Now, my friends… when the liberals violate the law as they are so wont to do (illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, election fraud, ROTC in schools, etc., etc., etc., etc.)… why the hell doesn’t the Executive Branch (the one that ENFORCES the law) step in and do something about it.

In this case, the DC city government is telling the US Supreme Court to stick it.  (h/t - The Corner)

District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

I’m not really sure it was Obama’s genitals that Jesse Jackson was aiming for.   In fact, it is precisely Jackson’s brand of liberalism has effectively neutered all sense of right-vs-wrong, lawfulness-vs-lawlessness in the past 30 years.  Every thing is morally and legally equivalent in the Libs’ World View.

C’mon Justice Department….. stand up for MY rights for once.  You know, the rights actually WRITTEN IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and not the ones made up by the ACLU.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m telling you, I’m on the verge of not voting for President in November and just sticking with putting my energy into the NC Governor’s Race. 

Just when I’m starting to think that McCain is the better of two evils, he says something that completely disgusts me and, more importantly, concerns me about his willingness to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the United States of America.

QUESTIONER: Senator, you have been a leader on immigration reform in the Senate but unfortunately Congress has failed to make progress on this very critical issue. As the next President of the Unites States of America will comprehensive immigration reform, and not just enforcement, be one of your top policy priorities in you’re first 100 days in office?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: It will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

The first part is bad enough.   But it gets worse….

And my friends, thank you for the question, and let me just review for you again, we tried. I reached across the aisle to Senator Ted Kennedy, and by the way I know that he’s in your prayers, and we worked in bipartisan fashion. And we were defeated. And by the way, it wasn’t very popular, let’s have some straight talk, with some in my party, and so I did that and worked together so we could carry out a federal responsibility.

We have to secure our borders, that’s the message. But we also must proceed with a temporary worker program that is verifiable and truly temporary, we must also understand that there are 12 million people who are here and they are here illegally and they are God’s children, they are God’s children and they will be treated in a humane fashion based on the principle obviously that someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally.

Although Byron York reports that “The McCain campaign says that in the answer above, McCain fumbled the words “legally” and “illegally” when he said that “someone who comes here legally cannot have priority over someone who comes here illegally,” and they want to assure readers he was not setting some bold new policy“…. it doesn’t much matter.

What McCain doesn’t seem to realize is that “God’s Children” do not have an “automatic divine right” to American citizenship.  Especially if they break the laws of this country in the process of getting here.  What the hell is wrong with him?

Since McCain thinks that anyone who enters the country illegally has automatic dibs on US citizenship, and since the Supreme Court believes that Constitutional legal protection should extend to non-US, foreign enemy combantants, then I say — let’s just go for the full monty.

No more immigration laws, dismantle the border crossings, no customs checks at airport.   Just open it all up and let chaos reign.

Oh and by the way, I’ll stop paying my US taxes immediately… become a citizen of Canada…. and then re-enter the USA illegally (along with some Al-Qaeda sleepers, I’m sure) to get all of the benefits of the US Constitution that I have now — but this time for free!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Folks, there ain’t nuthin I can argue about Sean Hannity’s “Top 10 Items for Victory”.   Well, except the title… (Items?)

Anyway, ask your candidate for Congress if they have signed onto this pledge for America’s future.

1) To be the Candidate of National security:
a) Victory in Iraq
b) Fully support NSA, Patriot act, tough interrogations, keeping Gitmo open
c) A Candidate that pledges to NOT demean our military while they are fighting for their Country. eg Harry Reid: “the surge has failed”, “the war is lost”
d) Candidate that promises to ensure that our veterans can live out their lives in dignity.

2) The Candidate who pledges to oppose Appeasement:
a) The Candidate will oppose any and all efforts to negotiate with dictators of the world in places like Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without “pre-conditions”

3) The Candidate Pledges to support Tax CUTS, and fiscal responsibility:
a) The American people are NOT under taxed, Government Spends too much
b) The Candidate who Pledges to ELIMINATE and VOTE AGAINST ALL Earmarks
c) The Candidate pledges to BALANCE the budget

4) The Candidate Pledges to be a supporter of “Energy Independence”
a) supports Immediate drilling in ANWR and the 48 states
b) Building new refineries
c) Begin building and using Nuclear Facilities
d) expand coal mining
e) realistic steward of the environment
While simultaneously working with private industry to develop the new energy technologies for the future, with the goal being that America becomes completely energy independent within the next 15 years.

