by Lance Thompson

Though the left considers "Republican" and "conservative" synonymous, those terms have become increasingly distinct since the success of the 1994 Contract With America. It was the last time that conservative principles governed GOP politics.

More recently, majorities of Republicans voted to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill, and GOP Senators and Congressmen showed no aversion to earmarks and pork during their years in the majority. President Bush himself has disappointed conservatives with his reluctance to halt illegal immigration and his enthusiasm for the prescription drug program. Conservative voices in the GOP are few, and conservative presidential candidates lost to "moderate" John McCain, who seems sympathetic to at least 50% of the liberal agenda, and was arguably the MSM’s favorite Republican until he decided to actually oppose a Democrat in a national election.

President Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, a distinction that implied that conservatives were not ordinarily compassionate. For 2008, a similar distinction could be of great help. Let GOP candidates declare themselves "conservative Republicans," in recognition of the fact that all Republicans are not conservative.

To avail themselves of that characterization, candidates would have to endorse a set of conservative principles, and define their political beliefs. Many conservatives have identified such principles, from Ronald Reagan and former house speaker Newt Gingrich to radio talk show hosts Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity. Certainly such a list would include a strong national defense, energetic prosecution of the war on terror, reducing the size of government and the burden of excessive regulation, lowering taxes, breaking the teachers’ unions’ hammerlock on public education, eliminating welfare, ending judicial activism and legislating from the bench, protecting the sanctity of life, and achieving energy independence.

The most generous support for candidates and campaigns always comes from the ideological extremes of either party. True believers contribute to causes close to their hearts, moderates and middle-of-the-roaders have little at stake ideologically. Certainly this is true of the Democrats, whose campaigns find the greatest financial bounty from the extreme Left, typified by the millions George Soros pours into losing presidential campaigns. The same would be true on the Right, where conservative Republicans would claim the lion’s share of conservative generosity.

This would give other Republicans, by definition the less conservative Republicans, a choice–shun the conservatives or join them. But Republicans who repudiate conservatives would be admitting that they have little in common with the base, and effectively cut themselves off from that source of campaign funds. There is no money from the middle, and they certainly could not expect any from the Left.

Political prognosticators predict massive losses for congressional Republicans in November, which makes GOP candidates timid and leads some to abandon conservative principle. They calculate that appearing less conservative will make them less objectionable, possibly swayed by polls that show voters prefer the generic Democrat candidate for congress to the Republican by double digits.

But Republicans have failed to stand up for conservative principles. They behaved as Democrats did, and were voted out in 2006. When they lost the majority, they became even more timid, and thus further lost their identities as conservatives. As they sidle to the left, renegade Republicans alienate their base, and they don’t increase their appeal to the other side. Democrats won’t vote for Republicans who abandon their principles over Democrats who cling to theirs. The parties vote for candidates who stand for the party principles.

Conservative Republicans won’t be a majority in the new congress, but the GOP has little chance of regaining the majority anyway. And even if Republicans do take back one or both houses of congress, what does that achieve for conservative voters? We gain nothing by electing Republicans who aren’t conservative. Even a minority of conservative Republicans can begin to rebuild the party based on conservative principles.

The Democrats, despite a desperate primary battle, are riding high in the polls, and not because they have rushed to the middle. The more moderate of their two presidential contenders, the one with the greater experience, pedigree and range of political allies, lost to a rival who represents the extreme base of the Democrat party. Democrats in Congress happily cater to their far Left base. They did not reach this position by trying to appear more moderate.

If we believe in conservative principles, we should stand up for them and insist our representatives do the same. If they do not, they have no right to ask for our support or our votes.

by Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

How many times have we heard, “Arrest the Johns, not the hookers”?

Quick answer: every time a high-profile madam is arrested.

What is the point of this question? It represents the logic that continues to elude Americans in the interminable drug wars.

Americans publicly bemoan the high price of gasoline, yet our own environmentalists have cut off nearly all existing avenues or expeditious remedies for independence from foreign oil. The idea of trying to “force a remedy” by cutting off oil dependence is exactly the kind of irony that we are presented with in the war on drugs.

Under the “no big surprise” column, the squeaky wheels (i.e., party-boy liberal politicians, activist entertainers, and the howling tree huggers who storm and lobby congress) get greased (no pun intended). They feel gratified depriving Americans of a necessary commodity (like gasoline to get to work) while facilitating their more pleasurable (albeit illegal) ways to cope with the mess they have created. Enter stage left: recreational drugs. On cue, the rest of us shrivel up and dopily tag along assuming a long-suffering posture instead of fighting back.

