Rep. Allen West: "I'm Here To Set The Record Straight"

Rep. Allen West's speech at CPAC - pure red meat.



I see an unlimited future for this man.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Quick Hits

Unemployment -
Instapundit - [Gallup reports] unemployment up to 10.3 Percent. I’ve noticed a divergence between the Gallup numbers and the “official” numbers lately. I wonder why that is? Is it seasonal adjustment, or something else? Underemployment is up to 19.7 percent.

BizzyBlog comments on an IBD editorial explaining why businesses aren't accepting Obama's offer to "get in the game."

CPAC -
The speeches at Hot Air: Coulter, Cain, Romney, Bolton, Daniels

Globull Warming -
I have several core concerns with global warming theory, with the single most fundamental being that I don't trust the historical temperature record for all the reasons set forth here and here. We learn today that several scientists, inlcuding Anthony Watts, are about to set up an independent temperature monitoring program that addresses those concerns. Whatever data this produces, the concept - the actual practice of transparent science in the climate field - sounds quite promising.

Egypt
Mark Steyn critiques the dismal performance of our intelligence agencies.

Michael Totten on Tariq Rammadan and the false face of moderation in the Muslim Brotherhood

Read More...

Summary only...

GoProud, SoCons, The CPAC Boycott, & Homosexuality In Context

What is and should be the relationship between the conservative movement and conservative homosexuals? What should be the relationship between the conservative movement and homosexuality more generally? Those questions are implicated in the decision to invite GoProud to attend the CPAC conference and the decision by World Net Daily and the Family Research Council to boycot the event. It is also the subject of a post by Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot. As he sees it:

While the fact that some groups are boycotting does show that that not all conservatives are willing to include their gay and lesbian confreres, overwhelmingly, conservative organizations don’t have a problem working together with gays in common purpose. And that purpose is reducing the size and scope of the federal government while standing up for basic American values, including the freedom to live our lives as we choose.

We may not agree with some of these organizations on all issues (nor they with us), but at least they welcome us into the conservative fold. And that really should be the takeaway from this kerfuffle, that the conservative movement is increasingly opening its doors to openly gay men and lesbians.

Well said and, I believe, very true.

One of the comments to Daniel's post caught my eye. It was from an Orthodox Rabbi who expounded on how he, as a social conservative, views homosexuality:

People of faith insist that homosexuality is the most serious of sins because the Bible calls it an abomination.

But the word appears approximately 122 times in the Bible. Eating nonkosher food is an abomination (Deuteronomy 14:3). A woman returning to her first husband after being married in the interim is an abomination (Deut. 24:4). And bringing a blemished sacrifice on God’s altar is an abomination (Deut. 17:1.). Proverbs goes so far as to label envy, lying and gossip as that which “the Lord hates and are an abomination to Him” (3:32, 16:22).

As an Orthodox rabbi who reveres the Bible, I do not deny the biblical prohibition on male same-sex relationships. Rather, I simply place it in context.

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is to refrain from gay sex. Another is for men and women to marry and have children. So when Jewish gay couples come to me for counselling and tell me they have never been attracted to the opposite sex in their entire lives and are desperately alone, I tell them, “You have 611 commandments left. That should keep you busy. Now, go create a kosher home with a mezuza on the door. Turn off the TV on the Sabbath and share your festive meal with many guests. Put on tefillin and pray to God three times a day, for you are His beloved children. He desires you and seeks you out.”

Once, I said to my friend Pat Robertson, whom I have always found engaging and open in our conversations, “Why can’t you simply announce to all gay men and women, ‘Come to church. Whatever relationship you’re in, God wants you to pray. He wants you to give charity. He wants you to lead a godly life.”

He answered to the effect that homosexuality is too important to overlook, seeing as it poses the most grave risk to the institution of marriage. Other Evangelical leaders have told me the same. Homosexuality is the single greatest threat to the family.

BUT WITH one of two heterosexual marriages failing, with 70 percent of the Internet dedicated to the degradation of women through pornography and with a culture that is materially insatiable even as it remains all-too spiritually content, can we straight people say with a straight face that gays are ruining our families? We’ve done a mighty fine job of it ourselves.

The extreme homophobia that is unfortunately to be found among many of my religious brothers and sisters – in many Arab countries being gay is basically a death sentence – stems from an even more fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sin. The Ten Commandments were given on two tablets to connote two different kinds of transgression, religious and moral. The first tablet discusses religious transgressions between God and man, such as the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy and desecrating the Sabbath. The second tablets contains the moral sins between man and his fellow man, like adultery, theft, and murder.

The mistake of so many well-meaning people of faith is to believe that homosexuality is a moral rather than a religious sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.

For the record, I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage.

But I hardly believe that gay marriage is the end of Western civilization.

For me the real killer is the tsunami of divorce and the untold disruption to children as they become yo-yos going from house to house on weekends.

