In what is a sign of the campaign's strength and the vibrancy of Mr. Cox's message, John Cox will participate in tomorrow night's "Values Voters Debate" sponsored by 30 major conservative organizations.

This is a critical moment for us and In encourage everyone to listen or watch tomorrow night's debate.

The debate will begin at 7 PM ET.

The debate may be watched on Angel One on the Sky Angel Sattelite network. It may also be listened to Live on the VCY Network and Webcast by the American Family Association (pre-registration required.)

I encourage everyone to watch this debate for an honest discussion of the issues facing this country as well as to see Mr. Cox in action.

After the destruction wrought by World War II, the Allies decided that the best course of action was to rebuild the defeated nations of Germany and Japan. Gen. George Marshall was given the charge of pulling together the money and manpower to provide a basis for the defeated powers of the Axis to join the peaceful nations of the world.

A great deal of the impetus for this effort was the experience of the world following World War I. That war left Germany in a horrendous condition but in that circumstance, the Allies chose to drive it deeper into despair, imposing substantial reparations requirements as well as isolating it from the rest of the world. The result was Adolf Hitler's rise to power and we all know how that ended.

This should be a lesson to us in regard to our effort in Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq in March, 2003 was masterful, accomplished in almost summary fashion. Unfortunately, while we were welcomed at first by the beleaguered population, we quickly made enough mistakes to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, we disbanded a military that had been well fed and happy under Saddam. We basically dismissed 400,000 men trained in military operations and sent them packing, without a source of income, turning them into bitter foes. Next, we purged from the government those who knew the government and would be essential to a reasonably functional economy, particularly given the fact that the government was in charge of the prime driver of the economy, the oil fields.

It is those oil fields that hold the key to victory in Iraq and a way home for American soldiers. Prosperity is a pretty good antidote to political unrest. If we look at human history, most wars have been precipitated by political leadership that takes advantage of desperate economic conditions. Look at Europe after WW I - hyperinflation and the destruction of the German economy led directly to the rise of Hitler and his demonization of the Jews.

After WW II, the allies learned their lesson. They focused like a laser beam on rebuilding Germany and Japan, getting their people working and replacing demagoguery with prosperity. It was expensive initially but paid great dividends long term as both of those nations recovered from their almost total annihilation in the war to become prosperous, free, peaceful and democratic members of the world. This has been much to our benefit and the benefit of all peaceful nations.

Now is the time for the President to announce his new Marshall Plan for Iraq. It is one thing to have a military surge and try to secure the peace in the face of fierce resistance from those who want to control Iraq's sizable oil reserves. It is quite another, absolutely necessary, component of a winning strategy to replace a destructive ideology with prosperity.

This should be readily achievable in Iraq, with a relatively short timetable given those vast oil resources and today's oil thirsty world. Germany and Japan had no such built in wealth and it took them much longer to build the stable economy necessary for a stable and secure political situation. If we put together a 'surge' of oil production, we can literally change Iraq overnight, from economic desolation to abundancy.

Oil is a fungible commodity and doesn't require much effort to turn it into cash and other resources. Of course, this requires political agreement and enough security to allow uninterrupted production. We have the troops there now but we may need to redirect them to the pipelines and pumping stations. The good news is that the added oil revenue could furnish the resources to afford additional security forces as well as give the populace a bigger stake in joining their own military and police as well as to turn in the insurgencies who would wreak havoc on their revenue source.

This isn't just about making Iraqis rich; it is very important to our security. Iraq is sitting on reserves north of 200 billion barrels - anyone who gets control of that treasure trove is a world power overnight. Our being driven out would also not give the world much confidence. If the world's most powerful military - by far - can be brought low by an insurgency, what does that say for opposing a new power with all that oil?

Let's look at the positive side of making Iraq wealthy and free and democratic and prosperous. Iran, its historical rival next door, is ruled by a threatening theocratic regime which is isolating its people from the world economy with its atomic weapons pursuit. They rioted a few weeks ago in response to gasoline rationing imposed by the government in a clumsy fashion. Given those facts, and a look westward at a free, prosperous Iraq, how long will it be before the Iranians overthrow the mullahs and join the world economy?

