Battle of the Bulge: Pregnant Soldiers in Combat

Recently much has been made about female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving in a combat zone. Maj. General Anthony Cucolo III, determined to maintain combat readiness, has made clear that there would be repercussions (for both male and female soldiers) should they chose to engage in behavior that removes them from their duty:

"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status or contributed to making someone no longer deployable is not in keeping with a key element of the Army's warrior ethos – 'I will always place the mission first,'" Cucolo said. "I believe there should be professional consequences for making a choice like that."

US general in Iraq defends tough pregnancy rules

It is important to note that the soldiers are not being punished for being pregnant; they are being reprimanded for violating their oath, and committing to actions that made the solider unable to perform their assigned duties. I understand, primal urges are hard desires to resist; but that is what we ask of our soldiers every day, to be at the optimum of their mental and physical best.

There is nothing new with the military, and by extension combat commanders, taking steps to ensure full combat effectiveness. Pregnancy is just another in a long list of physical and/or mental changes that are known to deter fighting readiness, and can result in punitive actions against the solider:

Being overweigh, excessive drug or alcohol use, self-injury, reckless behavior, even getting a sunburn (if it affects the soldier’s ability to perform their duties to their fullest) can result in an official warning.

Unfortunately, the debate has taken a wrong turn. Pro-abortion groups, liberal feminist organizations (such as NOW, which called the policy "ridiculous.” “How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "This is not the 1800s."), anti-war groups want to somehow make this an issue about choice in favor of pregnancy (a hard sell considering their fanatically support for abortion at all cost). Each of these groups has ulterior motives, none of which have anything to do with the combat readiness of the US Military.

But the most operant intervention is when politicians decide to intervene for self-seeking motives, and not in the best interest of the combat status of a unit serving in a hot zone. Four US Senators, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-California), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) prematurely sent a letter in opposition to General Cucolo’s orders:

"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to General Cucolo. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy."

The heavy tone of the letter is not only indicative of the Senator’s misunderstanding of the true role of the US Military, but the factual crisis General Cucolo was trying to address…….the selfish actions of a few soldiers under his command that were jeopardizing not only the mission, but the lives of fellow soldiers. It is the actions of these soldiers, some more than likely getting pregnant to avoid a long deployment, which “defies comprehension.”

Additional links:

Senators Demand General Rescind Order on Pregnant Soldiers

Knocked up and deployed: A Combat Commanders Point of View

UK Military Concerned About Pregnant Female Soldiers

US Guns in Mexico: Why Let Those Darn Facts Get In The Way?

Throughout the week many within the anti-2^nd Amendment crowd pointed to the claims by President Obama that over “90%” of the guns used for illegal activities in Mexico came from the US. In fact these figures were just slightly exaggerated…ONLY BY 73%!

Fox News: Myth of Percent of Guns in Mexico a Fraction of Number Obama Claimed

I guess it was the thought that counts.

Who Is Really To Blame For Our Current Financial Crisis?

Which was it………not enough regulation or too many regulations? Are the Republicans to blame, or the Democrats? Is this all Wall Streets fault, or is the weight on President Bush? Financial expert Phil Gramm wrote an enlightening piece on the cause of this crisis:

WSJ: Who Really Is To Blame For Our Current Mess?

Because it is Phil Gramm there are those on the Left who will immediately dismiss this piece, but what they are really ignoring is the truth. And why shouldn’t they, because in the end they would have to place blame where it belongs…..with them!

The Bailout Fairytale

Democrats Ignored Warning Signs

What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Obama’s Budget Plan: The Devil is in the Details

President Obama is trying to trumpet in a “New Era of Responsibility” with the announcement of his 2010 budget. The plan at best will raise taxes and triple the current budget, and at worst create the biggest government in the history of the world:

Reuters: Obama Brings Back Era of Big Government

It will take some time before all the details of the budget are revealed, due in large part because the budget plan lacks details on such high ticket items like the healthcare initiatives (there’s transparency for you), but already people are starting to question the numbers:

NY Post: Obama's Fuzzy Math

Above all this budget does fulfill one of Obama’s campaign promises, tax relief for those that don’t pay taxes and higher taxes for those identified as the “rich:”

WSJ: Taxing the rich won't help

Much will be written, and many will disagree over the next few weeks and months, but in the end this budget (as it is written now) will not help hardworking Americans. More over, the trouble with this budget does not rest solely with the Democrats.

When are those in Washington, DC going to wake up?

Is Nominee Solis The Next Tom Daschle?

If given the opportunity, I am sure the Obama Administration would most likely love to have a “redo” on some of their nominations. But for right now they have deal with another “troubled” nomination looming in Solis:

DC Examiner: Senators should ask Solis why she approved campaign spots paid for by her non-profit

So is Solis going to be the next Daschle, and what should

Heritage: Is Solis the new Daschle?

