Support True the Vote and Election Integrity

It was recently reported in the U.K.'s The Guardian newspaper:
"the NAACP will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights on what it contends is a conscious attempt to "block the vote"on the part of state legislatures legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council."

Unbelievable.

The NAACP, no longer relevent or useful, now wants to claim that voters rights have been abused by Voter ID laws. Only in the land of Democrats would such a move make sense.

The NAACP says voting rights are being whittled down at every stage of the electoral process. First of all, the registration of new voters is being impeded in several states by moves to block voter registration drives that have historically proved to be an important way of bringing black and Hispanic people to the poll.

Four states – Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia – continue to withhold the vote from anyone convicted of a criminal offence. In Florida, offenders who have completed their sentences have to wait at least five years before they can even apply to restore their right to register to vote.

Across the US, more than 5 million Americans are denied the right to vote on grounds that they were convicted of a felony, 4 million of whom have fully completed their sentence and almost half of whom are black or Hispanic.

Other measures have reduced the ease of early voting, a convenience that is disproportionately heavily used by African-Americans. Even more importantly, 34 states have introduced a requirement that voters carry photo ID cards on the day of the election itself.

Here's a news flash to the NAACP: all voters have to produce photo identification and it is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. What don't you have to produce an id for in today's world? We are asked for id to register for school, do banking, make purchases with credit cards in retail stores, register an automobile, buy a home, apply for credit, and yes, to vote. Are all those other acts discriminatory, too?

If you don't like the idea of seeing blue helmets at your polling place, help True the Vote send a clear message to the pack of progressives pressing this subversion of process. They are training volunteers and educating voters from around the country. They are equipping citizens all across the country to help restore integrity to our elections.

Unfortunately, there are countless individuals and organizations out there that would like nothing more than to see True the Vote fail. From fighting new voter identification laws and "forgetting" to remove deceased voters from the rolls to allowing convicts and non-citizens to vote, they have perfected tipping elections in their favor. They'll do whatever it takes to prevent True the Vote from stopping them, from bashing them in the media to calling in the blue helmets of the United Nations.

You can stand with True the Vote to combat election fraud by making the most generous contribution you can afford to help them reach their goal of leaving no polling place unmanned, no registry unchecked.

Go HERE to help.

Oversight Committee Launches Website on Fast and Furious

House Oversight and Government ReformCommittee Chairman Darrell Issa today launched a new website - www.FastAndFuriousInvestigation.com- to explain and serve as a resource for the congressional investigation into the Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious. Operation Fast and Furious was intended to allow straw buyers to supply drug cartels with firearms in the hope that ATF could identify cartel members after the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico were traced to their original place of purchase. It has been link to deaths in both Mexico and the United States.

“While the Department of Justice sought to deny that anything improper occurred in this reckless operation, Sen. Chuck Grassley and I have continued our efforts toexpose the truth about what Attorney General Eric Holder now concedes was afundamentally flawed law enforcement effort,” said Chairman Issa. “FastandFuriousinvestigation.com will assist efforts to explain to the public the truth about what occurred, who knew, who was responsible, and efforts to ensure that this does not happen again.”

As Holder testifies before the House Judiciary Committee, the new website is also streaming live the proceedings.

Obama Channels Teddy Roosevelt in Kansas

When Barack Obama announced his campaign for President of the United States, he did so in Springfield, Illinois and conjured up the memory of Abe Lincoln. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, magazine covers portrayed him as the second coming of FDR, and of JFK. Then Obama began channeling Ronald Reagan and even governing like George W. Bush on terrorism, except for the nonsense of the Executive Order to close GITMO, which was to fulfill a campaign promise. Now that he is so very unpopular in the polls - at 41% approval, according to the latest Gallup poll - he has decided to mimic Teddy Roosevelt.

I kid you not.

Obama traveled to Osawatomie, Kansas to channel his inner Teddy Roosevelt. He delivered a 57 minute speech full of traditional straw men and hyperbole, along with his regular theme of elevating class warfare among the American electorate.

And, oh by the way, capitalism has failed.

But this isn’t just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years. Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Yes, this is a defining moment in our country, this 2012 election. Obama delivered another campaign speech, though, instead of actually providing a way forward using a bi-partisan approach and solutions. He continues to demonize Republicans because with a record so thin on accomplishments, it is really all he has.

The most recent Gallup poll has Obama at 41% approval rating.

Rich Galen at Mullings.com compares the former Presidents since Eisenhower at this point in their first terms and shows some interesting numbers.

•Gallup goes on to compare Obama's dismal performance rating with his predecessors. In December of their third year in office here's where they were:
-- Eisenhower (1955) 75%
-- Nixon (1971) 50%
-- Carter (1979) 53%
-- Reagan (1983) 54%
-- HW Bush (1991) 51%
-- Clinton (1995) 51%
-- W Bush (2003) 58%


•No elected President in the past half-century has entered his re-election year underwater in approval.