There is historical precedent to this strategy. The Poles and other Eastern Europeans got tired of literally looking west and seeing prosperity while their Russian masters were making their subjects stand in line for toilet paper and drive cars that were decades behind the West. We won the Cold War without firing a shot; it was monetarily expensive in the short term but in the long term, the world is far better off with a free Eastern Europe. They are even giving us lessons in supply side economics with low flat tax rates and booming economies.

We should take Democrats at their word that they want peace and security for America and the rest of the world. Short term we are suffering with daily casualties and billions diverted from our taxpayers. What we need now is a new long term vision, much as President Truman and General George Marshall had in the desolation after WW II. Let's give prosperity a chance - it worked before, it will work again.

(CEDAR RAPIDS) - GOP Presidential candidate John Cox placed 5th - just behind former Governor Mitt Romney - in this week's Republican straw poll in Linn County, Iowa. Political eyes are trained on Iowa with the statewide straw poll in August and the influential Iowa Caucuses less than a year away. The results may surprise some political insiders - which are seeing well-known national GOP candidates in a dead heat with lesser known or unknown political candidates.

"The people of Linn County have spoken," said GOP Candidate John Cox. "They are unsatisfied with the Republican front runners - McCain, Giuliani, and Mitt Romney - and are turning to lesser-known candidates who actually share their beliefs, opinions, and ideals. It is a pattern that we are seeing more and more as the level of voter dissatisfaction mounts with media-favored candidates."

In the Linn County Poll, front runners Giuliani and McCain came in 11th place with 2% and last place with 0%, respectively. The real mystery, given these results, is why the national media focuses on these candidates to the exclusion of others more in line with the Republican base. John Cox has barely been recognized by the national media as a candidate, yet he continues to score better than some of the 'frontrunners' among the Republican activists who will make the decision on who the nominee for 2008 will be.

LINN COUNTY STRAW POLL RESULTS:

33% Tommy Thompson
30% Sam Brownback
15% Tom Tancredo
5% Mitt Romney
4% John Cox
3% Ron Paul
3% Fred Thompson
2% Dan Gilbert
2% Rudy Giuliani
1% Duncan Hunter
1% Mike Huckabee
0% Hugh Cort
0% John McCain

Linn County, which includes Cedar Rapids, is one of the largest counties in Iowa.

John Cox, Republican Candidate for President

When in the course of political events, it becomes necessary for responsible Republicans to reassert the conservative values which brought them to join the party to begin with, and to produce the political victories that will allow us to execute the conservative solutions that will effectively address our nation's challenges, a decent respect to the opinions of the party faithful requires that we should declare the causes and ideals which impel them to this Declaration.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any political party or party leadership becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the party members to challenge its leadership and, if necessary, to change such leadership; much as Ronald Wilson Reagan did, first in his challenge of a sitting president in 1976 and then in his victory in 1980, resting the foundation of his victory on such principles.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that established leadership should not be changed for light and transient causes; but when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to abandon our conservative principles and values time and again, it is our right and it is our duty, to throw off such leadership, and to provide new leadership for our future victories and policymaking. .

Such has been the patient sufferance of the party faithful; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to work to rescue their party, much as President Reagan did thirty years ago. The history of the President and Congress is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object pleasing the liberal media while abandoning our conservative ideals. To prove this, let the following facts be submitted to a candid party.

Instead of generating economic prosperity for the Iraqis after a successful invasion, the President turned over the economy to Iraqi politicians, who have squandered the goodwill of the people, failed to develop their oil resources appropriately, and failed to provide an economy worth the support and protection of their citizens, resulting in unacceptably high costs to Americans in terms of lives and treasure as well as standing in the world;

Instead of reducing government spending and our national debt, the President and Congress have spent with reckless abandon, including massive increases in discretionary and earmark spending;

Instead of enforcing the law and securing the borders from illegal entry and instead of reforming an immigration bureaucracy unable to meet the needs of US employers, the President and Congress have proposed amnesty and half measures that will not solve the problem;

Instead of making government smaller and more efficient, the President and Congress have made government bigger and more all encompassing, with such measures as No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes/Oxley and Medicare Part D;

Instead of enhancing our First Amendment rights, the President and Congress have limited them with McCain/Feingold;

Instead of using free market ideals to address the high cost of prescription drugs, such as ending international price controls, real tort reform and greater competition, the President and Congress enacted the largest entitlement expansion in 40 years, Medicare Part D, which doesn't solve the problem of high costs but instead shifts it to the government;

