Political Mosquitoes

Is it Bush's Fault?

2012-02-17T18:34:00.000-06:00

Today I heard yet another person try to make the case that our current debt level and recession is Bush's fault, that Obama inherited a mess and it is taking a while to turn the downward spiral around. I've dealt with this before, but allow me to make the case that this simply isn't true. This isn't Bush's economy that was inherited, it is a Democratic economy. I'm dealing with this "old" issue because as we head into the general election, you know this is what they are going to say is why our economy is in the shape it is. It's Bush's fault. Yeah, right.

Here's the fact. The president has very limited input and control of what money is spent. He offers a budget which is chopped up and changed by Congress. The Congress spits out a budget bill (or they're supposed to, the Senate hasn't produced one in over three years now--we're still operating on the 2009 budget) usually chalked full of pet projects. The president gets it, and usually signs it even if he doesn't like a lot in it, because by the time Congress gets him the bill, usually it is down to the wire and not signing it means shutting down government.

The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to decide what money will be spent and to set the tax rates. The president has to abide by the budget that Congress creates. It is common perception that an economy is Bush's, Clinton's, or Obama's. But the truth is, it is the Congress's economy. The bills they vote on and become law is when money is spent and taxes are levied. The only other control the president has is in appointing the Federal Reserve chairman, which is another issue.

So the real economy Obama inherited was a Democratic economy. Let's look at the debt numbers between when the Republican's controlled Congress and when the Democrats controlled Congress, and let's see when the economy took a nose dive.

The Republicans, for the most part, held control of Congress from 1995 to 2007. Based on the numbers at Treasury Direct, the national debt in 1995 was just under $5 trillion. When Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, the national debt was just over $9 trillion. That represented a total increase in the national debt of just over $4 trillion in twelve years. That reflects and average increase in the national debt each year during the Republican control of Congress of $366 million. Hold that number.

When Obama came on board in 2008, the Democrats had been in control for a year. The national debt had grown to $24 billion over $10 trillion. A total rise in the debt of over $1 trillion for their first Democratic budget. Three times higher than the average during the Republican's control. And it is during that first year of the Democratic control that we had the housing bubble burst and our current recession started. Up until that moment, the economy had been doing very well for all of Bush's term after a shaky start due to 9/11 attacks.

So what has happened in the last four years when we not only had a Democratic controlled congress and a Democratic President? The accelerator has been pushed to the floor instead of the brake being applied. The current debt level as of today is reported as almost $15.5 trillion. In four years the debt grew to $5.4 trillion whereas during the Republican years it took 12 years to grow $4 trillion. Since the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, the debt has grown by $6.4 trillion. That's an average of $1.28 trillion average per year increase. Almost four times the rate of debt growth than during the Republican control of Congress.

Bottom line, the Republicans did grow the government and raise the debt by $4 trillion in twelve years. One of the reasons the Republicans were kicked out in 2007. But once Democrats took control, despite Obama saying the debt going up to what it was was "unpatriotic," they have raised the debt in five years at a rate of 3.8 times faster than the Republicans did in twelve years.

The fact is when Obama came into office, the economy was in Democratic control and already spiraling out of control. It was the Democrats that protected Freddie and Fanny Mae from regulation to attempt to get the mess under control before it exploded, which it eventually did. They government had been under a Democratic budget for over one year when Obama took office and in that one year added over $1 trillion to the debt, the biggest one year increase in history. The last year of the Republican Congress, the debt had grown by half a trillion.

So there is no basis to claim that the economy Obama inherited was Bush's. It was his own party's mess he is "cleaning" up. And it is the Democrats who are adding to the national debt like drunken sailors at a gambling casino. This is Obama and the Democrat's economy. Any reference to Bush is not only lame after Obama's been in control for three years, but false.

Ron Paul Deception

2012-02-17T16:13:00.000-06:00

One of the biggest issues I've had with Ron Paul and many of his supporters is their "win at all cost" methodology. They will routinely take things out of context, distort, and work to circumvent the process to at least make it look like their candidate is winning, even when he isn't.