The American religious and electoral obsession with all-gay-marriage-all- the-time has led to a values-vacuum where it is near impossible to discuss real solutions to the erosion of family life. For instance, making marital counselling tax deductible would do infinitely more to bolster the crumbling institution of marriage than any opposition to gay relationships.

Likewise, promoting a code of gentlemanly conduct for men on American college campuses and negating the prevailing hook-up culture where sex even precedes dating could spark a return to romantic and long-term commitments.

Finally, getting more families to sign up for our international “Turn Friday Night into Family Night” would give children in general, and girls in particular, greater self-esteem as they are focused on by their parents for at least two hours each week without any electronic interference. And children with self-confidence later create stronger adult relationships.

I have numerous gay friends whose greatest fear, like so many straight people, is to end up alone. Should we merely throw the book at these people? Does not the same book, the Bible, also say, “It is not good for man to be alone?” And all I’m asking from my religious brethren is this: Even as you oppose gay relationships because of your beliefs, please be tortured by your opposition. Understand that when our most deeply held beliefs conflict with our basic humanity, we should feel the tragedy of the conflict, rather than simply find convenient scapegoats upon whom to blame all of America’s ills.

The writer is the author of Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life and is founder of This World: The Values Network, a national organization that promotes universal Jewish values to heal America. Follow him on Twitter@Rabbishmuley and at http://www.shmuley.com. Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=191923

I think the Rabbi has it right - and his views closely track my own. And no reader of this blog could possible characterize me as anything other than a conservative whether fiscally, socially or in matters related to defense.

That said, someone's homosexuality is not my business nor the business of the state. Homosexuality defines one's sexual preferences, not their character nor the goodness of their soul, and it is only the latter two that add up an individual's benefit to society. I welcome anyone, regardless of sexual preference, into the conservative tent if they share conservative's concern with issues of freedom, democracy, fiscal sanity and defense.

I do have some significant reservations concerning the push for "gay rights." One, as a religious person, I disagree with sanctioning gay marriage, though I support the concept of gay unions. Two, as a former infantry officer and company commander, I disagree with lifting DADT on pragmatic grounds. Three, I get absolutely livid over attempts by the radical left to normalize homosexuality in grade school. And four, I get equally livid over using the police power of the state to suppress speech critical of homosexuality. Indeed, that last is particularly outrageous, as are all "hate speech" laws and policies.

Beyond those areas of disagreement that I might have with many homosexuals, including some conservtive homosexuals on points one and two I suspect, there are thousands of other points on which we may well agree. To your average left-wing single-issue homosexual, I would no doubt be described as a raging homophobe. To a conservative homosexual, I would no doubt be described as that short, intellectualy challenged guy that likes to talk politics with them over an ice cold beer or glass of home-made mead.

In any event, I am glad GoProud has been invited to CPAC. I am disgusted with social conservatives who are boycotting CPAC on those grounds, not because of their stance against homosexuality, but because of their cowardice. If there is a debate to be had on social issues, let it be in full sunlight under the conservative tent. Taking one's chips and going home is hiding from the debate, and that is something I only expect from the left.

Read More...

Summary only...

CPAC's Folly

This year's attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) voted in their straw poll as to whom they would like to see elected President. The winner this year - libertarian (not conservative) Ron Paul. My assessment of Mr. Paul is that he is off the deep end on a majority of issues - living in every bit as much a fantasy world as those on the far left. The fact that he won the straw poll may not be that meaningful, but by the same token, I am now looking at everything coming out of CPAC with a much more critical eye than in the past. CPAC has definately come down several notches in my estimation. And if a significant number of conservatives do in fact embrace the folly and fantasy of Ron Paul, that bodes very poorly indeed both for the upcoming elections and, more importantly, any chance to right our rapidly sinking ship of state.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and McCain Derangement Syndrome

The justifications given by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh for not supporting McCain and abandoning our soldiers and national security to either Obama or Clinton are incredibly disingenuous and do not withstand a cursory examination.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Updated)

Ann Coulter is a witty, acerbic shock jock-ess. I liked her until she referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" at the 2007 CPAC convention. At that point, I perceived her goal to be self-promotion rather than promoting the conservative cause. And likewise seems to be her position on McCain. Her assertion that she will not only refuse to support McCain, but actively campaign for Hillary seems far more an act of self promotion than it does the elucidation of a principled position. You can listen here to her speech on McCain that she gave before the Young Americans Foundation during the CPAC convention.

Powerline has posted a good analysis of Coulter's speech:

I enjoy listening to Ann Coulter, partly because I usually agree with 80 to 90 percent of what she says and partly because of the guilty pleasure I get from much of the other 10 to 20 percent. However, watching the replay of her speech explaining to the Young America's Foundation why Hillary Clinton is preferable to John McCain, I found that those percentages were reversed. Moreover, though I did take guilty pleasure from her attacks on McCain, it became increasingly difficult fully to enjoy the spectacle of Coulter attempting to persuade college-age conservatives that a McCain defeat at the hands of Clinton would be just fine.

