Friday, July 31, 2009

Criminal charges against WHO,UN & big Pharma for Bioterrorism & Intent to Commit Mass Murder.

Criminal charges against WHO,UN & big Pharma for Bioterrorism & Intent to Commit Mass Murder.

As the anticipated July release date for Baxter's A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway.

Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic.

Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009

In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.

Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.

The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bioweapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the "bird flu" virus and the "swine flu virus" in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.

Burgermeister's charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

What True Conservatism Really Is

Conservatism had been hijacked by big government, and uber religious Republicans. True conservatism rests in the principles of Classical Liberalism, and the only reason we don't call ourselves Liberals today, is the term was hijacked by FDR in the 1930's to promote his New Deal.

Here are the tenets of true Conservatism, or Classical Liberalism:

1. Individual autonomy

The basis of society is the individual. Humans are primarily motivated by self-interest.

2. Individual rights

If the individual is autonomous, then all individuals must be free and equal. This implies political equality, the protection of individual rights, respect for individual choices, and the use of reason in making decisions. "I am free and thus I rule myself." The key individual rights are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the right to property.

3. Religious toleration

Individuals and the state must respect one's right to worship as one pleases. Implies a separation of church and state.

4. Popular sovereignty and consent

Government should be ruled by the people rather than by a monarch, a religious figure, or some other elite. Government's legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed..

5. Limited and representative government

The government's role in society and the scope of its power should be clearly defined. The purpose of government is to protect individual's life, liberty, and property. Further, in a society of autonomous individuals pursuing their own self-interests, government must represent the various interests of that society. This implies representative government, majority rule, constitutional government, and the rule of law.

6. Private property

Society should generally encourage the private accumulation of property rather than place restrictions on it. This implies an economy of free markets, equality of opportunity in the market, and competition. In sum, liberalism defends capitalism.

7. Universalism and progress

All people are fundamentally the same. Differences of culture, religion, race, gender, nationality, etc. are ultimately superficial. Overall, liberalism tends to interpret historically progressively: society, economy, technology are all advancing and elevating the human condition in the process.

These tenets are also the basics of Libertarianism. This is why we have the quote by Ronald Reagan "The Very Heart and Soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism." He said this because he understood that these beliefs, that were just stated, are Libertarian ideas, and true Conservatism rests on these principles.

Conservative for Change is about promoting these ideas as true Conservatism, and getting away from the hijacked meaning that the Republican Party has promoted the last 8 years.

Liberty for all, and Freedom for all.

Monday, May 18, 2009

An RNC Renaissance In The Making


The national Republican counterattack will not begin in Washington. Like most successful movements in American politics, this one will begin in the states.
When the Republican National Committee meets outside Washington later this month, it will do so as an organization that has been retooled and reformed to aid and support this national counterattack, not hinder it.

In a few short weeks, Chairman Michael Steele has transformed the RNC and its staff from a group that had been trained to serve as an extension of a Republican White House to one that can serve as a partner to candidates, state party organizations and the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional committees.

This kind of transformation is rarely easy. People get accustomed to a particular way of operating, but clearly change was necessary for the party to adopt the right posture for an organization now seeking to regain, rather than merely preserve, power.

The most obvious contrast between old and new comes in how the RNC is working with state parties. A few weeks ago, I sat down with Chairman Steele and my colleagues from a dozen states for a roundtable meeting in which each state party showcased its progress, programs and challenges. It was an extraordinary session that differed sharply from past RNC events, which were, without exception, top-down affairs. Instead of merely relaying orders, this session, like others Steele has held in recent weeks, was intended to draw out new ideas and innovations and give states an opportunity to share best practices.

This is a major shift in the RNC’s orientation and culture. Past attempts to organize state party chairmen to exchange ideas and best practices were opposed by the “experts” in Washington. Now, such efforts are not merely tolerated but promoted as a necessary part of building a party that can successfully combat — and defeat — Barack Obama’s Democratic Party.

And it’s working.

The amount of communication taking place among America’s state Republican chairmen has exploded in recent weeks, producing tangible results. New approaches to coalition building in Florida and Ohio are being replicated and expanded in California. Meanwhile, California’s new technology initiative is being replicated in other states.