Also, someone may want to remind Obama that Teddy Roosevelt lost the election which his Kansas speech preceded.

Republicans do not advocate that everyone "fend for themselves" or "play by their own rules." Who said that? This is a part of the straw man argument when Republicans won't write Obama a blank check.

He bashed trickle down economics that were used by Ronald Reagan, who by the way, turned around the economy after Jimmy Carter destroyed it.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

And, really, does Barack Obama want to mock economic theory as "bumper sticker" logic? The guy who campaigned on simplistic slogans - hope and change, and yes, we can to name two - as he promised unicorns and rainbows along with moving the waters levels and kumbuya with our enemies?

Barack Obama should next try to channel the spirit of former President Gerald Ford. Ford knew how to work with both sides while holding to his convictions, after many years in Congress. Demonizing your political opponents in campaign style speeches does not promote good will or a desire to work for solutions.

Senator Cornyn Statement on Obama's Osawatomie Speech

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, today issued the following statement in advance of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas on economic fairness:

“It’s ironic the President would give a major lecture to the American people today on ‘economic fairness.’ What’s not fair is that because of his reckless spend-now, pay-later agenda, every child born in America today comes into this world owing $46,000.

“Rather than give us a lecture on fairness, the President should lead by example and start working with us to create a stronger, better America that lives up to its commitments and doesn’t pass the buck to the next generation.”

Senator Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary, Armed Services and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

Pelosi Uses Ethics Committee Info to Threaten Gingrich

Last Friday brought lightly veiled threats from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of lots of dirt she will sling, should Newt Gingrich become the GOP presidential primary winner. She reminded a liberal blogger that she was a member of the House Ethics Committee that investigated complaints against the former Speaker during his time in Washington, D.C. leadership.

Pelosi didn’t go into detail about Gingrich’s past transgressions, but she tipped her hand. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Make no mistake - this upcoming presidential campaign will be extra dirty and ugly. President Obama has little to run on and lots of failures so he has nothing else but to bloody his opponent. His willing cohorts in the Democratic party are ready to help out.

Maybe Pelosi was told of what a blunder she made when she tossed around her mud. Now she is walking back her threats.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says she is not sitting on a trove of opposition research on former House Speaker-turned-GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. …

Pelosi’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader’s intent.

“Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill wrote in a statement.

Pretty hard to "misconstrue" comments when we can read them for ourselves. It has been widely acknowledged that the charges were all politics from the likes of Pelosi at the time. Gingrich was cleared of any wrongdoings with the IRS and there is nothing new there. Pelosi would just like for the voters to think she knows something. We all know that Pelosi knows very little. About anything.

Should Pelosi go back to her original claims, she can be held responsible for divulging classified information. She's the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans.

Gingrich's First Iowa Ad - A Positive Message

This is the first big ad put out by the Gingrich campaign in Iowa.

As promised, this ad is about more than scoring cheap political points, it is about inspiring confidence in the American people that with our collective values, faith, and strength we can overcome the incredible adversity we face as a nation.

Rebuilding the American Dream:

GOP Forum with Huckabee a Success

Saturday night brought a bit of a variance from the standard event televised with the GOP presidential primary candidates. Former Arkansas Governor Huckabee, now a Fox News Channel show host, held a two hour forum with the candidates. It was a breath of fresh air.

I was dubious at first, not being a big Huckabee fan myself, but the man did as he should have done - he was the host and let others do the questioning. The questioners were a three person panel of current Attorneys General in the states of Virginia, Florida and Oklahoma. They were tough and fair in the questions put forth to all of the candidates. No one got off easily. All were expected to expand on answers, not allowed to just make a short quip of an answer. No easy slogans were allowed.

It was refreshing.

Though it could have been looked upon as more of a job interview with each candidate, that is acceptable. It is a job interview, this process. These people are interviewing to hold the most powerful political office in the world.

All of the GOP candidates participated except for Herman Cain, who earlier in the day "suspended" his campaign, and Jon Huntsman. It was not a good move for Huntsman to pass on this format - as a former Governor and diplomat, he would have done well.

Governor Perry did very well. He was visibly more relaxed and looked more confident than in the traditional debate events. He held his own and made no gaffes.

No new ideas were moved forward but the candidates were made the better for being expected to elaborate on stances and questioned about ideas. Governor Perry shined as questions dealt with states rights versus federal responsibilities. Governor Romney was able to show that he now has a smooth and concise answer to the question of Romneycare vs Obamacare. Newt Gingrich was in his element as he was able to sound like a history professor, appropriately so.

The two hour event was well worth watching, if for no other reason than to watch candidates on an individual basis.

McMorris Rodgers And Hutchison Send Letter to Clinton on Bonn Conference

In a show of support for the women in Afghanistan, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison led the effort for a bipartisan group of Congressional female members to write to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to raise the issue of their input into discussions in Bonn, Germany. An upcoming conference there will include a delegation from Afghanistan, with nearly one-quarter of the delegates women.