5) The Candidate pledges to secure our borders completely within 12 months:
a) build all necessary fences
b) use all available technology to help and support agents at the border
c) train and hire agents as needed

6) Healthcare:
The Candidate will look for Free-Market solutions to the problems facing the Healthcare industry, and will vigorously oppose any efforts to “nationalize healthcare”.
a) The Candidate will fight for Individual health savings accounts, that includes “catastrophic insurance” for every American, so people can control their own healthcare choices.

7) Education:
a) The Candidate pledges to “save” American children from the failing educational system
b) The Candidate will fight to break the unholy alliance of the Democratic party and teachers unions, which at best has institutionalized mediocrity, and has failed children across the country
c) fight for “CHOICE” in education and let parents decide
d) fight for vouchers for parents

8.) Social Security and Medicare:
a) The Candidate will “save” social security and medicare from bankruptcy.
b) Options will include “private retirement” funds so people can “control” their own destiny.

9) Judges
a) The Candidate vows to support ONLY judges who recognize that their job is to interpret the Constitution, and NOT legislate from the bench.

10) American Dream:
The Candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of Freedom comes a Great responsibility. That Government’s primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God given gift of freedom.

That Government’s do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that we will be the candidate that promotes Individual liberty, Capitalism, a strong national defense and will support policies that encourage such…

It is our fundamental belief that limited Government, and Greater individual responsibility will insure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.

We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are “the best last hope for man on this earth,” “a shining city on a hill,” and that our best days are before us if our Government will simply trust the American people.

What’s not to support here?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In my pro-McCrory for NC Governor posting on Thursday, I made the following sweeping statement….

None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.

At the time I wrote it, I nearly didn’t because I thought it was too sweeping and I admittedly haven’t studied every piece of the other GOP candidates’ platforms in their campaigns for NC Governor.

So, I’m happy to present another side (and a correction-of-sorts) from an email I received from a Fred Smith for NC Governor supporter.

Fred Smith has been campaigning all over the state and since August has visited all 100 counties at least once. He has set out specific things he would do as governor. He has talked at length in every county he has visited about the problems caused by illegal immigration, what it costs the state and what the governor could do to address the problem. He has the support of sheriffs all over the state and has talked with them at length asking them what they need to address the problem.

This reader also referred me to a speech given by Smith which includes strong words against illegal immigration.

We believe that we are, as our national motto says, one nation under God. And we believe we ought to speak the English language. And the problem we have today is we have illegal aliens coming to this country with such velocity that they’re overwhelming our melting pot and the reason for that is the federal government has let us down on border security. The federal government has let us down on upholding the rule of law and that’s going to leave it to the states and the state of North Carolina to put a Band-Aid on this problem.

And as governor I would do four things. The first is I would try to make sure that every sheriff’s department had a chance to be a part of the 287(g) program to catch, detain, and deport illegal aliens violating our laws. Second, if you get a driver’s license you be legally entitled to get a driver’s license in this state. Common sense says if that’s what they do in Mexico that’s what we ought to be able to do here in North Carolina. The third thing, we need to pass illegal immigration reform like the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado, have to say if a government agency or institution is going to give a benefit they must enforce federal law which they ask are you legally entitled to this benefit. And fourth we need to have a voter ID card to protect the integrity of our voting system.

Sounds good to me. I’m still a staunch McCrory supporter, but I’m happy that Smith is taking a strong stand on illegal immigration, too!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sixteen months after voters in Michigan voted to kill affirmative action in the public sphere, opponents of preferences based on race and gender are pushing five more states to ban the practice.

Foes of affirmative action, which is meant to address current and historical inequities, delivered 128,744 signatures to Colorado authorities earlier this month. Similar organizations in Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska are circulating petitions as civil rights groups and educators are mobilizing to defeat the measures.

