From the Associated Press:

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings…

Time to surrender in the War on Poverty and start trying to fight and win the War for Wealth. We should not think in terms of ending poverty, but of increasing the amount of wealth to the point where even the poor in America are the envy of the world.

To do this, we’ll have to ditch a whole bunch of policies which, in the end, do nothing but subsidize squalor. Polices which give money without requiring work; which allow people to engage in non-productive enterprises; which clog wealth generation with taxes and regulation.

Our policies should be geared towards making, mining and growing things – and should be also set so that the individual or the small, local group has a shot at competing against the behemoth corporations. This isn’t just about money – we can print up trillions and make everyone a millionaire tomorrow – but about spreading the means to create wealth to the largest number of individuals and groups.

America is the land of plenty. We are positively slopping over with the means to create wealth – all we need do is show the will to use it.

From the Associated Press:

A 25-year-old soldier from Iowa who exposed himself to enemy gunfire to try to save two fellow soldiers will become the first living service member from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to receive the Medal of Honor, the White House announced Friday.

President Barack Obama phoned Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, on Thursday at the base in Italy where he’s stationed to tell him he’d be receiving the nation’s highest military honor, Giunta’s father told The Associated Press. He will become the eighth service member to receive the Medal of Honor during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The seven previous medals were awarded posthumously…

We can never repay the men and women who serve our country – especially those who serve in battle, and most especially those who show a supreme disregard for their own lives. On this day of remembrance, it is altogether right and fitting that we should pay homage to Staff Sgt. Giunta and all of those who have bravely done their duty in this war.

From Byron York over at the Washington Examiner:

…Prognosticators have upgraded the coming political storm from Category 4 to Category 5. Republican control of the House has gone from possible to inevitable.

But Republicans don’t believe it, or at least the insiders involved in the midterm effort don’t believe it. As they see it, they’re in a good position to pick up the 39 seats needed to win control of the House, but polls showing a huge GOP lead are simply wrong. “I’m assuming that Cook and Rothenberg and Rove and the others have got different indications from what we’ve got,” says one member of the House GOP election team. “I don’t want to overestimate what’s out there.”

“I think it’s about even,” says a strategist involved in the GOP effort…

Maybe we will be able to shed the label of “stupid party” here in 2010 – this is wise; campaign real hard, count on nothing and then we’ll see where the votes come out on November 2nd. The polls are good for the GOP – most notably the Ramussen poll which has been consistent all year long with a strong GOP vote in prospect. But, polls don’t vote – people do.

We have a chance for a historic victory on November 2nd – but only if we work for it. It won’t just land in our lap. The correlation of political forces are in our favor, but fighting hard or slacking off will make the difference between a decent gain in seats, and a crushing victory. If we want a big victory, then we’d better dig down deep and find the will to make it happen.

How many Obama staffers and how much they owe the IRS – from the LA Times:

…Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents’ names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama’s very own White House owe the government they’re allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess…

Through the whole government, its a total of $1 billion owed by officials in back taxes. These are the people who run the government, who tell us that we have to make sacrifices, who tell us they are working for us…

Now I’d like our members of the audience here to ask themselves – “do I owe the IRS money in back taxes?”, and then put a “yes” or “no” in the comments. You can do it anonymously. I’d like to find out if even one of the people who come here (and outside of the regular commenters, there are quite a lot of you) owes back taxes…let alone whether 41 of you do.

This is the Ruling Class – out of touch and figuring they don’t have to obey the laws they burden us with.

From the Telegraph:

…Mr Obama’s ponderous response (to the Koran-burning fracas) was in stark contrast to the sure-footed approach of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. Speaking earlier in the week at a Ramadan dinner for Muslim leaders, she denounced Mr Jones’s proposed stunt as “disrespectful and disgraceful”…

…Mrs Clinton’s handling of this latest drama has made Mr Obama look out of touch, seemingly lacking in the instinctive leadership qualities that Americans expect…

Clinton’s response was actually just bit of truckling to the Islamist fraud – but, no matter, it is still being held up as superior to President Obama’s. The Clinton’s have lots of friends, admirers and people who simply have to do their bidding for various reasons…the more I see stories like this, the more I figure we’re seeing on-the-sly groundwork being laid for a possible 2012 primary challenge.

Politics could get enormously fun and interesting over the next two years.

