Current Republican Delegate Count

Methodology: Delegate numbers for each state are after the application of penalties and include unpledged delegates. In some states where actual delegates are assigned by multi-step procedures, the AP uses results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win. The AP interviews unpledged delegates to determine their preferences and includes them in the total.

Attribution: AP, Wallstreet Journal

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News

Firebrands All

What do Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie & Donald Trump have in common. If you said, none of them are conservative, you’d be right. What else?

If you said they’re popular with conservatives, you’d also be correct.

There is one other thing they have in common that is very attractive to conservatives. If you guessed, all three of them are firebrands, you’d be right again. Wow, you’re good.

By firebrands, I mean political brawlers that stand up to the press & to the libs. They don’t take the usual crap mushy milk toast republicans have been taking like mutes for decades. We as proud conservatives have been putting up with leftist crap for most of our adult lives, all the time wondering why our elected representatives can’t grow a spine & tell the media & other leftists as it is.

When a public figure finally does confront the onslaught, we all stand up and cheer, proclaiming, it’s about time someone said what I am thinking. You go, so & so, stick it to um. Tell me I’m wrong. We’ve all done it. Then the very next thought is, how come my guy can’t do that? Why can’t my guy be the political pugilist I’ve been longing for?

The problem that faces me is that none of these firebrands, as I already stated, are conservative.

Chris Christie is a northeast moderate-to-liberal republican. He is more fiscally conservative than socially, but he is no true conservative. Folks love him though; like very conservative Ann Coulter. Her & Christie are kindred spirits in that I think they both enjoy slamming lefties. She has no problem looking beyond the fact he is a moderate, al la Romney. I assume she thinks it’s more important to fight back than where one actually stands on any given issue.

In Donald Trump, the public sees the same thing; someone who will stand up & call out Barack, the chosen one, without fear of retribution. The Donald isn’t afraid of it. His only fear is of losing the spotlight. I believe Trump is a chameleon. He is whatever he perceives the public needs him to be.

Anyone who has read my blog recently, knows how I feel about Newt. I fully understand what is attractive about him. So does he. Believe me when I say he will continue down this aggressive path. Why not? It’s working for him. He is presenting himself as the “Defender of the Faith”, fighting on our behalf.

Newt is the only one who has figured out that this is a popularity contest. He has come to the correct conclusion that our side has been yearning for someone to pick a fight with the pompous left & make them look like the in the tank shills that they are.

My fear going forward is that ideas & ideals will get lost as more and more seemingly intelligent conservatives join the fight just for the fights sake.

Senate Can’t Pass a Budget

From the Website of Rep. Scott Austin, 8th District of Georgia:

Washington, D.C. –

On Congress’s first full-day back in session, twenty-Nine GOP Freshmen lawmakers gathered outside the United States Capitol building to call on the President to challenge the United States Senate to pass a federal budget.

Georgia’s 8th District Congressman, Austin Scott, who is also the president of the GOP Freshman class, remarked at Wednesday’s press conference, “Sen. Reid would like to say that Freshmen Republicans are responsible for the gridlock in Washington, but that’s simply not true.

We’ve passed a budget. We’ve passed twenty-seven jobs bills. We stand willing to allow the process to work. Sen. Reid has closed the door at every opportunity.”

Next Tuesday, President Obama will deliver his annual State of the Union address to Congress. Coincidentally, that day will also mark 1,000 days that the country has been operating without a budget.

To that point, Rep. Scott further commented, “The future of America is bright, but without a budget, the state of our Union is uncertain.

We’re here simply to ask the President to challenge Harry Reid and the Senate to pass a Budget — pass a budget so that the job creators in America have some certainty and can go out there and do what Americans want to do and that’s get back to work.”

Wednesday’s event occurred just as President Obama announced that he is denying the application for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline – a project that is projected to bring in more than 100,000 American jobs.

Upon hearing the news from a reporter in attendance, Rep. Scott responded, “That’s absolutely ridiculous.” He went on to say; “The bottom line is the only way to break this country’s dependency on oil from the mid-East is to bring things like the Keystone pipeline in from Canada and to start drilling here in America. I think the fact of the matter is, if the President rejects that, I think he is absolutely out of touch with America and what it takes to get this economy back on track.”

In the days leading up to next week’s State of the Union address and the 1,000 days milestone, House GOP Freshmen plan to utilize new media to encourage their constituents to reach out to the President about the need for a federal budget.