The only Obama nominee’s that seem to doing well are the Republican’s. Go figure!

Gregg Appointed To Commerce: What Does This Mean For New Hampshire?

On February 3, President Obama announced the appointment of New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg:

Gregg Tapped To Head Commerce

Now don’t get me wrong, I think that Judd Gregg is ideally suited to heads the Commerce Department, but where does that leave New Hampshire Conservatives? Try “concerned.”

The rumor at this writing is that Senator Gregg’s former Chief of Staff, Bonnie Newman, will be appointed to the seat. Newman has an impressive resume, but has never held elective office. Newman’s lack of elective experience and low name recognition make her an inviting target when the seat is up for grabs in two-years.

Current NH Congressman Hodes is expected to announce his candidacy for Gregg’s Senate seat sometime in the coming weeks. Prior to Gregg’s departure, Hodes had hinted at a run for the Senate, but Gregg’s departure will most assuredly cinch the deal for Hodes. Hodes has been mediocre Congressman, but sometimes-in New Hampshire, mediocre is the most important attribute; just look at how popular New Hampshire’s ineffective Governor Lynch is (Do nothing and don’t ruffle anyone’s feathers….presto 70% approval rating!). Most of the time New Hampshirians prefer their representatives to be like a New Hampshire winter, ..........dull.

More importantly, Hodes is a friend of NH’s other Senator, Jeanne Sheehan, as well as an early political supporter of President Obama. Should Newman run unopposed in the GOP primary for Gregg’s seat in two years, Hodes has a better than average chance of winning.

How should the NH GOP respond?

Leon Panetta to head the CIA: Really?

In a surprise move, President-elect Obama has tapped former Clintonista Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Panetta’s only qualification seems to be his expressed opposition to torture. The difficultly is his definition of “torture” does not seem to be in step with the rest of the intelligence community:

Washington Monthly: Panetta's definition of torture

Additionally, Panetta does not seem to have the enthusiastic support from members of Congress, as well as the intelligence community. As one of Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Panetta managed to make many enemies on the floor of Congress, which is why we are hearing some grumbling on both sides of the aisle:

Powerline Blog: Nothing against Panetta, but....
San Francisco Chronicle: Choice of Panetta to head CIA puzzles experts
AP: Obama's intel picks short on direct experience

Obama names Clinton crony who has never worked in intelligence to head CIA

Sarah Palin Named Conservative of the Year

EXCLUSIVE Interview With Sarah Palin
by Human Events
12/22/2008

“Thank you, sir. It is an honor to be named your ‘‘Conservative of the Year.’”That’s how Sarah Palin began her third interview this year with HUMAN EVENTS Political Editor John Gizzi. She spoke to Gizzi last April as the first of 16 Republicans he interviewed for HE’s “Veepstakes” election-year feature, and then she sat down with him during the National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia in July. The Alaska governor last week again spoke to Gizzi, this time about her historic candidacy as the Republican vice presidential nominee as well as about current issues and her future. Veteran Republican political consultant Holly Robichaud, who had arranged the first “Veepstakes” interview between Palin and Gizzi, set up their latest exchange December 12.

Speaking from her office in Juneau, Gov Palin set the scene: “It’s five below, not too cold to snow, which is nice, absolutely beautiful and white and crisp,” and then Gizzi began the interview with her:

GIZZI: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss singled you out for praise after you campaigned for him and he won re-election in the run-off in Georgia earlier this month. What did you do that was so helpful to Sen. Chambliss, who won by a relatively large margin?

PALIN: Georgia was a blast. People were fired up to re-elect him. It certainly wasn’t me. It was him. When he was on stage, people were cheering. I think the rest of the country, those who were concerned about checks and balances in Washington, D.C., were very excited about the opportunity for me to help out a little bit there. And we made sure we did have those checks and balances that came with his re-election. I was very thankful he was re-elected, and very thankful for my state of Alaska. Saxby is pro-development and wants to make sure that our nation becomes energy independent. Alaska can help. As opposed to the positions his opponent had been taking, he can help us progress toward that end. His opponent [Democrat Jim Martin], I believe, would have worked to lock up more of Alaska.

GIZZI: In campaigning for Sen. Chambliss, you brought back a lot of conservatives who had been critical of him for voting for the Wall Street bailout [of financial institutions]. Would you have favored the Wall Street bailout and voted as Sen. Chambliss did?

