JINDAL RETREATS ON PAY HIKE PLEDGE

"The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month. …

"More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul Louisiana’s reputation for dubious ethics.

"During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. …

"That image and his solid standing with the religious right helped propel Mr. Jindal, a 37-year-old former Rhodes scholar, into the front ranks of Senator John McCain’s possible running-mate choices. But now some conservative critics are saying the pay-increase episode demonstrates weakness as well as Mr. Jindal’s unreadiness for the prime time of the vice presidency.

" ‘This pay raise is devastating him’ said Moon Griffon, a conservative talk-radio host with a wide following in northern Louisiana, the most Republican and evangelical part of the state. ‘I’ve gotten over 5,000 e-mails from people who say they voted for him, and who say they would never vote for him again.’ …

"Even while denouncing the money lawmakers are giving themselves, the governor has tried to depict the matter as an internal legislative affair that does not require his meddling.

" ‘I will keep my pledge to let them govern themselves,’ the governor said in a statement last week after the State Senate passed the increase, backing off a rejection of the raise, though he also said he was ‘very sorry’ about it. Editorialists and radio show hosts have since had a field day juxtaposing that ‘pledge’ to the Legislature with the promise Mr. Jindal made when he was running last fall to ‘prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises.’" Source: Adam Nossiter, The New York Times, 6/24/08, p. A21

Kent supported Congressman Paul’s quest for the Presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, and was responsible for Congressman Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign strategy. At the time of his death, Kent was 49 years old. He succumbed to a long bout with pneumonia – no doubt exacerbated by his relentless, tireless, unyielding efforts in behalf of Ron Paul and the principles for which he stands.

"As the driving force behind Ron Paul’s presidential bid, campaign chairman Kent Snyder turned his one-man operation into a national grass-roots phenomenon that now calls itself ‘The Freedom Movement.’

"It began in February 2007 with a personal computer in Mr. Snyder’s Arlington, Va., apartment. It ultimately became a $35 million operation with 250 employees that helped deliver more than one million votes for the Texas congressman’s bid in the Republican nominating contest.

" ‘It was Kent more than anyone else who encouraged and pushed Ron to run for president,’ said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul. ‘Ron would not have run for the presidency if it had not been for Kent. Ron was really hesitant, but Kent drove him forward.’ …

"Born in Kansas in 1959, Mr. Snyder got an early start in Republican politics, working as a volunteer on Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. He met Mr. Paul in 1987 and worked on his unsuccessful 1988 presidential bid on the Libertarian ticket. Mr. Snyder then spent several years as a telecommunications executive. He returned to Washington, D.C., to continue his political work for Mr. Paul, who returned to Congress in 1996. …

"Mr. Snyder was described as soft-spoken, energetic and disciplined, and his nonpolitical interests included Eastern medicine and martial arts. At one point, Mr. Benton recalled, Mr. Snyder even contemplated becoming a Shaolin monk.

My friend, Jack Davis, won his challenge to the so-called millionaire’s amendment (part of the McCain-Feingold law), which allowed candidates to accept donations of as much as $6,900 (the normal limit is $2,300) if the opponent spends more than $350,000 of his own money for campaign purposes. The candidate’s political party is allow allowed to spend more than the normal limit.

It was good to see that five justices recognized the unconstitutional nature of allowing one candidate to accept donations of $6,900, while limiting his opponent to $2,300. The Court now appears to have a slim majority that is sympathetic to at least chipping away at McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on free speech, and some of those justices are on record as believing that the existing limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures are a violation of the First Amendment.

However, it sent a chill down my spine to read the dissent of Justice Stevens, in which he argued that the Court should allow Congress to put limits on campaign expenditures. According to Stevens, "limitations would likely have the salutary effect of improving the quality of the exposition of idea." Stevens was especially concerned that "flooding the airwaves with slogans and sound-bites may well do more to obscure the issues than to enlighten listeners."

Justice Stevens may believe that the American people will become better-informed if Congress is allowed to reduce the amount of information available, but I prefer a wide open, unlimited debate. I found it interesting that even someone as liberal as Justice Ginsburg was unwilling to associate herself with this part of Stevens’ opinion.

