Retired General Says Senator McCain Met With Wrong Syrians, Knocks John Kerry

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a retired Army officer many recognize as the senior military analyst who appeared so many times on Fox News Channel from 2000 to 2007, told viewers of “The Steve Malzberg Show” that Sen. John McCain met with the wrong people during a recent secret trip to Syria.  During the same interview, however, he reserved most of his criticism for Secretary of State John Kerry.

While not harshly critical of the Arizona Republican or his visit to the embattled Middle East nation, General Vallely pointed out that Senator McCain met with people who “really aren’t the ones who are the force behind the opposition.”

When asked whether he would call the meeting a “waste of time” or not, he said he thought it was good Senator McCain went over.  Then his criticism of the State Department began.

“We can’t count on our Secretary of State or our State Department to do (it),” General Vallely said.

If you agree with General Vallely’s take on Senator McCain’s efforts, you might also appreciate the findings of my recently-released second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.)

On April 8, I published news of the general’s endorsement of the book as follows:

“Bob McCarty has uncovered a high-tech ‘turf war’ pitting those who want the best for our troops against others who seem to be focused on their own self-interests.  Sadly, it seems the wrong people are winning this war.  I highly recommend THE CLAPPER MEMO.”

The endorsement by General Vallely, who now serves as chair of two organizations, Stand Up America and Nemo Arms, Inc., stands as one of three heavyweight endorsements the book has received.

THE CLAPPER MEMO is available in paperback or ebook versions at Amazon.

Order Books Graphic LR 6-15-13

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Oklahoma Leads Way in Election Law Reform

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

Paul R. Hollrah

When I first moved to Oklahoma from New York in 1963, Tulsa was known far and wide as the Oil Capital of the World.  Other than possessing more miles of lake frontage than any other state in the nation, Oklahoma was not among the nation’s leaders in any other category, with one possible exception: the state could easily have won the title of Vote Fraud Capital of the World.

While attending my very first political meeting in September 1963, I learned how Oklahoma elections were won and lost.  I learned, for instance, that in forty-four of the state’s seventy-seven counties, there was no such thing as a secret ballot on Election Day. Since statehood in 1907, Democrats has systematically denied voters the right to a secret ballot; there were no voting booths and no voting machines.  Voter intimidation was widespread.

Between 1963 and the fall of 1966, I organized and led a statewide election reform program called “Operation: Secret Ballot.” Over a period of months in the summer and fall of 1966, using donated funds, all volunteer labor, and a borrowed West Tulsa factory building, we built enough voting booths to supply from 800 to 1,000 precincts.  And when we had threats on our lives if we attempted to deliver voting booths to some rural counties, the Oklahoma National Guard provided troops and trucks to make the deliveries.

In the 1966 general election, with our voting booths in use all across the state and Democrats afraid not to use them, we elected the state’s second Republican governor and the state’s first Republican attorney general.  It was the biggest dose of political reform in state history and a major factor in the political renaissance that has made Oklahoma one of the reddest of red states. Now, some 45 years later, all of that is in the past and Oklahoma has become the national model for anti-fraud legislation.

For example, Oklahoma law now provides that each person appearing to vote “shall provide proof of identity,” where “proof of identity” is defined as a document that shows the name and photograph of the person to whom the ID was issued, an expiration date, and the identity of the issuing authority… the United States government, the State of Oklahoma, or the government of a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation.  If a person declines or is unable to provide proof of identity, the voter may sign a statement, under oath, affirming that he/she is the person listed on the precinct registry.  False swearing or affirming under oath is a felony crime.

Oklahoma State Capitol

Like most other states, Oklahoma has had difficulties with absentee ballot fraud.  In one rural county, a single “mobile notary public service” requested and received 250 absentee ballots in one election.  Under a new section of Oklahoma law, “Any person who knowingly executes a false application for an absentee ballot shall be guilty of a felony.”

In 2004, the New York Daily News reported the results of a study which showed that some 46,000 people, more than 70 percent of them Democrats, were registered to vote in both New York City and in Florida.  Only 12 percent were Republicans.  Researching previous elections, the Daily News found well over 400 voters who had voted in both New York and Florida in the 2000 general election… a Florida election that George W. Bush won by just 537 votes.

Oklahoma law now provides that, if a registered voter who has requested an absentee ballot attempts to vote in person on election day, that voter is required to sign an affidavit swearing or affirming that he/she did not cast the requested absentee ballot and is, therefore, entitled to vote in person.  Falsely signing such an affidavit under oath is a felony crime.