PALIN: I would have done what the GOP [senators] did yesterday and said ‘no’ to additional bailout efforts of one industry [the automobile industry, whose proposed federal bailout was stopped in the Senate December 11]. Picking winners and losers in Washington, D.C., is a dangerous thing to do when you’re talking about a system that supposed to be based on free enterprise. When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions. But back then, weeks ago, when that initial bailout [of financial institutions] was proposed, remember, it was considered at the time a rescue and not necessarily a bailout. Without having as much information as everyone has now, I did support that initial effort that was going to come from Congress. Of course, we saw [Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben] Bernanke and others appear to change the rules right away, it seemed like, after that initial rescue plan or bailout was given the green light, then everybody in the public, including me, started hearing that the rules were changing on where those dollars would go and what the criterion would be. Unfortunately, that leads to distrust of decisions our politicians make on our behalf and bureaucrats make on our behalf. Now the situation has changed, and I think the GOP did the right thing yesterday in saying, “Look, we still want more information before one industry -- in this case, the auto industry -- gets more taxpayer assistance until everybody knows what those dollars would be used for and how it will lead to success in this industry.”

GIZZI: So you stand with Sen. [Bob] Corker [Tenn.] and other Republicans who stopped the auto industry bailout in the Senate?

PALIN: I do. Once bitten, twice shy. We learned a lesson, at least being amenable -- if not enthused -- to the idea all those weeks ago to the first rescue plan. But then the rules changed quickly, and more information was revealed that perhaps Congress and the bureaucrats in the Treasury Department not having a good grasp on what the problem was and how taxpayer funds would solve any of the problems. That’s caused a lot of concern and caution on my part and the part of the Republican Party.

GIZZI: Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has spoken out against the bailout of states that [California] Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger and other governors have called for. As a governor yourself and an active member of the National Governors Association, where do you stand on the bailout of states?

PALIN: Every state, like every community in the United States, comes to Congress with its list of infrastructure needs. Alaska is going to join every other state with a governor’s list. In fact, I’ve looked at every other governor’s list of infrastructure needs that’s presented to Congress. It’s up to Congress, because Congress holds the purse strings, to decide how some of those projects are going to be funded. Alaska’s projects are going to be in the nation’s best interests. They will be infrastructure that will build gas lines and build that infrastructure up that will lead to energy production to allow us to become energy independent. We aren’t asking for things like “Bridges to Nowhere.” But, in speaking with Gov. Schwarzenegger about this, he has said it’s not his intention to ask for a bailout that is based on his state’s management decisions that have led to some problems in that state. In Alaska, we’re fortunate. We have a surplus. We have money put aside for the last few years, waiting for a ‘rainy day’ when the economy wasn’t as strong. We are in a good position, so we are not asking for, nor should we ask for, a bailout from the ‘feds.’ But we will, along with every other state, have our list of infrastructure projects and roads and very basic tools that will lead to energy production.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

GIZZI: What was the biggest mistake made in the ’08 campaign?

PALIN: The biggest mistake made was that I could have called more shots on this: the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen. But I was so thankful to have the opportunity to run with John McCain that I was not going to argue with the strategy decisions that some of his people were making regarding the media contacts.But if I would have been in charge, I would have wanted to speak to more reporters because that’s how you get your message out to the electorate.

GIZZI: And what was the most important lesson you learned from the campaign?

PALIN: The campaign was 99.9% amazing and invigorating and inspiring. But looking back, there were so many things that were outside of my control. I was in a campaign in which I did not know the people individually running the campaign. So I had to put my life, my career, my family, and my reputation in their hands. That’s kind of a scary thing to do when you don’t know the people you are working with. Now I have all the faith in the world in Sen. McCain and his family. But some of the folks around him I did not know, and so it was a kind of a risky thing for me to put my faith in the decisions they were making on my behalf.As an administrator, as a chief executive of a state, I am not used to that. I am used to proving my abilities by calling the shots. Then I know the buck stops with me. I made the decisions, and I’m responsible. When others are making decisions for me, as they were in the campaign, and I am the one to live with the fallout from the decisions that were made on my behalf, that is something I am not very comfortable with.

GIZZI: Do you want to give me any names of people?

PALIN: No. But they’re folks who have done this before. Of course, I haven’t done this on a national level before.But my reliance on seeking God’s direction in all that I do -- that is good enough for me. And others who have a different worldview and different strategy on messaging and such, I would like to have the opportunity to prove to them that my gut instincts were going to be quite adequate.

GIZZI: Are you getting a lot of requests to speak around the country for candidates, as you did for Sen. Chambliss?

PALIN: I’m getting a lot of requests to speak. But right now my focus is on Alaska and a lot of the energy projects we are working on.

GIZZI: Who is your role model?

PALIN: Susan B. Anthony. I have great respect there for the history. She was a pro-life feminist and those things that she stood for, and she was so far ahead of her time. It amazes me.