Under pressure from West Virginia Senator Jennings Randolph, Ronald Reagan rolled over and signed into law a "Great Society" style boondoggle called the Institute of Peace, which provides jobs and funding to a large array of liberal and left-wing activists.

On June 5, George Bush embraced the Institute by participating in a groundbreaking ceremony for the Institute’s new headquarters.

Chairman of the Institute is Robin West, with whom I served on the staff of the Republican National Committee in 1967.

Funding for the Institute’s headquarters came, of course, from you, me, and other taxpayers, thanks to an earmark by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

In his remarks Bush said, "We’re transforming America’s capabilities to help poor and struggling societies become healthy and prosperous.

"And we’ve seen those effective transformations through the Emergency plan for AIDS or malaria initiative or the Millennium Challenge Account…America is training international peacekeepers so they can deploy to provide security in troubled regions…So far, we’ve trained more than 40,000 peacekeepers and the plan is to train 75,000 additional." Source: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Document, June 9, 2008, Volume 44, Number 22

Dan Kuykendall, who died on June 12 at 83, was someone with whom I had numerous, highly informative conversations during the period when he served as a member of Congress for Tennessee.

Kuykendall was a brilliant political strategist and a faithful conservative member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Almost every book or study about how the South went from being solidly Democratic to very reliably Republican will cite Tennessee’s Dan Kuykendall as a player in that change. When he died on June 12 at 83 after a long illness, Kuykendall was remembered for his early work in the GOP vineyards when the Tennessee Republican Party was almost nonexistent as for his tenure as a conservative U.S. House member from 1966-74.

"Born in Cherokee, Tex., Kuykendall (pronounced ‘KIRK-en-dall’) served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II and graduated from Texax A&M University in 1947. As regional manager for Proctor&Gamble, he moved his family to Memphis in 1955 and won high marks for training salesmen.

"Kuykendall’s skill at salesmanship was put to a major test when he began recruiting fellow volunteers for the Republican Party in overwhelmingly Democratic Memphis. After working on Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign in 1960 (when Tennessee went Republican by 75,000 votes), Kuykendall managed former City Councilman Bob James’ near-successful race for Congress in 1962.

"Two years later, Kuykendall sought office himself by carrying the GOP banner against Sen. (1952-70) Albert Gore, Sr. (D.-Tenn.). Proudly aligning himself with Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, the salesman-candidate promised a ‘rip-roaring campaign of truth and candor.’ He slammed Gore (lifetime Americans for Constitutional Action rating: 8%) for his anti-business record, declaring ‘Sen. Gore’s flagrant and indiscriminate attacks on the business leaders of this nation have kept many businesses from establishing plants in Tennessee and consequently our industrial program has suffered.’ Many Democratic business leaders crossed party lines to back the Republican hopeful and he drew a handsome 46% of the vote against Gore.

"Kuykendall roared back in 1966 and unseated democratic Rep. George Crider. A solid conservative, Kuykendall served on the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. After hostile redistricting in 1971, Kuykendall found himself in a district deprived of its former ‘silk-stocking suburbs’ of Shelby County and with a heavily enhanced black population from Memphis. In a district that was now 30% black, Kuykendall campaigned in black precincts, not hiding his conservatism, and won a close re-election in 1972. But in the so-called ‘Watergate Year’ of 1974, he lost by 574 votes to Democrat Harold Ford. (My friend Fran Fawcett, then a WHBQ TV reporter in Memphis, recalled to me her election-night interview with Kuykendall in which the congressman thought he had won the squeaker. ‘I had to tell him he had lost—on the air,’ she said.).

"After several years as a private consultant and lobbyist, Kuykendall threw his energy and resourcefulness into designing and building furniture in his basement workshop." Source: John Gizzi, Human Events, 6/23/08, p. 19

THE FIX IS IN

Why? Because the Chevron Corporation has used its influence with the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush to prop up the vicious Communist government of Angola – led by Marxist chieftain Jose Eduardo dos Santos.