Under amendments passed by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by former Democratic Governor Brad Henry, Oklahoma election laws were substantially strengthened, effective January 1, 2011:

  • Under Section 16-102 of the law, “Any person who votes more than once at any election, who votes in a precinct after having transferred voter registration to a new precinct, or who, knowing that he or she is not eligible to vote at an election, willfully votes at said election, shall be guilty of a felony.”
  • Also under Section 16-102, “Any uniformed or overseas voter who willingly votes and submits an absentee ballot later than the day of the election, and any person who knowingly votes and submits an absentee ballot issued to another person, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The mobile notary public that requested and received 250 absentee ballots is now out of business.
  • Under Section 16-102, subsection 3, the new Oklahoma law states that, “Any unauthorized person who knowingly removes a ballot from a polling place or who knowingly carries a ballot into a polling place shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”
  • Under Section 16-103, “Any person who knowingly swears or affirms a false affidavit in order to become eligible to vote, to obtain and vote a provisional ballot, or to obtain and vote an absentee ballot, or to cause the cancellation of a qualified elector’s voter registration, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”
  • Section 16-103.1 of the Oklahoma law, what might be referred to as the anti-ACORN clause, provides that “any person who knowingly causes any qualified elector to be invalidly registered, who knowingly causes any unqualified person to be registered, or who knowingly causes the collection or submission of voter registration forms containing false, fraudulent, or fictitious information shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”
  • A newly amended section of Oklahoma law, Section 16-105A, should be sufficient to cause fraud-minded Democrats to lose a lot of sleep.  The section reads as follows: “Any person who knowingly conspires to commit fraud or perpetrates fraud, or who steals supplies used to conduct an election, in order to change a voter’s vote, or to change the composition of the official ballot or ballots, or to change the counting of the ballots, or to change the certification of the results of an election, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

In the 1968 General Election, while serving as a ballot security officer in the eastern Oklahoma ballot security office, I received a telephone call from a Cherokee County Republican official who reported that a person or persons unknown had stolen all of the Republican presidential ballots for that county. When we advised that we would have attorneys on the way to Cherokee County within minutes, the informant suggested that he was certain he knew who had stolen the ballots and that he would attempt to retrieve them.

We recommended against such unilateral action because of the dangers involved. Unfortunately, our advice went unheeded.  Our informant was found several hours later in a rural roadside ditch in Cherokee County.  He had been beaten nearly to death with lengths of heavy log chain.  He had found the stolen ballots, but it could have cost him his life.

But what is most significant about the new law is the change in penalties that became effective on January 1st.  While the earlier statute provided that, “Any person deemed guilty of a felony under provisions of this act shall, upon conviction, be confined in the State Penitentiary for not more than two (2) years, or fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), or both,” the amended law increases penalties for the above-described offenses to incarceration for a period not to exceed five years, or a fine of not more than $50,000, or both.

The new Oklahoma law should be sufficient to inform those who would attempt to steal elections through fraud, violence, and intimidation that there are now serious penalties for doing so.  What is left undone is a public information campaign to inform Republican election officials and the voting public of the provision of the new law so that they can bring the guilty to justice.

In 2008, Oklahoma (77 counties) was the only state, other than Alaska (27 counties), in which a majority of voters in every county voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin.  Then, in the 2010 General Election, the people of Oklahoma elected a Republican Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Labor Commissioner, State Auditor, Insurance Commissioner, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, all positions previously held by Democrats.

In the state legislature, Republicans gained eight House seats, going from a 62-39 to a 70-31 majority, and six Senate seats, going from a 26-22 to a 32-16 majority.   In terms of party registration, CapitolBeatOK reports that, through January 15, 2011, there were 2,090,130 registered voters in Oklahoma.  Between January 15, 2010 and January 15, 2011, Democrats increased their numbers by 88, from 999,855 to 999,943, while Republican registrations increased by 36,174, from 813,158 to 849,332.

With both houses of the state legislature in Republican hands, a Republican governor, and a Republican attorney general, Oklahomans have every expectation that they can be assured of open and honest elections.  It is a record of major accomplishment.  If Oklahoma leads the way, other states can do it as well.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Say It Isn’t So: Schwarzenegger for President? (Update)

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

For those who remain unconvinced that Barack Obama is a usurper, that he is ineligible to serve as president of the United States, it might be helpful to examine his qualifications side-by-side with the qualifications of three others whose eligibility has been questioned in modern times.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” It is the law of the land, it applies to everyone, and it cannot be denied or discounted.