GIZZI: You made it clear in our interviews earlier this year that you were not close to fellow Republicans Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young from your state, both of whom you said had a different vision of Alaska’s dealings with the federal government than you did. Were you pleased with the election of Democrat Mark Begich who defeated Stevens and with the re-election of Rep. Young?

PALIN: I met yesterday with Sen.-elect Begich to see that we are on the same page as we move forward as he starts his new job representing Alaska. I thought that Sen. Stevens was going to be re-elected, and it was so close, and that if he were to step aside because he was convicted [on corruption charges], then I would get to appoint a Republican. So I was kind of surprised at the outcome there. It is what it is, and I wish Sen. Begich well. We’ll work well together. He’s going to be in the majority party and that’s all the more reason for Mark Begich and me to work closely together. We will.

GIZZI: Will you run for higher office, such as the U.S. Senate from Alaska in 2010 [when more moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s seat is up]?

PALIN: That’s not in my sites. There’s so much to do as governor.

Read Ann Coulter's EXCLUSIVE HUMAN EVENTS column, Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year.

Interview with Michael Steele

Michael Steele is one of many prominent Republicans seeking the chairmanship of the RNC. This is a transcript of a recent interview he held with CNS News.

Q&A with Michael Steele, Candidate for RNC Chairman
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, chairman of GOPAC, the Republican Party's political action committee (CNSNews.com/ Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is already working to put Republicans in office as chairman of GOPAC, the party's political action committee.

Now he hopes to take the helm of the Republican National Committee (RNC), a chairmanship he is vying for against as many as nine other party loyalists.

A self-described "pro-life Catholic," Steele has been criticized for some remarks he made during his run for the Senate in 2006 and his affiliation with the pro-abortion group, Republican Leadership Council.

Steele is no stranger to the national political scene, having grown up in Washington, D.C. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and was the first black to be elected chairman of his state's party. He also was the first black to be elected to statewide office in Maryland.

He spoke with CNSNews.com on Friday to share his views and to say how he would lead the Republican Party leading up to the 2010 and 2012 elections.

CNSNews.com: Would you support a state law in Maryland that bans same-sex unions?

Steele: Sure, we've been fighting that fight in Maryland now for three sessions of our legislature, and it is very clear, we've stated very clearly and reemphasized the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman – and have taken the argument directly to the people, and the legislators so far have not been able to muster the votes to put that constitutional amendment in place. They've looked to Massachusetts and Connecticut and other states that have tried – and some cases been successful and other cases not – to figure out the ground game, and each time we come back with the core argument. I think that is going to be the battleground for many states and the Republican Party in my view – not only in terms of having a national voice on the issue where you can speak more generically, but you can speak specifically state by state reflecting back the values and the culture of the communities that make up that state. And clearly we saw in California with Proposition 8 a very clear signal by the voters there. And I love how 52 or 53 percent is an insignificant number. It's an insignificant number when you lose.

CNSNews.com: The 2008 Republican Party platform supports the constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a union between one man and a woman. Do you support that?

Steele: Yes, as chairman of the party I absolutely would support that, because it is in our platform. It is something that the political and activist members of the Republican Party in convention have put into the platform. My personal caution has always been thinking twice and being very careful when you start tinkering around with the federal Constitution. Certain matters are better fought state by state. But when you have in place the desire for a national mandate to bring about clarity, then it's a legitimate point of discussion. So, our platform calls for that, and as chairman I absolutely will support it.

CNSNews.com: On another Republican platform issue that has come up repeatedly over the years since it was first put in place during the Ronald Reagan presidential nomination. You've been asked about it before, including during an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2006, and he asked you about the abortion issue. Also, on the Web site for Christy Todd Whitman's company (The Whitman Strategy Group) that you help found the Republican Leadership Council, which falls into the pro-abortion side of the issue. Let me read to you from that transcript.

Transcript from "Meet the Press," Oct. 29, 2006

Russert: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here's the latest headline. "Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate 'values voters' by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. National Right to Life's political action committee plans to run radio commercials on [Michael] Steele's behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail." The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you're a United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?
Steele: I don't--vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we'd have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? I haven't seen that bill proposed. I don't think...
Russert: That's been introduced in the Senate.
Steele: I don't think anyone's going to propose that this day.
Russert: So you wouldn't do that?
Steele: No.
Russert: Would, would you encourage--would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
Steele: I think that that's a matter that's going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken the position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that's ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We're seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
Russert: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
Steele: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
Russert: But what's your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
Steele: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade is a, is a matter that should've been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
Russert: Is it your desire that they keep it in place?
Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

CNSNews.com: OK, the Republican Party Platform says: "Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life that cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life."

Do you agree with that?