Chevron’s facilities in Cabinda province of Angola have been guarded by Fidel Castro’s Cuban troops, and Chevron has been complicit in doing all it could to undercut the strength and aspirations of Dr. Jonas Savimbi’s anti-Communist UNITA Freedom Fighters in Angola.

Indeed, Chevron had something to do with the murder of Savimbi by the George W. Bush administration when the President authorized the turnover of tracking technology to the Angolan Communists so they could ambush and murder Savimbi in 2002.

The Chevron board, has over, time included in its ranks GOP Secretary of State George Schultz, GOP Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and assorted other Republican operatives. Indeed, they even named an oil tanker after Condi Rice.

Now another member of the Chevron board, General James Jones, is cozying up to presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain.

According to The New York Times, 6/19/08, p. A20, "General Jones, who is also a Middle East envoy for President Bush as well as a board member of Chevron, Texaco and Boeing, said he was appearing with Mr. McCain in his capacity as president of a year-old organization affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute for 21^st Century Energy.

"Mr. McCain was in Springfield giving an energy speech for the third straight day, this one promoting nuclear power, and he praised General Jones to the audience for his expertise.

"But the politics were not lost on anyone, or at least not on an audience member who told Mr. McCain in a question-and-answer session that she would ‘love to see someone like General Jones’ as his running mate. Mr. McCain responded, ‘General Jones has served this country with honor and courage for many years, and I am confident that he will continue to do so.’ He added, ‘He certainly would if I were president of the United States.’"

Recently, a front-page article in The Washington Post viciously defamed Jonas Savimbi. In response to the article, I sent the following letter to the editor of that newspaper:

Dear Sir:

The front page article by Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum in the May 22 edition of The Washington Post ignorantly and despicably characterizes Dr. Jonas Savimbi as a "brutal Angolan guerilla leader".

Dr. Savimbi was a trusted and faithful ally of the United States in its opposition to growing Soviet influence in southern Africa, even as the Marxist-Leninist regime in Luanda, Angola was guilty of the most heinous acts of unspeakable brutality against its political opponents, many of whom were castrated, maimed, and skewered by MPLA President Jose Eduardo dos Santos and his corrupt cohorts.

Birnbaum and Shear owe an apology to the people of Angola and the readers of The Washington Post.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Sincerely,

Howard Phillips
President
The Conservative Caucus
Research, Analysis & Education Foundation

"The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month. …

"More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul Louisiana’s reputation for dubious ethics.

"During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. …

"That image and his solid standing with the religious right helped propel Mr. Jindal, a 37-year-old former Rhodes scholar, into the front ranks of Senator John McCain’s possible running-mate choices. But now some conservative critics are saying the pay-increase episode demonstrates weakness as well as Mr. Jindal’s unreadiness for the prime time of the vice presidency.

" ‘This pay raise is devastating him’ said Moon Griffon, a conservative talk-radio host with a wide following in northern Louisiana, the most Republican and evangelical part of the state. ‘I’ve gotten over 5,000 e-mails from people who say they voted for him, and who say they would never vote for him again.’ …

"Even while denouncing the money lawmakers are giving themselves, the governor has tried to depict the matter as an internal legislative affair that does not require his meddling.

" ‘I will keep my pledge to let them govern themselves,’ the governor said in a statement last week after the State Senate passed the increase, backing off a rejection of the raise, though he also said he was ‘very sorry’ about it. Editorialists and radio show hosts have since had a field day juxtaposing that ‘pledge’ to the Legislature with the promise Mr. Jindal made when he was running last fall to ‘prohibit legislators from giving themselves pay raises.’" Source: Adam Nossiter, The New York Times, 6/24/08, p. A21

The Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT) has decided to recommend that the

I-69 project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans-Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway.

