McCain Destroys Barbara Boxer: Boxer Never Supported Victory Video

Barbara Boxer is the most bitterly partisan, most anti-defense Senator in the U.S. Senate today. How does John McCain know this? He tells you in the video.

John McCain Destroys Barbara Boxer

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Bobby Bright Nancy Pelosi: Bobby Bright Jokes About Nancy Pelosi Dying

Pelosi's toxicity reaches deep into the South, where Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala-2nd District) is scrambling to keep his seat against challenger Republican Martha Roby who says "Our congressman voted for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. How he voted any other time is irrelevant." Ouch! Bright, who bills himself as the the most independent member in Congress joked about Pelosi falling ill and dying, among other possibilities, that might put him in a position of not having to vote for her again.

The Montgomery Advertiser:

Speaking at a local Chamber of Commerce event, Bright "joked that Pelosi might lose her own election, decide not to run for the speaker’s job or otherwise not be available," 

He then suggested "jokingly" that Pelosi could fall ill and die in the coming months, thus preventing him from having to vote for her as Speaker. His remarks reportedly drew laughter from the audience. 

From The Hill (take a look at the comments on this article)

The Cook Political Report lists Bright's seat as leaning Democratic, but he represents a district that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won in the 2008 presidential race with 68 percent of the vote.

The Montgomery Advertiser says the race between Bright and Republican Martha Roby will be one of the most competitive in the Nation this fall. If you can donate to Martha, or want to know more about her, visit her Roby for Congress website here.

Linked by Praire Pundit - thank you!

Is Jan Brewer Anti-Immigrant or is Barack Obama Anti-America?

Barack Obama says Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is "anti-immigrant." That is just a despicable lie and this anti-America President needs to be called out on it.  He says people wanting "to make a name for themselves... [Jan Brewer]" by actually following Federal and State laws to send illegals home are "anti-immigrate." I don't know a single person who want to do away with "immigration." I know many not wanting illegal migrants on our soil

America is not "anti-immigrate." Words have consequences, so why do we pair the word "illegal" with "immigrate" or "immigration?" Being in the country illegally has nothing to do with immigration. An illegal cannot immigrate until we say he/she can. If the law is broken by entering this country illegally, that person is illegal, and an alien migrant. The encroacher's status is that of an illegal migrant, or an illegal alien. We should no longer give aliens the cover of "immigration."

There is no greater disrespect to the U.S. and it's people than to fail in the Constitutional mandate to protect her borders,  allowing thousands of illegals to pour in every day...thousands every day! Arizona Senator McCain said Arizona alone was the crossing point for one million illegals in 2009.

American Grams at Back to Basics says the number of illegal aliens in Arizona is estimated at 460,000 to 500,000. She (assuming Grams is a she) found 32 cities "in the U.S. with populations of 500,000" or more making Arizona's illegal migrants the size of the 33rd largest city in the U.S. Imagine trying to grill on the patio on your beautiful border ranch, watch the grandkids catch fireflies in the dusk with these ranchers reporting from 100-900 aliens crossing their properties every 24 hours. After you watch the video below, visit this post by ChicagoRay for a sickening glimpse of the victims of illegal aliens.

Obama is warning politicians they should not campaign on the topic of illegals or the situation in Arizona. One look at the polls on illegals in the U.S., and the favorability of the law Arizona is trying to enact, tells us why Obama wants us to shut up. He clearly understand that voters and taxpayers want the borders secured now.

This name-calling, mocking President who calls TEA Partiers "teabaggers," and baldly lies that a United States Governor is "anti-immigrant" has no idea of the wrath building around the country.



Tom Tancredo on Illegal Migrants (video)

General Petraeus Faints in Senate Hearing

I can imagine a man of General Petraeus' stature would do about anything to get out of attending a Senate hearing. The "faint" happened after Senate members pushed for an answer to the lingering question: can we meet Obama's deadline to withdraw from Afghanistan, and was it wise to tell telegraph the deadline to allies and the enemy? Senator John McCain was speaking at the time. How many times has this fine man gone through this inane conversation with Capitol Hill?

General David Petraeus

WASHINGTON — The commander of American forces in the Middle East. Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared to swoon or faint briefly during an intense period of questioning by senators Tuesday on whether the military can fulfill President Obama's orders to begin pulling troops from Afghanistan in July of next year. 

 General Petraeus, a long-distance runner, pitched forward toward the microphone where he was seated, and was escorted from the Senate hearing room as the session was adjourned by Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The General has told the press he "got a little light-headed, a little dehydrated." Petraeus has reentered the hearing room.

Obama Audacious, Duplicitous, Partisan, Thin-Skinned, Valium Recommended say Republicans

Bob Corker, a freshman senator from Tennessee, attended the 80-minute meeting between Senate Republicans and Barack Obama. The meeting was reportedly heated, with Corker telling the President there was a "tremendous disconnect from his words and the actions of his administration."

Bob Corker 

I told him I thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today after what happened with financial regulation," Corker told reporters. "I just wanted him to tell me how, when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?

Obama requested the meeting and went to the Hill for lunch. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) said Obama "need to take a Valium" before talking to Republicans and called him "thin-skinned."

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said the differences in opinion between Republicans and the administration's policies "likely will not be settled until November about taxes, spending and the debt."

Senator John Thune (R-SD) said the "symbolism of bipartisanship" is not nearly as important as the "action of bipartisanship:"

Citing the scant or zero Republican support for the health care law, financial regulation bill and last year's financial stimulus, Thune said, "What we haven't seen is sort of the matchup between the rhetoric and the actions to follow through."