From the press release:

Ahead of the Bonn Conference on International Development Policy in Bonn, Germany, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) led a bipartisan, bicameral group of 26 female Congressional members in writing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter highlights the United States’ unique ability to assure that Afghan women are integrated in discussions regarding the future of their country. Women are nearly one half of the Afghan population and are an essential part of Afghanistan’s economic and security needs. Nearly one-quarter of Afghanistan’s official delegation to the Bonn Conference will be made up of Afghan women.

What is the Bonn Conference?

In 2007, the government of North Rhine-Westphalia launched the "Bonn Conference on International Development Policy". The conference takes place in Bonn regularly and picks up the current discourse on international development policy. This unique format enables North Rhine-Westphalia to provide a clear signal of its commitment to international development cooperation.

Like the first conference in November 2007, the second conference in August 2009 was an outstanding success. With high-ranking guests such as Federal President Horst Köhler and HM King Otumfuo Tutu II from Ghana, as well as around 600 local and international participants, the interest in the country's only international development conference was huge. The positive response showed that the conference series has established itself as a place of international dialogue on development policy. The following pages provide detailed information about the Bonn Conferences on International Development Policy that have been held to date.

The 3rd Bonn Conference on International Development Policy is coming soon.

The subject this time will be "Global lifestyles – new pathways for development policy". The new "One World Strategy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia", currently being developed as part of an Open Government Process, will also play a part in the Conference.

The organiser is the State Government of North Rhine-Westphalia, in cooperation with the Federal City of Bonn, the UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP), the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) and the Association of German Development Non-Governmental Organisations (VENRO) and supported by Deutsche Welle (DW). A range of development policy organisations will hold workshops of their own under the aegis of the Conference.

A copy of the letter is HERE and you can read the women who signed the letter in support of the women of Afghanistan. Kudos to them all.

Huntsman Daughters Bringing Huntsman Back

The oldest daughters of GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman are beautiful and spunky young women. They have a wicked sense of humor, too. An outlet for their humor has been provided by producing YouTube videos.

The latest video:

Cain Train Comes to the End of the Track

Saturday, Herman Cain announced he is suspending his campaign as a GOP presidential primary candidate. The Cain train has come to the end of its track.

Cain ran as a different kind of candidate. That's all well and good but it wasn't an excuse for incompetence. He still needed a professional, seasoned staff. He never quite understood that, apparently.

It was mostly of his own doing, this campaign implosion. Herman Cain rose in the polls not due to his political astuteness, but to his personality. His personality was the key to his success - his supporters liked him as a person. Then, as he went to the top of the polls, his enemies surfaced to take him down.

Herman Cain ran as a successful businessman who could bring real world solutions to our country's economic woes. He sold himself as a problem solver. The irony was, of course, that his campaign was so utterly incompetent. He appeared to be on a book tour and not in a presidential campaign.

Cain said he expected these types of allegations from women to surface as he ran for President. If so, then why wasn't he and his campaign prepared to do battle? Why were the messages mixed from his staff and himself? Why wasn't his wife given a prominent role in the campaign?

And, I have to ask - does an innocent man predict allegations to come forward from women if he is not covering up bad behavior? Most importantly, why didn't he tell his wife about helping out the women who is claiming a long term affair, if it was just financial support? These are just basic common sense questions.

If Herman Cain couldn't manage his own campaign, how could he manage the country?

Other candidates immediately send words of support to Cain. On Twitter:

From @NewtGingrich: Herman Cain's 999 plan got our country talking about the critical issue of tax reform and he elevated the dialogue of the primary.
And this:
I am proud to know Herman Cain and consider him a friend and I know he will continue to be a powerful voice for years to come.

From @TeamBachmann:"Herman Cain provided an important voice. His ideas & energy generated tremendous enthusiasm for the conservative movement."

Cain says he will endorse within the next few days. I'm not sure it will matter much but it will be interesting with whom he'll throw his support. I predict it is between Newt and Romney. He endorsed Romney in 2008. He's a long time friend of Newt's.

Perry Goes With Ad on Faith

With Herman Cain all but toast, Governor Perry sees an opening for the religious values voter, especially in the Iowa caucus in January. Here is his new ad about his faith:

House Financial Services Committee Passes Jobs Creating Bills

It is not for lack of jobs bills languishing in the pipeline of Congress. The House of Representatives has passed some more jobs creating bills in the past few days yet no action is being taken in the Senate.

The latest bills come from the House Financial Services committee.

These bills reform Dodds-Frank legislation to ease regulations declared by job creators as job killers.

The Full Committee approved the following bills to fix the derivatives provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act:

H.R. 2586, the Swap Execution Facility Clarification Act:
H.R. 2586 directs the CFTC and SEC to promulgate rules for swap execution facilities and security-based swap execution facilities (SEFs) to effectuate Congressional intent that SEFs can serve as an alternative to exchanges and provide an execution facility for illiquid or thinly-traded swaps. The legislation was approved by a voice vote.