Blaming everyone else for our tacit support of this rampant illegal enterprise is surpassing baseball as our national pastime. Americans need to take a long hard look in the mirror. What they will see staring back at them is the actual root of our ills — the zealous defense of American hedonism.

The U.S. War on Drugs as we know it today began in 1972. As we write, it is costing taxpayers over $19 Billion this year alone and continues to flow at the rate of $600 per second .

Stimulating the criminal firestorm that is represented by all the rampant crime statistics is Americans’ brainless addiction to illicit drugs. They close their eyes and ears to the fact that the cartels blatantly murder and maim as the means to enforce the flow of their products (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and all other “in thing” drugs) throughout our cities, schools, and businesses.

We alluded to this domestic war in a recent article about the combination of gangs and illegals being a powder keg ready to explode, but there is a dearth of reporting and accountability from the national media, and from one administration after another. We had to ask ourselves: Why?

It has been interesting, if not amusing, that the liberal media chose to hammer home George Bush’s drug and alcohol use and/or abuse during his younger years.

It doesn’t seem quite so interesting to them that, in 2008, their “messiah,” Barack Hussein Obama, also admitted to using cocaine. But we forgive and move on, because we’re sensible and compassionate. Lest you think us self-righteous, we admit to short-lived misspent youths, just like Senator Obama and millions of others. We are not unique. The big difference is, we are not running for the presidency, nor are we advocating escalating a war we truly cannot win while trying to obfuscate the measurable progress of the war in Iraq.

It is this hypocrisy that drives us to speak out. Americans need to collectively GROW UP. Is this naïve? Of course it is, to a point. But as with all other addictions and excesses, it is that first giant step away from it that counts.

Despite what we see on TV shows and in the movies, there is nothing comical or romantic about illegal drugs. Every minute real-time “users” actively or passively smoke, snort, shoot or pop only ensures a verified kill, either by an overdose or a hail of bullets from an AK-47. “Users” have to be made to understand that buying and using illegal drugs increases the cartels’ wealth, and that increased wealth makes them more powerful, progressively more deadly and omnipotent.

Americans are facing an unmitigated disaster. The headlines are rife with violence on the border and most recently with the plea for political asylum from three Mexican police chiefs. High-level drug-related assassinations are barely newsworthy in a country where last year alone, more than 2,500 people were killed in what has evolved into a full military battle.

Laredo , Texas is a war zone. The border patrol is being fired on from across the border with AK-47s. The drug lords laugh at our pathetic attempts to wage a war on them because they know we are the cause. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy, “If he’d just give me what he’s spending to make me stop robbing him, I’d stop robbing him.”

Some Liberals believe that “no cost would have been too high if the United States faced an imminent threat from an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, the war's stated justification.” Yet the personal cost of inconvenience or self-discipline is too high to battle the drug-related domestic violence and imminent war just yards away from American soil.

In 2003 Critics of a U.S.-led global crackdown on illicit drugs declared the policy a failure…calling it "the war that America cannot win" and urging a United Nations commission to consider other approaches to the problem. Where have we heard the term “the war that America cannot win” before?

The same critics went on to state that “Activists, think tanks and non-governmental organizations asked the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs to examine what they called a disturbing lack of progress midway through a global campaign to curb drug cultivation, trafficking and consumption by 2008.”

Here we are in 2008 and we are no further along. In fact, the drug war along our borders has escalated exponentially. The U.N. cannot offer an alternative way to win the war because, once again, they have no way to address the real problem – American addiction. Yes, someone might step up to the microphone and announce that a new commission is being formed to “investigate” or “study” the problem, but that usually is as far as it goes.

Raymond Kendell, retired director of Interpol, said: "We cannot legalize our way out of the problem and we cannot arrest our way out of the problem… We must pursue those solutions that have proved effective, and try to improve the situation in small steps that are also acceptable to society as a whole."

The United States has been applying small steps through various drug education programs, public service ads, etc., for years. Unfortunately, the only movement forward has been the introduction of more designer drugs to escape responsibility.

The only answer is personal responsibility, which, no doubt, will be jeeringly received in much the way Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign went over – like a fart in church.

As conservatives, we understand the moral arguments against drug legalization. But if we stand back and objectively evaluate the dilemma we are faced with (as many libertarians have done), it is clear the continued drug war, as it exists today, will result in abject failure.

Most Americans are too young to remember that at one time, by and large, there were no restrictions on popular drugs like cocaine, opium or marijuana. And we all know now the only interesting thing to come out of Prohibition was The Godfather and Joe Kennedy’s sons.