To add insult, border security was discussed in great detail, with some Senators calling for 6,000 National Guard to be sent to our southern borders. Sen. John McCain said said he told Obama we needed to secure the border first - and Obama disagreed. Immediately after the meeting, the Obama administration announced 1,200 National Guard will be deployed to border areas. The decision had obviously been made before the lunch with the Senate, but the decision was not shared with Republicans, even though the discussion was intense. Can this administration get less transparent - or creepier?

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - While Gulf States were Inundated with oil, Obama was Fundraising.

Obama Orders National Guard to Southern Borders: Republicans Focus on Jobs Debt Terror

Senate Republicans met in a "closed door" meeting with Obama today on Capitol Hill. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Republicans focused on "jobs, debt and terror," and said on a majority of issues, Republicans have a "large difference of opinion" with a President who favors "far-left legislation." After the meeting, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) spoke on the floor of the senate, saying "we need to secure the borders first," but said Obama "didn't agree." McCain called for 6,000 National Guard, but is getting 1,200.

Border Fence

Apparently, the National Guard deployed to the border will not "secure it," but will

"provide intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counter narcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional offices and agents t serve on the border..."

Five hundred million will be requested to support the beefed up security, but building the legislated physical fence still isn't happening and the virtual border fence is a dud, after spending multiple BILLIONS of taxpayer monies. Take a look at the spec of the proposed fencing in the graphic above. If we are honest about it, we will admit that not many illegals will get through that structure.

The article linked in the second paragraph quotes the White House saying the Guard members will "...also help build on and complement the strong security partnership with Mexico...." I do not find any evidence or explanation of exactly what part the Mexican government is playing in the "strong security" of our mutual borders. If you have any details, let me know.

Senator Inhofes Office on SB3081: McCain SB3081 Holding Americans Indefinitely Without Trial

Last week, I posted on Senator John McCain's Senate Bill 3081 which, if passed, will allow American citizens suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without trial, and/or put through the military court system. Senator James Inhofe is one of the surprising co-sponsors of this bill titled "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. I spoke to Brandon Andrews in Inhofe's office about the bill, which he seemed well acquainted with.

 Jim Inhofe

Taliban American Adam Gadahn and al-Qaeda Anwar al-Awalaki were discussed. There is no doubt it is a new day in America, and there is an obvious need to find a way to handle American jihadists. Can we find a way to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and bring non-military Americans to a military trial? And how in the world did these Senators let this bill get this far?

First, this bill is clearly not in line with the Fifth or Sixth Amendments which says an American citizen cannot be held for capital crimes without the benefit of a Grand Jury indictment, and citizens must have the right to a speedy and public trial."  (See the text of both amendments at the bottom of this article.)

Brandon Andrews stressed that an American citizen, under SB3081 would not have the privilege of a Grand Jury if found to be a high-value detainee, but the bill provides for a final determination of the citizen's status by certain members of Congress, and the determination is to be made within 48 hours. If the detainee is determined not to be a "high-value detainee," or "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then the citizen moves into the federal court system, or is released, and is out of the reach of SB3081.

If the citizen is deemed to be a "high-value detainee," or an "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," the the citizen is covered by SB3081, and is not entitled to a civilian court, a Grand Jury or a speedy trial.

I asked about al-Qaeda being specified in the bill, but not the Taliban. I asked about American Adam Gadahn, a Taliban al-Qaeda leader, and was surprised to learn that Gadahn is not covered by this bill, because Afghanistan is a sensitive subject, these days. So, theoretically, and realistically, if Gadahn is captured, he will go through a civilian court.

If American Anwar al-Alwalki, a cleric in Yemen with 9/11 terrorist ties, as well as ties to Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, is captured he qualifies for SB3081.

I asked if a non-military American citizen has ever been tried in a military court. He said they had, and said he just had that information in front of him, but couldn't pull it up at that moment. He said he would email the information. At one point he said I should have it in 10 minutes. After the phone conversation, the email did not come. I called him back. He said he would re-send it. I sent him an email to verify my email address. I still have not received the information, and have left a couple of voicemails for him but he has not returned the calls. This is unlike the way Inhofe's office usually works.

From my own search, I did find a couple of instances of non-military citizens in military courts, but they were in the 1800's. In 1866, Ex parte Milligan was decided in the U.S. Supreme court, ruling it unconstitutional for non-military citizens to be tried in military tribunals when civilian courts are still operating. That decision arose from 5 Americans planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prison-of-war camps. SCOTUS found that military tribunals were illegal in states upholding the U.S. Constitution.

We have large numbers of American citizens joining the Islamic jihad effort, and we are increasingly at jeopardy from those citizens here, and those who have gone to Islamic countries to train. There is no doubt, it is a new day in America.

According to Brandon Andrews, there are some 3,000 Americans in Yemen in training camps right now. Yemen cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is a good example. He is New Mexico born-and-bred, but has fled to Yemen. It is alleged he had numerous contacts with jihadists in America: meeting with two of the 9/11 hijackers, correspondence with Fort Hood murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, and perhaps he motivated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

President Obama has approved the "targeted killing" of al-Awalaki.

During my phone conversation, there was no conclusion from Senator Inhofe's spokesman, Brandon Andrews, about how this bill works with the U.S. Constitution. According to Mr. Andrews, there is probably language in SB3081 that needs a review or clarification.

For your reference, here is the text of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments:

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the mIlitia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for he same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionthe

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of counsel for his defence.