Steele: Again, I am a pro-life Roman Catholic. And I have always been that way. I have always viewed that issue from that perspective. What you saw in the exchange with me and the late, great host of "Meet the Press" was two Catholic boys doing a little jockeying, because I knew exactly where Tim was trying to go. I remember saying to him when we were on commercial break, 'You know exactly what the deal is. Why are you trying to trick out something here? You're a good Catholic boy. Behave yourself. So we were joking about it. The long and short of it is what I was trying to say, and I admit, probably inarticulately in doing so at the time, that the court would not necessarily just willy nilly change Roe vs. Wade. The court believes in the concept of the law having grown its own legs … the court would need a case to come before it that would move it to change. So I was trying that point. The court is not going to just up and change Roe vs. Wade no matter the number of justices who support its overturn, because those justices – if they are true Republican picks who honor tradition of the court and who are strict constructionists – they are not going to willy nilly do that to fulfill some political agenda. So that's what I was trying to say. My personal view is Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, which is why I made the point that it should have been left to the individual states to have that battle and to have the communities decide for themselves what they would pay for, what they wouldn't pay for, what they would accept and what they won't accept, very much like what is being played on with the gay marriage bill. And so, my point was that from a judicial standpoint – and this is what I get for being a lawyer I guess – but from a judicial standpoint, nothing presented to the court so far to move it to act to strike Roe vs. Wade.

The case has not come before it yet. You have to fight for a decision like that. The votes are there. So why hasn't it happened? Because these judges, the five-justice majority, are strict constructionists, and they are not going to willy nilly decide on a political whim. So that was the point with Tim. With respect to the (Republican Party) platform, again, I go back to my basic point. I don't need to be chairman of the party to support that plank.
That is something that is paramount for me, because you are talking about the sanctity of all life, born and the unborn. And I think it's important for this country to move itself away from this culture of death that we've sort of fallen into, as noted by (Pope) John Paul II. And I think it is important that our political leadership – that has the opportunity to use the bully pulpit – to speak to that sanctity of life, and it should do so. As we move to the beginnings of a new administration where the president of the country has a very, very clear view on matters related to abortion, very, very pro-abortion, that it is going to be incumbent upon Republicans, incumbent upon those who are pro-life, who hold the sanctity of life dear to be able to rise and speak to that and to challenge what I think are going to be some really dark legislation that's going to come out of (the 111^th) Congress under this administration.

CNSNews.com: Ronald Reagan, and most recently John McCain, supported eliminating the Department of Education. Do you agree?

Steele: You know, I'm going to be very honest with you, because that's how I try to approach these things. I've been back and forth on that, and I'll tell you why. At the end of the day, I think my view is, the more we empower school systems within states to educate, and the more we move away from having this subtle finger sort of poking you in the eye and poking you in the back, and trying to direct outcomes, I think the better off we're going to be longer-term. Because individual communities know how to educate their kids, they have a sense of who's performing well and why, who's struggling and who isn't. So let them put in play, let's take those federal dollars and create grants back to the states. We're paying the federal tax and a portion of that money goes to this current department – let's break that up and put those dollars back to work on the ground. The bureaucracy that it is right now, I see streamlining, and, look, I'm talking about a guy behind the desk with a checkbook.

CNSNews.com: So, yes or no, would you support eliminating the Department of Education?

Steele: I don't know, to be honest, I don't know. I mean, and you know what? Anyone who gives you a yes or no answer I think is being a little disingenuous, because you don't know. Things have changed from 25 years ago. And, I think, if you are going down that road, you need to take a wholesale analysis and look at it, not in the bureaucratic way but just, okay, what is the practical outcome we're trying to reach here? Do we just want to feel good by eliminating the Department of Education? Or are we trying to reach some practical outcome on behalf of students, and will this further that outcome? And I think I want to do that before I said yes about something like that.

CNSNews.com: Under George W. Bush, his No Child Left Behind program increased spending by the Department of Education. Did you support his No Child Left Behind policy?

Steele: I supported the idea, and I've criticized the implementation and the execution, because again you've created a bureaucracy in which you have put unfunded mandates on state education systems that they can't meet. And so, to that extent, it is not productive, and it is not useful, it is not helpful. Nor is it helpful when we, as we do with most of these situations, we impose by mandate federal policy, and no one goes back and revisits the policy, and sees whether or not it's working, and what impact is it having on students … and the teachers of this country. I did a year-and-a-half long study of our educational system in Maryland, and I sat down and spoke with over 1,000 teachers face-to-face – face-to-face, with over 1,000 teachers, and every one of them … would tell me that their problem isn't so much with the idea of No Child Left Behind, because it helps to push the kids to a certain reading level and standard. But they're not looking at the impact it's having on the teachers, that they're now forced to teach to test, basically. So they spend three-quarters of the year preparing these kids to take this one exam. And then they squeeze in everything else the kids need to learn in the last quarter of the year. That's not education. And so, from my point of view, if you're going to do something like that, then let's incorporate the teachers and get their input and make sure we're doing it right so that they get the benefit of it so that they can pass that benefit on to the kids.

