Once again, the “greater good” has been served inside the Beltway, “bipartisanship” has broken a stalemate, the rancor over energy policy has ended and, as is always the case when such milestones are achieved, conservative America has been sold out. Somehow, Republicans never seem to figure out that when right and wrong attempt to find common ground with eachother, “right,” by design, will inevitably be the first casualty.

This latest effort involves a “Gang of Ten” U.S. Senators, five Republicans and five Democrats, who are promoting their “New Energy Reform Act of 2008.” In truth it is anything but new, and instead represents the worst manifestation of D.C. “business as usual.” Even in the midst of his noble attempt to justify the deception to an understandably skeptical Rush Limbaugh, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia inadvertently tipped his hand by mentioning that the intrepid Senators felt compelled by their constituents to “quit their partisan bickering and come together.”

In actuality, his statement revealed the real motivation behind such charades in Washington. His ultimate desire was neither to see the energy problems properly addressed, nor to place his Democrat colleagues on the “hot seat” where they so richly deserve to be as a result of their callous indifference to the plight of Americans suffering from rising energy costs. Rather, Chambliss and the other nine were merely attempting to make pretense of caring and acting, all for the purpose of advancing their own political fortunes.

Chambliss went on to justify his duplicity by pointing out that unless Republicans capitulate and waffle, Democrats will prevent any measure from going forward, and thus nothing significant will be accomplished.

So, in the minds of Chambliss, Lindsay Graham (R.-SC) and the other three Republican members of the “Gang of Ten,” a Democrat defined agenda, rife with its typical glut of pork and irrelevant federal meddling, is preferable to any conservative fight to offer real solutions. The latter would most certainly entail open political combat, winners, and losers. And that clearly would not bolster the all-important harmony of the United States Senate. Is it any wonder that the voters eventually conceded to such thinking back in 2006 when they put the Democrats in control of the Congress?

Sadly, the Senate Republicans stood to gain a great deal politically from the energy argument, and in particular, the Democrats’ unwillingness to accept any action on the situation other than their standard “tax and regulate” approach which created the mess in the first place. Moreover, this would have been true eve if, for the moment, all they might be able to show for their efforts was a list of those Democrats who stand in the way of a real solution. Now, in the aftermath of the stunning cave by these Republican opportunists, pro-energy Republicans who will not support such non-solutions are in danger of being marginalized and labeled as the real source of the problem.

Even a cursory examination of the “New Energy Reform Act” proves it to be the classic hodgepodge of Democrat objectives. Interwoven throughout it are all the boilerplate liberal Democrat trademarks such as taxes on the producers, subsidies for non-viable energy “alternatives,” and above all, regulations sufficient to completely stifle any real exploration and production of new oil and gas resources.

Yet we should apparently be comforted that it contains just enough lip service, ostensibly promoting some highly restricted offshore drilling, to give its conspirators their much desired cover when facing probing questions from critics.

Ultimately, this sorry episode may yield an unintended but beneficial consequence. It shows, in glaring terms, just what is wrong inside Washington, and in particular, within the “bipartisan” circles of the Republican Party. Thus, it points to how to remedy the situation. “Republicans” who view their Democrat counterparts not as an opposition, but instead accept them and their ideology on an equal basis, will only ever be able to promote a political agenda that is some version of that which the Democrats originally fabricated.

In other words, liberalism in one form or another will always be the governing standard, with Republican influence only amounting to a minor “fine tuning” of the latest abysmal scheme offered and advanced by the left. The five Republican Senators, who collaborated in this travesty (and despite the former characterizations of some as ardent “conservatives”), are revealing to traditional America that even in their minds, the divide in Washington is not between right and left, but between the governing elites and the “peasantry,” which is how they obviously regard the rest of us.

Meanwhile, in the opposite wing of the U.S. Capitol, Republicans in the House of Representatives are showing how the current political battle needs to be fought. Upon the Congressional recess, when the ruling Democrat members departed the premises while having made no real attempts to solve the energy crisis, a dedicated contingent of Republicans remained on the House floor to daily demand that Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi call the Congress back into session to deal with the issue.