Instead of improving education by injecting competition and parental choice and reducing the federal role, the President and Congress vastly expanded federal funding and bureaucratic influence in education without providing meaningful parental choice to leave a failing school;

Instead of addressing the urgent need for social security reform with private investment accounts, the President and Congress allowed the problem to get worse by failing to pass this urgently needed reform;

We, the undersigned, understand that our President needs support in a time of war; however, his continued actions in variance with our principles requires us to speak up now for the future success of our party and our principles; the last thing we want is a Democrat victory in 2008, but like Reagan in 1976, we believe it is best for the long term health of our party, nation, and world that we take this action now, before it is too late.

Click here to sign.

We all appreciate that this Memorial Day, above so many others, it is good to remind ourselves of the huge sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform, past and present. We participate in the parades, we attend the memorial services, we place flags and other symbols next to the graves of those we have lost and those we continue to think about and thank. This should not be a rote activity; it should be undertaken with the most solemn of motives n to call to mind the answer our armed forces have made to the call of duty.

What is our duty on this solemn day of remembrance? I believe it is our duty to assure that the efforts of our fallen have not been in vain. It is up to us, the living survivors, to carry on in the way that they would have wanted us to n to uphold freedom, to be compassionate, to value integrity and honor, to do our best for God and Country.

What we most need to do is to bring these high minded principles to the here and now; to real life and to the best effect on others lives. Respecting their sacrifice means doing our duty in our everyday lives. How do we accomplish this? We start by working and building a better America through our work. We help our community; we participate in our civic life. We vote, to be sure, since the right to vote is the fundamental right to have a say in our government that our soldiers died for.

We can honor the sacrifice of the fallen by building a better nation for our children. We should first be teaching our children to respect the efforts of those that came before us to preserve the cherished principles of freedom and liberty we so value. We need to participate in activities that better the lives of those around us n whether that involves bringing a meal to the homebound, volunteering in a hospital, serving on a local board or commission. Any action we undertake which betters our community or our country is the most fitting tribute to our fallen.

So, by all means attend the memorial services, place the flowers, pray for the souls of the departed. Do not forget, however, to humbly dedicate ourselves to the real way to honor our departed soldiers with the practical gifts of caring and sharing with those around us.

Purpose

To get Republican Presidential Candidate John Cox into the Republican Presidential Debate on June 5 in New Hampshire. The debate is being hosted by CNN, WMUR-TV, and the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. We need to call, e-mail and fax the sponsors of the debate and insist that they include John Cox in the debate.

Contact

New Hampshire Union Leader
E-mail: writeus@unionleader.com
Phone: 603-668-4321 or 1-800-562-8218
Fax: 603-668-0382

CNN
To e-mail go to the website: www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form.sound.off.html
Phone: 404-827-2750

WMUR-TV
To e-mail go to the website: www.wmur.com/contact/
Phone: 800-257-5151
Fax: 603-641-9005

Outline

• Tell them that you and others want John Cox included in the Debate on June 5.
• Tell them that 60 percent of Republicans are still undecided and that Republicans are still waiting for another candidate to emerge. John Cox is that candidate.
• Tell them that candidates like Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson are not gaining new supporters since they've been in the last 2 televised debates.
• The sponsors need to shake things up and add a new face to the debate. By adding John Cox to the debate, viewers will get another reason to watch the debate and they'll see John Cox criticize the other candidates, there will be fireworks thus creating news stories. The viewers will see that John Cox is the Ronald Reagan conservative that they've been looking for. In South Carolina, John Cox is already listed on the ballot for the Republican Presidential Primary. In South Carolina, John Cox beat all of the other Republican Presidential Candidates in the Aiken County Republican Party Straw Poll, and he came in 2nd place in the McCormick County Straw Poll. In all of the other straw polls in South Carolina, John Cox repeatedly received more votes than Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback.
• In Iowa, all of the Republican County Chairmen were surveyed by a website, www.IowaPolitics.com and when the county chairmen were asked which candidate they would be willing to support, John Cox came in 5th place.
• Encourage them to visit the campaign website: www.Cox2008.com
• Reiterate the importance of adding a new face to the debate to make it more interesting. They need to add John Cox.

These sobering words came from Micron CEO Steve Appleton. Micron is one of the biggest employers in Idaho, but hasn't been expanding in Idaho. Instead, Micron has been creating new jobs—in other countries.

