new Republican one, a move that coincided with me learning more about our political system. Needless to say, I was a little shocked that a Democrat didn’t want to spend money. The policy got a mixed response from a lot of people, but Indiana was in serious trouble with an enormous debt. He died in the middle of his second term in 2003, leaving his incompetent Lt. Governor to fill his spot until Mitch Daniels ran for Governor and won in 2004.

Now, things are tough in Indiana relative to just a few years ago, but to be honest, Governor Daniels has insulated Indiana from the national economic collapse remarkably well with his strong job building policies. Allow me to explain… when President Obama talks about job creation, he’s talking about spending tax dollars to pay laborers (normally unionized) to do construction or service related jobs for the Government. When Governor Daniels talks about job creation, he’s talking about making Indiana a more friendly place for industries and companies to settle, do business, and create private sector jobs. Indiana’s government is able to pass new spending legislation, but Daniels has set up systems and checks to ensure that the money being spent is being used in the most effective and responsible way possible. That hasn’t been happening at the Federal level and, unfortunately, the ability to spend money without wasting money seems to be one the Democrats are doomed to never understand.

“That’s why it’s called ‘budgeting.’”

So far, President Obama has had a relatively easy ride. Conservatives that have been critical of the man have either been critical about the wrong things half the time (look, he’s not a damn Muslim, all right!) or have looked like sour grapes because of the humongous loss that Republicans took. The left have done all but sell perfume that smells like Obama’s musk and have repeatedly kissed his rear end over…and over…and over. Now, with the latest example of Obama’s (weak) attempt to show some kind of center movement, both sides have lobbed grenades.

His administration has proposed a spending freeze:

“- Freeze discretionary spending on non-security-related programs and government agencies whose budgets are set annually by Congress. Affected programs could include subsidies for farmers, child nutrition, and national parks.

- Exempt from the freeze would be budgets for federal entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as the budgets for the Pentagon, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and foreign aid.

The administration claims this will save the country $250 billion over the next decade, or about 3% of the $9 trillion deficits the U.S. is expected to accumulate over that period.”(AP)

The right?

“Conservatives have mocked the freeze as not doing nearly enough to get to the root of the country’s economic problems. The right-leaning blog RedState.com chided the effort, saying that it would have “virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America.” On her Twitter page, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin compared the freeze to “promising to slow down from 250 mph to 249.9.” House Minority Leader John Boehner likened the plan to “announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest.”‘(AP)

My opinion? I appreciate the thought, to a degree, and see what he’s trying to do…but it’s too little, too late. Three percent savings…over a decade. Obama could just quite smoking and save more money than that over that period of time (yeah, I know, I’ve only been an ex-smoker for less than a month now and I’m going after smokers…sue me). If he were to be serious about saving, he would work towards reform of entitlement programs. THAT’S where the money goes. Entitlement programs eat up almost half of our budget EVERY YEAR. A step in the right direction, sure…but not a big enough of one for me to start using the words “moderate” and “Obama” in the same sentence.

How about the left? How are those socialist, tree hugging, nut job, pacifist, money spending, tax increasing, idiots taking this (I know, I know, I’m sounding bitterly partisan here, but I’m having some fun darn it!)?

“Liberals aren’t happy either, arguing that less government spending will slow economic growth, and that cutting government services will harm those in need. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the freeze“a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones echoed those sentiments, writing that “the liberal base has yet another reason to be disgusted with Obama.” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow went even further, saying that the “counterintuitive” plan is a “completely insane” one that violates the basic principles taught in any “101 level college econ class.”‘(AP)

First of all, I’d like to know just what Economics 101 books Maddows reading, and then question whether or not she can actually read, or if perhaps she’s retarded? I’ve read through a BOAT LOAD of Economics 101 books, as well as Macro-economics and Public Finance books (side note-have yet to take college courses in these subjects, those were the books I read for fun…yeah, I’m that much of a nerd) and have not found ANYTHING suggesting what Maddow is suggesting. In fact, it has all been EXACTLY. THE. OPPOSITE.

Maddow aside, it will be entertaining to scan through the liberal blogs to read all of the left wing whining about how “their guy is betraying them”. After all, I’m sure they all got a good kick out of reading the same stuff regarding amnesty, bail outs, stimulus bills, “No Child Left Behind”, etc. etc.

The point of this post (besides me being in one of those rare moods where I’m enjoying writing things that are going to piss off half the readers) is that Obama isn’t halfway through his first term, and he’s already done a good job of alienating both sides. He makes a weak attempt to appear centrist and the right laughs, while the left sees this tiny little step in the direction of sanity and immediately all Hell breaks loose. This is actually rather uncharacteristic of liberals. They don’t usually eat their own like this. Usually this is one spot that I credit liberals: that they do a good job of not having any scruples or solid values so that no matter what they all march lock step.