Public outcry was cited as the main reason for this decision. TDOT received nearly 28,000 public comments on this issue, and some 12,000 Texans attended the 47 public hearings held earlier this year.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul says, "This is a major victory for the people of Texas and a reminder of what we can accomplish with civic involvement". …

"However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The bittersweet aspect of this victory is that we had to fight at all. We took time away from family and friends, doing other things, to attend these meetings, inform others, write letters, post signs and submit our complaints, and we should not have had to. Government should let us be, if we are peaceful citizens, harming no one. In a perfect world, government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the people without overwhelming pressure of this kind. This is not a perfect world. Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time. But this will not be the last time citizen efforts and involvement will be required. We still face many unreasonable encroachments of big government today, from confiscatory, economy-strangling taxation to creeping disregard of the right of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights, to thousands of nuisance bureaucratic regulations interfering with our every day lives. We have drifted far from what the founding fathers envisioned for this nation. Last week was just one victory towards getting back on the right path. We must continue to hold politicians’ feet to the Constitutional fire. If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future.

"It is a never-ending battle, but it must be fought, and can be won. I am proud to stand with my constituents in this fight, and in the other fights we have ahead of us." Source: Congressman Ron Paul’s "Texas Straight Talk", 6/23/08

According to the Associated Press (6/20/08), "In a cross-border political attack, John McCain says Barack Obama’s opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement is ‘nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls.’

"The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting added that if he wins the White House, ‘have do doubt that America will honor its international commitments — and we will expect the same of others.’"

U.S. CITIZENS OPPOSE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Americans oppose merging the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union (NAU) similar to the European Union, according to a poll conducted by The Conservative Caucus (TCC). Political leaders from the three governments have been working since 2005 through the "Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)" to bring about what the Mexican government has called a "major integration" of North America.

All respondents opposed a North American Union.

Specific aspects of the NAU did little better at winning support. A common currency (to be called the Amero) was opposed by 99% and the building of a NAFTA Superhighway (beginning with construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor) received 100% opposition.

Those responding to the poll did not believe that President Bush has the Constitutional authority to carry out the creation of a North American Union (1% yes and 96% no) without Congressional approval. However, they also look unfavorably on Congressional action, with 98% saying they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs the North American Union (NAU) scheme.

The poll was conducted by mail during early 2008 with about 25,000 responses.

The Conservative Caucus (TCC) is a grass roots action organization, formed in 1974. It was active in defeating the SALT II Treaty, repealing the Catastrophic Coverage Act, blocking the Clinton health-care takeover, and impeaching President Clinton.

Congratulations to the people of Ireland who voted to preserve a measure of their independence from the increasingly centralized and powerful European Union (EU).

In a referendum held yesterday [June 12], Irish citizens voted to reject the so-called Lisbon Treaty which was another "power grab" by the New World Order politicians, theoreticians, and bureaucrats who want to achieve greater control of the citizens of the EU’s 27-member nations.

Ireland was the only country in which a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was permitted. The EU leadership realized, I am sure, that had referenda been held elsewhere, the Lisbon Treaty would have been rejected by voters in many of the 27 EU countries.

What’s happening in the United States is similar to what has been happening in Europe. As in those countries where no referendum was held, the people of the United States and their elected representatives in Congress have been denied a say in the steps being taken by George Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada to merge the American Republic into a North American Union (NAU).

The Wall Street Journal (6/12/08, p. A12) reported "Ireland is the only nation holding a popular vote on the Lisbon Treaty. …

"The Lisbon Treaty is already the result of failed referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005, both of which rejected the EU’s first attempt at a constitution. …

" ‘This is a very, very serious moment for Europe,’ said Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister. …

"What happens next if Ireland votes no isn’t clear. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, could be tempted to declare the treaty dead rather than plow ahead with ratification against demands that they too should offer a referendum. …

"The antitreaty campaign comprises a panoply of interest groups worried over the EU’s influence on hot-button issues that range from Ireland’s tough antiabortion laws to its low corporate taxes. Among parties in parliament, only the left wing and national Sinn Fein is opposed to the treaty.

" ‘The more people know about the Lisbon Treaty, the less they like it,’ said Declan Ganley, the chief executive of a small telecommunications company and the most visible ‘no’ campaigner. Mr. Ganley said Irish voters are particularly upset the new EU president won’t be elected. (He or she will be selected by country leaders.)"