Editorial Comment: I agree with the Congressman’s points. I am however, growing weary of the couched way in which these guys speak. “We’re here simply to ask the President to challenge Harry Reid and the Senate to pass a Budget”? Really? Does anyone truly believe Obama gives a crap what we think or that he and Reid aren’t purposely marching in lock step? Obama and his ilk have proven they will do whatever they want, whenever they want and the Constitution and us be damned.

It’s time to take the gloves of civility off. Stay honest, stay forthright, but get tough and stop pulling your punches. Real conservatives firebrands are what we need now, not golden-tongued orators.

I think that’s enough clichés for one article.

Celebrate Good Times, Come On!

Under the category of, you can’t make this stuff up.

As you read this short article, keep in mind, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Translation; Only the criminal can get a gun.

If you are one of the lucky ones to receive a permit to own one, you may not be able to keep the gun you have or buy the one you want. You see, they have also developed a list of firearms, about a mile long, the city has deemed as “unsafe” and cannot be owned, under any condition.

So let’s just celebrate with the citizens of Chicago, their great achievement.

From The UK Daily Mail:

The city of Chicago marked its first 24 hours without a shooting or a murder in almost a year.

Wednesday was the first day-long break without deadly violence since early in 2011 in the city, which is known the world over for its historical ties to Al Capone and Prohibition-era gangsters.

“This is clearly the result of the tremendous police work of the men and women of the Chicago Police Department”, Police Supt. Garry McCarthy announced yesterday, reports NBC Chicago.

Last year, 1,000 more officers were put on the streets of Chicago, which has one of the highest crime rates in America.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy announced the first murder free day in 12 months.

“Since May, the Chicago Police Department has put more officers back into districts working to keep our communities safe. Introduced CompStat, a data-driven approach to fighting crime; and empowered district commanders and given them increased resources to reduce violence in their districts”, McCarthy added.

“While we are making progress, we still have work to do. And will not be satisfied until we significantly decrease the number of murders in every community throughout the city”, McCarthy added.

Last year Chicago saw fewer murders than in 2010 except for the Englewood neighborhood.
Police recorded 419 murders, down from 437 in 2010, reports NBC.
Englewood saw a 40 percent increase with 56 people killed in 2011.

Newt is NOT a Conservative

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Pop Quiz: Who said this?

“The Progressive Movement has profoundly changed America for the better.”

If you said it was the great conservative, Newt Gingrich, you’d be correct. I’m kidding about the whole great conservative thing.

Yet today, that dope, Rick Perry drops out of the race and follows Sarah Palin by endorsing Newt. Has the world turn completely upside down? Heck, even Rush Limbaugh calls Newt a conservative.

This is yet another example of why I repeat, Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative. Newt Gingrich is a big government Progressive. He has stated, on several occasions, his favorite Presidents were progressives.
I have personally heard him give positive statements regarding them all. He didn’t describe them as progressives, but has called them out by name. Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson & FDR. The only one he left out was LBJ. What true conservative, with any reverence and understanding of the Constitution, could possibly think this; much less say it out loud. In my opinion, these 4 are not only, not good, but are the 4 worst presidents in history!

Then why would he do this? Why would he speak favorably of these gentlemen? That’s an easy question to answer. He knows, as do many of us, the general public has been taught next to nothing of our history. He throws these historical quips and quotes out during the debates. He sounds like the great historian & is never challenged due to the dearth of historical knowledge of the other candidates or the moderators.

On that note I would like to present one of the great men Newt has recently quoted & appears to have great respect for; President Andrew Jackson.

Many believe the Father of Progressivism was Theodore Roosevelt. In fact it was Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came to prominence as the Founding Fathers died out and I believe the republic that they envisioned also died with Jackson. He could not have done what he did if they had been around.

Jackson believed in Manifest Destiny, which is kind of the perversion of Divine Providence. Divine Providence occurs when you live your life in a good and moral way, try your best and pull yourself up by the bootstraps, God will open doors for you. You know, “Good things happen to good people”.

Manifest Destiny is more of the, “Get out of my way. I’m on a mission from God”. It’s my way or the highway. Like all progressives, he knew better than the people.

Founding Fathers = Divine Providence, Progressives = Manifest Destiny. It’s no surprise Jackson was also the father of the democrat party.

He declared war on the Bank of the United States (B.U.S.). I’m no fan of any national bank but unlike the Federal Reserve of today, the B.U.S. did not wield nearly the power of today’s central bank.