It’s been said that the Republicans’ style of running political parties is the same as the Democrats’ style of running government: top-down, centralized, bureaucratic and resistant to change. No longer. The RNC is moving ahead by promoting innovation in the states, sharing those ideas and developments, and utilizing the political equivalent of market forces to bring new ideas to Washington.

The latest national polling shows Republicans have been given an opportunity to advance. Americans who support Obama are doing so not because of any agreement over his left-leaning policies but, rather, because of his personality and style. Meanwhile, twice as many Americans are now concerned the government will do too much, rather than too little, in response to the current economic crisis.

To take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Democrats’ disconnect with Americans over policy, Republicans must concurrently deliver a credible alternative economic vision while building the campaign organization necessary to mobilize and persuade large numbers of voters. Some of the best ways to accomplish that are being developed right now, in the states. And this RNC will be an ally, not an adversary, in sharing those ideas as a new blueprint for national victory in 2010 is developed.
Read more:

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Why have blacks left the party of Martin Luther King Jr?

It was no freak chance that President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and also happened to be the first Republican president. The Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist movement. It’s purpose from conception to present day was freedom and equality.

Notable black Republicans of the abolitionist movement (defined as the period of slavery through to the end of segregation) include Booker T. Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Sojourner Truth to name only a few.

History seems to have been forgotten by those who accuse the Republican Party of being racist, or not representing black America. In fact, the Republican Party was the party of black Americans until at least the late 1960’s.

Let’s look at civil rights milestones:

Emancipation Proclamation, 1865: Signed into law by Republican President Lincoln.

Foundation of Ku Klux Klan, 1865: Militant organization designed to protect the interests of white Americans by violence and intimidation of blacks, Republicans, and equal rights supporters. The KKK suppressed the black vote and Republican support through terrorist activities, helping to elect southern Democrats after the Civil War.

Civil Rights Act of 1866: Passed by Republican dominated Congress, but vetoed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson. The Congress overrode the presidential veto and it was signed into law.

Election of first black US Senator, 1870: Republican Senator Hiram Revels of Mississippi.

Election of first black US Congressman, 1870: Republican Congressman Joseph Rainey of South Carolina.

Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Ku Klux Klan Act): Signed into law by Republican President Grant to protect blacks from the KKK.

The nation’s first black governor, 1872: Republican Governor Pinckney Pinchback of Louisiana.

Mississippi Plan, 1875: Devised by the Democrat Party to control public offices held in the south through violence and intimidation.

Civil Rights Act of 1875: Proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin Butler, and passed by Republican President Grant. It was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883.

Jim Crow Laws, 1876-1965: Segregationist laws passed by Democrats on local and state levels in the southern states during Reconstruction. The last of the laws were finally overturned with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Founding of the NAACP, 1909: Most of the founders were black Republicans.

Brown vs. Board of Education, 1953: Republican President Eisenhower’s Asst. Attorney General Paul Wilson argued against segregation while former Democrat presidential nominee John Davis argued in favor of segregation.

We finally get to something one Democrat did for blacks while the rest of the party opposed them:

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Signed into law under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson after attempts by Democrat Senators and Democrat Representatives to block its passage failed.

Voting Rights Act of 1965: Signed into law under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson.

Why do black Americans prefer the empty promises of the Democrat Party, when they actually believe all the principles of the Republican Party, like individual liberty, lower taxes, smaller government, and civil rights? The GOP does not divide and classify, making promises in exchange for votes to each demographic group. We offer equality across the board, policies that positively benefit all. The greatest Republican of the last century, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., did not support this type of segregation, but sought color-blind equality. The GOP never abandoned black America; liberal America abandoned the principles of MLK.

Author: Ann Miller

Ten Reasons for Rejecting Dangerous ID

by Donna Holt

10. It will cost the states (i.e. the taxpayers) too much money!
The “controlled debate” of Dangerous ID has largely been the cost of implementation. The National Governor’s Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the National Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have all pitched into the public debate about how expensive it will be to comply with this “unfunded federal mandate.” Most such groups are demanding that the federal government provide the funding. Of course, this approach ignores all the OTHER critical rationale against Dangerous ID. And while this is a REAL problem at a certain level, the VA Liberty Defense thinks this reason ranks as only #10 – the worst real reason to reject Dangerous ID.