" ‘The more people know about the Lisbon Treaty, the less they like it,’ said Declan Ganley, the chief executive of a small telecommunications company…the new EU president won’t be elected." Source: Charles Forelle and Marc Champion, The Wall Street Journal, 6/12/08, p. A12

Our three guests on May 13 in separate editions of Conservative Roundtable were (a) Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, (b) Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, who is running a solid campaign for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate from Virginia, and (c) Rachel Mills, Press Secretary to Congressman Ron Paul, who discussed in detail the "We the People Act", H.R. 300.

The latest results from a survey accompanying the May edition of TCC’s Member’s Message were as follows:

"Yesterday morning, Congressmen Frank Wolf and Chris Smith revealed that their computers had been hacked by Communist China (Bloomberg, Voice of America, and the Washington Examiner). In Wolf's case, it was his office computers; in Smith's case, the office that was hit belonged to the Human Rights subcommittee of the House Int'l Relations Committee (Smith chaired the subcommittee when the hack attack occurred two years ago). I am pleased to say that the blogosphere has been all over this one. Fellow CFBA members Makina (Between Heaven and Earth and Boycott 2008) and Joshua (One Free Korea) pounced, and the latter's title was particularly apropos. That said, I fear the reason for the hacks has not been given the attention it deserves.

"Communist China was not interested in military information, national security secrets, or industrial espionage targets (although it's fairly clear from this that anyone who is interested in such things may have a much easier time lifting them from the legislative branch than the executive one). They wanted information on exiled dissidents here in the U.S. Take a look at the consequence Wolf discussed (VOA):

"Pressed on the extent to which individuals were compromised by the attack or placed in jeopardy, Wolf had this response: "Yes, they [China] have sent public security police to an individual in Fairfax County [Virginia]," he said. "They photographed her house. She was wise enough to get their license plate. I had the FBI run the license plate, and yes they were Chinese officials in Fairfax County."

"In other words, the hacking was part of the overarching Communist plot to silence and intimidate anti-Communist exiles outside Communist China - part and parcel with the espionage/intimidation network exposed in Canada three years ago and the ongoing Battle of Flushing between Falun Gong practitioners and Communist-instigated mobs (the Epoch Times has the latest from "the front").

"With this new (or, to be more precise, more recently revealed) reality in mind, we can come to certain conclusions:

"The larger point is this: for the Chinese Communist Party, the only concern is maintaining power. Nothing else - not China's national interest, not regional harmony, not the wishes of the Chinese people - matters to them. Whatever is an obstacle - as large as the United States and as small as dissidents who seek shelter there - must be watched, restricted, contained, and eventually neutralized." Source: D. J. McGuire, China e-Lobby, 6/12/08

In honor of Flag Day, let’s remember some of the founding principles of our great nation and resolve to never let them slip away in a North American Union.

Religious Liberty. From the Pilgrims to generations of later settlers, escape from the religious oppression in Europe brought true freedom to worship God and to express His message to others.

Freedom of Speech. In spite of McCain-Feingold, the specter of a resurrected "fairness doctrine" and a thousand other assaults on free speech, Americans still have greater freedom of speech than citizens of other most nations. My commentaries would earn me a jail cell or a firing squad if I were a citizen of China, for example.

The Second Amendment. In America our Founders made it very clear that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for the preservation of our freedom.

I’m sure you could greatly add to this list, and I encourage you to share your observations with me on what our flag, our independence, and indeed, what America means to you and your family.

For all our blessings, the fight is not over, and continually increasing threats to all our liberties are rapidly eroding what our forefathers shed blood to build and preserve. I know I can count on you to keep up the fight, and to recruit your friends to join as well.

Please fly our flag proudly, salute the brave men who safeguard our independence and helped secure our liberties, and pass the true meaning of America to each new generation, so our proud flag will still be waving over free Americans generations hence.

I would like to invite you to join me at the Ron Paul Revolution March and Rally, on July 12 at the U.S. Capitol where I will share the podium with the Honorable Ron Paul and other distinguished speakers.