In November 1966, following the late George W. Romney’s impressive reelection victory as governor of Michigan, polls showed him leading former Vice President Richard Nixon by a margin of 39 percent to 31 percent for the 1968 GOP presidential nomination. A subsequent Harris poll showed Romney, the father of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, leading President Lyndon Johnson 54 percent to 46 percent in a head-to-head match-up. However, as Romney gained prominence as a potential nominee, more and more questions were raised regarding his eligibility.

The question of eligibility was based on the widespread belief that, in order for him to serve as president, the Constitution required that he be born on American soil. However, Constitutional scholars concluded that, although he was born in a Mormon religious colony, Colonia Dublán, in the Mexican border state of Chihuahua, the fact that both of his parents were U.S. citizens made him a “natural born” citizen. The place of his birth was of no consequence.

A more recent case involves Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California. Almost from the day he became governor on Nov. 17, 2003, until he left office on January 3, 2011, there was constant speculation that he may one day run for president. In an interview for the CBS News program, 60 Minutes, correspondent Morley Safer put the question directly to Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger responded, “Yes! Absolutely! I think, you know, because why not? Like with my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top.”

California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher drafted a Constitutional amendment that would allow anyone who’s been a U.S. citizen for 20 years or more to run for president or vice president.

Presumably, Rohrabacher’s proposal would amend the opening clause of Article II, Section 1 to read, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, or a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least twenty (20) years, shall be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has prepared a similar amendment for introduction in the Senate.

Schwarzenegger, who became a naturalized citizen in 1983, has said he supports amending the Constitution. But amending the Constitution is no simple matter. Any proposed amendment would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. However, it is unlikely that we will ever be so short of qualified candidates that we would find it necessary to amend the Constitution to allow us to recruit candidates from among the foreign born or “naturalized” population.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Then, in the early months of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, a Nashua, N.H., man, Fred Hollander, filed a lawsuit questioning Sen. John McCain’s status as a “natural born” citizen. His complaint was based on the fact that McCain was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were charged with the task of researching the matter of McCain’s eligibility.

In a March 19, 2008, memorandum, Olson and Tribe, both eminent lawyers, concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008, statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”

This was followed by an April 30, 2008, U.S. Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0.

The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

It is important to note that all three… the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

President Barack Obama

Finally, during the same 2008 primary season, as Illinois senator Barack Obama forged a lead over his principal opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, his eligibility under Article II, Section 1 was called into question. Obama claimed to have been born to an American mother, 18-year-old Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama, and an African father, 25-year-old Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony. And while no one among the delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, or among the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or any member of the U.S. Congress… sitting in joint session on January 6, 2009, to certify the votes of the Electoral College… thought to question Obama’s eligibility, numerous citizen lawsuits were filed in federal courts questioning his eligibility.

The facts in Obama’s case are quite clear and unambiguous. Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is and who is not a British subject, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”

Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under controlling British law, it is undeniable that Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.

Official U.S. government policy, as outlined in publications of the U.S. State Department, is as follows: “The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law… However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries…(emphasis added)”

Obama’s dual U.S.-British citizenship required him to obey the laws of both the United States and Great Britain. Is it even remotely conceivable that the Founders would have envisioned a chief executive who was obligated, at any time in his life, to obey the laws of a foreign country?

Beyond that, Obama’s claim to the presidency clearly flies in the face of the words of John A. Bingham, the chief framer of the 14th Amendment, who wrote: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” It is possible that Obama may have been born in the United States, a claim that is far from a certainty. However, he still falls far short of eligibility under the Bingham standard. His birth father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, the British crown, automatically passing that nationality and that allegiance on, “by descent,” to his son, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.

Of the four candidates evaluated, two are clearly eligible under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, and two are not. The late Governor Romney was a “natural born” citizen because, in spite of the fact that he was born in Mexico, both of his parents were American citizens. Senator McCain is clearly a “natural born” citizen because, while he was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, both of his parents were U.S. citizens.

Former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is clearly NOT a “natural born” citizen because he is a “naturalized” citizen. He was born in Austria and both of his parents were Austrian citizens.