9. Technology profiteering by elite foreign corporations!
As discussed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups concerned with the technology aspects of implementing Dangerous ID, the creation of a massive public sector data base, the use of a machine-readable RFID chip for implanting tomes of information onto id cards, and numerous other aspects of the practical implementation of Dangerous ID, will only be possible by a select few technology firms abroad. This guarantees enormous profits to those principal foreign corporations, at the expense of the taxpayers and citizens of this nation. And while this is also a huge concern to those who ultimately must bear the cost of implementing Dangerous ID (the general public), this is still only important enough to rank #9 on the overall list of reasons for our States to stand together in Rejecting Dangerous ID.

8. Immigration Control has other answers!
Many of the groups touting Dangerous ID as the “silver bullet” to end illegal immigration are ignoring the obvious REAL answers to that problem. The fact is that our national and international leaders are committed to conducting “wars for oil” on foreign soil – while our borders go unpatroled. Funds could be appropriated for southern border fencing. Local police, national guard units, and even constitutional state militia could be employed for border detail. Minutemen corps can be created. States can round up the illegals within their own boundaries and bus them to the local Federal Court for processing by trained prosecutors. Better yet, Congress could just do its CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION and enforce the “uniform law of naturalization” (which we already have) at the entry points to our nation. If Congress is going to ignore one of its enumerated powers, why should the states comply with an “unauthorized mandate” that will do nothing but invade the privacy of every legitimate American citizen?

7. Security is actually decreased by Dangerous ID proposal!
Proponents of Dangerous ID would have us to believe that this new form of identification would be “more secure” than those that currently exist. This is a preposterous notion, because as experts have warned, creating a single identification standard would actually increase the likelihood of identity and even asset theft. Currently, each of our 50 states has its own driver’s licenses and identification creation standards. It is MUCH more difficult to accurately duplicate such diverse forms of identification than it would be to duplicate only a single one across America. Furthermore, with the plethora of information that will be required on these new proposed identification cards, when one of those are stolen, personal financial, medical and other information will be at extreme risk. This is a major concern of women’s groups, and the public generally. Dangerous ID cannot protect against identity theft. In fact, it actually increases the amount of information at risk if stolen, or if an ID card would be lost or otherwise fell into the wrong hands. The RFID chip proposed to be used to store personal information is machine readable from as far away as 10 feet making identity theft likely. Passports using this same technology have already been cloned.

6. SSN Connection to Identification is a Violation of Federal Law!
In point of fact, the Dangerous ID act seeks to compel the connection of an individual’s Social Security Number to this identification card. According to the Social Security Administration, there is not even a federal law which requires an individual to HAVE that number! “The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one …” When it was created, the Social Security Act established a system whereby those who wanted a public “old age survivor’s insurance” could join that federal program. The purpose of the number is solely to “obtain or retain” this “federal benefit.” The public was also told, and existing federal law confirms, that it is a criminal act to use this number for identification purposes. The very card itself says on its face “ For Social Security and Tax Purposes – Not For Identification.” Therefore, the very notion of states compelling citizens to put this number onto their driver’s licenses and other documentation could subject state Motor Vehicle Administrations to lawsuits under the Privacy Act and related civil rights statutes. Social Security has always been 100% VOLUNTARY!>/p>