H.R. 2586 ensures SEFs can serve as a platform for executing swaps and security-based swaps by:
•requiring immediate execution of matched trades;
•allowing market participants to receive and respond to a single quote;
•removing regulatory obstacles that require SEFs to have a minimum number of participants receiving bids or offers; and
•Ensuring that trading platforms executing swap transactions include voice-based and hybrid trading models.
•Does not allow the government to dictate market structure.
H.R. 2586 was introduced by Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Garrett and Rep. Robert Hurt.

H.R. 2682, The Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act
The Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act provides clarity to the derivatives title of the Dodd-Frank Act by reconfirming the end-user exemption from margin and capital requirements. End-users are firms and companies that use derivatives to manage their risks, not to speculate. H.R. 2682 was approved by a voice vote.

Through colloquies during the debate on Dodd-Frank and plain-language statute, legislators made their intent clear that the derivatives title was not meant to impose margin requirement on end users. Yet, regulators have interpreted the derivatives title to give them authority to impose margin requirements on end-users.

H.R. 2682 was introduced by Reps. Michael Grimm, Gary Peters, Austin Scott, and William Owens.

H.R. 2779, introduced by Rep. Steve Stivers.
H.R. 2779 provides an important clarification to the Dodd-Frank Act derivatives title, which treats inter-affiliate swaps the same as swaps between unrelated counterparties. Without correction, companies may face double the costs associated with hedging legitimate business risks. The legislation was approved unanimously by a vote of 53 to 0.

H.R. 2779 ensures entities under a common corporate ownership are able to appropriately manage risks without unnecessary costs. Under the legislation, inter-affiliate swaps will be exempt from the margin, clearing and reporting requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.

H.R. 2779 was introduced by Reps. Steve Stivers and Marcia Fudge.

Some common sense is needed. Business leaders need some reassurance that regulations will not hamstring them in expanding their businesses and manage risk. Our nation's economy cannot recover until those looking for work find it.

Obama Missing in Action For the Big Debates

While Republicans are duking it out in their presidential primary and trying to bloody the other guy to improve his or her ranking in the polls, President Obama is failing miserably not just in his policies but in his judgement of painting the GOP as the bad guys in Washington.
From Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal:

The only way to win America right now is to govern selflessly and seriously. His top advisers, those knowing, winking bumpkins, cannot see this. America is in crisis. It knows it's in crisis. It cannot tolerate the old moves anymore, the "every problem is just an issue to be manipulated for gain." The president was once seen as an idealist. He was hired to be an idealist! His ignorant shrewdness, his small-time cleverness—it just won't do. Nobody wants it. It's why people want to fire him.

I was interested in hearing both former GOP Chairman Michael Steele and liberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman state this morning on a cable channel television show that Barack Obama is neither a big thinker nor able to get past governing as a standard politician. Though he campaigned on being other than a typical Brand X politician, he is anything but that new brand of political leader. The further he gets into re-election campaign mode, the more evident this fact is to the voter.

One marketing point for then candidate Barack Obama in 2008 was that he was "no drama Obama", that he was steady and calm as the nation devolved into an economic crisis. That may be true but that steady and calm turns out to just be incompetence. He side steps the big problems and their debates by tossing off the problem to Congress and tasking Congress to find a solution. He does it by naming commission after commission to kick an issue down the road - past re-election time. This has been seen in now two commissions in the past year tasked with finding deficit reduction. The Simpson-Bowles commission and the Super Committee both failed to receive any endorsements from President Obama and the last minute deal with Congress to avoid a government shutdown during last summer only highlighted the aloof and weak leadership skills of the President.

As Peggy Noonan points out, when Barack Obama complains about the failures of Congress, of Washington D.C., he is speaking about his own leadership. Obama is the leader in D.C. He chooses to make Congress his whipping boy instead of leading them with success.

The latest failure of executive leadership is the stalemate over the payroll tax cut extension. Obama is blaming Republicans and saying that Republicans won't vote to raise taxes on "billionaires and millionaires". Democrats say that the payroll tax extension monies should go into the general revenue coffers instead of Social Security coffers. The stalemate cannot be blamed on just one party. President Obama was missing in action throughout the process, just as is his habit.

President Obama is continuing on his decline in the polls on his leadership abilities. He is now in Jimmy Carter territory and that is not good news for him. He does himself no favor by continuing to wage class warfare and deepening the division between the two ruling parties. He doesn't seem to realize that Independent voters - the voters without whom he cannot win re-election - have stopped supporting him in droves. They do not have patience for the phony arguments and the unnecessary bitterness so prevalent in Washington, mostly coming from the White House.

Fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa is George W. Bush Legacy

In recognition of World AIDS Day, former President Bush, Laura Bush and their daughters Jenna and Barbara are in Africa to announce an initiative from The Bush Center, Pink Ribbon/Red Ribbon Project.