Back to my question of how these distinguished Senators let this poorly written legislation get this far, I don't have the answer but will venture a guess: perhaps the routine is that the "needs" are put on paper in the form of a bill, with all it's warts and pimples, in the hope they then get fleshed out in committees.

Related and Background:
John McCain's SB 3081 Holds Americans Indefinitely without Trial

John McCain SB 3081: Hold Americans Indefinitely Without Trial

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has authored Senate Bill 3081, which includes holding American citizens indefinitely and without trial if they are termed an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent in the War on Terror.

John McCain

Obviously, this is not Constitutional and is in direct opposition to the Constitution's Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

The object of the legislation is noble: keep terrorists out of federal courts and don't Mirandize them.  Today, it is a grim reality that American citizens have become terrorists, are living in the midst of us, and are traveling back and forth, to and from, terrorist training camps. This is a new day in America's history.

But how do we explain, former Vietnam prisoner of war, and decorated American hero, John McCain authoring this bill? John McCain, the man who vehemently opposes America's 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' which neither kills nor maimes, but would seek to take away an American citizen's right to a speedy and fair trial.

It boggles the mind. The only possible explanation might be that the Senator is facing a strong opponent for his Arizona senate seat, J.D. Hayworth. Is it possible McCain knows this cannot pass, but thinks it might sound admirable from the man, who in opposition to most Republicans, wants Gitmo closed? Can he possibly misjudge conservatism to this extent? Can he really think conservatives want the Constitution trampled? Or...

Article Three, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution addresses 'treason,' which consists only of:

 "levying War against them (U.S.), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason...

American citizens who engage in those things defining an 'Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent' (see below) could certainly be charged with adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort - and...Congress has the power to declare the punishment.

Commenter, blogger and friend, Karen at The Lonely Conservative, sees another problem:

What's concerning about this is that the left keeps calling people like us terrorists.

That brought a howl of laughter from me, and after I picked myself up off the floor, and actually thought it about, I realized she is right to be concerned.

There are seven Republican co-sponsors? Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Scott Brown (R-Mass), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), George LeMieux (R-FL), Jefferson Sessions (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD), Roger Wicker (R-MS). I'll be calling Inhofe to see what he has to say, and I'll pass it on to you. If you have something to add , just let me know.

 Senate Bill 3081 says (snippets):

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.

(b)...An individual who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent and who is initially captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States by an intelligence agency of the United States may be held, interrogated, or transported by the intelligence agency and placed into military custody for purposes of this Act if retained by the United States within a reasonable time after the capture or coming into the custody or effective control by the intelligence agency

Found this of interest in the proposed bill - assurance that DOJ funds may not be used to prosecute:

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PROSECUTION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

(a) Limitation- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Justice may be used to prosecute in an Article III court in the United States, or in any territory or possession of the United States, any alien who has been determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2).

SEC. 6: (9) Definition of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents:

The term 'unprivileged enemy belligerent' means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who--

(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;

(B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.

VAT Tax Resolution Approved: VAT a Massive Crippling Tax

In a non-binding test vote in the U.S. Senate today, a Value Added Tax (VAT) resolution was approved in a vote of 85-13. Senator John McCain introduced the resolution declaring a VAT a "massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income." Republican Senator George Voinovich (OH) disagreed with McCain's assessment and so one Republican joined twelve Democrats in supporting a Value Added tax.

Paul Volcker

The twelve Democrats voting for a VAT, along with Republican Voinovitch are:

Daniel Akaka, Hawaii

Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico

Sherrod Brown, Ohio

Robert Byrd, West Virginia

Ben Cardin, Maryland

Byron Dorgan, North Dakota

Ted Kaufman, Delaware,

Carl Levin, Michigan

Jack Reed, Rhode Island

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Jim Webb, Virginia

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island

Voinovitch, finding that Ohioans were'nt fond of giving him another term, decided to retire from the Senate in January 2011. An April 2010 Rasmussen poll shows Republican Rob Portman "slightly" ahead of his two chief Democratic rivals, Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner.

Former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Paul Volker suggested the VAT this week as a way to further punish the country - especially those angry Tea Partiers bring down the bounding deficit. Volcker is currently the chairman of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and apparently has not suggested that Obama et al, just stop spending. Put it on the table and whack it until it's manageable. That's how a real man would manage debt.

From WSJ:

"Though Mr. Volcker didn't say this, he is acknowledging that taxes on the rich can't begin to finance the levels of new spending that the current government has unleased. Even the expiration of the Bush tax rates next January and the new taxes in the health-care bill won't be enough."

It's clear that we MUST drag out the chopping block.

McCain introduced the resolution to show a 'sense of the Senate's' opposition before the idea can grow political legs.

Iran Nuclear or Not - and if Not, When? Who Do we Trust to tell us the Truth

We have grown accustomed to knowing nothing about Iran and their nuclear capability. The IAEA lied to us for years, and then as Inspector El-Baradei retired, he said guess what: I didn't do my job. Iran lied to me. I didn't confirm anything for myself (or he did but, as a Muslim, had no intention of outing Iran's banty rooster regimes). Somehow, intelligence sources bought El-Baradei's story that Iran had shutdown it's nuclear program, and in 2007 The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was way wrong  - allowing Iran to buy years of time. The truth is, we have no one but Israel we can trust to tell us the truth as they know it, and since the world will not support Israel's intelligence efforts, they are somewhat stymied as well.

 Nuclear Iran

Graphics Credit: Cox and Forkum

P.S. I understand the fabulous political cartoonists,  Cox and Forkum are "no longer," but I do see some updates as of mid-2009. I thank them for their work, which fits into this post so nicely.