Can the President take (OH MY GAWD!)…criticism?! Diane Sawyer actually asked him some good questions the other night, and he all but bit her head off. As my title says, welcome to the hard part, Mr. President. Can you make a GENUINE reach towards the middle, or will you whimper back to the left for the lavish praise you so adore?Regardless of his decision, this shows another thing: the man is mortal. He’s a political genius, that can’t be said enough, but this was one of those decisions that have backfired like Elmer Fudd’s double barrel shotgun. Only instead of a “waskaly wabbitt”, it’s the 500 lb. elephant in the room.

OK, I know that there have been too many long posts with out pictures already, but everybody is going to have to bear with me on this one. Last night, I had to write my final paper for my criminal law class. The topic that I chose, out of a long list of various topics, was Military Tribunals. I specifically analyze the reasons that military tribunals would be the best bet, and look at the different reasons that trying terrorists in civilian courts would not. I hope that you all enjoy, I’ve taken off the cover and reference page for ease of reading, if anybody REALLY wants to see the reference page, just shoot me an email (mattersofopinion@yahoo.com) and I’ll be sure to send it.

Terrorist Trials

After the Revolutionary War, George Washington used military tribunals. They were also used by Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812, and also by Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. Following precedent, after the devastating attacks on September 11^th, then President George W. Bush signed an executive order for the use of military tribunals to be used to try suspected terrorists. The reasons for this were made very clear: those that brought terror onto our soil would be punished swiftly and efficiently. This didn’t really break any other past war-time practice (and in fact in comparison is relevantly tame), and was seen as the best way to avoid the legal windings that would interfere. These windings included everything from whether or not a suspected terrorists had been read his rights to sensitive and classified information that would be difficult to use in a court room.

What, exactly, made up the group that would qualify for such tribunals?

• If they are or were al Queda members.
• If they engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism.
• If they have harbored such individuals. ( Davenport, page 189)

Those that satisfied the above criteria could either be tried in the United States or over seas as long as the following conditions were met.

• The military commission sits as trier of fact ans law; roles usually split between the jury and judge.
• The presiding officer can admit any evidence that has “probative value to a reasonable person.”
• The secretary of defense designates the prosecutor, and the defendant may have an attorney.
• Conviction need not be unanimous, but can by vote of two-thirds of the commission, and sentencing agreed upon by two-thirds of the commission.
• Any appeal goes to the president or the secretary of defense, and their decision is final. The order specifies that those tried by military tribunal can’t appeal to any court in the United States, foreign country, or any international tribunal.

With President Obama agreeing to the use of military tribunals three six months ago combined with his commitment of closing Guantanamo Bay, it appeared that Americans would have the opportunity to see these tribunals in action and in mass amount. This, rationally, leads to a question of how effective these military tribunals are when actually applied to the terrorist suspects. Would the detainees be tried accordingly, or would rhetoric and here-say be used to determine guilt? There are many who believe that civil courts are not only better equipped to try these detainees, but that the civil courts are the only “right” way to try them. ( Hasian, pg. 338)

From the list of the many people that believe this, Eric Holder, the Attorney General for the Obama administration, has been the most recent person to argue this case. His argument is that the city of New York is the best place to try those that committed the horrible crimes. He is absolutely positive that justice will be met through these means.

There are a great many, however, that are not so sure, and much of that concern is based on the fact that the past administration made so many mistakes regarding their method of accumulating the methods used to prosecute the terrorists they felt was the best means possible. These can help to ensure that a killer will be let go, free to kill again. The mistakes made were rookie law mistakes that should never have happened, and could come around to haunt the previous administration.

For example, an ideological focus on bolstering executive power and a consequent lack of pragmatic flexibility in choosing tactics that would maximize the chances of gaining public and judicial acceptance of its framework for detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorists as well as surveillance of individuals resident in America ensured that many cases would be brought before the Supreme Court questioning the Constitutionality of these decisions. Granted, many in America would agree that it is better to see a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent person put in jail, the fact remains that guilty men will probably be walking free. Not just guilty men, but men who planned out the worst attack on American soil our nation has ever seen.