CNSNews.com: The Republican group rebuildtheparty.com has a 10 point plan to rebuild the party, with the No. 1 priority being using the Internet as a tool. Do you agree?

Steele: Oh, absolutely. I'm one of the biggest techno-geeks out here. You'll find me on the net at all hours of the night surfin,' bloggin,' finding out what's goin' on. Doing the Twitter thing, doing the Facebook thing, and it's time to be connected. How else can I be effective in my leadership of GOPAC and ultimately my leadership of the party if I don't know what this generation is doing, how they communicate with each other? How do I reach them if I'm sending them a piece of mail, and they're getting their mail on their telephone? So the question begs itself, what does the party do to make itself technologically relevant? Well, first off, you've got to recognize that times have changed and we've gotta' catch up to those times. But then, not only do we catch up, how do we improve on the times, how do we create the next level? And that's something that I want to see us do. I want to take some of the smartest minds in technology and bring them into the RNC and have them work with me to create a new strategy, a new paradigm, if you will, on how we reach voters and how we message our issues, so that we're defining the landscape for us, and we're not being defined, or allowing ourselves to be defined, by our political opponents.

So I'm looking for a technological renaissance for the GOP, where we're going to bring in all kinds of things, creating an intra-net among the state parties so that we can share practices and new ideas – but also learn where there are mistakes and pitfalls that we need to be aware of. And having that communication, that dialogue, that relationship established among each other, I think better prepares us to go out and reach new voters, and certainly those younger voters who are of a 30-second soundbite mindset. If I can't reach you and communicate to you within 30 to 45 seconds, you're not hearing me. And so we've got to sharpen that tool so that we can do just that.

CNSNews.com: Did you support George W. Bush's Medicare prescription plan?

Steele: No. It's just further expansion of government. I know a lot of people who say it works and everybody's happy with it, but it's more money. It's expanding the size of bureaucracy. It's putting another layer of government between me and my wallet. I didn't appreciate it then, and I don't appreciate it now. Instead of focusing on a genuine, legitimate health care strategy that would make it affordable, that would be market-based, that would create the appropriate incentives for the insurance companies to stop acting like numb nuts, and the pharmaceutical industry stop acting so defensively, and actually coordinating and working, Lord knows the trial lawyers. Getting all these folks in the room and developing a comprehensive health care strategy. We created another silo in which we're going to spend more money, and we're going to create another level of bureaucracy. So I think we need to re-think that strategy, and I think the party has an appropriate voice to do that.

CNSNews.com: Did you support the comprehensive immigration reform proposed during the Bush administration?

Steele: Don't even get me started on that one. This is a classic case of looking around to find that no one's standing with you. The short answer is, no, I did not. The right answer, I think, the administration should have come up with was border security first. And let me give you an example. If you and I are in a boat in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and the boat springs a leak, what's the first thing we need to do? Stop the leak. Plug the hole. Now if we start trying to bail water out of the boat, or push it to one side of the boat, or effectively deal with the water in the boat, the boat's still going to sink, because you haven't addressed the core problem, which is you've got a hole in your boat. The same is true with immigration. The core problem is that you've got a hole in the fence. Plug the hole. Use technology, use manpower, use all the strategies that you need to secure the national borders of this country. And then we can talk about the 12 million people who are here illegally, what we're going to do. I think America will be much more receptive to that conversation knowing that no more are coming in and that the hole has been closed. And then we can deal effectively with the water in the boat.

CNSNewsom: How do we deal with the 12 million who are here illegally?

Steele: Well, that's something for the national debate. There are any number of ways that you have to deal with that. Do you want to create a pathway to citizenship? Are you talking amnesty? Ronald Reagan did amnesty. He did the first amnesty bill. A lot of people tend to forget that. In 1986, what was the problem? There was no effective strategy to deal with what? The hole in the fence. They kept coming. And 20 years later, what are we looking at? 12 million additional people, the hole has gotten bigger, and the problem hasn't gone away. America's response to amnesty was, 'Not again, if you don't fix the hole. If you don't close down that border and make sure that no one else is getting over the fence, or under the fence, or through the fence.' That's what everyone sees as the problem. It's not the individuals who are here, necessarily. It's the ones who are still coming in, because our border is porous. Every other country protects its sovereignty, and no one cracks a peep. The United States rises up and says, 'We too shall protect the sovereignty of this nation by protecting our borders,' and everyone looks at us like we're enemies of the state. Well, we'll keep looking that way because we're going to deal with this issue, and we're going to effectively do what we need to do as Americans to make sure the integrity of this country, its internal integrity, is secure. And then we can talk about everything else. Everything else -- jobs, programs, employers -- all that stuff you can deal with much more effectively, because now you're dealing with a smaller pool of folks because there are no more coming in.