I will be speaking about the dangers of the North American Union and how you can take effective action to block the merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada. Please forward this invitation to your friends and plan to arrive on July 10 or 11^th, if you can, for there will be two days of Congressional lobbying training and time for visiting the offices of your Senators and Congressman.

Congressman Virgil Goode’s H.C.R. 40, the resolution against the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway, has 43 cosponsors at present. If everyone will take the time to visit the offices of their Congressman and Senators, we can increase the numbers of House cosponsors and gain a Senate sponsor and cosponsors.

I hope to see you at the Capitol on July 12.

Rally information:

www.revolutionmarch.com

"Do not bring any printed materials critical of China. Do not plan on holding any rallies or demonstrations in China. Do not think that you are guaranteed an entry visa because you hold tickets to an Olympic event. And do not even think about smuggling opium into China.

Americans oppose merging the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union (NAU) similar to the European Union (EU), according to a poll conducted by The Conservative Caucus (TCC). Political leaders from the three governments have been working since 2005 through the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) to bring about what the Mexican government has called a "major integration" of North America.

All respondents opposed a North American Union (NAU).

Specific aspects of the NAU did little better at winning support. A common currency (to be called the Amero) was opposed by 98% and the building of a NAFTA Superhighway (beginning with construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor) received 96% opposition.

Those responding to the poll did not believe that President Bush has the Constitutional authority to carry out the creation of a North American Union (8% yes and 92% no) without Congressional approval. However, they also look unfavorably on Congressional action, with 96% saying they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs the North American Union (NAU) scheme.

The poll was conducted by mail during the fall with about 4,000 responses.

The Conservative Caucus (TCC) is a grass-roots public policy action organization, formed in 1974. It was active in defeating the SALT II Treaty, repealing the Catastrophic Coverage Act, blocking the Clinton health-care takeover, and impeaching President Clinton.

The Washington Times has a new editor who has destroyed much of that which made the Times worth reading.

John Solomon, an exile from The Washington Post, according to the Post "issued a memo banning what he says were ‘archaic’ terms used by the paper, such as ‘homosexual’ and ‘illegal aliens.’ " (see Post article)

Also missing from what was historically a prime position on page 2 is the Mallard Fillmore cartoon which, by itself, formerly made the Times worth reading.

The so-called "new look" of the Times is a big step backward for conservatives.

In an address to the delegates attending the National Convention of the Constitution Party held in Kansas City, Missouri, April 23-27, I warned that a choice had to be made between preserving the Constitution Party or converting it to a neo-con party, which would be the case should Alan Keyes become the nominee, in view of the positions he has adopted in favor of a 30% national sales tax, a military draft, a permanent presence in the Middle East, the expansion of NATO, more foreign aid, and continuing U.S. participation in the United Nations.

I argued that Dr. Chuck Baldwin’s candidacy was principle-driven, not ego- driven. I further pointed out that Dr. Baldwin, who had been CPNC’s Vice Presidential nominee in 2004, had joined the CPNC five years ago, whereas Dr. Keyes, if he had joined the party at all, did so within the last several days.

Dr. Baldwin, I observed, is not a perpetual office seeker, moving from state to state, but rather a persistent proponent of the principles on which the party was founded.

Dr. Baldwin’s disgust with the policies of George W. Bush led him to leave the GOP years ago and not to linger until less than two weeks prior to the opening of our convention.

Those who support Dr. Baldwin know that he is not motivated by personal ambition but by servant leadership.

I emphasized the close relationship that Dr. Baldwin developed with Congressman Ron Paul as an active supporter of the Paul Presidential campaign, while, at the same time, Ambassador Keyes consistently criticized Ron Paul’s positions on the issues and his candidacy.

I made the point that, if the CPNC’s principles are excluded from the 2008 campaign, they could be lost to history. I also observed that for too long American conservatives have had as their objective losing as slowly as possible. They have lived so long on crumbs from the Republican table that they think it is caviar.