Also, the administration failed to take into account the fact that so much of Americans’ daily lives are litigated through laws and court decisions that the slightest suggestion of abuse or over-use of power would be either blown out of proportion or micro-analyzed. This leaves very little wiggle room when writing out policy and enforcing said policy. This combined with the length of time it took to actually try detainees through military tribunals helped to make the average citizen weary. (Frakt pg. 315)

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, was a general naivety that Americans would not tire of the wars. Of course, the Abu Ghraib incident and the failures in Iraq could not have easily been foreseen, but those incidents still play on the average citizens trust of the government and their over all view of military tribunals and detainment. Because of these three major mistakes, there is a chance that terrorists will be given the opportunity to find their way back onto the battlefield. (McGinnis, pg.63)

Reasons why the Bush administration are to blame for this debacle aside, there are a great many reasons that military tribunals are the proper way to handle such terrorists. First, there is the fact that 9/11 was, in fact, an act of war just as much as the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan was an act of war. Al Quida is not a group of civilians but rather acts as a funded governmental body. Civilian courts are simply not set up to try such conspiracies, and the average American does not have the correct knowledge of precedents and previous wartime actions to properly persecute said criminals.

Also, there is the concern that because these citizens don’t have this appropriate knowledge, they don’t recognize that in intense field positions there often is not time to read any sort of Miranda Rights. When bombs are dropping out of the sky and other enemy combatants in the area are literally gunning for you, the last thing on a soldiers mind is whether this individual has American rights. Quite frankly, that issue becomes a whole nother topic in and of itself, because these terrorists aren’t American citizens and there are some that argue that because of this they shouldn’t be held to the same standard as those of us that are.

Accordingly, there is also the matter of enhanced interrogation. Should terrorists whom were water boarded (which has under this administration been considered a form of torture) be simply let go through the technicality that they were put under cruel and unusual punishment? This is no doubt an angle that will be used by any competent lawyer. Not only would this technicality be a problem when trying terrorists in civilian court, but the fact that they would be able to plead the fifth. This would more than likely not be as much of an issue since the terrorists will probably use this opportunity to take the stand and disparage and hate-speak about America, however it is something else to consider when examining the possibilities. (Boeving pg. 463)

There is, of course, always the possibility that organized terrorist groups may deliberately threaten jury members so the accused escapes penalty. This is more of a problem that would arise in, say, the United Kingdom because of the fact that Sharia law is much more common in Europe and subsequently encourages larger and often times more radical groups or Muslims, but it isn’t something that can be entirely ruled out here in the United States.

Second, terrorism, at heart a political challenge, may itself politicize a jury. Where nationalist conflict rages, as it does in Northern Ireland, juries may be sympathetic to those engaged in violence and may acquit the guilty. Alternatively, following a terrorist attack, juries may be biased. They may identify with the victims, or they may, consciously or unconsciously, seek to return a verdict that conforms to community sentiment. Jurors also may worry about becoming victims of future attacks. Of course, since this isn’t Ireland where terrorist attacks are, unfortunately, much more prevalent, this is also a lesser factor. However, the politicization of what should be a very bi-partisan issue, should not, again, be ruled out. (Donahue pg. 1321)

So, the reasons for military tribunals (which, of course parallel the arguments against civil courts handling such cases) are fairly clear and concise. The reasons against military tribunals, unfortunately, are not nearly as compelling, at least to me. The arguments are usually in favor of all of the problems that arise with military tribunals. The focus is generally on the abstract loopholes that were addressed earlier in this piece that are the reasons that the Bush administration is to blame for this being such a bouffant mess in the first place. Wherever each individual falls on this issue, the fact is that there will be massive amounts of precedents being set when the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are tried in civilian court in New York. The many problems that arise with military tribunals will be addressed, and loose ends that should have been tied up long ago will be finally secured. Justice, depending on which side of the argument one falls on, will undoubtedly be served.

Those of you who have read this blog or who know me personally know undoubtedly that I’m as pro-life as they come. I believe abortion should be illegal except when the heath of the mother is seriously jeopardized. I’m so pro-life that I’m even opposed to the death penalty, which makes me stand out among other supposedly “pro-life” conservatives.

You see, I’m pro-life because I believe that life is sacred. And because life is sacred, I’m also opposed to people doing stupid stuff with their lives. That’s why I’m opposed to the legalization of drugs and why I support an escalation of the War on Drugs to model Colin Powell’s philosophy of “Total Force” warfare. That’s also why I get worked up over people following idiots like Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin as though they were political messiahs while simultaneously demonizing leftists for doing the exact same to Barack Obama.

And every now and then, conservatives put together something so insanely stupid that I have to speak out and bring to light the flaws in their thinking. That’s why I’m calling the “Virtual March For Life” a really dumb idea.

The logic behind it is that this “Virtual March” allows for the millions of pro-lifers who can’t physically go to Washington to participate nonetheless. The problem is that it cheapens the whole thing in several ways. First and foremost, of the 300,000 people that showed up, I’m willing to bet that a lot more than a few of them signed up for the 82,000 person “Virtual March.”