The initiatives are spearheaded by Ward Connerly, the nation’s most prominent opponent of affirmative action, who said he has raised about $1.5 million for the campaigns. He sees the November ballot initiatives as the next step in his drive to end preferences in public education, hiring and contracting… (MSNBC)

It doesn’t surprise me that the movement to ban racial and gender preferences has been given a boost thanks to the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama. As much as I oppose both of these candidates on their policy stances, I do believe we owe them a debt of gratitude for breaking the perceived ‘glass ceiling’. It matters not whether either of them are successful in winning the White House this November, they both have helped women and minorities with their historic campaigns. My fervent hope is that this will widen the pool of choices for all sides of the political spectrum and we can get better candidates. This could help minority candidates in future runs for high office, like Bobby Jindal, the new Republican governor of Louisiana.

In what must seem perverse to advocates of racial and gender preferences, the serious run for the presidency by both Clinton & Obama also highlights such set asides and calls the need for them into question. It’s about time. I adamantly oppose racial and gender preferences and would dearly love a chance to vote them down in my home state of Virginia. The more states that ban them the better it will be for us a nation since in my view these preferences do more harm than good.

(more…)

This doesn’t come as any surprise to me.

In a recent Associated Press-Pew Research Center poll, 17 percent of likely Republican voters in the New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary named illegal immigration as the one issue they want to hear candidates talk about, making it second only to Iraq. In Iowa, where caucuses kick of the presidential nominating season, immigration was the leading issue for 18 percent of Republicans, ahead of Iraq.

The figures are somewhat surprising in New Hampshire, a state of 1.3 million people with a small immigrant population and even smaller illegal one. There were 14,000 more foreign-born residents in the state last year than in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A report last year by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the state is home to somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 illegal immigrants.

Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said he has believed for a year or so that illegal immigration would be important in the GOP primary because it strikes so many chords.  There’s the economic argument: Illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans.  There’s the legal one: They’re breaking the law.  There’s the cultural argument:  They’re not assimilating into American culture.”

The surprise is that most INDEPENDENT primary voters are also expressing support for a more security-conscious immigration policy… and opposition to blanket amnesty of law-breakers.

A sizable majority — an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states [Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania] — said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.

That would be a significant number in a close election.  Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents — the key swing voters who decide elections — say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.

Democrat voters, on the other hand, are content to live in their made-up land of Bush Derangement Syndromeville and cast their votes from that warped perspective.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) 

The hands-down winner from Dan (GayPatriotWest) and I as our first GayPatriot Man of the Year: General David Petraeus.

From a TIME Magazine profile written by John McCain written a couple months ago: Fouad Ajami, director of the Middle East studies program at Johns Hopkins University, says the sense of optimism he finds among Iraqis is “invested in the arrival in Iraq of General David Petraeus.” Bright, studious, morally committed, physically brave, willing to carry a “heavy rucksack” without complaint and with clear-eyed resolve, Petraeus—along with the courageous men and women he has the honor to command—is our best reason to hope that we might yet avoid the catastrophe of an American defeat in Iraq.

We choose a man who looked at chaos and brought security. A man who looked at despair and brought hope. A man who saw freedom’s defeatists at home and defeated them. A man who upholds and defends the principles of the United States Constitution.

In short, we chose the “anti-Putin.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Looks like London’s Telegraph agrees with us (via Instapundit).

For your viewing and commenting pleasure. Please do not comment unless you watch the entire speech, thank you.

For me…. the most important parts are these:

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.‘”

And this:

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.”

And this:

“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.”

And of course, this:

“Infinitely worse [than the decline of religion in Europe] is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have written before that while I disagree vehemently with many if not all of his policy positions (and personal choices), I find US Rep. Barney Frank one of the most intelligent, honest and sincere Members of Congress — and probably the only one with a “D” by his name.

For those of you following the battle over passage of a employment non-discrimination bill, you know that there is a severe split within the GLBT community over whether to include “transgendered” in the legislation.  The Human Rights Campaign has made their choice — purity over progress — and announced it in a strangely worded (nearly in code) email last week.  Of which I tried to savage with my endless wit and intellect.

Our co-blogger, Average Gay Joe, has chaired a very vigorous debate on the subject in his post from Tuesday, “About That ‘T’ in GLBT“.