We may wonder how the drug war became such an uncontrollable life force, but then we need only look to our neighbors.

The clearest analogy we can present for our message is one line of dialogue from the film “Alien,” when Ripley confronted Science Officer Ash after he purposely allowed the creature to compromise their ship:

“And YOU let it in.”

by Lance Thompson

Much has been made of John McCain’s short temper, and how it may affect his chances in November. Most recently, Senate majority leader Harry Reid showed admirable restraint and circumspection when he told a group of broadcast reporters that he would not make McCain’s temper an issue in the campaign. Reid has been reading Richard Nixon’s play book. Whenever Nixon wanted to savage a political rival, he would say something like, "I will not say, as others have, that Senator X is a drunk, a liar and a reprobate." That way, he got credit for honorable conduct while simultaneously dragging his opponent through the mud.

But I digress. McCain’s temper is the topic, and as a conservative who mistrusts McCain on most conservative issues, I can honestly say that a hair trigger temper is one quality that serves him well.

That we live in a dangerous world is a fact recognized by everyone but those without cable and senior members of the Obama campaign. All over the world, young Muslim men who are underemployed and unable to get dates fall under the influence of unholy men who tell them that both problems can be solved by the rite of self-detonation. Rogue states run by totalitarian dwarves (in the case of North Korea), poorly dressed Hitler impersonators (in the case of Iran), or dictators who gorge themselves on banana split republics (in the case of Venezuela) are arming themselves and their client states with the latest weaponry. That weaponry comes from familiar foes from the Cold War, who now deny they lost that conflict, and want a rematch. The poor sap who punches the Oval Office clock next January 20^th is going to be at DefCon Double Digits for the next four years.

For much of recent history, our enemies could rely on the United States acting quite predictably when attacked. Marine barracks in Beirut–withdraw. Mogadishu ambush–pull out. First attack on World Trade Center–make a couple of arrests. Attack American embassies–act indignant at the UN. Blow a hole in the Cole–wave our fists in the air.

The exceptions came under Presidents named Bush. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait–the United States builds a coalition and goes to war. Al Qaeda attacks the WTC and Pentagon–the United States invades Afghanistan to track down the culprits. Saddam Hussein kicks out weapons inspectors–the United States builds another coalition and goes to war.

I realize that the Bush wars are controversial and, in the case of the war in Iraq, no longer widely supported (although it was in the beginning). The point is that even with the "cowboy" Bush in office, both wars had the support of an overwhelming majority of Congress and the American people, at least initially. The road to war followed the required course of Congressional approval and international acquiescence. Our enemies, even the dim ones of the Hussein family, knew that certain procedures would be followed before war was declared. Saddam even thought his oil-for-food payoffs to Security Council members would provide a roadblock to American reaction.

If Obama ends up President, our enemies will be greatly assured (as Hamas leaders have already indicated) that their terrorist activities will be ignored if not tolerated. Obama has already said he would "talk" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with no preconditions. This is a state leader who is supplying weapons and terrorists to a war where Americans are being killed daily. Our enemies have nothing to fear from Obama.

But what if we had a real hot-head in the White House? What if the guy carrying the football was short-tempered, volatile, prone to strike back reflexively? What if all those months of vanilla-flavored campaign speeches about coming together, changing the tone, and reaching across the aisle had built up a Vesuvius of fury, just looking for an excuse to erupt? What if no one could really be sure if all those years of abuse in a North Vietnamese concentration camp had short-circuited his fail-safe switches and left him a little less able to absorb even the slightest provocation?

That is exactly the type of President we need at this critical moment. I want our enemies--whether they’re assembling a roadside bomb on a prayer rug, manipulating the price of premium unleaded by nationalizing their petroleum industries, or plotting our demise under some minaret in Red Square–I want our enemies to be totally unsure what stimulus will make our President snap. I don’t want our enemies to calculate a proportional response, or have the time to send terrorist-made electronic press kits to the MSM, or buy the votes of a few dips in the United Nations. I want them to know that an act of sabotage, an assassination attempt, an attack on Americans anywhere in the world could bring a shrug, a denunciation, or a rain of nuclear warheads, all depending on what kind of mood the President is in when he gets the news. I want our enemies to know that the finger on the trigger is unpredictable, excitable, and barely under control.

In fact, it would also give me great satisfaction if the Democrats in Congress had the same uneasy feeling.

That’s why, next November, I’m voting for John McCain.