Second, there’s nothing stopping people for registering multiple times.

Third, if it ever takes off (God forbid), it’s going to excuse people from attending the virtual march, which can be quite expensive and inconvenient if you don’t live in the Washingon, DC area.

Fourth, you’ve given an excuse for pro-life leaders to skip the event completely with a couple clicks of a mouse (that’s what the broke Mike Huckabee and lazy Sarah Palin opted to do, along with other pro-life conservative politicians). Don’t get me wrong, certain politicians can’t be in Washington… Marco Rubio is a good example; unless he’s on a national television show for publicity, he needs to spend every waking hour between now and the Florida Primary in the state of Florida campaigning. However, politicians like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, according to their own rhetoric, should have no priority higher than Life issues and thus they should be at the largest rally for activists of that issue in the country. It’s pathetic that they’re not there and the “Virtual” March for Life was their excuse.

Fifth, it’s an oxymoron to have a “Virtual March” for anything. Seriously, unless I see an old fashioned Marquee code with an animated *.gif of a marching character, you don’t “March” “Virtually.”

It’s funny because there’s a fat guy who looks like Jesus riding a motorcycle at the end.

The whole point of doing something virtually is so that you really don’t have to do it. And that brings me to my sixth point.

Sixth! The thing that’s so special about the March for Life is that hundreds of thousands of people are willing to drop what they’re doing, go to their nation’s capital, and petition their government to protect unborn children. How incredible is it that people are that passionate about this issue that such a large segment of our population is willing to travel all the way out there for this one common goal! You know that if 300,000 people are passionate enough to come out to Washington, then they and millions of other Americans are definitely passionate enough to walk or drive to their local polling place and vote in the next election. The very idea of a “virtual” march is stupid because it tells politicians, “Hey, I care enough about this issue to sit on my butt and click this button.”

Yeah, that has them shaking in their shoes. It tells them NOTHING. How loud were the internet activists against the Iraq War in 2004? It was crazy! I didn’t have a comments feature on my website at the time, but I literally got over 100 e-mails a day towards the end of the campaign from anti-war activists. Yet how many of them cared enough to get up off their butts and vote? Hardly any of them.

Didn’t 2008 and Barack Obama change all of that? Yes, but conservatives behind the “Virtual” March for Life are too stupid to figure out how and why it worked. Instead, they’re making the same mistake John Kerry’s supporters made in 2004. Barack Obama used the internet to organize people into getting OFF their butts. The TEA Party movement is a conservative example of using the internet to get people OFF their butts. The “Virtual March For Life” is an example of using the internet to stay ON their butts and not do a thing. That’s how you create apathy and indifference.

If you can’t go, you can’t go. But don’t let people think they can make a difference by sitting on their butts and clicking a button. It’s going to take a LOT more than that to save these millions of children from being killed and their mothers from making one of the worst mistakes of their lives.

Mike Sodrel was one of several Indiana Republican Congressmen to lose his seat in the 2006 disaster. He tried running again in 2008, but joke of a campaign the McCain-Palin ticket ran destroyed any chance Republicans in Indiana and across the country had at winning back their seats. But that was then and this is now. The Democrats agenda has been utterly and completely rejected by the American people and a lot of seats that were lost in 2006 and 2008 are looking winnable again in 2010.

How winnable? Well, according to Survey USA, Former Congressman Sodrel is enjoying a 49% to 41% lead over the liberal incumbent who ousted him four years ago.

If Sodrel’s name sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve discussed him, Baron Hill, and Indiana’s 9th Congressional District before. This is the land of moderate Democrats. In 2002, Baron Hill won the district by 5%. In 2004, Mike Sodrel won by less than 1%, but that was with a Libertarian candidate pulling in 2%. In 2006, Hill won the seat back by 4%. In 2008, Sodrel lost by 20% (58-38) with the Libertarian candidate pulling in 4%.

Now, under any other circumstances after a 20% loss, I would say that running Sodrel again would be a disaster. So why is this situation unique? Well, first and foremost is the quality of Mike Sodrel as not only a candidate, but as a human being. This is honestly a top notch, stand up guy and somebody Republicans should WANT to represent them in every district. So he has that going in his favor.

What’s more, 2006 and 2008 were NOT good election years for Republicans. Both years, instead of working to help our candidates, the National Republican Party has been working overtime to give Republicans a reason not to come to the polls. That’s why states like North Carolina and Indiana, as red of states as one might imagine, went blue in 2008.