Recently, we have another case in point by one of Ron Paul's supporters who put up a video on YouTube in an attempt to make it look like Rick Santorum was against the Tea Party movement at one time. You can see the full Ron Paul ad on YouTube. Rick's edited comments at the end make it sound like he has some big problems with the Tea Party movement. But the fact is, that is a deliberate distortion of the truth. What Rick Santorum was having a problem with wasn't the Tea Party, but the Libertarian Party. And astute listener to the ad will pick up he's not talking about the Tea Party, because he states he is talking about a movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party. In other words, a movement within those two movements, which would point to a third group he is talking about who are trying to refashion conservationism within those two movements.

Katie Baker on her "No Compromise" blog points out the deception in an article titled "Ron Paul Attacks Santorum with Copyrighted Materials Taken Out of Context." Good to check out that whole article. She obtained a copy of the video from Santorum's speech that the Ron Paul supporter(s) extracted that clip from, and here is the full context:

I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the Libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government. We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; and I’m just hopeful that is a mistake that will be corrected by Mr. Paul, but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

Is it any wonder that Ron Paul has consistently focused on Rick in the debates? He sees Rick as the enemy.

This is the kind of stuff I regularly see Ron Paul and his supporters doing. Deliberately telling falsehoods by taking information out of context, and making up positions that the candidates don't hold to attempt to fool people into thinking that Ron Paul is the true conservative. Ron Paul and his supporters apparently don't understand that:

1. Lies will come out at some point. Especially such blatant lies as the one above. They had to have seen the whole video when they extracted that segment and knew Rick wasn't saying he was against the Tea Party, but their own party. And yet they intentionally edited and ran with a clip of that to make it appear Rick was against the Tea Party. And we've seen this pattern time and time again by both Ron Paul and many of his supporters.

2. When you lie about other people and their positions, it turns people off to you as a candidate. When one sees stuff like the above, what it tells a person is this person cannot be trusted to tell the truth, to be honest with us about the situation, but will always be willing to do an Obama spin to make it appear reality is exactly opposite what it really is. Such tactics will only cause him to lose people's respect for him as a candidate and person, and cause him to lose the election.

3. It suggest that other quotes of Ron Paul may also be lies. Like telling us he had no idea what was being written in a newsletter with his name on it. If he is willing to allow lies to be shared as truth, why would I trust that he's telling the truth there or not? I've given him the benefit of a doubt, but it certainly doesn't mean he isn't guilty of it. That is a very real possibility based upon his lack of truth in other areas.

I know, I know. This person who put this out isn't Ron Paul (at least to our knowledge, I don't automatically assume anything here). But it is obviously one of his supporters. And this kind of thing goes on all the time. Mailers put out by his campaign that lie about the other candidate's records have been documented. He has yet to tell his followers, "Stop lying about the other candidates! You're not doing me any favors here." If there has been one candidate in the field with the worst record of mudslinging, it is Ron Paul. Not just mudslinging. Crap slinging. Because it is, for the most, part a bunch of crap he's throwing out there, hoping to dupe the clueless.

If he ever wants to be taken seriously, he needs to act like a respectable and honest candidate. You don't win elections through obvious deception. That only makes you small in everyone's eyes. And his supporters don't seem to realize they do more damage to Ron Paul than any of the other candidates have or will by thinking they can lie Ron Paul into the presidency.

Freedom of Religion

2012-02-17T03:55:00.000-06:00

In a previous post, I made the statement that President Obama's mandate that the Catholic Church start providing birth control, or as modified, allow their insurance plan to start providing free birth control, is a violation of the First Amendment. I thought that was fairly self-evident, but based on some statements from commentators, apparently not. So, allow me to more clearly spell it out.

The first amendment, just so we're on the same page, says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

Based on the health care bill that Congress passed and the president signed into law over a year ago, President Obama has taken as his authority to mandate that an establishment of religion, the Catholic Church, provide birth control through their insurance. Problem is, the Catholic Church, for more than a thousand years, has always been against birth control. They see it as violating their theological understanding of birth and human life and family. The practical outcome of that is the Catholic Church has always taught that people should avoid using birth control.