And finally, Barack Obama is ineligible to serve because only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. He was born owing allegiance to both the United States and Great Britain. However, if he can point to a clause in the U.S. Constitution, a law, or a legal precedent proving that, at some point in his life, he lost his dual nationality and magically became a “natural born” citizen, I will bow to his claim and end my crusade to have him declared ineligible. Until then, he is not my president because all controlling legal authority… American, British, and Kenyan… tells us he cannot be. He must step down and end the pretence.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

UPDATE 2/17/11 at 5:25 p.m. Central: World Net Daily is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hold a second conference on the matter of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president March 4.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Ten ‘Heistman Trophy’ Finalists Named

Today, one year after sharing a similar report in 2008, I share a new oversight report issued this week on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).  Inside, it contains candidates for what an annual award I’ve decided to call “The Heistman Trophy.” Among those, descriptions of the 10 finalists appear below:

The Heistman Trophy1. Broadband Map That May be Obsolete by the Time it’s Complete ($350 million): $350 million was awarded to states from the Department of Commerce to build a map of its broadband Internet infrastructure, though it duplicates existing maps. Rather than spend $350 million on the project, one firm said it could map the whole nation for $3.5 million – one percent of the cost. Or, anyone with a computer could Google it – for free.

2. Empty Mall Gets Energy Award ($5 million): $5 million was awarded to the Oak Ridge Mall in Tennessee to provide geothermal heat – only the mall has few stores and customers.

3. Fossil Research in Argentina ($1.57 million): Researchers from Penn State will travel to Argentina to dig up plant fossils.

4. Anti-Capitalist Puppet Shows ($50,000): Puppet theaters with socialist, anti-capitalist messages were paid $50,000 to put on puppet shows.

5. Free Rides on Baltimore Water Taxi ($1.6 million): A program to offer free rides on the water taxi as a means of relieving road congestion got money despite it doing little to stop people from traveling in cars.

6. Digital Television Ad Campaign ($6 million): An ad agency was hired for $6 million one month before the switch to digital television—and reported creating three jobs with the money.

7. California Computer System ($60 million): In 2002, California got $66 million to upgrade its computers for the unemployment insurance program. It spent the money on other things and just got another $60 million in stimulus for the same project.

8. Non-Competitive Contracts ($7.8 billion): Half of all stimulus contracts awarded as of the fall were not subject to full competition.

9. Mice, Alcohol and Drugs ($38,000): Studying the impact of alcohol and methamphetamines on mice and rats.

10. Tourist Railroad ($2 million): The Virginia & Truckee tourist railroad in Nevada will get more than $2 million for an extension.

Cast your vote in an unscientific way via the comments section below.

Former White House Speechwriter Calls for Barack Obama to ‘Release the Birth Documents’

Editor’s Note: Several times during the past few years, I’ve turned to Michael Johns, a White House speechwriter during the George H.W. Bush presidency who brings a more-scholarly-than-average approach to the news topics of the day.  Three weeks ago, he tackled the issue which, if one is on the “wrong” side of it, can get him labeled as a “birther”.  Well written and free of hyperbole, his article appears below.

Michael JohnsBy Michael Johns
Guest Blogger

One of the most constructive developments of the past eight months is that tens of millions of Americans appear to be reawakening to the critical importance and relevance of the U.S. Constitution. The brazen growth of the federal government, which now controls sizable portions of the economy (automobiles, banks, health care, mortgages and other industry segments), violates the tenets of free market capitalism, the system that has been the foundation of our nation’s globally unprecedented growth and prosperity. But this debate is not merely a policy one. Increasingly, as millions of Americans associated with the burgeoning Tea Party and 912 Project movements are demonstrating, the debate is about whether such expansions of federal powers are even Constitutionally permissible.

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the dangerous disregard for our nation’s founding legal document began. It certainly predates this administration. But the culture upon which it rests might be best exemplified in the apparent congressional and media group think that our 44th president holds no obligation to respond to questions about his Constitutional eligibility, under Article II, Section I of the Constitution, to hold the office to which he ran and was elected. This Constitutional provision states unequivocally that no person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Obama Legal FeesIs Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States? Probably. But because Obama is going to great lengths to conceal the documents that would settle this issue definitively, it is impossible to say for sure. Since October 2008, Obama has spent in excess of $1.35 million in legal fees to file protective and privacy motions in at least eight federal lawsuits to avoid releasing his birth documents — his mother’s hospital admission record, his Hawaii certificate of live birth, his educational records during his four years of residence in Indonesia, his Indonesian citizen status at that time and the time of his subsequent reentry to the U.S., and his college and law school admission records–that likely would definitively establish his Constitutional eligibility. Congress, the media, and even many Obama opponents, meanwhile, have failed to exert any pressure on him to halt his pro-active legal measures to avoid disclosure of these documents.