Since 1968, the Republicans have been capturing the Presidency by campaigning as the anti-liberal party, but, in office, they have been a party which has consolidated and expanded the Marxist agenda of Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society".

When the Republicans control the White House, there are two liberal parties and, without the CPNC, no conservative party. The fact is that the Republican Party is a house divided against itself. The workers oppose Planned Parenthood, "safe sodomy", high taxes, and the New World Order, but the leaders favor all of the above. Our votes are wasted only when we give them to someone who is leading the country away from what we believe. The CPNC, our platform, and our candidates are committed to restoring America to its Biblical and Constitutional premises.

It is time to reject the politics of surrender on the installment plan and to join in offering the American people a "vision of victory", not another decade of despair, depression, and defeat. As George Washington said at the Constitution Convention in 1787, "If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disbelieve how then may we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair the event is in the hand of God".

I concluded that we ought now summon to our banner all who would join us to battle for the reconstruction of the American Republic and the restoration of these United States to our Biblical and Constitutional heritage of liberty and freedom under, not from, the laws of God.

Carmen Pate interviewed me on May 7 for about 30 minutes on "Point of View", the nationally syndicated radio talk program launched years ago by my late friend Marlin Maddox.

In our discussion, we talked about the work of The Conservative Caucus in opposition to George Bush’s North American Union (NAU) and, responding to a listener’s inquiry who complained that support for a Constitution Party nominee would prevent us from winning, I asked him what he meant.

Did we win when George Bush expanded funding for foreign aid, for the United Nations, for Planned Parenthood, for the homosexual movement, or for a host of other unconstitutional activities?

Did we win when President Bush advanced policies which undercut the privacy guarantees of the Fourth Amendment?

Did we win when the Bush Administration expanded the Federal role in education or when it pushed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill?

I observed that, very often, when there is a Democratic President, Republican members of Congress behave in a far more principled way than when a Republican occupies the White House.

Remember when American leaders were proud to call America the "greatest nation in history," "the last best hope of mankind"; and proclaimed that our "can-do" spirit built the best of everything and sent men to the moon?

Fast forward to: "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times – and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Senator Obama’s infamous statement shows some leaders plan to reduce America to a beggar nation, begging for scraps of food and energy, instead of leading the world in producing food and energy.

This is an outrage! Since when do we need to beg other nations for permission to eat? To drive? To live? Does Obama propose to enforce this by rationing?

Perhaps this is the "change" the Senator has been promising.

One of my best friends and strongest supporters when I was Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) trying to close down LBJ’s "Great Society" was Congressman Bill Dickinson of Alabama who died recently.

Here is what Roll Call (4/2/08, p. 3), a Capitol Hill newspaper, had to say about Dickinson, "Former Rep. Bill Dickinson (R-Ala.), who won his seat amid the turmoil of Alabama politics of the mid-1960s and was known for his work on defense issues, died Monday at the age of 82. …

"Dickinson was elected in 1964 to succeed 14-term Democrat Rep. George Grant. Dickinson went on to finish 14 terms himself, and for six of them he served as the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. He was known for his commitment to military issues, having served in both the U.S. Navy and Air Force Reserve. The Army’s Aviation Warfighting Center at Fort Rucker and the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base are located in the district he represented.

" ‘He was a stalwart in national defense and was Ronald Reagan’s point man on the House Armed Services Committee,’ said his successor, Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), in a statement. ‘As the committee’s leading Republican he gave his support to President Reagan’s defense buildup of the 1980s, which helped to bring down the Soviet Union.’…

"[Clay] Swanzy {Dickinson’s chief of staff] recalled an instance when a Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee turned a meeting over to Dickinson instead of to the ranking Democrat because Dickinson was so well respected. …

"Dickinson was a recipient of the 1992 Gold Order of St. Michael Award, an award with only 75 recipients since its inception in 1990, given by the Army Aviation Association of America and the U.S. Army Aviation Center to individuals who have contributed significantly to the promotion of Army aviation. He also received the Jim Woodruff Jr. Award from the Association of the United States Army in 1981, recognizing his distinguished service to the United States on the part of an official holding national level elected office."