5. Protection from Terrorism should not penalize law-abiding Americans!
On its face, the disaster which occurred on 9-11-01 calls for Americans to be additionally protected from acts of Terror. Yet once we investigate beneath the surface of the 911 Commission’s Report, all the general public can find are more and more lies and deceptions about what really happened. A recent CNN poll indicates that an overwhelming 82% of Americans believe their own National government had a hand in the events of that fateful day, and are demanding independent investigations to ascertain what roll, if any, the government had in permitting, covering up, and/or participating in those events. While every red-blooded American believes our government should take positive steps to prevent such things from occurring in the future, Dangerous ID is NOT the answer. We want to see justice served on whomever it was (be they foreign OR DOMESTIC) that permitted, encouraged, or participated in the deaths of thousands of our brothers and sisters who were in the twin towers on that day, along with the servicemen and rescue personnel that continue suffering health consequences from being near the toxic results. To date, there has been not a single government official in the Department of Defense (who could have prevented it) or in the Federal Aviation Administration, held accountable for their failures on that morning. Criminal prosecutions, investigations of our federal leadership, and related acts are warranted. Confiscating the liberties of our own law-abiding citizens is not.

4. Congress is Exceeding Their “Mandate” Abilities with Real ID!
ONLY the Constitution for the United States of America is the source that defines and describes the powers of Congress to make mandates upon the states. When searching that document to discover if any power exists to compel the states into a “uniform” method of personal identification for its citizens, no such power can be found. In fact, there are only seven things which Congress can compel of a state – regardless of whether or not they provide the money to the states to implement the mandate. These are found at Article I § 8 (apportioned number of troops for military needs), Article I § 9 (an apportioned quota of money to balance the budget in times of deficit), Article IV (an oath of office to support the Constitution), Article IV § 1 (full faith and credit for the laws of other states), Article IV § 2 (extradition of fugitives), Article IV § 4 (republican form of government), and that all qualifying citizens have the right to vote (15th, 19th & 24th Amendments). Indeed if Congress had the power to make this “mandate” on the states, then the states would be obligated to find the money to do so – just as they provide all the funding needed independent of Congress to implement voting rights, fugitive extradition, etc.
3. Congress is exceeding its “legislative” abilities!
As with Item #4 above, Dangerous ID also exceeds the duly constitutional legislative powers of the Congress Assembled. In no uncertain terms, the States attacked Congress only 2 years after the Constitution was ratified, when they attempted to legislate on the “Alien & Sedition” subject matter. The famous “Kentucky” and “Virginia” Resolutions addressed the excess of Congress, and the state’s prevailed in clearly defining what subjects, and only those subjects, that the Constitution authorized Congress to pass laws about. The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate only in the following areas: a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. Furthermore, within the 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill of Rights) it is declared that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

2. Dangerous ID is Void on its face!
Because Congress has exceeded its lawful authority in attempting to place a mandate upon the states which it has no constitutional authority to mandate, and because it has passed a law without the constitutional power or authority to do so, the “Real ID Act”, on its very face, is entirely VOID and of no effect. The Supreme Court has ruled that: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16th American Jurisprudence 2d Session 177 late 2nd, Section 25
And the #1 Reason why the states should REJECT Dangerous (Real) ID is therefore!

1. Real ID Act makes your State Issued Driver’s License a National ID Card!
The Dangerous ID Act is a bad law passed under false pretenses. It was rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was buried in a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq. The Senate didn’t want it, and the American people don’t want it either. But the majority leadership in Congress imposed it on us, and so now we have to fight to preserve our state’s and citizens’ constitutional rights by rejecting it.

Where Is The Outrage

This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal on August 8, 2008 by Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills , CA . in response to the Wall Street Journal article titled "Where's The Outrage?" that appeared July 31,2008.

Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged, well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening for who am I?

I am not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement. I am not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to promote political candidates. I am not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to the public.

The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those who feel similarly in order to effect change. Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America , is in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just what's fair.

Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their poor judgment?

When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went with the house that we could afford, not the house that we could not afford. The notion of personal responsibility has all but died in our country.

I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.

I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally. That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such disarray that I felt it incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time I go to the ATM, I see "do you want to continue in English or Spanish?", that every time I call the bank, the phone company , or similar business, I hear "press 1 for English or press 2 for Spanish". WHY? This is America , our common language is English and attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize those who cannot communicate in English.

I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee , last I checked, is still part of the United States . If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history.

In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammed's wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built this country.

I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet appeasing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article, also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Iran 's nuclear program? Would we rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews - one which they would be unlikely to survive? When does it end?