. . . For example, in response to a question about Iraq, Coulter responded that McCain wants to close Gitmo and end waterboarding. But Clinton wants to close Gitmo, end waterboarding and, more likely than not, get out of Iraq without having won. McCain wants to close Gitmo, end waterboarding, and win in Iraq. How is that even a close call for Coulter?

Similarly, when asked about judges Coulter reminded the audience that McCain was part of the Gang of 14, and added that there was no assurance McCain would appoint judges like John Roberts (whose nomination Coulter was no fan of at the time) and Samuel Alito. But McCain voted in favor of Roberts and Alito, and (though I disagree with the Gang of 14) supported restricting filibusters of Bush nominees to exceptional cases. Clinton voted against Roberts and Alito, and thought there should be no restrictions on filibusters of their nominations and the nominations of like-minded appellate court judges. Again, this seems like a no-brainer for conservatives. . . .

Read the entire post here. As to Rush Limbaugh, on the occasions I have been able to catch parts of his show in the wake of Super Tuesday, I have heard caller after caller criticize McCain and assert that they will not vote for him in the general election. Rush has fully agreed with their concerns and expounded upon them, but he has stopped ever so slightly short of endorsing their proposed actions. I could be very wrong on this, but it appears to me that Rush is allowing his audience to vent for the moment and that he intends to throw his support to McCain at some point in the future.

That said, Limbaugh has made precisely the same disingenuous arguments as has Coulter about McCain - that McCain, Clinton and Obama are essentially the same in all respects. Bill Kristol, in a very thoughtful essay, has appropriately labeled this thinking as McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Indeed, when you sit and listen to the Democrats, and then you go back and listen to Coulter and Rush, its easy to come away mystified. Anyone who thinks that the economy of the U.S. would function the same under McCain as under Hillary has not been paying any attention. Hillary is not Bill. She is very explicit about her intent to involve government in the economy in a big way - and I am not just referring to Hillarycare. Besides her desire to break our piggy banks to spend on social programs, she has expressed her extreme mistrust of our (mostly) capitalist economy. See here and here. And Hillary is the earmark queen among the Presidential candidates. Say what you will of McCain, he has shown no such inclinations to have a command economy - and indeed, he has drawn a clear line in the sand on earmarks.

But where Coulter and Rush are being most disingenuous is on the major issues of our time -Iraq, Iran and the war on terror. On these issues, they both refuse to concede that we would be better off with McCain at the helm rather than Obama or Clinton. You can listen to Coulter's reasoning in her speech linked above. As to Rush, I listened to him make the same argument as Coulter about ten days ago, but do not have the site. Their argument is that, despite what Obama and Clinton are saying in the primaries, Clinton and Obama would not pull out of Iraq. Coulter and Limbaugh hearken back to ambiguous statements Clinton and Obama made prior to being pulled hard left by the Democratic base.

This is a tenuous argument indeed. It assumes that Clinton or Obama can pull back from their central bedrock campaign promise once in office. One, the political repercussions of such an act would be severe indeed, and it would likely split the Democratic Party. Even giving the appearance of pulling back would be painted as a victory by the radical Islamists. It would greatly endanger the troops we have remaining in Iraq, as both al Qaeda and Iran would be justified in thinking that if they create enough mayhem, we will fully withdraw. And it would breathe a tremendous new life into the ideology of radical Islam.

Further, character matters in war, more so than in any other endeavor. By character I mean attempting to do what one perceives as right based on principles, even if doing so comes at great personal cost. It is the polar opposite of making decisions on the basis of expediency. The criticality of character is easily demonstrated.

The only reason we won the Revolutionary War was because of the character of a few men who stayed true to their ideals when all seemed lost. George Washington was chief among them. On December 1, 1776, the nascent revolution was all but dead after a series of defeats that left Washington with only the remnants of a demoralized army. Few if any believed the revolution would succeed, and many were clamoring to sue the King for peace. Yet when night fell on Christmas in 1776, George Washington risked the last hope of the revolution in an incredibly audacious gamble. He led this depleted army across the Delaware River to attack the feared Hessians at Trenton. And on that date, the fortunes of war turned.

And it was only principles of Abraham Lincoln that allowed the North to achieve victory in the Civil War. It was Lincoln’s principled stand against any expansion of slavery that led to the war – and it was not a war that went well for the Union forces in the beginning. As elections drew near in 1864, Lincoln’s commitment to his principles and refusal to end the war looked likely to cost him the election. Yet he never wavered.