Quite obviously, the question of a president’s Constitutional eligibility is serious business. It was serious business when, in February 2008, The New York Times called into question Senator John McCain’s eligibility for the office because McCain was born on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was then under U.S. control. “It is certainly not a frivolous issue,” The Times quoted Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor as saying at the time. The questions also were serious enough for the U.S. Senate to investigate them, with the Senate ultimately concluding in a unanimous vote that the U.S. administration of the Panama Canal Zone at that time meant that McCain was indeed a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency.

Whatever these records might reveal, Obama’s extensive, year-long efforts to conceal them are now inexplicable, inexcusable and harmful to the nation. There is no innocuous explanation for his extensive efforts to conceal them, especially since their release is easily authorized and would settle the controversy, permitting the nation to move on with full confidence in his Constitutional eligibility and the Constitutional foundations of our nation in 2009. But Obama has refused to do this and, as a result, a frightening and growing number of Americans now understandably ask the question: What exactly is he hiding?

Let me stipulate that, despite following this issue for a year, I am utterly unable to answer that question. But logic dictates that one would not expend in excess of a million dollars in legal fees, as Obama has done, knowing that the only likely result is that a certain percentage of the American people will view such efforts as non-transparent, or even malfeasant. Conversely, it also is wrong to conclude, in the absence of these documents, that Obama has necessarily misrepresented anything about his birth location or Constitutional eligibility, as some critics of Obama’s concealment of these documents continue to do. Under pressure to settle the issue during his presidential candidacy, the Obama campaign ultimately produced a Certification of Live Birth in 2007, but that document, skeptics argue, is manufactured by the state and is not an unequivocal authentication of his birth location.

The most important point is this: No national interest is served by permitting these important questions to linger and persist. To settle them, Obama should cease blocking release of the documents sought by the plaintiffs in the various federal cases over his eligibility. And going forward, it seems reasonable to insist that our nation’s Federal Election Commission, which is charged with regulatory oversight of presidential elections, require presidential candidates to submit, along with their candidacy filing, the documents that clearly establish their natural-born eligibility for the office. Americans’ confidence in our Constitutionally-rooted democratic political system requires no less.

Read more of this writer’s work here.

* * *

SEE ALSO: 2004 Headline from Kenya’s Oldest Newspaper: ‘Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate’ (Just published!)

‘Rebranding’ Leaves Conservatives in Vacuum

Roomba PathThe long-exposure photo at right, captured by Signaltheorist, shows the 30-minutes-long path of a Roomba® robotic vacuum cleaner.  Appearing to have chaos and disorganization at the core of its effort, it reminds this blogger of the recently-announced effort to rebrand the Republican Party.

Unless those efforts are altered immediately, conservative-first party members — including yours truly — are destined to feel as if they’ve been left in a political vacuum, without a party to call their own.

In a commentary today, John Armor helps me make this argument when he recalls from his long-ago days in the advertising business that “rebranding” once meant putting a new name and a new slogan on an old product that the people demonstrably did not want.

“If ‘rebranding’ is all that the Republicans do, it will be a fraud,” the contributing editor at, explained.  “It will fail. It will deserve to fail. And, the nation will be the worse for the lack of any competent opposition to present trends in the U.S. government.”

Armor didn’t say it, but I think he would agree that Sen. John McCain’s front-and-center involvement in this rebranding effort fits the description of “an old product that the people demonstrably did not want.”  Perhaps, it’s time we throw out the old “vacuum cleaner” that is Senator McCain.  After all, “my friends,” he’s been working hard for 27 years and, like most vacuum cleaners used that long, he is surely obsolete by now.

John McCain Must Be Feeling Re-Election Pressure

McCain for Senate Ad

Click to see screenshot of page on which ad appeared.

Challenged by Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Arizona and a man with more statewide name recognition than most of the senator’s previous primary opponents, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) must be feeling quite a bit of re-election pressure this time around.  As a result, he’s advertising already.

Today, I happened to stumble across a sign that Senator McCain is feeling quite a bit of pressure as he seeks to hold on to his seat following an abysmal performance as the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

As I arrived at the’s “military news” page, prepared to check out military-related blog listings, my train of thought was derailed at the site of the “Help Re-Elect JOHN McCAIN to the United States Senate” ad (right) that appeared on the web site.

Giving money to Senator McCain will do about as much for the conservative cause as giving it to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).  In other words, nothing at all.