The U.S. Department of State, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), The George W. Bush Institute, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) announces Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon®, an innovative partnership to leverage public and private investment in global health to combat cervical and breast cancer – two of the leading causes of cancer death in women - in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.

The press release from the initiative's launch:

"It’s time to take the next step in building on the progress that has been made over the past decade in the fight against HIV and AIDS,” said President George W. Bush. “Many women who seek AIDS services also face the challenge of cancer. It’s not enough to save a woman from AIDS, if she is then left to die of another very preventable disease."

The cervical cancer partnership will leverage the platform and resources of PEPFAR — established under President Bush and a cornerstone of President Obama’s Global Health Initiative (GHI) — and will draw from lessons learned in the significant scaling-up of access to HIV interventions in recent years. As breast cancer has not been linked to HIV, PEPFAR funds will not be used for direct support of breast cancer activities. However, other Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon partners will leverage the PEPFAR platforms, using other sources of funding, to support breast cancer efforts.

“Investing in women’s health is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon will save women’s lives and in turn help families and whole communities. Through this new partnership, the U.S. Government has committed an additional $10 million, which brings our total PEPFAR investment to $30 million over the next five years. Under the leadership of Secretary Clinton and U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Ambassador Eric Goosby, the State Department is proud to join this important and ambitious partnership to address breast and cervical cancer globally,” said Ambassador Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues.

Women whose immune systems are compromised by HIV are more likely to develop cervical cancer. Through PEPFAR, there is already screening and treatment of women at more than 250 clinics in 11 African countries. Through PRRR, PEPFAR has committed an additional $10 million, which will bring the total PEPFAR investment to $30 million over the next five years and ensure more women will be able to be screened and saved.

“Today the majority of women in Sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to critical breast and cervical cancer screening and treatment services and we must move quickly to address this growing epidemic,” said Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. “The PRRR partnership builds on our long-standing efforts in Africa and globally to support innovative models that will save lives by detecting breast and cervical cancer earlier, when there is still time to treat it.”

With initial indications of interest, PRRR expects to have commitments of up to $75 million across 5 years, which will grow to include additional participants and services. The goals are to reduce deaths from cervical cancer by an estimated 25% among women screened and treated through the initiative, significantly increase access to breast and cervical cancer prevention, screening and treatment programs, and create innovative models that can be scaled up and used globally.

This public-private initiative includes initial commitments from founding corporate participants Merck, Becton Dickinson, QIAGEN, Caris Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline and IBM.

“The rapid expansion of HIV prevention and treatment services over the past decade has saved millions of lives,” said Michel Sidibé, Executive Director of UNAIDS. “Uniting the efforts of two vital health movements means more women around the world will be reached with integrated—not isolated care.”

Infection with HIV weakens the immune system and reduces the body’s ability to fight infections that may lead to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is 4-5 times more common among women living with HIV than women who are HIV-negative.

There is an urgent need to develop innovative and sustainable solutions to addressing women’s cancers in developing nations, where these diseases are often neglected and associated with stigmas that discourage women from accessing life-saving prevention, care and treatment programs. By leveraging the significant investments made in HIV prevention, care and treatment, it is possible to integrate simple, cost-effective preventions, screening and testing methods and dramatically reduce mortality and late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer, while continuing to increase access to breast care education.

No doubt singer and human rights activist Bono caused some indigestion as he praised former President George W. Bush on his legacy of fighting HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa, where he is much loved still today. Bono was on a cable channel news/entertainment show and told the host the following:

Bono also had praise for one American president in particular. Not President Barack Obama or former President Bill Clinton, but instead for President George W. Bush, who, according to Bono, had set a precedent for Obama to follow.

“We’re hoping very much that President Obama is going to follow through on what President Bush did,” Bono said. “I know that’s hard for you to accept. It was amazing. You know, people like John Kerry worked for this and Hillary Clinton, and eventually President Clinton did some extraordinary stuff renegotiating the prices of … very expensive drugs down. But George kind of knocked it out of the park. I can tell you, and I’m actually here to tell you, that America now has 5 million people being kept alive by these drugs. That’s something everybody should know.”

The Irish musician explained why AIDS was a pandemic and said to stem its spread, treatments were important.

“It’s a sort of math thing,” he said. “For every person you treat, two more are infected. That’s how it becomes a pandemic. The moment when you have infections is the moment when you can turn that around and the science is now with us. If you get these people the drugs early, if you get women in particular drugs early who are pregnant, and male circumcision, the third important bit, and then the beginning — the beginning of the end of AIDS if the American people still want to stay with this even in these harsh economic times — that is yours. You will really have turned this around.”

World AIDS Day

Gingrich Endorsed by NH Union Leader

Over the weekend, all the political news buzz was about Newt Gingrich's endorsement by the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper, the only statewide newspaper in that state.