In 2006, George Bush was seriously considering a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The "world" was appalled.

 You might find this Hyscience article, written in 2006 of interest, reporting the infiltration of the UN's nuclear watchdog in Vienna by Iran.

In 2007, U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) were pondering a possible mistake in their report, that said with "high confidence" that Iran stopped building the bomb in 2003. Back then, Germany, France and Britain didn't believe it. Still, the report "stood." In October 2009, the Obama administration urged the agency to "rethink" their position because, hey...looks like it might be wrong. Bush never believed it, Republicans never believed it. Israel didn't and doesn't believe it. Democrats sucked it up, and around the world, small countries relied on a false report by the greatest Democratic Republic the world has ever known.

In 2008, the NIE continued with the lie: "Despite the halt through at least mid-2007 to Iran's nuclear weapons design and covert uranium conversion...." Still yet, in 2008, the language of the NIE is wussified:

We remain concerned about Iran's intentions and assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We have high confidence that Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons until fall 2003.

The lie that the whole world is privvy to, continues in 2008:

We assess with moderate confidence that Tehran had not restarted these activities as of mid-2007.

In 2008 the NIE knew this:

We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be...capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

In 2008, Mohamed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, said Iran could have a bob in three to 8 years. Eight months later he Iran would need only six months to one year to be nuclear.

In September 2008, El Baradei said there is still "no credible evidence...." "I do not think based on what we see that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons programme."  Then the joker baldly said Iran was not cooperating him on their plans for nuclear warheads.

In September 2009, in the same article linked directly above, is a report that El Baradei's IAEA published a "secret" report saying they, indeed, had sufficient information to make a nuclear device and warhead. On October 4, 2009 the New York Times published the same information.

And the same article, published in January 2010, lists the U.N. sanctions against Iran. Here's a summary:

The U.S. has had a trade embargo since our American embassy hostages were taken., Resolution 1737 levied in December 2006 mandates:

...all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".

In October 2007 the U.S. designated the Revolutionary guard a "supporter of terrorism."
Resolution 1747 in March 2007 sought to "tighten the squeeze" by preventing dealings with an Iranian state back and 28 other people and organizations. It banned the import of arms from Iran and:

UN member states were told to "exercise restraing in selling major arms to Iran.

Resolution 1803 in March 2008: asset restrictions and travel bans on certain Iranian individuals - excluding the egregious Achmadinejad who repeatedly shows up on U.S. soil at the U.N. 1803 bans the sale of "dual-use items (items with neither military or civilian purpose). Governments were asked to withdraw fianncial backing from companies trading with Iran - and urged to inspect cargo in and out. Two more banks were monitored.

I think that's it folks, and none of it has done a whit of good.

The same article above, published by the BBC in January 2010 says experts believe Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb with a few months, but probably would not have the technology for a delivery system...unless as General Cartwright said, they are working on both projects at the same time. Of course, reasonable people would never speculate that to to happen. Right?

Major Garrett at Fox News interviewed the National Security Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, at Obama's Nuclear Summit (the one with a new logo in the shape of an Islamic crescent). In one day, China agreed to sanctions against Iran (if you believe Obama) and then said there was absolutely no commitment to such sanctions. 

McDonough said the worst thing could happen is to have "loose nuclear material in the hands of a terrorist" - because "we already know they would be inclined to use them." According to McDonough, this was the focus of the Nuclear Summit - making sure the "unthinkable does not happen."

Major points out that the results of the summit are not binding, so what is the point? McDonough says it is "a very concrete work plan." Somehow, McDonough says this "concrete work plan" will allow the U.S. to hold other countries "accountable." Hmmmm.


McDonough seems to blame "previous" administrations for the Iranian predicament we are in today. Nevermind the Democrat congress, with Barack Obama's mommy jeans seated therein, who would never, never vote to take action against Iran.


McDonough tells Major Garrett he feels good about a UN resolution (delusional idiot), BUT...he acknowledges that a UN resolution will do little to quell Iran's nuclear quest - and that is because he understand, but will not speak the words, that the UN Security Council - dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will never, ever, have a meaningful set of sanctions against their Islamic brothers.

At Obama's Nuclear Security Summit, the President said the new nuclear reality is a "cruel irony of history." He doesn't mention that while in Congress he thwarted every effort to do something about Iran. The President is a contributing factor to that cruel irony. The Democrat congress, as a whole, were cowards.


This report quotes the Obama administration saying on April 13th that it will take Iran three to five years to make a nuclear weapon. This after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this week he does not think Iran will have nuclear capability this year, and maybe not the next. Gates doesn't mention three to five years. Today, General James Cartwright said it will take Iran years to get a bomb...until he said, the time could be shortened if Iran pursues ways to deliver a weapon at the same time as it worked to build a bomb!

While I rue quoting John McCain he made the point that this is a "dramatic difference" in past estimates: "Every report I've seen, it's a year to 18 months."

Israel, however, sitting right in target-range of Iran quotes an Iranian research chief saying the country "will be nuclear within one month."

So, when will Americans have a fair and trusted estimate of Iran's nuclear capability? My belief is, it will never happen as long as Congress, Defense and State are dominated by career Democrats.

Marco Rubio Gets Rudy Giuliani Endorsement - Disses Crist?

Former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani is endorsing Marco Rubio's candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Florida. Hot Air is speculating about Giuliani - considered a social Liberal and fiscal Conservative, and why he is not endorsing sitting Florida governor, Charlie Crist.