The point is this:  At no time in our history has an issue of gay rights had more support from the American public than it does now. 

Nearly two-thirds of all American adults (64%) believe it is unfair that federal law currently allows for an employer to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian.  A similar majority (60%) of heterosexual adults were not even aware that federal law does not provide protections for employees on the basis of sexual orientation.  An overwhelming majority (79%) of heterosexuals also feel that how an employee does his or her job, and not their sexual orientation, should be the standard for judging an employee.

But as is typical of the Democrat Party as a whole, one small faction of the GLBT community and of the liberal collective is set to doom decades of progress for the majority of us.  The time is now to put up or shut up and our gay leaders are choosing defeat on the backs of working gays and lesbians across the USA.

I commend everyone to read this entire speech that US Rep. Barney Frank gave earlier this week on the floor of the US House of Representatives. 

I talk a lot to gay people, gay men and lesbians. I find the view that we should not do anything until we can do everything very much in the minority.  I understand the passion of those who are in organizational positions. But, you know, we talk about politics here. There are politics in organizations too.  There are people who I have privately discussed this with who have said, yes, we wish you would go ahead, but I can’t say that.  I can’t stand up against this organizational consensus.

Well, idealism by itself is going to be pretty fruitless, and idealism that is empowered by pragmatism is the way in which we make progress, and that is what we are called upon to do here. And so I am asking my colleagues, Democratic and Republican because there is bipartisan support for this, please do not be dissuaded by those who say do nothing until you can do everything. Look at the history of civil rights. Look at the fact that we helped one group here, we dealt with a certain form of discrimination there.

I do not believe that the majority of gay men and lesbians in this country want to take the position that nothing shall be done to enhance legal protection against the prejudice from which they suffer until we can do the job perfectly. I also believe that from the standpoint of including people who are transgender, for which I have and will continue to work, we will not accomplish that nearly as quickly. Maybe in 50 years it will all get done. I’ll be dead; so tell me anything. I won’t be able to argue with you.    But in the interim, we will get there much more quickly if we continue to follow the sensible strategy of working with allies, of accepting support that is overwhelming but not complete, of understanding political reality, of moving forward, of alleviating some fears by taking some partial steps. We are a lot likelier to get there. So we have two choices today: we can say until we are able to do everything, we are going to abandon this effort; and I believe the consequences of that will be profoundly negative for any effort to revive this.  Or, we can take one of the biggest steps forward in the anti-discrimination march, in the march to make the American Constitution’s wonderful principles fully applicable with everybody, we can take a major step forward on that issue. And having done that, we will be, in my judgment, better able to take the next step. That is the choice. And I hope, both for the substance, and for giving people a lesson in responsible governance in defense and in advancement of our values, my colleagues, especially on this side, but in the whole House, will opt for sensible and real progress that serves the interests of the majority and rejects the counsel of those who say that, absent perfection, we should leave everything as it was. 

Rep. Frank truly “gets it” and his vision and pragmatism would be good gifts for our gay rights leaders to receive as they begin to lick their wounds after yet another lost fight — this one: ENDA.  Come to think of it has there even been an actual gay rights victory since 1969?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It seems the United Kingdom is grappling with the equivalent to our “hate crimes” debate….. except Labour’s proposal would infringe on our First Amendment.

Peter Tatchell, one of the most consistently principled gay activists in the world, is troubled by the proposed crackdown on “hate speech” in Britain.  (Read the whole thing!)

Jack Straw has decided to introduce yet another criminal offence, adding to the 3,000 new crimes Labour has introduced since it came to power in 1997. This latest offence will prohibit the incitement of homophobic hatred.

It is intended to help tackle anti-queer prejudice, which is a good intention. But will this legislation work? Is it necessary? Might it not lead to infringements of free speech? Are there more effective ways to challenge homophobia and other hateful incitements?

A much more important issue is the fact that the government, police and prosecution service are failing to enforce the laws prohibiting the incitement of actual violence and murder against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Inciting violence and murder is much worse, in my view, than inciting hate. Yet the relevant laws are often not enforced. Why not?