While Republican strategists say that the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement Sunday of Newt Gingrich goes a long way to projecting the former House Speaker as the preeminent “anti-Romney” candidate in the GOP primary field, some strategists suggest that it won’t give him enough of a boost to overcome former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s formidable lead in the polls.

“It legitimizes Gingrich’s status as the conservative alternative to Romney in a way no other candidate has been able to yet,” Republican political consultant Jim Dyke told TheDC.

“It is a blow to everyone trying to be the anti-Romney,” echoed Dan Hazelwood, a Republican consultant.

“It adds another layer of legitimacy to his rise,” emailed Republican consultant Reed Galen.

The Union Leader is a conservative bastion and New Hampshire’s only statewide paper. It was one of the first outlets to throw its weight behind Ronald Reagan, all the way back in 1975 when Reagan primary-challenged President Gerald Ford. Its endorsement gives Gingrich a boost in the first in the nation primary state, but it also has salience outside of the state, Dyke said.

“It affects perception broadly until something trumps it,” he argued.

“It will also help fundraising and further push the lower tier candidates to the sidelines,” said Galen.

Do endorsements really matter to most voters in the long run? Probably not so much. But they do create buzz which helps raise money and allows more air time on 24 hour cable channels.

Do I think this will allow Gingrich to win New Hampshire in the GOP primary? Probably not. Romney has a very comfortable lead there and is a favorite son of the state, having been a neighboring governor and a property owner in New Hampshire. But, it may create the kind of momentum for Gingrich, if the buzz is sustained, to allow for a longer primary fight. That's is a good thing.

A longer primary fight will strengthen the eventual nominee. And, that will bring about a stronger candidate when that person goes up against the Chicago political machine behind Barack Obama.

From an interview in Newsmax:

In a September interview with Newsmax, Clinton had predicted that Gingrich, who at the time was polling in the single digits, would make a comeback.

“He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton told Newsmax in the exclusive interview this week, by way of explaining the Gingrich resurgence. Gingrich holds frontrunner status in the race for the GOP nomination, as several polls have him surpassing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Clinton continued: “For example, I watched the national security debate last night. And Newt said two things that would make an independent voter say, ‘Well, I gotta consider that.’

“He said, ‘OK, I don’t want to legitimize immigrants who came here undocumented, illegally.’ On the other hand, a lot of those people have been here for years, they worked hard, they paid taxes, they’ve got kids in the schools, they’re not criminals, we’re going to have a hard time sending them all home, there’s millions of them. So, I’d like to have a process where they could be here legally but not have a path to citizenship. That sort of splits the difference between the immigration reforms proposed by President Bush and President Obama, which would give a path to citizenship, and would be a version of what President Reagan did.”

Clinton was impressed that Gingrich devised a “red card” system that would be used to be used to stop normalizing the immigration status of illegals if efforts to control the border proved ineffective.“That was a thoughtful response,” Clinton said.

The former president also credited Gingrich for innovative thinking in his plan to give workers an option to invest their Social Security retirement funds privately. Gingrich said there should be a guarantee, so that, if markets nose-dive, workers would not receive less than they would have received under the old Social Security system.

“See, that’s a new wrinkle on this,” Clinton said, crediting Gingrich for thinking out of the box. “So he’s always . . . I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking, and people are hungry for ideas that make some sense.”

Don't for even a minute fall for this sorta kinda praise from the former President who was impeached by the House of Representatives under the leadership of the former Speaker. Clinton only worked with Gingrich during his time in office because he had no other choice. The political hoopla over Hillarycare brought on a majority of Republican leadership in Congress for the first time in forty years and Clinton had to work with them. Under Gingrich's leadership, Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform and balancing the federal budget, to name two examples of Gingrich initiatives which changed Washington, D.C.

So, for Clinton to now sound somewhat supportive of a position held by Gingrich one has to think it is just political theatre. Clinton has a new book out and enjoys the spotlight that support for a Gingrich initiative would bring. For Clinton, it is about himself, not Gingrich.

Like everything else in the world of politics, take it with a grain of salt.

American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act

Given the opportunity, the domestic oil and gas industry is a job creator.

The American Petroleum Institute recently commissioned a study by the Wood Mackenzie consulting firm, which estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

But this President and his willing lackeys in the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy have made the conscious decision to work diligently to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry.

Yet earlier this month the Interior Department released a new five-year plan that puts most of the Outer Continental Shelf off-limits for oil drilling. And the Administration has delayed for at least another year the Keystone XL pipeline that is shovel-ready to create 20,000 new direct, pipeline-related jobs.

The Office of Natural Resources Revenue recently noted that federal revenue from offshore bonus bids (from lease sales) in fiscal 2011 was merely $36 million—down from $9.5 billion in fiscal 2008. The Obama Administration has managed the nearly impossible feat of turning energy policy into a money loser, pouring taxpayer dollars into green-energy busts like Solyndra. The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama's $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would "save or create" 65,000.