Now, whether one agrees with their stance isn't the issue. Whether a majority of Catholic women use birth control or not has no bearing on this. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has always believed, taught, and encouraged through its institutions, including universities and hospitals, to avoid the use of birth control. Consequently, their health plans have not provided for birth control.

President Obama does have one fact on his side. There are other things government has mandated that religious institutions do for employees. Even a church, if you have more employees than just the pastor, must take out social security and medicare taxes from their paychecks. However, these are things that up until now have not violated a church's beliefs. But with that foot in the door, there is precedent for government mandating that religious institutions do something.

But now with that foot in the door, President Obama has moved to mandate something that does go against a religion's beliefs. And there's the rub. President Obama has a belief that all women should get free birth control. The Catholic Church does not. So what you have here is the government imposing its belief upon an establishment of religion. And that is a direct violation of the first amendment. Obama is prohibited by the Constitution from doing what he is doing.

There is no compelling argument that if the Catholic Church does not provide free birth control, that women will be harmed. Birth control isn't that costly, and can get had for free from clinics like Planned Parenthood. Because the Catholic Church's insurance plan does not provide it, doesn't mean there are some women in desperate need of it and simply can't get it.

And again, where is the compelling need here? I can give some weight to the administration's argument if we were talking about a belief in human sacrifices, and the government were to step in to stop that. But what are we talking about here? In most all cases, a woman wants to have as much sex as possible without the worry of having a child, the natural potential outcome of having sex.

Family planning is being treated as some God-given right in the Declaration of Independence that our Constitution should be protecting. I guess they link it to the "pursuit of happiness" clause. In that case, I have a good list of things I would like the government to provide me in my pursuit of happiness. We'll start out with coffee. I need coffee everyday to have a good day. Wake me up in the morning so I can be productive. Without that, my happiness is hampered. Therefore, it should be my right for free coffee provided by the government. Or better yet, they can force my church to start providing it to me.

Because there rarely is a medical reason why we should be dispensing birth control. Maybe in some instances it would be dangerous for a woman to get pregnant, but then if that is the case, their tubes would be tied and they wouldn't need birth control. Getting birth control isn't a life or death issue. It isn't on the same level as a heart attack. It is purely a belief of certain members of society that such provisions should be included in any insurance plan, including, apparently, one provided by an establishment of religion who doesn't believe in it as the administration does.

Birth control is readily available to all, and it is not a medical necessity. So upon what grounds does the administration seek to impose its belief upon a religious institution in direct violation of the first amendment? There isn't one. Period. If people employed by the Catholic Church wish to have birth control, they'll have to buy it themselves or go to a clinic and get it. No big deal. And if Obama wants to provide it free for everyone, then they can do that. There should be no ability for the administration to force a private insurance company to provide it, nor for a religious organization to provide it if they don't want to.

This has nothing to do with women's rights, or attacks on women. Because it doesn't restrict their access to birth control. It simply means they can't get it from the Catholic Church, as it has always been the case. And it isn't even a point of who is paying for it. It was initially framed in that regard, but that was with the understanding that whoever paid for it, provided it. But having the insurance companies pay for the birth control still doesn't get around the fact that insurance the Catholic Church is providing their employees contains access to birth control. Who cares who is paying for it. It violates the Catholic Church's beliefs to play any part in providing it, whether paying for it or including it in their insurance even if the case can be made that they don't pay for it.

But you will see many religious bodies up in arms about this. Because today it may be the government saying that the Catholic Church must provide birth control, and tomorrow it may be the government telling the Southern Baptist that they must provide abortion services through their insurance. Or telling Jews that they must eat pork because of some medical reason.

No, this is a clear case of one group of people using the federal government to make a law that is being used to force an establishment of religion to violate its long-held beliefs. That is as clear a violation of the first amendment as any attack on religious liberty to date. And I support the bishops and other religious leaders in standing up to this administration and tell them they do not have the authority to force their morals and beliefs onto other religions. Not without a compelling reason, of which there is none in this instance.