As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so afraid of global warming that they want to put a Bag tax on grocery bags in California; to eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San Francisco. I do my share for the environment: I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed an energy efficient air conditioning unit. But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States of America no longer knows right from wrong, good from evil.. So what does California do? Tax grocery bags.

So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged, well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with me.

Alisa Wilson, Ph.D. Beverly Hills , California

There are a lot more out there who think just like Alisa Wilson, the only difference, she put her thoughts in an email that will reach thousands. Please keep this going...

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Don't Wince. Fight!

Dick Cheney, Most Valuable Republican.

by William Kristol 05/25/2009

When accused of being too aggressive on behalf of the United States at the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of repeating a French proverb: "Cet animal est fort méchant, / Quand on l'attaque il se défend." Imagine--an animal so mean that, when attacked, it defends itself!Dick Cheney is reminding Republicans that they need to defend themselves when attacked. When President Obama released the Justice Department interrogation memos a month ago, Cheney denounced him for doing so. He explained why it was inappropriate and unwise to release such documents. But he did more. He didn't just defend himself and the administration in which he served. He fought back, and encouraged others to do so.He challenged the president to release CIA memos evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques. He raised the question of whether congressional Democrats--Nancy Pelosi, for one--had known of, and at least tacitly approved of, the allegedly horrifying abuses of the allegedly lawless Bush administration.Now, a month later, Pelosi is attacking career CIA officials for lying to Congress, and other Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from her. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has pulled back on threats to prosecute Bush-era lawyers, reversed itself on releasing photos of alleged military abuse of prisoners, and embraced the use of military commissions to try captured terrorists. The administration now looks irresponsible when it lives up to candidate Obama's rhetoric, and hypocritical when it vindicates Bush policies the candidate attacked.So while some Hill Republicans were fretting about getting a positive message out and others were launching substance-free listening tours, while GOP operatives were wringing their hands about whether Republicans could recover from the Bush years, and while most senior Bush alumni were in hiding, Dick Cheney--Darth Vader himself, Mr. Unpopularity, the last guy you'd supposedly want out there making the case--stepped onto the field. He's made himself the Most Valuable Republican of the first four months of the Obama administration (ably assisted by a few bold denizens of the Hill like the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, Pete Hoekstra).

Of course, this has resulted in some Republican political operatives' doing what they do best: complaining, on background, to the media. "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince," was the front-page headline in Thursday's Washington Post. Two Republican "strategists" spoke "on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid." Profiles in courage! One of them opined that Cheney is "entirely unhelpful." The other elaborated, "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger....We want Bush to be a distant memory in the next election." To have such a juvenile understanding of political dynamics, you'd have to be a prominent "Republican strategist." You might actually have both the Dole and McCain campaigns under your belt. Or perhaps you were one of those who encouraged the Bush White House to assume a fetal position on most issues in its second term and not fight back against slanders or defend their people, because to do so would spotlight the "wrong" issues or people.But of course an intelligent and knowledgeable advocate--even if he's personally not so popular--can do a lot to get an issue front and center. And the debate of that issue can do political damage to the existing administration and its congressional allies. The real question any Republican strategist should ask himself is this: What will Republican chances be in 2012 if voters don't remember the Bush administration--however problematic in other areas--as successful in defending the country after 9/11? To give this issue away would be to accept a post-Herbert-Hoover-like-fate for today's GOP. That's why Republicans should listen carefully when Cheney gives a speech this week in which he'll lay out the case for the surveillance, detention, and interrogation policies of the Bush administration in the war against terror.Now it's of course the case that Republicans have to do more than fight back. They need a forward-looking agenda in all areas. They can't just defend themselves against slanders or point out the flaws of their opponents. But they do have to fight back first.After all, if you're behind on the scoreboard, and your defense is on the field--there's nothing better than to jam up a couple of running plays, sack the quarterback on a blitz, and force a punt from bad field position. The momentum changes as your offense takes over with a shot at putting some points on the board. Dick Cheney probably won't be the glamour quarterback of the Republican comeback. But he's proving to be a heck of a middle linebacker.