Allahpundit has the story of Palin’s Hannity-show endorsement of Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary (with audio link) – and if you listen to the audio, it is clear that Palin is just determined to endorse, in race after race, the most conservative candidate running. A lot of cyber-ink is being spilled over what this – and other – Palin endorsements mean. I think it means she’s got a conservative world-view and wants it advanced. Never ignore the possibility – even in politics – that someone is just doing what they think is right.

The big heartache here is the story that O’Donnell’s GOP opponent, Mike Castle, is the only candidate who can win. This view is held by both the GOP Establishment as well as a very large selection of conservative New Media. Nominate O’Donnell, goes the talking point, and we just about ensure the Democrats retain the seat – and that might even be the 50th seat the Democrats need to retain their majority. Castle, of course, is a RINO – something acknowledged by pretty much everybody. He voted for Cap and Trade and quibbles about moves to repeal ObamaCare on grounds that Obama will veto it.

It is an odd formulation, to say the least, to believe that something shouldn’t be done because its certain the other side will try to stop it. Aside from being just plain weird, it is also tactically unsound – it means that we’ll only go for things we think Obama likely to support. We’re not supposed to be surrendering on issues – we’re supposed to be relentlessly pressing Obama and his Democrats. Harrying them day and night and forcing them to either back down, or defend their absurd views to the electorate. That is, this is what we should be doing – if we are really trying to advance conservatism.

Are we trying to advance conservatism? Are we conservatives, at all? Do we believe that we have rights endowed by God? Do we believe in limited government? Are we insistent upon a strict interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution? Well, are we? If you answer those questions with a “yes”, then the only possible move is to back only those candidates who agree. To do otherwise just to secure someone with an “R” after their name is a negation of all we work for…all it does is ensure that in the by and by we’ll have another GOP Congress like that of 2005…and do I need to remind everyone where that wound up?

This is not to say that everyone on our side has to toe a particular line – as I’ve noted before, I’m as conservative as they come, but I’m opposed to the death penalty and I want what amounts to amnesty for at least part of the illegal population; not exactly in line with most conservatives, right? We can tolerate in our movement people like me. We can also work around a libertarian leaning conservative who has no problem with gay marriage. We can additionally deal well with someone who doesn’t want an outright ban on abortion. Heck, it is not even outside the realm of possibility to have a fellow conservative who might want a tax increase, or more money spent on social programs. But what a conservative must be is someone who strictly believes in the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence while also being a stickler for obeying the Constitution as it is written.

Mike Castle? He backed Cap and Trade – a horrific, unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of the American people. He doesn’t seem enthusiastic about repealing ObamaCare – a horrific, unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of the American people. Don’t get me wrong – Castle has his good points. I’d be delighted for conservatism to work with him in areas of mutual agreement…but after the Specter mess, I’m simply not inclined to just put another RINO in the Senate in order to possibly secure a GOP majority. Castle’s problem is not that he’s a bad man (he’s not); its not that he doesn’t have any good ideas (he does have some), but that he doesn’t grasp the crucial battle of our times – a fundamental conflict of visions about what government is for and what the rights of the people are. Given this, it is almost a certainty that when the chips are down and its time to stand firm for basic, American principles, Castle will defect to the Democrats and give them bi-partisan cover for some usurpation or other.

Sarah Palin understands this – in fact, of all the potential 2012 GOP candidates, she’s the only one who seems to understand it completely (here even Christie has faltered – endorsing Castle). The only person one can claim as a RINO endorsement by Palin was of John McCain – who shifted very hard towards the conservative position and, hey, he was the guy who picked Palin as VP…and loyalty is a two way street. Other than that, Palin has simply been doing all she can to ensure the largest number of people are exposed to the conservative message. Even in Delaware – because if Delaware has problems (and it does), then only conservatism will cure them…just because they routinely vote heavily liberal doesn’t mean we can’t ever reach them. And any attempt to convert States like Delaware will have to have a first step. This is it.

And this is what we must do – always seek out the most conservative candidate and do our best. Out here in Nevada, that resulted in me backing Mike Montandon in the GOP gubernatorial primary. He was, in my view, the most conservative. He lost; and now I’m backing the GOP nominee, Brian Sandoval, because between him and Harry’s little boy, Rory, it is Sandoval who is clearly the most conservative candidate. And so it will be with Delaware – conservatives should rally ’round O’Donnell…and if the good people of Delaware opt for Mike Castle, then it will be our duty as Republicans to rally ’round him…because, flaws and all, he’s still going to be miles ahead of the liberal the Democrats are set to nominate. Politics remains the art of the possible and half a loaf is better than none – but this doesn’t mean we eagerly go after the half a loaf, when the full loaf beckons.