Impeachment Time?

2012-02-15T12:46:00.001-06:00

One thought that's been on my mind lately. Obama is ignoring the Constitution as he appoints cabinet members without Senate approval, forcing people to buy health insurance, forcing faith-based organizations to offer services that violate their beliefs. It is obvious that Obama is doing his best to take as much power from the other branches of the government as possible.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but what Obama is doing with squeezing our economy, sending us deeper and deeper into debt, ignoring our allies while befriending our enemies, and taking as much power as he can looks all the world like someone trying bring in a financial and foreign threat big enough to justify him taking emergency power to deal with the eventual crisis along the lines of what Greece is going through now. And then, keep dictatorial control. It's either that, or he's just plain stupid when it comes to how to get the economy going, because he's doing everything within his power to destroy it. The latest budget he sent to Congress couldn't be any more destructive to business and growth, and will ensure if we have any recovery, it will be measly, keeping unemployment high and our economy limping along.

With his latest attempt to circumvent the first amendment, and his obvious disdain for our Constitution, we could actually be thinking about impeachment. He vowed to defend our Constitution. He's not only ignoring it, he is going against it. He doesn't see his job as upholding our founding document, and is seeking to take away our freedoms and rights given by God.

I think what he is doing is grounds for impeachment. If the Senate had the character and courage to do it. Being Democratic controlled, however, that's not likely to happen. But I'm thinking there is enough evidence that he has failed his vow when he became president. He is no longer qualified to hold the job, if he's ever been to begin with.

Polling Continues the Surge

2012-02-15T02:14:00.001-06:00

Last week I said if the other polls confirm what the Public Policy Poll showed, that Santorum had taken the lead in the Republican nomination race, that it would be a good indication that Santorum's campaign strategy was working and it could spell a lot of trouble for Romney. Well, the polls are showing that the PPP numbers, while higher than everyone else's, is being reflected in the other polls.

Out of the four polls that came out yesterday, three of them have Santorum in the lead. Rasmussen and CBS News/NY Times poll both have Santorum up by 3 points, and CNN/Opinion Research poll up by 2. Gallup has Romney up by 2 points. Rick's wins last week have created a definite surge in the polls.

But that isn't the only bad news for Romney. On Feb. 13, The PPP shows Santorum with a 15% point lead over Romney in Michigan. Not good news for Romney who considered this state a done deal, being his father was a popular governor there and Romney grew up there. But wait, there's more! Recent polls show California is in play as well. SurveyUSA has Romney with only a 2 point lead over Santorum in that key state.

That's certainly a concern for Romney. But the real question is, will Rick be able to maintain that frontrunner status for long, or will he go the way of other candidates who take a dive after negative attacks are focused on them. But Rick may have an advantage here that Newt and other candidates didn't have who have dropped out of the race after leading in the polls at one point or another. A solid conservative history, a solid family life, and a high likeability factor.

That means, one, that there are few things Romney can glum onto to make his case in a negative way like he did Newt, to beat Santorum over the head with. Oh, he's trying. But look what he's got to work with here. Rick voted for earmarks. Rick raised the debt ceiling five times. Rick put his support behind Arlen Specter, a not so conservative senator. Contrast that with Rick's accomplishments on reforming welfare and medicare, getting a partial-birth abortion prohibition through Congress, and many fiscally conservative votes that counter the few things he's voted for people consider not so conservative. And he gives valid reasons for his positions at the time, like on earmarks, that he is against them now.

Meanwhile, Romney has supported much onerous spending policies that counter his claim to be a "conservative." He approval of the bail outs. He approves of Romneycare in his state and still defends it, despite the massive cost to the taxpayers there and that Obamacare was based on it. And he has supported cap and trade policies, believing in the global warming hoax that would cost businesses big time, and run many out of business. And he's complaining about Rick's earmark spending several years ago, that amount to less than 1% of the federal budget? Get real. That's a losing argument.