Although he declared it, he wasn’t championing the working class or Ron Paul supporters. He claimed to be fighting for the “little man”. Sound familiar? In fact he just wanted to shut the bank down because he couldn’t control it. Jackson simply wanted to replace it with another bank completely controlled by him and his party. Progressives must control all things for the betterment of society. They arrest control by pretending to be the champions of the “Little Guy”.

Most Americans think the Civil War was fought solely about slavery. In fact Andrew Jackson started the ball rolling when he signed the Tariff of 1832 that taxed imported and exported goods. The North grew successfully
under this tariff. The tax was rough on the southerners. As Andrew Jackson continued to tax goods, southerners found it hard to sell their products to the English and suffered badly.. South Carolina firmly refused to pay the taxes and threatened to withdraw from the Union if the tariff was enforced. It was eventually rewritten, but the damage between the North & South had been done.

Like the progressives that would follow, he was also a flaming racist. He believed neither Indians nor blacks should own any property in the U.S. He particularly hated Indians.

We have all heard of the “Trail of Tears”. That was Andrew Jackson’s doing. He declared war on the Eastern Indian Tribes, signing the Indian Removal Act. There would be no tribes east of the Mississippi. Many Indians were massacred. Those he didn’t have killed, were driven west along; you guessed it,
“The Trail of Tears”. Many of the Indians died on the trail (roughly 25%), freezing to death.

His excuse for the atrocity was, “Well, we needed the land, so we took it”. Manifest Destiny.

Andrew Jackson was a BAD dude & Newt goes out of his way to speak highly of him.

This is the advertised “True Conservative”?

Don’t be fooled!

Coffee is Found to Reduce the Risk of Diabetes

From ACS (American Chemical Society): New evidence that drinking coffee may reduce the risk of diabetes.

Why do heavy coffee drinkers have a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, a disease on the increase around the world that can lead to serious health problems? Scientists are offering a new solution to that long-standing mystery in an ACS, ‘Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry’ report.

Scientists are reporting new evidence that drinking coffee may help prevent diabetes and that caffeine may be the ingredient largely responsible for this effect. Their findings are among the first animal studies to demonstrate this apparent link.

Ling Zheng, Kun Huang and colleagues explain that previous studies show that coffee drinkers are at a lower risk for developing Type 2 diabetes, which accounts for 90-95 percent of diabetes cases in the world.

Those studies show that people who drink four or more cups of coffee daily have a 50 percent lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and every additional cup of coffee brings another decrease in risk of almost 7 percent.

Scientists have implicated the misfolding of a substance called human islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP)

Full length human islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP)

in causing Type 2 diabetes, and some are seeking ways to block that process. Zheng and Huang decided to see if coffee’s beneficial effects might be due to substances that block hIAPP.

Indeed, they did identify two categories of compounds in coffee that significantly inhibited hIAPP. They suggest that this effect explains why coffee drinkers show a lower risk for developing diabetes. “A beneficial effect may thus be expected for a regular coffee drinker”, the researchers conclude.

The scientists fed either water or coffee to a group of laboratory mice commonly used to study diabetes.

Coffee consumption prevented the development of high-blood sugar and also improved insulin
sensitivity in the mice, thereby reducing the risk of diabetes.

Coffee also caused a cascade of other beneficial changes in the fatty liver and inflammatory adipocytokines related to a reduced diabetes risk.

Additional lab studies showed that caffeine may be “one of the most effective anti-diabetic compounds in coffee,” the scientists say.

Rick Santorum, A Real Conservative

[Editorial Comment: The following was not a prepared speech. It was completely extemporaneous. There was no script, no teleprompter, no blackberry and no one speaking into his ear telling him what to say. You tell me who the REAL conservative is.]

Lexington, S.C.

From: The Weekly Standard:

In the back room at the Flight Deck restaurant Tuesday afternoon, a voter posed an interesting question to Rick Santorum. What is Santorum’s own view of the Constitution,
the voter wanted to know, given that Ron Paul frequently casts himself as the only candidate who wants to adhere to the Constitution? In response, Santorum fished out of his pocket his miniature copy of the Constitution and held it tightly in his hand.

“I have a very good grasp of the Constitution,” Santorum joked. Then the former senator from Pennsylvania got serious, describing his own philosophy on the Constitution and contrasting it with Paul’s.

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France.

“You see, during the ti
me of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution.

The French had 21,
I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does.

But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.