Of course Pelosi has no intention of doing so, since any truly effective measure would spotlight the ability of Republicans to lead on this issue while painting Democrat stonewalling and environmental hysteria in a very bad light. Thus, Pelosi hoped to get out of town before the issue could be brought to the forefront. And had the House Republicans merely sought “common ground” and collegiality as did some of their Senate counterparts, the Democrat House Speaker might well have succeeded in her ruse.

Now however, she is daily being forced to contend with the non-compliant Republicans who are engaged in a “tag team” vigil, publicly proclaiming that she and her party are unwilling to put the interests of the people above the political power struggles of the day. As Democrat partisans, Pelosi and her minions know they cannot win such an engagement. So the excuses and obfuscations will continue, though they ring increasingly hollow and intellectually vacant.

It is regrettable that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is once again getting a pass. But it is an outrage that he does so with the collaboration of five “Republicans,” and their collective D.C. insider mindset.

During every election cycle, voters use many different criteria to choose a candidate to support or reject. For some, it’s as simple as what party affiliation the candidate has. For others, it’s where the candidates stand on important issues, like fighting terrorism, the economy, and making sure Rosie O’Donnell never gets another TV show.

One criterion that doesn’t get evaluated nearly enough in my opinion is leadership. When we elect someone to represent us at any level, voters are saying, “This is the man/woman/transgendered yak we are entrusting to make decisions as we would want them made.” And if you’ve seen some of the knuckleheads in Congress lately, you’ve seen we haven’t always made good choices. Seriously, how does John Kerry keep getting elected? I wouldn’t trust him to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, let alone be one half of my state’s Senate representation. Then again, when you consider it’s the same state that keeps electing Ted Kennedy…

However, leadership evaluation is no more important than it is when deciding on a Presidential candidate to support. In John McCain’s case, we can see where he’s taken the lead on different issues, often angering his own party in the process. A part of leadership requires the leader to ignore criticism and do what he or she believes is right. You may disagree with his evaluations of situations, but you can’t disagree with the fact that McCain has stood up time and time again for his principles. (And occasionally for that sweet lobbyist money, but that’s another column for another time.)

That brings us to Barack Obama. Millions of people from across the political spectrum are looking at the man dubbed “the Obamessiah” to lead the country with promises of change and hope. Having read his economic and tax proposals, I can tell he’s really an advocate for both. After he’s done with you, the best you can hope for in your pockets will be change.

Yet, do millions of followers make you a leader? If so, we should toss aside McCain and Obama and just have David Cook and David Archelletta battle it out over the White House. Fortunately for us, the number of people who follow you doesn’t make you a leader by default. Yes, at least for now, we will never have to utter the words “President Archelletta.”

Watching Obama’s campaign for the past two months, one thing has struck me. Well, two, if you count the brick that was just thrown through my window by the tolerant Obama followers…I mean supporters. The main thing that struck me, though, was how much Obama follows what others do and then tries to pass it off as though it were his idea all along.

Take his trip overseas, for example. The only reason he went was because John McCain goaded him into going. So, to avoid looking like a fool, he went overseas and was treated like a rock star. Although some would say this backfired on McCain, the fact is it worked in his favor because it proved conclusively that Obama wasn’t really the one calling the shots. If McCain hadn’t pushed him, Obama wouldn’t have gone. (Of course, while he was gone, McCain started landing serious haymakers on him by talking about domestic policy while the Obamessiah cavorted with people who aren’t even legally capable of voting for him. And Obama’s supposed to be smart?)

Another way you can determine whether someone is a leader is by watching what they do during times of controversy. To say Obama has run a controversial campaign is an understatement of Al Gore’s waistline proportions. Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, even his wife Michelle have all made statements that would make most people wince in embarrassment for the guy. And being the true leader of tomorrow he is, Obama threw all but Michelle under the bus to try to get a little distance between him and the controversy. Yet, wouldn’t a real leader have recognized the potential controversies surrounding these folks and taken steps to address them before those controversies became public knowledge?