Marco Rubio

The most obvious answer is it's payback time. Crist endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, even though Giuliani asked the Governor for his support.

I think there is more to it than that, and my theory goes to Republican endorsements across the map. For example, we hear that Marco Rubio, now considered a true Conservative, has been not so Conservative at times when he served in the Florida State House of Representatives, including his time as Speaker of the House.

We are in a new day, and some Moderates are not averse to recognizing that straddling the line helps drive up the debt.  Conservatives like Rubio are 'getting the Constitution.' Fiscal Conservatism and Traditional Values are the yardstick by which all will be measured. In fact, I think some Moderates are now 'true believers' and I think Rubio is one of those. Rudy could come close, even though revenge is sweet today for him as he refuses to endorse Charlie Crist, who everyone thought was shoo-in for the Senate.

When in our history, since Reagan, have we talked about Fiscal Conservatism? We haven't. Now it is the talk of the day - and We the People are fueling the talk. Conservatives no longer believe they have to give away the farm for a vote.

Public awareness and the Tea Party movement is giving backbone to our politicians, and most importantly, we are  shining a bright light on our forgotten U.S. Constitution. Republicans and former Moderates are doing it, while Democrats continue to hold the Constitution in disdain. 'We the People' 'get it.' The most important factor in Conservatism is the Constitution, which if adhered to, will create Fiscal Conservatism.

We now have the proper awareness that our Founding documents are the spine and backbone of this country. And Moderates are finding that they like it as much as we do. So, when a former RINO begins to 'get it,' let's welcome them to the club. We will not move Rudy off of some of his social issues, but through his endorsement of Marco Rubio, he has somewhat shed his RINO skin.  It is a new day. People change. People become believers. If Conservatism reigns, freedom rings!

Did You Hear What Charlie Crist Said Today?

Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio were on FOX News Sunday today with Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Crist who his favorite senators were. Crist answered "John McCain and Lindsay Graham." Deadman Walking. Death knell tolling.

Obviously, that's a reference to Crist's political aspirations - not a threat. I mean, we have to explain these things today, don't we?


Linked by The Lonely Conservative who says Rubio told Wallace his favorite Senator is Jim DeMint. Great answer.

Meghan McCain Laura Ingraham: Meghan drags out the Kiss My Ass Again on The View

She is the daughter of John and Cindy McCain. She calls herself a "progressive Republican." Her Dad calls himself a conservative Republican. Neither are either.

Meghan McCain and John McCain

Last year, in the Daily Beast article linked below, from the set of The View - on air - she told Laura Ingraham she could "kiss my fat ass."   Appearing at the conservative Young America's Foundation this week, which apparently pulled funding for her appearance, she told the crowd "I'm not Ann Coulter, I'm not Glenn Beck...I'm not trying to get my own show on Fox...I'm adamantly against hate-mongering." Then she said Ingraham and Coulter were "nasty," and a few days later, went on The View again and said of Ingraham "By the way, she can continue to kiss my ass."

Michelle Malkin points out Meghan's "ideological principles," whatever they may be:

You know what's wrong with Meghan McCain? It's not her weight. It's not her voice. It's not her looks. She's a beautiful young girl with TV-friendly poise and natural charm. The trouble with Meghan McCain is that, like her father, she has no fixed ideological principles - conservative, liberal, or otherwise....She seems to have inherited the notion that playing the "maaaaverick" imparts her with moral authority and credibility as a fresh voice for the GOP. I'm all for peaking truth to power. But like her father, Ms McCain's maaaaverick-iness appears to be rooted less in any firm set of beliefs than in the need for liberal approbation.

Take her "beef with Ann Coulter." If Ms. McCain sincerely detests Coulter's "demeanor" and "extreme" thinking, statements, and behavior because they represent "hate" and alienate young voters, then how is it that the same genteel ms. McCain can cheer the cretinous, left-wing extremist Russell Brand?

Meghan tweeted about Brand being "freaking hilarious," and then linked to his website.

In a March 2009 Daily Beast column Ms. McCain blasted Coulter. Laura Ingraham responded:

[Meghan McCain] is "just another Valley Girl gone awry," and "plus-sized." 

That's what started the "fat ass" comments.

On the stage at Jack Morton Auditorium last night, she said this:

After urging the Republican Party to stop being "so stubborn and closed-minded," McCain added that Democrats are capable of intolerance as well. She accused MSNBC's Keith Olberman of doing just as much damage as Rush Limbaugh, worrying that the tenor of their political discussions will result in a whole generation that will have no desire to get involved with politics.

Pity isn't it? Rush will drive the young away from Conservatism? Oh wait - young people are more conservative today than ever, and Meghan, they don't like your message. A study by The Chronicle of Higher Education, says that 24% of conservative college students support gay marriage as you do, but that means 75% percent do not. In Meghan's mind, conservatives are:

...dying off, becoming less and less relevant to the party structure as a whole." [From the Daily Beast article]

Dad, John McCain, a loose political cannon if there ever was one, supporting amnesty for multiple-millions said back in the summer of 2008 that he has heard from "the people" and learned his lesson on amnesty, but...but...his campaign stage was shared by Juan Hernandez, who quietly joined the McCain campaign staff and hung out with Meghan. Hot Air has this quote from Hernandez saying "of Mexicans who move to the US:

I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think of of Mexico first."

Meghan, if you follow Dad on immigration and amnesty, ignoring the enormous cost to the country, you haven't a prayer of being relevant in Republican politics. See Meghan and Hernandez photographed together here and read the details.