Speaker Boehner's office released the following on GOP efforts to advance domestic oil and gas production:

In the coming weeks, House Republicans will formally introduce the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (set to be H.R. 7), which would link new American energy production to high-priority infrastructure projects. Instead of more ‘stimulus’ spending or wasteful earmarks, the bill would permanently remove government barriers to American energy production and use the revenues to repair and improve America’s roads and bridges – both of which support long-term job growth. Republicans expect to move the bill through the House before the end of the year.

The American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act is the latest measure in the House GOP American Energy Initiative, an ongoing effort to support job creation and lower energy prices for families and businesses by allowing increased production of American-made energy. This measure would help create millions of new American jobs by eliminating some of the unnecessary government barriers that prevent our country from utilizing its vast energy resources, and also provide a new revenue stream for infrastructure repair and improvement. Specifically, the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act includes:

* The Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act, introduced by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), which would lift President Obama’s drilling ban on new offshore areas by requiring the administration to lease offshore areas estimated to contain the most oil and natural gas resources.

* The Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act (“PIONEERS” Act), introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CA), which would set clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources and promote shale technology research and development.

* The Alaskan Energy for American Jobs Act, introduced by Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK), which would open less than three percent of ANWR’s 19 million acres in the North Slope, an area that was specifically set aside by Congress and President Jimmy Carter, for oil and natural gas development

And this:

Rather than relying on ‘stimulus’ spending, higher taxes and short-term gimmicks, the American Energy Infrastructure Jobs Act would build on the natural link between energy production and infrastructure. The measure provides responsible infrastructure funding for the next five years, and links new energy revenue from production of American energy to the Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, the bill would:

* Fund High-Priority Projects. The bill would remove federal requirements that currently force states to spend highway money on non-highway activities, helping to ensure that our nation’s highways and bridges are repaired and properly maintained and that federal dollars are spent on our most critical infrastructure needs.

* Speed Up Bureaucratic Approvals. The bill would speed up bureaucratic approvals and streamline the project delivery process – the real hurdles delaying improvements to highways, bridges, and other projects – with reforms like concurrent review that will cut the project review and permitting process in half.

* Eliminate Needless Programs. The bill would eliminate and consolidate nearly 70 surface transportation programs that are either duplicative or not in the federal interest.

* Embrace More Private-Sector Involvement. The bill would reform financing programs to increase private sector involvement in infrastructure.

* Enhance Safety Programs. The bill would strengthen safety programs and gives states more flexibility to develop innovative safety initiatives that save lives.

* Include No Earmarks. Like every bill passed through the House since the American people entrusted Republicans with a majority, this one will have no earmarks in it.

This is more legislation coming from the House GOP, who have been leading with common sense job creation bills. Unfortunately, the Democratically controlled Senate has refused to take up any of the twenty plus job creating bills passed by the House.

Gingrich on Illegal Immigration Reform

The headline out of the GOP debate in Washington, D.C. is that the candidates have differing opinions on tackling big issues. While the mainstream media and liberals are enjoying flaming the fires of dissent and encouraging chasms in the party, this is a good sign. It is time for the facades to come down and allow all of the candidates to put real solutions forward. In fact, we have to demand it of them.

Newt Gingrich is the current front runner in polls so it is his turn to be taken down a few notches by the others.

The big kerfuffle from Tuesday night's debate is over tackling illegal immigration reform. What do you do with the estimated eleven million people in our country illegally? Newt Gingrich gave an honest, common sensical response and his challengers went nuts. Michele Bachmann's camp was issuing statements - incorrect interpretations of Gingrich's answer, by the way - before the debate was finished.

Here is Gingrich's position: instead of a knee-jerk style of blanket deportation, he is offering up a solution that would involve a local compenent to the federal law. Though the actual implimentation is questionable, he favors an approach used in the draft boards for WWII.  Read this from Newt's 10 Point Plan:

6. Create a path to earned legality for some of the millions of people who are here outside the law.

There are currently anywhere from 8 to 12 million people living in the United States who entered illegally.

These people range from day laborers who arrived recently, to grandparents who have been paying taxes, supporting their families and obeying the law for decades.

We need a system that enforces the rule of law, ensures that those who broke the law pay a stiff penalty, but also acknowledges that it is neither optimal nor feasible nor humane to deport every single illegal immigrant.

We need a path to legality, but not citizenship, for some of these individuals who have deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties. We also need a path to swift but dignified repatriation for those who are transient and have no roots in America.

We need a process that can distinguish at the human level.

Congress must charge the Department of Justice to establish a “citizens’ review” process for those here outside the law. It would establish committees to process these cases in individual communities and determine who will continue on this path to legality, and who will be sent home. Congress must define understandable, clear, objective legal standards that will be applied equally during this process. While this process is ongoing, those here outside the law will be granted Temporary Legal Status for a certain, limited period of time until all have had the opportunity to apply and appear in front of committees.

Applicants must first pass a criminal background check, and then the local committees will assess applications based on family and community ties, and ability to support oneself via employment without the assistance of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs.