No, those negative ads are going to get little traction. Romney doesn't have any strong arguments to make against Rick, while Rick has several to make against Mitt. Short of making stuff up, or unearthing some hidden skeleton in Rick's closet, Romney's method of personal attacks will not have much power against Santorum. Most of those issues will pass right over voter's heads. Which is why to date, Ron Paul has been making those cases against Santorum at nearly every debate, and yet Ron trails way in the polls to Rick.

So short of some new revelation or a big misstep by Santorum, he could easily hold the lead. And it is easier to do right now simply because there isn't a contest of significance for a couple of weeks. By the time we get to the debate and the next contests, Rick will have led in the polls for days, which will give him the aura of staying up in the polls for the "long haul." And if Rick wins Michigan as it is shaping up he could, Romney will have a hard time getting up from that blow. His status as having the nomination in the bag will be severely questioned. And that could significantly impact the Super Tuesday races.

Newt, time to step aside if you don't want Romney to pull this off. Newt holds the knockout blow in his hands.

Why Ron Paul?

2012-02-11T15:46:00.000-06:00

Alright. I've done the others, so last one left is Ron Paul. Why am I not going for him?

There are several reasons. The most obvious is that he simply will not be able to win the general election against Obama. Why? Because of his newsletter's racist statements. "But he's disavowed those, he didn't write them." I know, and for my part I believe him. On the character side, it does show a level of incompetence that he allowed his name to be used on something without ever having read it and approved it.

But whether he agrees with those statements then or now or has never agreed with them and are as he said, that will matter little. Because the fact is they are out there with his name on it. And you can bet Obama will use this racial issue to not only stir up his own support and base among blacks, but to turn Americans off in droves to Ron Paul should he be elected. It is a ready made weapon Obama will use against him. Regular ads quoting racial hatred inciting phrases with Ron's name attached to them will be crushing. Voters will not likely believe Ron that he didn't know anything about what was in his own newsletters, and if they do, they will think he is inept at managing anything as simple as a newsletter.

But there are more substantive issues I would deal with. I do agree with Ron on some issues. Like most conservatives, I agree that government is too big, and I'm tired of hearing from candidate after candidate that they will reduce the size of government, to only have it grow. I have a feeling if Ron were elected, we might at least see that happen in reality, and not just in rhetoric.

And I agree with him on some foreign policy issues. I agree that Congress should authorize the country to go to war. Which they did on the terrorist and for Iraq. I agree with him that we shouldn't be sending all these countries a ton of foreign aid. It is another form of socialism, only making other countries dependent upon us, and they don't tend to like that anymore than we currently don't like being so in debt to China.

But what I do hear from him on foreign policy is someone who shoots to the other side of the spectrum. He seems to believe if we just leave Iran alone, they'll ignore us. Not in this century. He seems to say Iran shouldn't get nukes, but doesn't sound ready to use military force if necessary to prevent World War III. He sounds very much like Obama in that regard. Only I think once he got into office, saw the intelligence, would he have the foresight to change his tune if the reality is much different than what he thinks it is? That is what I'm doubting. We are already seeing Obama making foreign policy decisions based on what will get him reelected, pulling out of Iraq too soon, broadcasting when they are pulling out of Afghanistan, so the enemy will know how long to wait before they can take the country back over. Just huge gaffs. And I'm not secure that Ron wouldn't do just as bad. His ideology on some foreign policy issues seems little different than a liberal. Which is of course one reason why he is getting some liberal support.

Also, I think Ron Paul has consistently shown that he allows his ideology to get in the way of moving that same ideology forward. His lack of compromise in order to get at least some of what he wants may seem like taking a strong stand to some, but appears just as often as willing to give up progress because the bill isn't everything he wants. And his ideology has obviously played into the fact that even though he has introduced over 600 bills in Congress during his 30 years, only one of them has been passed and it was a fairly benign bill. Great to have a solid and consistent ideology to believe in, but if it is so rigid that you never work with people to advance it, what good is it. That attitude makes me think he would ineffective as a president getting done what he wants to do. So what would be the value of putting him in there?