Young conservatives want smaller government - even those who weren't listening before the November 2008 elections and voted for Obama. This from TheNextRight:

They said we were going to be foundation of a new Democratic movement. They labeled us a generation upon which Democrats could build a political dynasty. They though we bled blue. They were wrong.

A little more than a year after Barack Obama won 18-29 year olds by a 2-to-1 margin, young adults are changing course. We were wooed by the promise of "change," only to find a year later that things have changed for the worse. Washington is different, but only because it is bigger...The reach of government into our lives has been altered, but only because their arm is longer. This is not the change we voted for and we're taking note."

Meghan alludes to being on a campaign to "hip up" the Republican party.  Being a Republican "is about as edgy as Donny Osmond," she said, and she slammed last year's CPAC speakers, young author/speaker Jonathan Krohn, and Christian-activist Stephen Baldwin, and dismissed them as though they had no political thought - especially when compared to her own.

No worries that Meghan will be a driving force in the party, in spite of the fact that she is Meggie McCain - or maybe because of it.

Mitt Romney Backs John McCain for Arizona Senate Seat

Mitt Romney never figured out that Mike Huckabee and John McCain joined forces to boot him out of the 2008 Presidential race - and it worked. Nevermind...Romney is backing McCain for the Arizona U.S. Senate seat, anyway. I will not be backing Romney for the 2012 race for the Oval Office, unless I have no better choice. Please, Lord send us a solid, conservative leader. Amen.

Source

Barbara Boxer Senate Seat Vulnerable: Rassmussen Poll Shows Babs Stagnant

A new Rassmussen poll shows Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) may face some fierce competition for her U.S. Senate seat, and to-date, has not been able to climb her poll numbers to 50%

 

Senator Barbara Boxer

From a Rassmussen telephone poll of 500 likely voters taken February 11th:

Republican Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and a John McCain adviser in his 2008 presidential bid, Fiorina shows at 47% to Democrat Boxer's 46%, 7% would vote for "other," and 5% are "not sure." The polling is "virtually unchanged from January." In November 2008, Boxer led Fiorina by 9 points and 10 points in September 2008.

In the same poll, when Boxer is polled against Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Boxer gains 1%, and stands at 47% to DeVore's 42%, 6% would vote for "other," and 5% are "not sure." In January 2010 , Boxer led DeVore by 6% and in November by 10%.

When the polls pits Boxer against Republican former Congressman Tom Campbell, Boxer gets 45% to Campbell's 41%. In this matchup, 4% would vote for "other," and 10% are "not sure."  Boxer has had the same lead against Campbell since he entered the race in January.

From Rasmussen:

Most troubling for Boxer...is her continuing inability to cross the 50% threshold against any GOP hopefuls. Incumbents who capture less than 50% of the vote at this state of the campaign are considered vulnerable.

The fact that Boxer’s support has been stuck in the mid-40s for several surveys no matter which Republican she is matched against continues to suggest that the race for now is about her rather than about those who are running against her. 

This from the LA Times which refers to Babs as "brittle." Love it! And, they muse the chances of her becoming "embattled at home," and becoming the next Harry Reid.

For a Democrat in a Democrat state that gave Barack Obama 61% of its votes in 2008 (and still likes him more than many other places) to be mired in the mid-40's is a sign of real trouble. This is especially so given the fact that disgruntled voters gave Democrats control of the House, Senate and White House in 2008, expecting something to....

The LATimes says Californians are disappointment at the lack of stimulus in the stimulus bill, and drop this little gem: Brittle Babs has Al Gore fundraising for her.

The poll shows that a large majority of California women favor Boxer, but not so with California men. Overall, 26% of Californians have a favorable opinion of Barbara Boxer, and 33% view her unfavorably.

The poll shows a very low job approval for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; 59% trust the judgment of the American people on national issues, more than that of our political leaders; and 67% believe the federal government has become a special interest group. Very interesting poll.


Related and Background:
Barbara Boxer Assaults General: Ignorant, Arrogant, Disingenuous, Undeserving to Question a General (video)

Jim Inhofe and Barbara Boxer - Cap and Trade: Boxer Breaks Written Committee Rule

Barbara Boxer Retort to Jim Inhofe: We won!

Tom Tancredo on Civics Literacy: Tancredo Rips John McCain: Rand Paul Rips Tancredo

Conservative hero, Tom Tancredo opened the National Tea Party Convention to a rousing call to action and first principles. The outspoken Tancredo said Obama is in office because "we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country." Rand Paul  ripped Tancredo and Tancredo Ripped McCain.

While we are battling the most profound loss of our liberties this country could have imagined with Barack Obama in the White House, Tancredo says "Thank God John McCain" lost the election:"

Thank God John McCain lost the election," he said, voicing his belief that McCain would have presided over big budgets and lacked a tough stand against immigration. 

People who could not even spell the word 'vote,' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama," Tancredo said to cheers Thursday night.

I agree about McCain. The time had come for Americans to realize what the call of Progressivism is, and what it means to our way of life and lives of our children and grandchildren. We needed the gauntlet thrown down.

There would have been a 4-year delay before voters threw McCain out of office, and ushered in Obama or Hillary, who is a self-professed Progressive. In the meantime, Democrats would continue to be sent to Congress, and we would have none of the passionate quest for conservatism that we have today - at least not to the extent we see it In The Time of Obama.

True to Republican politics, a National Tea Party spokesman, and Rand Paul, are already slamming Tancredo:

It doesn't further the dialogue," said Mark Skoda, a businessman and founder of the Memphis Tea Party, who is also serving as spokesman for the convention.

