With the primaries coming up in a couple of months and the election just a year away, the current pool of Republican candidates has me a bit worried.  There isn't really one candidate that has an actual shot that I agree with enough to be comfortable.  America's love affair with the Clinton family may prove to be too overwhelming for the Republicans in the '08 election.  So the question is, who is the future of the Republican party?

History has shown that Republicans elect Presidents that are pretty far to the right, while Democratic presidents tend to be more moderate, at least in principle.  But we could see this change soon, specifically within the
Republican party.  Giuliani looks like he very well might be the front runner for the Republican nomination.  What does this mean for traditional conservatism?  We all know Giuliani's marital past, and his somewhat liberal social views.  So how will conservatives respond to him?  I think it's safe to say that, especially if Hillary Clinton is the democratic candidate, that Giuliani will garner most of the conservative vote.  Many conservatives, especially the religious right, aren't too happy with Giuliani, but he might be the best bet for keeping the White House in the hands of the Republican party.

Mitt Romney is a closer match for traditional conservatism.  However, two issues keep coming up in relation to his candidacy:  his faith and his stance change on issues.  I, for one, don't care that he's Mormon.  I don't think it would interfere with his ability to run the country.  I personally believe he is more presidential than Rudy, and he certainly lines up with traditional conservatism more.  But will the right tolerate the fact that he's a Mormon?  We'll find out, but only if he can end up defeating Rudy in the primaries.

There are some other good candidates, like Huckabee, that sadly have no chance of getting elected.  Ron Paul is in line with a lot of conservatives, except for his views on the war.  And Fred Thompson just seems to consistently offer a lackluster effort.  The Democrats are looking pretty stable right now with Hillary Clinton, so it will indeed be interesting to see how the Republican party can answer.

I think I may be the only one left in America besides President Bush who has this opinion.  If I am so be it...I am not afraid to stand alone.  This war has been under a constant media blitzkrieg since it started.  Day after day, death tolls are shoved down our throats while nothing is uttered of the good things that are happening over there.  I can't say that I'm really surprised though.  I honestly believe that the American media lost the Vietnam War.  Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were slaughtered after we pulled out of Vietnam.  Does anyone really expect anything different if we leave Iraq now?

Here's what gets me, although, once again, I shouldn't be surprised considering the continuous hypocrisy I see spewing out of the left.  Liberals and leftists had a fit over Vietnam.   They said it wasn't our war, and, like Iraq, they said we were just getting in the middle of a civil war.  Those poor Vietcong...we were slaughtering them all, along with women and children.  Right?  But did anyone hear a peep out of them after we pulled out?  Why didn't they care about the slaughter of the South Vietnamese?  Because they only care when it fits their agenda.  The United States removed a fascist dictator from Iraq, giving the Iraqis rights and freedoms that they never thought possible.  Aren't liberals supposed to be the champions of civil rights?  So why aren't they celebrating the fact that millions of people got to vote for the first time?  Ah yes, hypocrisy.  We keep coming back to that word. 

So my question is, when would the left support a war?  How many terrorists have to hurt or kill United States citizens?  What will it take?  Mark my words, a showdown with Iran and/or North Korea is inevitable.  Iran has been taunting the United States since the Iran hostage crisis, when Jimmy Carter did a masterful job of getting our boys out of there when they were captured by students.  That was sarcasm.  You can also mark it down that the left will be against this war.  They'll have the same tired "Support the troops, screw the president" line that they have now.  They're great at trying to have their cake and eat it too.  If we bombed Canada right now, I'd be against that.  I will never be against taking out dictators who harbor terrorists, commit genocide, and snub UN resolutions for a decade. 

I'm kind of new here, so allow me to introduce myself.  My name is Josh Lamb.  I'm a junior at the University of Alabama.  I recently joined the Marine Corps and will be leaving for Parris Island on May 14.  There's a few reasons I decided to join the Corps.  First of all, I like their motto:  Honor, Courage, Commitment.  I wanted all three of these to be attributes of my life.  Second of all, and this is the selfish part...Marines are the best of the best.  There is no greater warrior in the entire world, and I wanted to be a part of that.  Perhaps the most important reason, however, is my love of country.  I used to be in awe as I read stories of the men that came before me.  I read of the capture of Iwo Jima, which is arguably the single most incredible feat of any group of soldiers in the history of warfare.  I listened to World War II veterans replay the storming of Normandy.  More recently, I've spoken with friends and family share their experiences of Iraq.  Through all of this, I always thought, "I want to be one of these men.  I want to be one of the few and the proud that can claim to have fought for their liberty and for the liberty of their countrymen". 

