Are you for real???

Please...tell me why
"Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney."
Who would say such a thing.??? For years I have been told about how judges have been "Borked" when it comes to Supreme Court Appointments. Well now the man himself has told us who he thinks should be President. I don't expect anyone to post a response because there really is nothing you can say.
But anyway, to this I challenge all of you. I have been told why people don't support Mitt Romney...a) he is a flip flopper (cowards) and b) he is a mormon, (at least you're honest). Anyway, for you diehards, this probably won't mean anything, but it should. For years I have heard about Robert Bork and how he is the epitome of Conservative thought, etc. I challenge anyone of you, my friends, to post why you think he is wrong to endorse governor Romney. If anyone of you actually have the balls to write something, please, no sound bites, just tell me why...
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Endorsement_Bork

P.S, And just for the record I am talking about candidates records...please no childish claims of what somone has said or "plans" to do. Let's be adults and only focus on what a candidate has actaully Done please

Romney and Clinton the most hated candidates in America??

A new rasmussen poll has shown that of the major Presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton have the highest rate of voters who will absolutely not vote for them. Although this is just one poll, it is not something that bodes well for my guy. I would like to see a bit more information on the sample for this poll, or perhaps wait to see the results of more polls like this. The on bright spot ; the largest opposition to Romney comes from registered voters. This same poll shows that among unaffiliated voters, a full ten percentage drop occurs among those who will absolutely not vote for Romney. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, has the same rate among registered and unaffiliated voters.

Federalism usurped

I saw this story while cruising Miss Huffington's website, and although their is not much information in the story, a simple dogpile.com news search brings up many stories. One of the main reasons, although not the only, nor the biggest, is that I am a Republican is that the idea of divided government has more of a voice within my party. I hate to pull out the "If you read the Constitution" card but seriously; is there anything in our Constitution that says the feds have the say in regulating auto emissions. Absolutely not! While I tend to disagree with the California plan, although not entirely, I am not a citizen of that state. So what right do I have as a citizen of the state of Minnesota to dictate policy like this to residents of California. The answer is that I have none, and the Federal government, and the Bush Administration has made a mistake here. Although, to be fair, All of the blame does not rest at the feet of the Bush Administration, (gasp). Had Democrats not taken it upon themselves to use the Environmental Protection Agency to initaite emissions standards to begin with, we would not find ourselves in this situation. As usual, Democrat's love of the power of the Federal government has come to roost for them...Perhaps they will now see why the Feds shouldn't be given so much power

Whats happening at Bagram

I suggest you read the article linked to this post first, but the low down is basically that the US military has a rule banning non married personnel of the opposite sex in the same room when not on official business. But there seems to be a serious case of hypocrisy, at least at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Condoms are available for sale at the base store and are apparently given out for free at the local "massage" parlor. Consequently nearly seventy pregnancies were reported at the base this year alone.

This brings up some very important issues about the readiness and focus of our soldiers who are put into combat positions. How reasonable is it to put a bunch of twenty somethings in a dangerous and relatively isolated environment and not expect any of them to be getting laid? It seems ridiculous to expect otherwise. And what type of effect does this have, not on unit morale, but on the readiness of soldiers to fight? And what of the relationships that develop. What type of effect does that have on the decision's a soldier is forced to make when it isn't just his comrades at stake, but his or her lover?

It's a tough situation and, not having served in the military, I won't presume to give a definitive answer. I do know however, that as a man, it is just a different scenario when men's lives are at stake vs. when a woman is put in the same situation. Add to that the effect of sexual relations and it just seems to put an undue burden on our warriors, men and women.

It seems that the only option, although not without its own drawbacks, would be to simply ban the deployment of women to combat zones. I don't mean actual fire fights, which I believe they are already banned from, but any area in which men that will be in combat will be stationed. Rammstein base in Germany would be fine for women, but Iraq and Afghanistan would be a no go. This will undoubtedly create a logistical problem, in the form of diverting men to replace the women that would be removed, but in the long run, it seems like the best option. Perhaps some of my military readers, if I even have any, would provide some input.