The government will rigorously enforce a requirement that all individuals seeking this path to legality must be able to prove that they can independently pay for private health insurance. If an individual cannot prove this, they will lose the ability to stay in the United States.

Furthermore, proficiency in English within a certain number of years, similar to the requirement for naturalization, will be required for anyone who seeks continued legal status in the United States.

Once an applicant has been granted the right to obtain legal status, he or she will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000.

Moving forward, those who receive this status will have to prove on a regular basis that they can support themselves without entitlement programs and pay for health insurance or else risk the ability to stay in the United States.

Doesn't that make sense? Sounds like a conservative's approach to reforming the problem to me. When you hear Democrats and other Republicans and the media state that Gingrich wants blanket amnesty to all of those illegally here, you have the truth before you. Just read it.

Then, read this quote:

"`I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.''

Newt Gingrich's common sense approach to illegal immigration sounds a lot like that guy, doesn't it? That quote comes from Mitt Romney during an appearance in 2007 on Meet the Press. Mitt Romney is now busy trying to demonize Gingrich in the GOP presidential primary because Gingrich shows leadership with an actual plan, not a blanket knee-jerk reaction for political expediency.

We are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of laws, too. To say that the Republican party is anti-immigrant is a lie. We are a party that demands legal immigration and respect for our borders. We believe in our nation's gifts of diversity and the strengths everyone brings to the table.

We believe those with criminal records should be sent home:

7. Deportation of criminals and gang members should be efficient and fast.

We must end the practice of “catch and release,” under which dangerous criminals here illegally are caught by law enforcement, but then quickly returned to society.

When someone is here illegally and is dangerous, there should be expedited procedures to remove them from the United States as rapidly as possible.

The current system is so cumbersome and time-consuming that many arrested non-citizens are released back into society and simply break their word and disappear. This is wrong and dangerous.

We need strong leadership in our country and common sense solutions to our biggest problems. Whether it is our struggling economy or national security issues, we must stand behind the most conservative candidate on the Republican side who can defeat Barack Obama in November 2012. That is the most important fact to remember.

GOP Thanksgiving Message

GOP Debate in Washington, D.C.

Tuesday night brought us the eleventh GOP presidential primary debate from Washington, D.C. The event was hosted by CNN and sponsored by The Heritage Foundation and AEI. Members of the two conservative think tanks asked questions from the audience. CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was the moderator.

The topic was national security/foreign policy. At times it was not clear that this was the theme, however. Candidates veered off into tangents and Blitzer lost control a couple of times, allowing the candidates to ramble on and interject themselves out of turn.

Here's my ranking for the three who deserve top ranking on performance:
1. Newt Gingrich
2. Mitt Romney
3. Michele Bachmann

Yes, Michele Bachmann had a good night. She used her experience on the House Intelligence committee to her advantage by bringing some common sense to the debate, especially on the topic of foreign aid. She reminded all that it is a complicated issue and not deserving of simply saying the U.S. should cut off foreign aid when the going gets tough with another country who is usually an allie - such as Pakistan. She called out Governor Perry on this, as he insisted that Pakistan was not worthy of aid as they harbor terrorists. She explained that the U.S. gets intelligence that we otherwise might not receive without it.

Jon Huntsman used his experience as a former ambassador to tout that the U.S. has to get its own house in order before trying to solve problems elsewhere in the world. He wants our troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. It is too bad that he was not asked about China's rise in power and our relationship with the Chinese.

Rick Santorum made a few good points using his Senatorial experience but is still not an impressive candidate. He fluctuates between smug and self serving to impatient and whiny.

Ron Paul wants you to get off his lawn.

Governor Perry didn't embarrass himself. He also didn't do so well. He is settling into a decent answer on the immigration question but, unfortunately, Newt Gingrich better articulates that position.

Herman Cain was out of his element. He can only get so far with giving his standard answer that he will listen to experts in field, or generals on the ground. He has to actually come up with a plan or a vision somewhere along the line if he wants to be taken seriously.

Mitt Romney was is usual steady, aggressive without being too obnoxious, self. He became a bit strident about his support for Israel in light of a potential nuclear weapon being developed in Iran as Ron Paul and Herman Cain were throwing Israel under the bus.

And so, that leaves Newt Gingrich as the winner. He was professorial without being condescending. The media and liberals will, however, take his answer on immigration and try to divide everyone up with a ginned up exaggeration of his stance. It will be said that he is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants when he was simply stating that as the party of the family, the Republicans, we should be more pragmatic and see the insanity of saying the U.S. should deport eleven million people who came here illegally. His idea is to go to a system where a panel will look at individual cases and choose who should stay here. If the person has no ties here, for example, and has recently arrived here, then that person should have to leave. In a perfect world, the other GOP candidates would not take the bait or try to twist the answer into something it was not.

This is not a perfect world.

The next debate is December 10 at Drake University in Des Moines,Iowa.