<….>

Likewise, some fundamentalist Muslim clerics, on the extremist wing of Islam, openly urge the killing of gay people, unchaste women and Muslims who turn away from their faith. In east London in 2005, hate preacher Abdul Muhid of the pro-jihad Saviour Sect, urged the murder of homosexuals. Despite witnesses willing to go to court, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute him. Yet when the Islamist Abdullah el-Faisal incited the murder of Jews, Hindus and Americans in 2003 he was promptly arrested, convicted and jailed.  More double standards.

The non-prosecution of Muslim clerics who incite the murder of gay people is a tragic betrayal of vulnerable gay and lesbian Muslims.  They live in fear of the homophobic violence that is being stirred up by Islamist extremists.  What signal does this official hands-off attitude send to queer Muslims?  That the government does not care about their suffering?  Police and CPS inaction gives homophobic persecutors a de facto green light to continue their violent threats.

Introducing legislation prohibiting the incitement of homophobic hatred seems a bit amiss when already-existing laws are not being enforced against the much more serious crimes of inciting violence and murder.  Please, Mr Straw, ensure the enforcement of the current laws before you start introducing new ones.

Sounds like a vaguely familiar debate, no?

The most troubling part of this article is the fact that it makes me wonder:  Where are the principled American gay activists with an intellectual strength like Peter’s?   Why don’t American gay activists see the real threat to gays by Islamists as opposed to their puffed-up threat-mongering splashed against Republicans?

Ah yes, silly me.  The answer is clear:  Democrat fundraising needs.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Everytime I start to get up to go back to the ballroom…. our small media room starts kicking. 

Congressman Ron Paul is at the podium now, mostly talking about his fundraising success lately… and his views on reducing the size of government and scaling back the international presence of the United States.  (Did I hear him use the word “imperialism”??)  I know I’m paraphrasing a lot, but that’s his general message:  less government, more freedom, out of Iraq & the world.

US Senator Sam Brownback has now come in and also taking questions from the press.   He’s talking about reforming the tax code… an “optional flat tax”.   So far neither Brownback nor Romney have talked about the grassroots-supported “Fair Tax” concept.  (I don’t know if Ron Paul spoke about it in the ballroom).

Brownback is now stating that fundraising has been difficult and his position on immigration has caused him grief in his campaigning.  (As well it should…)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Things have gotten started at the Mayflower Hotel.   For the moment I’m in the Media Room and the TV screen as jumped to life…. with no audio yet.   So I may hightail it to the ballroom.

In the meantime, US Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has joined us here for a live radio show.  And the host of the talk show is a bit loud and obnoxious….

RUDY GIULIANI

Rudy was the first speaker to the Summit and man, did he bat the ball out of the park!  He gave one of the most articulate conservative economic messages I’ve heard in quite sometime.  Heads and shoulders above anything George W. Bush has tried to say on the economy.

Rudy made it simple:  “Lower taxes work.  And it isn’t just my philosophy — I did it in New York but cutting taxes 23 times and $9 Billion dollars.”  He then went on for about 15 more minutes with a simple, understandable economic vision to help Americans make their own choices with their own money.  And, despite his critics best attempts to say he is only running on a “9/11 platform”, Rudy never once mentioned that day or the war on terror at all.   He knew his audience and he stuck to a pro-growth, conservative economic message which included a declaration that under a Giuliani Administration, earmarks would come to an end.

I was very impressed and so were the 1,700 activists jammed into the Mayflower Hotel’s Grand Ballroom.  Rudy got a standing ovation.

******

Senator Tom Coburn just finished at the podium and I’m back in the Blogger Room — where I’m hoping Rudy will show up shortly.

*******

Ron Paul is speaking now and getting lots of cheers from the crowd… and I’m not even in the ballroom anymore.  But clearly this is a Ron Paul crowd.   I “don’t get him”…. so I’m not elbowing my way back into the ballroom.  And I have to go the bathroom something fierce.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Good morning from Washington, DC.  I’m very excited to have official blogger credentials to cover the “Defending the American Dream” Summit, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity. 

I am mainly here for the stellar morning lineup of GOP Presidential candidates:  Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback.   Pretty cool, eh?   The afternoon sessions look good too, and I’m hoping to “live blog” throughout much of the day.

I have camera in tow and plan to take some photos.   Right now I am in “Bloggers Row” …