When you boil it right down, Barack Obama isn’t fit to be President because he’s not a real leader. He lacks the fundamental skills and attitude to be one, and when you’re President, you really can’t learn leadership on the fly. You have to be ready from Election Day to take the big chair in the Oval Office, and being a first-term Senator with only 143 days in office before deciding to run for the White House just doesn’t cut it.

Then again, if the Left in this country knew anything about what makes a good leader, we wouldn’t have had Bill Clinton as President for 8 years.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.

Fifty-seven illegal aliens working at Mills Manufacturing Corporation (MMC) in Ashville, North Carolina were arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents.

The arrests were based on an ICE critical infrastructure investigation that revealed that the illegal aliens had used fraudulent social security numbers to obtain employment. The company, located at 22 Mills Place, has been fully cooperative and is not a target of the ICE investigation.

MMC is a Department of Defense contractor responsible for the manufacturing of parachutes for the U.S. military. Illegal aliens employed at sensitive facilities — such as military bases, nuclear plants, chemical plants, airports and Department of Defense contractors — pose a homeland security threat.

ICE doesn’t believe that those arrested today at MMC had any ill intent against the United States; however, their illegal status could have made them susceptible to blackmail by those with ill intent, and so ICE has neutralized a potential vulnerability.

“Protecting the integrity of our nation’s critical infrastructure is among ICE’s highest priorities,” said Delburt Richburg, assistant special agent-in-charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Charlotte. “When individuals use fraudulent social security numbers to get jobs, they hide their true identity and history. We need to know who is working on our critical infrastructure sites.”

All of those arrested were transferred to the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office for immigration processing. All have been placed into removal proceedings for being in violation of US immigration law.

At this point, no criminal charges have been presented against the illegal aliens; however, the investigation continues.

Those arrested  were interviewed by ICE agents to determine if they had medical, caregiver, or other humanitarian issues. ICE identified approximately 29 individuals who qualified for a humanitarian release. These individuals are still required to appear before a federal immigration judge who will ultimately determine whether or not they will be deported.

Among those arrested, were nationals of Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador and Honduras. ICE contacted local Consular officials, community groups and other to provide accurate information regarding today’s operation.

ICE’s worksite enforcement investigations are aimed at promoting national security and public safety, protecting critical infrastructure, and ensuring fair labor standards. As of July 2008, ICE has made more than 3,800 administrative arrests for immigration violations during worksite enforcement operations.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

Jill Stanek has done yeoman’s work on uncovering the fact that Barack Obama and his surrogates have been outright lying about Obama’s constant votes against the Live-Birth abortion bills when he was in office in the State legislature. His claims have been a staple of Old Media reports from the beginning, but now that Stanek has revealed the truth we will have to see if the Old Media corrects the record or if they suddenly just go mum on the subject like they have so far.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a “person” that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a “neutrality clause” that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal “neutrality clause” was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very “neutrality clause” to the very bill he voted against in 2003.

As Stanek found, Obama not only was part of that committee adding the Federal “neutrality clause” to the Illinois bill, he was the chairman of that committee.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

It strains credulity to believe that Obama was unaware that the “neutrality clause” was added to the bill if he was the chairman of the committee that put it in there, doesn’t it? So we are forced to realize that Obama knows the truth but is trying to rewrite history and with the willing accomplices in the Old Media he has succeeded in doing so thus far.

Stanek points out that only two years after his “no” vote, Obama had developed his “change” version of history.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the “neutrality” clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the “neutrality” clause.

Stanek has the whole sordid history on this affair, with links to the actual bills and umpteen news stories and legislative resources to prove her case. Go on over and take a look at her extensive research.

Now, this story is no matter of mere opinion. There is no possibility that Obama just has a different opinion on a controversial national issue than we do. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, one is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. What we have here is Obama simply telling a lie and knowingly doing so. Will the Old Media continue to cover up for him like they have done for the last four years?