Contrary to Tancredo's remarks, the Tea Party is not about "name-calling," said Rand Paul, whose campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky is supported by the Tea Party.

There are politicians who have gone into the movement and tried to become part of the movement," he said on CNN's American Morning."But really the movement is about individual people."

Dr. Paul forgets that Tom Credo is and "individual" person. He is no longer a politician. Tancredo is a former US Representative from Colorado who was fearless in condemning McCain and Ted Kennedy's illegal amnesty program.

Redstate blogger, Erick Erickson is quoted by CNN saying "this National Tea Party convention smells scammy." There is controversy over a Nashville attorney organizing the event as a for-profit convention. Perhaps that is what Erickson is referring to:

Sherry Phillips, who along with her husband, Nashville attorney Judson Phillips, founded Tea Party Nation, said earlier this week in a message to supporters that "we fully expect to break even at this event. We may even make a few thousand dollars to cover local operating costs of TPN."

Update 2-6-10: BigGovernment today reports that erickson has stepped back from his "scammy" comment. He attended the Tea Party and "thinks it may bode well for the future...."

I hope each of the Tea Parties are productive and hold to their own principles, and I hope we don't "eat our own."

Related and Background:

Tea Party First Principles: Tea Party National Organizing 

Palin's Rogue Endorsement of Rand Paul

John McCain Prepares for JD Hayworth

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will use Sarah Palin and newly-sworn Massaschusetts Senator Scott Brown to shore up a probable bid against J.D. Hayworth for the Arizona Senate seat McCain has held for 22 years.

Governor Palin and the wildly popular Scott Brown will be formidable, not to mention puzzling, but here's hoping the good people of Arizona will listen to Hayworth long enough to weight the issue of illegal immigration as a primary litmus for their state. Immigration will come roaring back in the next two years, and assuming Democrats lose on health care and cap and tax, allowing millions of illegals to join the ranks of legal voters will be strong on their agenda.

J. D. Hayworth, a US Congressman for Arizona's 5th District from 1995 - 2007, is was a popular radio host in Phoenix until McCain complained that he was campaigning for the Senate seat and using radio-waves to do it. Clear Channel took steps to keep Hayworth from speaking about McCain or the mid-term elections in anyway on their station:

Hayworth resigned the show in January, and while he has not formally announce a Senate race, he says he will challenge McCain for the seat.

He said he wasn't serious about running against McCain until a recent "outpouring of support" from Arizonans asking him to run changed his mind.

"Arizonans have a clear choice -- a clear, commonsense, consistent conservative, or they can remain with a moderate who calls himself a maverick," Hayworth said.

Fund-raising will be the biggest challenge for Hayworth. McCain has at least $5 million in the bank already. It will be interesting to see if Hayworth can engage conservatives in the same way Scott Brown did in Massachusetts and as Marco Rubio is doing this minute for the Florida senate seat.

Sarah Palin will appear with McCain in March. In the meantime, Hayworth plans to use McCain's vote AGAINST the Bush tax cuts, his miserable record on illegal aliens, about which McCain swears he has "heard the people," but I don't believe a word of it, and robo calls

Arizona's Republicans deserve a choice and an alternative to Mr. McCain's moderate record on taxes, social issues, the border and bailing out the banks," Mr. Hayworth said in a robo-call his campaign said it would place to tens of thousands of Arizona Republicans.

Even without a formal challenge announcement from Hayworth, McCain is already buying airtime and using it:

...portraying himself as "Arizona's last line of defense" against government spending, bloated bureaucracy and government-run health care.

Once Hayworth begins layout his positions, assuming they are what I think they are, I will donate, and I expect many conservatives around the country will do the same.

Thanks to friend and fellow-watchdog, David Lemon, who has a fascinating video up today. He interviews Joe Red Feather, so-called because he has received the Red (Blood) Feather, "likened to the Purple Heart (which Joe also has from Viet Nam) from the people of his tribe. He explains what it means to be a Red Feather recipient, and the symbolism of a real Native American war bonnet, which David is borrowing to study for his latest masterpiece. Take a look at Clay to Bronze.

Just how conservative is JD Hayworth? Read here.

JD Hayworth is John McCain Challenger

It looks like JD Hayworth will challenge Arizona Senator John McCain in the November elections. Hayworth has not made a formal announcement but has said he is "moving forward" toward the senate race.

JD Hayworth

 JD Hayworth is a former U.S. representative, serving in the House for Arizona's 5th district, from 1995 - 2007. Hayworth began hosting his own radio show in Spring 2007 at Phoenix KFYI, but resigned it yesterday with indications that he has a senate race in his future.

In November 2009, a poll for the 2010 Republican Senate nomination in Arizona showed Hayworth in a dead heat with McCain. McCain is a formidable fundraiser. Hayworth, if he decides to run, will face some $12 million already in McCain's re-election coffers. 

In about everyway I can gauge, Hayworth is a staunch conservative, unlike McCain, however McCain is already attacking Hayworth for his support various earmarks. McCain is a long-time, very vocal critic of any and all earmarks, but after all the years he has had to do something about them, he has not convinced a single member of the Senate to follow in his footsteps.

Perhaps the most pressing issue facing this country, other than the deficit, is amnesty, which will come roaring back in the Time of Obama. JD Hayworth will not waiver in his stance against illegal migrant amnesty.

After 12 years in the House of Representatives, Hayworth scored a lifetime conservative rating of 97.6 from 2006 AcuRatings. McCain on the other hand scored 81.4 lifetime in 2008. He was slightly more conservative in 2006, scoring 82.