That said, the hallmark of much of the modern left is that they subordinate any principles they might have to expediency. Indeed, as Charles Krauthammer noted about Hillary Clinton not long ago: "She has no principles. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs." Assuming that what Coulter and Limbaugh posit about Clinton and Obama is true – that they have no intention of abandoning Iraq despite promises to contrary – that itself is proof positive of their willingness to place expediency over principle. In this case, the expediency is lying to the American public in order to win an election.

To see the dangerous intersection of political expediency and military conflict, one need not look far back in the annals of history for an example. Bill Clinton provides it. In 1993, he gave our military forces in the Somalia the mission of nation building – a mission that necessitated combat against a particular warlord with ties to al Qaeda. As combat intensified in 1993, the commander of the U.S. forces requested the authority to deploy tanks and close air support – both of which were readily available in theater – for force protection. The Clinton administration refused the request on the grounds that they did not want to be perceived as escalating hostilities. A matter of days later, the Blackhawk Down incident occurred in Mogadishu. Unprotected U.S. infantry soldiers were caught in a massive ambush assisted by al Qaeda and resulting in 18 U.S. soldiers killed and 79 injured. Clinton immediately gave up the mission of nation building and took our ground forces out of combat.

All of the decisions made by the Clinton administration as regards the Black Hawk down incident and its aftermath are textbook examples of political expediency. The long term ramifications of the withdrawal of our soldiers were that Somalia slipped back into civil war and al Qaeda claimed a victory against the U.S. It was a pyrrich victory in the sense that upwards of 2,000 Somalis were killed by our soldiers in that engagement. But the dead are meaningless to al Qaeda. Their claim to victory was predicated on the U.S. withdrawal and the abandonment of its mission as the result of suffering a comparatively small number of casualties. As we now know, it was one in a series of incidents that led to the jihadist’s belief that they could attack America on its home soil and not face any determined counterattack.

I would note that I do not think Clinton's decision to leave Somolia was wrong. Our strategic national interests were not in question there. With Iraq, Iran, and in the broader context of triuphalist Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and its offshoots, our strategic national interests are directly involved.

And as much a role as character plays in the conduct of wars, it also plays an equally critical role in keeping us out of war. An enemy that knows we have both the means to destroy them and the will to use that power may well be disuaded from pursuing acts of war. That is particularly true as regards to Iran, where the threatened or actual use of force by the U.S. have been the only factors to ever have caused the theocracy to alter their behavior in times past - i.e., Khomeini released the U.S. hostages on the day the impotent Jimmy Carter left office and directly before Regan took the oath of office; Khomeini stopped the mining of the Persian Gulf after the U.S. destroyed half of the Iranian navy over a period of several hours in 1988; and, if the recent NIE is to be believed, Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The flip side of that coin is that a government that believes that those opposing it do not have the stomach to use their power will not be disuaded. Examples abound, but possibly the clearest can be seen in the history of pre-war Nazi Germany. And in that regards, it would seem Obama wants to reprise the role of Neville Chamberlin.

The war in Iraq and the conflict with Iran are zero-sum games that we cannot afford to lose. The consequences of losing to us and to Western civilization at large would be dire. But in Iraq and with Iran, we face enemies that are willing to endure significant casualties in order to achieve their goals. I do not believe that we can possibly prevail against such a foe should we have a Commander in Chief whose character is such that he or she will place expediency over principle.

McCain operates on principle. It is his greatest strength. McCain supported the surge on the basis that he believed it was the right thing to do even when it looked as if it would put a stake in his Presidential bid. In that light, the attempt by Coulter and Limbaugh to suggest that McCain, Obama and Clinton would be interchangeable as respects to how they would handle Iraq and Iran is simply ludicrous.

McCain Derangement Syndrome needs to die a quick death. The chief justifications underpinning MDS as articulated by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are demonstrably false and fully mirror the irrational hatred that defines BDS. And, as I see it, their proposed actions amount to an abandonment of our soldiers in the field in a time of war. In short, its time for Coulter and company to ‘rush’ through the "Five Stages of McCain."

Read More...

Summary only...

McCain Reaches Out To Conservatives at CPAC

John McCain spoke to the annual CPAC convention today in what was widely described as a do or die moment for conservatives. By all accounts, McCain's speech was "excellent." The text of his speech is below.

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today.

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan's defense of America's cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton's words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstr eam conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn.

Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country."

Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a wa y that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep. I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for President, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing. I will make my case to voters, no matter what state they reside in, in the same way. I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. I will stand on my convictions, my conservative convictions, and trust in the good sense of the voters, and in my confidence that conservative pr inciples still appeal to a majority of Americans, Republicans, Independents and Reagan Democrats.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love. My life experiences in service to our country inform my political judgments. They are at the core of my convictions. I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you. I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and ta ke comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.

You have heard me say before that for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it.

Thank you and God bless you.

Transcript from Redstate.org.

Read More...

Summary only...