CNSNews.com: What is the first thing you would do as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee?

Steele: I would embrace our base and welcome them back to the party and tell them now is time to roll our sleeves and get to work to building a farm team, raising money, organizing our precincts, looking at the strategies that we're going to need to unfold if we get into re-apportioning and re-districting in 2009 and 2010. I would say to our donors, okay, you've sat on the fence long enough. It's time to get in the game to help us rebuild and strengthen this party financially so that we can put in place those strategies and do that technology on the Internet and reach those voters that you want us to reach. I think the next chairman is going to have to begin by making sure that the base stands with him or her and making sure that they've got the charge to lead forward. And then you begin to deal with all the internal stuff, the operational changes you need to make, to put in place this new infrastructure. Part of that for me is going to be devolving the activities of the RNC back to the states, empowering individual states to be the political power horse for winning elections. Washington does not know how to run a campaign in Wisconsin or New Mexico, or Maryland, or New York. But New York, New Mexico, Maryland, or Wisconsin do know how to run those campaigns. So let's trust the leadership of those states, and hold them accountable, but trust them to help build this operation. And we will support them, we will empower them and we will, again, using things like the intra-net, find those best practices so that they can do the jobs that they need to do.

Republican Congressman to the Taxpayers: “Its Not Your Money!”

Representative Knollenberg, R-MI, will not be returning to Congress after being defeated on Nov. 4. Maybe that is for the better:

It is unlikely Knollenberg would have won re-election, and maybe this exchange was nothing more than a play for a return in 2010, but the statement that “its not your money” will not endear him with many of his soon to be ex- constituents. All Knollenberg manage to do in this interview was to expose himself as a “counterfeit Conservative.”

World News Daily: Taxpayer Abuse at the hands of Congressman Knollenberg

Are The Polls Accurate: Its Doubtful

If you are like me, you have noticed that the polls seem to be all over the place. 10 points, 1 point, margin of error…yada, yada, yada. But in a year in which we witnessed what may be the final death blow to journalistic integrity, it is beyond naive to think that we could trust the polls:

WSJ: Are the Polls Accurate?

Obama and McCain: How The Media Ignored The Truth

What does integrity mean to you? Do you believe honesty is subjective, something that bends in many directions depending on a person's point of view? Or is honesty absolute, which becomes corrupted by ones own selfishness? Is the omission of facts the same as lying? Is ignoring accuracy to ensure your viewpoint triumphs nothing more than an act of deceit? The sad reality is that depending on the "content of your character," the answers may vary, and that is disturbing.

Journalist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, is concerned for his colleagues in the Fourth Estate. He is troubled that they may be ignoring the many truths about John McCain, Barrack Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, and that the media may be willing accomplices in a fraud being perpetrated against the American people:

Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

What about the American people who choose to ignore what is happening before their very eyes? What role did they have in the death of the truth? And if what appears in print must always be looked upon as suspect, then can we finally admitted, that except for a few outlets, that objective journalism is dead?

To think that many on the Left feared censorship from their own government, only to now realize that the attack on truth would come from within. Who would have thought that the demise of journalistic integrity would be self-inflicted?

Joe Biden: If Obama Is Elected, Expect A World Crisis

It is amazing to me that so much attention has been paid to Governor Palin and almost none to "Mighty" Joe Biden. Whether it is forgetting which Article of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice-President (or for that matter what the role of the Vice-President is), claiming FDR used television to calm people down during the Stock Market Crash of 1929, or confusing who are enemies in the world, Joe always seems to manage to top himself.

During a campaign stop in the State of Washington on October 19, 2008, Biden warned all in attendance that the United States of America would face an international crisis immediately if we elected Obama, in large part because of Obama inexperience:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."

"Gird your loins," Biden told the crowd."

"Lions," who talks like that anymore? Barack Obama is no John Kennedy, and even if he was, this is not the time for the President of the United States to deal with a test from our enemies. Joe Biden is finally making the argument many of us have been making about Obama…..he is not ready to eat at the grownup table.