I predict Hayworth will have huge grassroots support if he does run.

McCain is clearly in trouble among the party faithful in his own backyard. McCain was clobbered in a straw poll conducted at the Maricopa County Republican Party (Phoenix metro) Convention. According to precinct committee persons in attendance, McCain earned only 10.5 percent of the vote while Hayworth earned 68 percent.

According to Huffington Post, Hayworth said KFYI, owned by Clear Channel, had ordered him not to discuss Senator McCain, anything related to a possible senate race, and particularly not to defend himself against the attack ads McCain has already begun airing against this man who is not yet his opponent.

This interesting tidbit also from HuffPo:

Friday morning, Rasmussen released a new poll that was conducted right after McCain announced that his former vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, will be traveling to Arizona to campaign for McCain. Politicos had been speculating whether Palin would campaign for fellow Tea Party darling Hayworth or former running mate McCain. The new Rasmussen poll has McCain up by 22 points (53-31).

A curious comment from HotlineOnCall:

Meanwhile, Dems say they will become more serious about AZ if Hayworth's challenge looks like a serious threat to McCain, who otherwise would likely get a pass from the national party.

Here's a promising sign. The liberal Mother Jones website says Dems should be encouraged because "Hayworth's candidacy would be awful for the GOP." Why? Because he's "too conservative for a general election battle." Liberals still don't get it.

At this moment, McCain is facing Democrat Rodolpho "Rudy" Garcia, not to be confused with Rodolpho "Rudy" Garcia, a Florida Republican state senator. Arizona Garcia says he is against everything John McCain is for.

It's Happy Dance time when John McCain is challenged by a true conservative. 

Others Talking about JD Hayworth:
Stop the ACLU
RedState

Others Talking about John McCain
Michelle Malkin
LeftCoastRebel

Sarah Palin Campaigns for McCain: McCain No Conservative Hero

Hubby and I have been grousing about Sarah Palin campaigning for Senator John McCain. "What is she thinking," is what we've asked over and over again. John McCain is no conservative hero.

After health care is sufficiently wounded, and laid aside, illegal migrant amnesty will arise from the dead. McCain joined with Teddy Kennedy to bring another amnesty plan to the U.S. After it failed due to a massive grassroots effort, he said he "got the message" about our fierce dislike of the legislation, but did he, and why should we believe him?  I do not believe he will vote against another attempt, whether he is the author of such legislation, or not. This maverick will clearly join with Democrats on this issue.

Palin believes McCain is a man of honor, and of course, an American hero. We all believe that, but what we also know is that in many ways John McCain is no conservative. Michelle Malkin warns us to Beware McCain Regression Syndrome and details the problem with John McCain in her column today. Here are snippets:

Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for The Right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight-message, consider this warning “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.” Conservatives have worked hard over the past year to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night....

Savor the irony: After a career spent bashing the right flank of the party, Sen. McCain is now clinging to its coattails to save his incumbent hide.

And pay attention to the hidden, more troubling irony: While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy...

I've talked about McCain and illegal migrant amnesty here. Malkin covers everything else. Please go read this article at Michelle Malkin.

No Republican has reached across the aisle more often, and more foolishly, than John McCain. I remember, back in the day (June 2007) when McCain was pushing with Senator Ted Kennedy for the gigantic amnesty for illegals; at an Iowa town hall meeting McCain was asked why we could not "execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries, (and as did President Dwight Eisenhower).

McCain went ballistic and said this:

In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France," McCain said. "They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.

In McCain's snit, he compared us to France. Suggested that our police might not be able to enter Hispanic neighborhoods, and compared our situation with the Islamic problem in France. If you remember that feeling of extreme heartburn during the days before we killed amnesty...that's about how I feel about Sarah Palin supporting John McCain.

General Eisenhower wrote in the New York Times:

The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican(s) [snip] to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.

At the time, John Dillin, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, said:

As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

The short story of President Eisenhower's heroic actions, are that he put tens of thousands of illegal migrants and returned them to their home country by bus, train and ship - deep into Mexico so that a return trip was not all that easy.

Sarah, if you are a true conservative, get out of the McCain camp. He is no conservative hero. This is not the time for a very nice lady to help because she was asked to help the man who  left her under the bus of his wayward presidential race. What are you thinking? We counted on you to support conservatism, not friendship. We will not forget this. Running as his Vice-President is one thing. Campaigning for him is another. This will hurt your future, whatever that may be.

Linked by Stop the ACLU - thank you!

Linked by Hot Air - thank you!

McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Struck Down? Supreme Court Strikes Blow at McCain Feingold

It appears that the Supreme Court has struck down the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, at least to some degree. See update below.

The Washington Post now has the story.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states....

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

 The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Update 1-21-10:
From NRO: The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, and joined by Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The decision overturns Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell vs. FEC, which separated individual and collective campaign contributions into two legal classes and restricted the latter. But it upholds restrictions on direct contributions by corporate bodies to candidates, as well as requirements that the funding sources of political advertisements be disclosed to the public.

The case does not affect political action committees (PACs), which pool voluntary donations from individuals for direct contributions to candidates.

The case was originally heard in March 2009 and examined the laws that cap corporate spending on political activities. But then, the case was given "an unusual" rehearing focusing on "whether corporate spending limits were themselves consitutional."

The courts ruling essential was an issue of free speech, saying that that it is unconsitutional to place a restriction on political donations.

Linked by Chicago Ray - thanks!