On a lower level issue, I'm not behind him on the legalization of certain drugs. I think whatever law enforcement savings we might gain by legalizing it, we would lose tenfold in increased health care cost by a rise in drug usage. Don't think it does keep it suppressed and would rise? Just look at how successfully Prohibition did in the 1920s. While most look at it as a failed program, it did do very well what it was supposed to do. When the amendment went into effect, alcohol consumption dropped drastically, and didn't rise above pre-prohibition levels again until the 1980s. Yes, fifty years later. If you make drugs legal, their usage will go up. And that will increase driving while drugged, and all the other complications of lives lost and marriages destroyed that will bring with it. I say keep the war on drugs going. It is doing something worthwhile.

And the last issue is the tactics they are using by his supporters, which amount to gaming the system. They are claiming to have most all the delegates in the caucuses because they are sticking Ron Paul supporters in as delegates, and most of these are not required to vote for the one who won the election. So their idea is no matter what the election results are, Ron will win these delegates and get the nomination. Sorry, that's not a win, that is a recipe for disaster at the convention. No one will see such a "win" as valid and it will surely turn the electorate against us. Can you hear the outcry from Republicans and non-Republicans alike should someone who hasn't won one state, is last in all the polls, suddenly has a bunch of delegates come the convention? Ron Paul would be roundly hated and if it stood, would ensure we wouldn't win the general election.

So that's why I'm not keen on Ron Paul. He'd make a better president than Obama, but I don't think he would be the best selection in the current group, and feel he'd be dangerous for America in dealing with our foreign policy.

The Surge Continues

2012-02-11T15:02:00.000-06:00

As a reader may know, I predicted Rick Santorum would tie up and/or exceed Mitt Romney in the national polls before the end of the month. Guess I was being overly generous on the time frame. Recent polls at Rasmussen showed Santorum tied with Romney, and now we have the Public Policy Poll showing Santorum with a 15% lead over Romney nationally. It will be interesting to see if further polls validate this trend, but the PPP is a highly respected polling that even when they are different from the others, tends to be right. So most are putting a lot of weight on this.

One of the key things about this poll is that there appears to be a strong ground swelling among conservatives and Tea Partiers for Rick. He's also high on the likability scale. Even other polls have shown he is far and above the candidate who people feel most understands them and gets where they're coming from, usually up in the 30 something percent.

What this will do is to bring Rick to the forefront of the voter's attention that he missed out on in winning Iowa, but not knowing it until the South Carolina contest was well underway. He was easily dismissed for doing so well in Iowa. After all, look what he had to do to win there, visit every county and spend months on the ground there. You can't do that with all the states. But with his recent wins, even if delegates are yet to be allocated, in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, now he looks like someone who could win and people are starting to pay attention.

The question, of course, is what kind of attention will voters find when they start taking a more serious look? For voters who check out his website and watch recent speeches like at CPAC yesterday, they will get a favorable impression of someone who is a strong conservative and will fight hard for those conservative values, unlike our recent selections, John McCain, and to some degree, President Bush.

But they may also see the attacks that Romney and even Gingrich will make in coming days, are even making now. This will be the Regan test for Rick. Ronald Regan was known as the Teflon president, because as far as the electorate was concerned, none of the mud Democrats tried to throw on him, none of the perceived controversies seemed to make the slightest dent in his popularity. And believe me, they tried throwing everything at him. It just slid off him like water off a duck.

If Romney fails to beat Paul today in Maine, this could be good news for Rick as he moves through the rest of this month. Already some are fearing whether Romney will hold onto Michigan. If he loses that, that will be a big blow, maybe even a knock out punch. Super Tuesday could very well nail the coffin shut on Romney if he loses Michigan to Santorum. But Rick will now have the task of staying in the lead for more than one or two weeks, and not die off as the other candidates have. And he can do it. I believe he has the staying power. A lot depends on how he can respond to Romney's attacks in the coming days.