In fact, the reality of JFK cannot stand up to the myth of JFK. Kennedy met with Khrushchev unconditionally, which Khrushchev perceived as weakness. The Berlin Wall was built under Kennedy’s watch, and he did nothing but declare himself to be a pastry. The Cuban Missile Crisis happened under Kennedy’s watch, due in large part because Khrushchev deemed Kennedy as weak and inexperienced. The fable that Kennedy “stood up” to the Russian is just that, a fantasy. America learned years later that Kennedy conceded our missile defense bases in Turkey in exchange for Khrushchev withdrawing his missiles from Cuba. The Kennedy spin machine made sure that American’s concessions were hidden from the rest of the world.

Obama has been wrong about the surge. Obama first reaction regarding Russia’s invasion of George was wrong. Obama was wrong to state that he would sit down unconditional with thugs and dictators, and he was wrong when he described Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela as just “small” countries that are “not dangerous.” Obama first reaction, like that of his running mate, regarding World affairs has been constantly wrong. Combine that with what Biden said, and we should be very afraid!

Biden is also reinforcing what he stated during the debates regarding Obama's lack of readiness to lead. In the midst of a worldwide financial crisis, and with enemies waiting to strike, we should heed Biden's words, and elect someone the world will not put to a test…..John McCain.

Commentary Magazine: Biden Tells Voters To Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

NRO: Our Enemies Will Test Obama In The First 6 Months, So Stay With Us

ABC News: Biden Tells Supports To Get Ready For The Worse

Life Under Obama: Obama’s Small Business Tax Plan A Job Killer!

Are you a small business owner like the millions of Joe the Plumbers (Joe Wurzelbacher - Wall Street Journal: Who is Joe the Plumber), or are you one of the millions dependent on your paycheck thanks to a small business owner? Are you wondering what an Obama presidency will mean to small business? It will bring it to a grinding halt:

ATR: Record Tax Hike on Small Businesses Will Kill Last Job-Creating Sector

The truth of Obama’s contempt for capitalism can be heard in his own words:

“It is not that I want to punish your success”…..that's exactly what excessive taxes are, a punishment for those that work hard. Joe Wurzelbacher wants to be a working class hero, and the business he wants to buy is an example of the type entrepreneurial spirit that represents hardworking Americans. There are millions of Americans that are pulling the wagon that is the American economy; their called small-business owners. Barrack Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth is having a bunch of people jump in the wagon that small business owners are pulling, regardless of the harm it will do to that small business owner.

But Barrack Obama is not alone in this taxation mindset. Obama and the Democrats have been very successful of parlaying their “class-envy” attacks to get the “masses (Joe Biden’s words)” on their side. Take for example undecided voter Janet Chittock of Ohio (Janet Chittock: Tax the "rich" plumber!), who feels that anyone “making $250,000” is rich. I would remind people such as Ms. Chittock that President Clinton had a very similar plan prior to being elected, but ended up enacting an across the board tax increase, even for people making less than $40,000.00. This betrayal was the reasons why the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994.

Class envy will be the least of Joe the Plumber's problems. Joe should expect an onslaught from the full force of Obama's media relation team, CBS, NBC, ABC, as well as others in the "mainstream media." As the Forth Estate did with Governor Palin, and did not do for Barrack Obama, they will leave no stone unturned to discredit Joe. I give it a few days, and there will be negative stories about Joe all over the place. But what the press doesn't realize is that Joe Wurzelbacher is not the story. The story is Obama's tax plan, and how it will stifle small business, where the majority of Americans are employed.

The problem is that this figure is misleading. It is not Joe the Plumber making $250,000.00, it is Joe’s Plumbing Service making $250,000.00. But Joe also has expenses, or maybe Joe wants to expand his services, hire people, or upgrade his equipment. Well guess what? Under Obama’s plan Joe must first “spread the wealth,” and then anything that is left over, Joe can decide how best to spend it. Gee’s Mr. Obama, thanks

Simply put, John McCain, a thousands economist, and history are right on this issue. CUT TAXES FOR EVERYONE, and REDUCE SPENDING! The “redistribution of wealth” sounds nice, but never works. You punish people who are the engine of our economy, and make other people more dependent on government handouts.

I would encourage everyone go to the Small Business Association's website (Small Business Association) to see the thousands of industries that will be affected in a negative way by Obama's tax plan.

Governor Palin in Dover New Hampshire

My son and I had the pleasure of attending Governor Sarah Palin's rally in Dover, New Hampshire. For many conservative it was exciting to see someone who represents our values. Governor Palin speech did not disappointed us.

It was refreshing to see so many young people, but especially young women. I happen to overhear a young lady in her mid-20's talking about how much she looked up to Sarah Palin, and how disappointed she was with the feminism movement for their attacks on Governor Palin. This young woman stated that she was "on the fence" as to who to vote for, but once she saw how "those on the left" attacked Governor Palin, her mind was made up. She is voting McCain - Palin.