And if O’Donnell wins the primary and then loses in the general? Then so be it – Reagan ran and lost before going on to run and and win the Presidency. Rome wasn’t built in a day – and neither will a reformed, conservative America be built in one election cycle. But win or lose, with Castle or O’Donnell, if we do this right then we’ll still have made our statement – we’ll still have made our point: that conservatism is good and true and is what America, even Delaware, needs. And even in a loss, the seeds of conservatism in Delaware will be a bit more firmly planted, to reap a rich harvest in later years and different elections.

Obsolete, as long as Democrats are in charge:

…I assume that RIGHTNETWORK readers are at least of average intelligence, but for any members of Code Pink or International ANSWER who might have stumbled over here by accident, allow me to dumb it down: the antiwar movement is faltering because it was never an antiwar movement to begin with. It was an anti-Bush, anti-Republican movement, and now that neither of those entities is running things right now it is no longer necessary to keep it going. It won’t be eliminated, of course: after all, the way things are going the Republicans are primed to take power again within in the next two or three election cycles. Once that happens, the Democrats will then revitalize whatever withered cores still remain in the antiwar groups, and then use them to attack Republicans—until the Republicans are out of power once more. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It’s hard to tell who to be more contemptuous of in that uneasy liberal-left alliance: establishment Democrats, for being such cynical opportunists, or the antiwar activists, for being such pitiful lackeys…

Democrats discovered a love for the anti-war movement on January 20th, 1969 – the day Richard Nixon was sworn in, with the Vietnam war still in full force. Up to that point, no need for the anti-war movement – might hurt Democrats. Once a Republican was in office – wow, really need that anti-war movement!

To keep going a bit with my theme from Cutting Through the Nonsense Between Islam and the West, here we have yet another example of the con job of modern times. Anyone who thinks about war realizes that it is a complex event which arises because an acute difference has developed between two or more peoples – with luck and good will, such conflicts can be defused short of actual shooting war, but some times luck is elsewhere and good will is lacking, and so war commences. Once the war starts, thinking people start trying to understand what it is about and develope means to bring it to a swift and, for their side, successful conclusion. On the other hand, there are those who are just trying to put one over on people in order to gain power and wealth for themselves…enter the Democrats and the dupes who man the anti-war movement.

Those who think try to prevent a war from starting; once a war starts, those who think work on winning it. Those who are indifferent to everything but their own position and wealth ignore impending war clouds – and if they are not in charge when the war starts, they immediately start angling for themselves. This has a long history in the United States – starting with the Copperheads during the Civil War (mostly Democrats, by the way). For the Copperheads, the fate of the Union and the plight of the slaves was irrelevant – all that mattered was securing power for themselves…it wouldn’t have mattered to them if they attained power in a truncated Union while millions of Americans continued to languish in slavery – all that mattered was personal wealth and power.

So, rather than do the patriotic thing and help work out ways to victory, they started picking apart war policy and ascribing base motives to those who were trying to win the war. They accused those fighting the war of various crimes from brutality to the enemy to the destruction of civil liberties at home (sound familiar?). They sought to undermine the war effort knowing that defeat in the field would lend credence to their expressed views about the war. They favored coddling the enemy and set impossible, ever receding standards for the people trying to win the war. All of this was duplicated during the latter part of the Vietnam war, and all through the Bush Administration. It was a con then, it is a con now – though one temporarily moribund because the people who ran the scheme are currently ensconced in power and thus don’t need it.

Ever and anon we are plagued with these people – the people who want power and wealth but don’t want to actually work for it. From relatively harmless crooks like Bernie Madoff to the most vile, criminal murderers like Josef Stalin, the theme remains the same – cook up a problem, relentlessly lie about what is happening, use resultant confusion to gain the advantage.

We’ll see the anti-war movement again – because anyone who would actually join the movement is easily duped, and as soon as Republicans are in charge of government there will be Democrats who will want to pull a fast one. As long as there are knaves to vend, there will be fools to swallow – but we, on our side, can limit the damage.

If we will resolutely state the truth and cease to play their game (which is, after all, a rigged game designed to ensure they win), then we can marginalize both the hucksters and their dupes.

From Rasmussen:

Heading into the final weeks of the congressional election season, 62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can always make them worse…

Gloriam in excelsis Deo! The people are fully awake.