The Republican Party really hasn’t given us too many reasons to come to the polls in 2010. Luckily (if you can call it that), the Democrats have been doing a great job at giving conservatives a reason to come out to the polls. The truth of the matter is that the Democrats’ excessive wins in 2006 and 2008 have been flukes brought about by political incompetency by GOP “leaders” at the national level – not necessarily individual Republican lawmakers.

And Mike Sodrel is proof of that. Despite losing by a landslide in 2008, the former Congressional Representative of the district is actually ahead in the polls right now because grassroots conservatives have realized they can no longer afford to be apathetic to the political battles we’re engaged in – even if the RNC and NRSC are. Mike Sodrel and scores of hard working, loyal Republicans like him have been the hardest hit victims of the incompetency in our party’s leadership.

Thankfully, Republicans are starting to realize that and the former Congressman of Indiana’s 9th Congressional District is poised to take the grassroots momentum all the way back to Washington, DC. I wish Mike Sodrel and his campaign staff the absolute best of luck this year. Their hard work is an integral part of ousting Nancy Pelosi from her position as Speaker of the House and derailing the liberal agenda of her and the Rubber Stamp living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

You can learn more about Mike Sodrel and how to support his campaign by visiting his campaign website at http://www.mikesodrel.com

He stopped short of saying 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy to justify our imperialist Global War on Terrorism, but you know his idiot supporters listening to him would have applauded if he had.

Of all the conservative blogs you’ve read, I highly doubt that there are any more credible than this one when it comes to this latest “CIA Coup” conspiracy theory. At least two of the four people who have written on this blog in the past year have served in the United States Air Force as intelligence analysts, including myself (Yeah, that limits our occupational diversity, but I can’t help it. If you want to read the smartest, most intelligent, most talented people out there, that’s where they’re coming from). Now, due to the nature of the work we’ve done, we can’t talk about the details of we’ve done and thus rarely talk about our experiences beyond the fact that we’ve merely served.

HOWEVER, I’m going to break the rules a little bit here. At no time during my time in the Air Force did I take orders from the CIA or contractor from Blackwater or any other similar group. All the commands I took came directly from my legitimate chain of command. My chain of command was entirely military except for the top level, where Secretary Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush were the only civilians/non-military personnel I answered to.

Without going into detail, there was one instance I was involved in where the CIA wanted information from my particular corner of the Air Force. It was not a pleasant process and I worked insanely late that night dealing with the request. I’m not breaking any news here when I say this, our intelligence community is divided into different departments (CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, etc.) and the departments don’t share their toys well. Again, without going into detail, the CIA did not get what they wanted from us that night.

Now, if there was a coup, the CIA wouldn’t have had to even ask. If there was a coup, our Commander would have had a CIA agent sitting in his office all day long or the DCI would have been in my chain of command instead of or next to Donald Rumsfeld. If there was a coup, the CIA would have locked my ass up in Gitmo for not sharing what they wanted. Instead of a cage in a warm detention facility, however, I got a pat on the back from my supervisor for staying late and making sure protocol was followed.

Back to the village idiot.

This conspiracy fear mongering by Ron Paul and his loony followers is absolutely absurd. In fact, it’s absolutely retarded. First of all, in order for this to happen legally, it would need to be approved by an act of Congress. The PATRIOT Act didn’t even go that far and no other such act has been passed (or even brought to committee). This then suggests that the coup was illegal, secretive, and Congress doesn’t know about it and both Republican and Democratic Presidents are okay with it. Well, not only them, but also the entire Armed Forces of the United States of America. Think about that, there are almost 3 Million men and women between the ages of 17 (that’s another topic) and 45 in the military on Active Duty or Reserve.

3 Million men and women who have military tradition and discipline beat into them until they find themselves praying to God at night and addressing Him as “Sir.” When you’re in the service, you’re constantly honoring hundreds of years of military tradition, whether you are obeying your military chain of command, shining your boots, or ironing some bad ass creases into your uniform – you are honoring tradition and by honoring tradition, you are honoring the great history of this country.

So if one day, the CIA decides to take over the military, do you REALLY think that 3 million men and women would stay silent about it? Do you really think 3 million American heroes would willingly take commands from the CIA, or worse yet, a contractor? Look, I’m sure there are other veterans out there… please tell me if I’m wrong for being offended by this Ron Paul idiot and his idiot followers for pushing these conspiracy theories out there. They have absolutely NO regard for what offensive assumptions they’re making about the intelligence and allegiances of some of the greatest Americans our country is producing.

Do you remember when some liberal ran up to Ann Coulter and hit her in the face with a pie? I think I understand where they’re coming from now. Only instead of a pie in the face, I want to see some Marine put a knee in between the legs of this little jackass conspiracy nut.