Why? Might our tax code be part of the reason. John Cox addressed this point when he was on the Phil Hinson show recently:

One of the greatest applause lines I have is "putting the IRS" on the scrap-heap of history. People recognize that the current tax code is kept alive by career politicians who basically keep themselves in office by selling tax breaks. That's really gotten people disgusted.

We've also seen a great loss of jobs, particularly in the Midwest, but really all over the country. In South Carolina, they've lost textile mills. The answer isn't to be a protectionist and there are a couple of those in this race, Congressman Hunter is chief among them. The answer is to change the tax system to encourage people and businesses to stay in this country and not take jobs overseas.

The income tax is one of the biggest culprits in this. If you look at the income tax, domestic manufacturers pay through the nose, but foreign manufacturers pay almost nothing. The Fair Tax will get rid of that advantage for foreign manufacturers and encourage domestic manufacturers to stay in the country and keep our jobs and manufacturing base here.

You can listen to the rest of the podcast below. The cost of the income tax to American jobs and livelihood is far too high, which is part of the reason we need John Cox elected President. He's serious about the issue and as a lifetime CPA has the credentials to speak to it.

Click here to listen.

April 4, 2007 -- The announcement of the record setting campaign finance reports by the major party candidates this week brings into stark relief a fundamental question regarding this presidential cycle: is the country and the process well served by the race for the biggest bankroll?

Clearly, the media is playing up in countless news stories the relative success or lack thereof as it relates to the fundraising abilities of the presidential candidates. It is said that the ability to raise money is related to their ability to generate followers who will look to them for leadership. Given the amounts involved so early in the process, one must ask if that is really true.

What we are witnessing here is a virtuous cycle as it relates to the media. The mainstream media sources eagerly tout the most visible candidates, who then appear to the funders to be among the chosen few who have a chance. The funders open their wallets and the prodigious funds raised end up predominantly in the coffers of those same media outlets after a few crumbs are taken off the top by the usual suspects – big name political consultants, operatives and the like. It is, of course, no coincidence that the media most often takes its clue as to who are the front runners from those same big name consultants, variously dubbed the "DC gang" or the "gang of 500".

If we start with the premise that the goal of the whole process is to have an informed electorate elect a leader who will most ably reflect the needs and wishes of the public, the essential question to ask is whether this system is really achieving its goal. To this observer, it is plainly not.

What we see first of all is the work of the media to overtly influence the selection process. A candidate has no chance of getting their message out without money and candidates cannot raise serious money without name recognition accorded by the media. Is it any wonder that the current list of serious fundraisers includes career politicians who have populated the talk shows for years or celebrities who have achieved notoriety partly as a result of being tied to major events? Of course, we also have the success of Barack Obama, who has parlayed a novel candidacy (as the so-called first serious African American presidential contender) with substantial media frenzy into a sizable bankroll.

Given the dearth of acceptable candidates to the conservative base of the Republican Party, there is even talk of recruiting (what else?) a movie and television actor, Fred Thompson, to play a real life role as President.

What is the answer? I believe the answer lies in a truly free market election. Clearly, government limits on political contributions haven't worked. Candidates do not appear to have much of a problem, with the help of the media, in raising even hundreds of millions of dollars. I also don't believe in requiring media companies to 'donate' time to candidates – they are private businesses and ought to remain so – no government should be allowed to 'take' their inventory of time away from them.

What should happen is that the American public ought to demand a better result. We ought to have our major voices decry this money chase and not revel in it. The media pundits who love to report the fundraising totals ought to start reporting the candidates' substance and plans – not because they are forced to by government but because their viewership or readership demands it.

I built a team of committed professionals in each area - finance, marketing, production, purchasing, human resources, and put them to work laying out the very specific changes that would bring the company from a $17 million loss to a $3 million profit in one year.

So, it is up to us. We can go on with this system and elect the candidate who has the biggest smile or the best 30 second ad that does little more than gloss over their ideas or more likely beats up their opponent. Or, as the times require, we can demand that the media that we pay for do what is best for us and the country – start reporting on all legitimate candidates with relatively equal time and focus on ideas and substance – issues, not sound bites or the size of bankrolls.

The new John Cox ads can be viewed here:

http://www.cox2008.com/video/