Here's another reason I wanted to join, which will also be the topic of my discussion.  I see the Marines as one of the last places in this country where I can be the patriot I want to be.  Everywhere I look, liberalism has clouded the judgment and spirit of everyone.  They've told us it's not OK to be patriotic anymore.  They've told us it's not OK to be religious anymore.  Well, it's not OK to be Christian...Muslims and scientologists and all those other whackos are in the clear.  They've told us it's not OK to pray in school anymore.  Apparently, it's not even OK to support the President or the military anymore.  So what is OK?  What is acceptable to these self-proclaimed "kings of tolerance"?  Open borders, unfettered abortions, blaming America first, tax increases, etc...  I hear loving France and other countries that hate us is also a prerequisite.  Sounds like psycho-babble, right?  Here's the horrifying part:  politicians, judges, and legislators are listening.  Every day it seems, the ACLU, with the help of America's courts, invents some new right that they apparently found buried in the Constitution.  Yeah, I'm sure that's what the forefathers had in mind...a 250-year game of Constitutional hide-and-seek. 

Also, as a conservative, you have no 1st Amendment rights.  You must be a liberal to qualify for this right.  If you enjoy flag burning, ultra-tolerant speech, America bashing, and political correctness, then the 1st Amendment just might apply to you.  Don't dare preach your conservatism though, lest you be called a bigot and a racist...or even worse, intolerant of other different than yourself.  Call me old fashioned, but I refuse to be tolerant of an entire people that spend their every waking minute thinking of how to destroy me.  Every minute, except when they're praying to Allah.  But they're probably asking their almighty Allah to guide their sword as they gut me. 

While we're on the subject of free speech, let's talk about the ACLU for a moment.  Having already sold their souls to the devil for one reason or another, it's no wonder the lawyers for this ultra-left organization go after Christianity with fire and zeal.  The Bible is unconstitutional, the words "Merry Christmas" are unconstitutional, prayer in school is unconstitutional, putting murderers, rapists, and child molesters behind bars is unconstitutional, the death penalty is unconstitutional...I could go on for a while.  I'd pay all I have to take one of these idiots back in time with me and throw them into the ring with Washington or Jefferson.  The sad thing is, I will one day have to defend with my life the right of these idiots to do the things they do.  I believe most of what they do is against the law, but until legislators and administrations figure that out, it will continue.  And I will fight for it while they curse me from their ivory towers.

Thanks for reading this short rant, there will be more to come.

Semper Fi and God Bless.

Last Thursday, a report came out about Alfredo Ramos, an illegal alien with a criminal record.  What did Mr Ramos do?  He was driving drunk and killed 2 girls in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Here's the kicker:  Ramos already had 3 previous alcohol-related convictions and an identity theft conviction, according to WAVY TV 10 out of Virginia.  Pardon me for being rational, but the first thing that popped in my head was, "Why was he even here?".  But wait, it gets better.  According to the same Virginia news station, Ramos didn't receive ANY jail time for any of his four convictions.  After reading this, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.  I'll tell you who is definitely not laughing: the families of the two girls killed by Ramos.

Later that day, I saw the  mayor of Virginia Beach on the news, one Meyera E. Oberndorf.  Mayor Oberndorf was responding to accusations of Virginia Beach being a "sanctuary city" for illegals.  What was the mayor's response?  Something along the lines of being unaware that local legislators had passed any laws making Virginia Beach a sanctuary city.  Did I hear that right?  Are there actually cities in this country that pass legislation to give safe harbor to illegals?  Let's break this down.  First off, illegal immigration is...you guessed it: illegal.  Therefore, passing laws to give safe harbor to illegals would seem to me to also be illegal.  Is Mayor Oberndorf that stupid, or is there some kind of legal loophole I don't know about?     

Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly had a very heated debate about the subject.  O'Reilly claimed that it was an illegal immigration matter, while Rivera believed it was a drunk driving matter.  I take the side of O'Reilly on this one.  Sure, drunk driving is a terrible thing that has cost many lives.  And if the girls had been killed by an American drunk driver, it would be only fitting that the drunk driver be tried for murder.  But the point is, this would not have happened if Ramos had been deported the first time he committed a crime, which was when authorities figured out he was an illegal.  Any day now, I expect the ACLU to slither into Virginia Beach to offer Ramos legal help.  They will somehow claim his rights have been violated, even though illegals have no rights.  If there's one thing the ACLU is good at, it's inventing rights.  But that's another story for another day.  I'm also sure the liberals will give me some kind of sob story about an oppressed minority alien that was just trying to make ends meet for his family.  I won't buy it.  Because of a soft stance on illegal immigration, two people are now dead.  And it should make you furious to know that it would have been prevented had the illegal been deported when the authorities found out he was an illegal. 

I will conclude this column by giving out two messages: one to Americans, and one to illegals.  First, to the Americans.  We must stand up and push for stronger immigration reform.  It is ridiculous that things like this are happening because liberals don't understand the meaning of the word "illegal".  Second, to the illegal immigrants.  Pack up whatever you have and hitch a ride to Virginia Beach.  You can get away with murder up there...literally.