Birth Control Compromise...Right

2012-02-10T22:23:00.004-06:00

Obama has "backed down" with his own compromise. His compromise is that he'll make the insurance companies provide birth control for free for any organization whose conscious doesn't allow them to support offering birth control.

Satisfied? No, not really. Here's why.

First, it won't be "free." What it will mean is that everyone who pays insurance premiums will be supporting the dishing out of birth control for free. So, what if I, as a health care purchaser, don't want my dollar going to support that because I have a conscientious objection to that policy? Is there going to be a box on my bill that reduces my premium down by a dollar or two to avoid my conscious from being violated and my first amendment rights trampled on? I seriously doubt I'll get that opportunity.

Second, this is more a "foot in the door" policy on two things. One, for now, because it is an election year, let's make it look like we're complying and working with people. But come next January, should Obama be sworn into office yet again, all bets are off. If this wasn't an election year, it would be "My way or the highway" Obama time. All bets are this will change next year should he stick around for another four years.

Two, Obama wants to slip something else under the door as well. The Morning After Pill. Most consider this an abortificant, because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus wall, and so the embryo gets flushed out instead of growing into a baby. Yet this pill is likely to be included in any "contraception" service provided by the insurance companies. This actually violates Obama's own agreement with the senators who worked out a deal with him when they voted for the health care bill upon his agreement to exclude any kind of abortion support from the health care bill. Problem is, that is an executive order that can be overturned. Is that what Obama is doing now?

Third, while the issue has been that Catholic institutions didn't want to pay for a service they hold to be immoral, I think the issue was poorly framed and goes further. They don't want to offer within their institution any service, no matter the cost or lack of, which they hold to be immoral. So I look for the Catholic bishops, when they look at the details and make a decision, to still be against this rule and compromise by Obama. Because they are still being forced in their health care to offer something they don't want to offer because the service itself goes against their religious liberty.

To pay for it was simply the most simple way to frame it. But it still results in a violation of the first amendment, because it is still forcing them to provide something to their employees that they are opposed to on religious grounds. And that's the real issue, not how much it costs or who is paying for it.

But there is another issue some may miss here. The fact that Obama has the power to tell the insurance companies "You will offer this service for free." This is a result of the government having control of the health care system through the bill. The president believes he has the power to tell private companies that they are required to offer a non-essential service. This isn't what health insurance was designed to do. And the fact that the government can now dictate what an insurance company will and will not provide, with little to no recourse, should highlight both the dangerous waters American is now in, thanks to this president, and how critical it is he is not reelected. In another four years of this, we may no longer have a democracy at all, but an oligarchy.

Add Excitement to the Recipe

2012-02-10T20:48:00.000-06:00

Rick Santorum gave a great speech today at CPAC. I would encourage anyone who wants to see what this candidate is about to go watch the full speech. One good place is at HillBuzz.

But one comment that Rick made in that speech stuck out to me, because I've been talking in past post about the issue of electability. I've discussed why despite conventional wisdom over the past couple of months, Romney isn't nearly as electable as people think, and Rick is in a much better position than people think to win. Indeed, today the Rasussen poll shows if the election where held today, Santorum would only be behind Obama by 4 points, while Romney would fall by 10 points. This is before the general contest ever gets fully underway.

But Rick said in his speech that one element of electability that is necessary to get Independents and moderate Democrats to vote for you is to first have your base excited about their candidate. He said no independent or blue-collar Democrat will get excited about a candidate if the Republicans themselves are not excited about him or her. And you know, he's right. Romney hasn't generated any excitement among the Republican party, much less the base, as a whole. Watching his speech in Colorado this past week, he came across so mechanical and boring, you'd already thought he'd lost the general election. The chances of him beating Obama who we have to acknowledge, will be able to generate some excitement among his base, is small. While Romney could win, he isn't able to energize the Republican base, and so isn't nearly as likely to appeal to the independents and Democrats that Santorum could.

And remember in 2008? We nominated John McCain and most of us conservatives shook our heads because he wasn't someone the base was going to rally around in any kind of energetic fashion. Then McCain made a smart move. He added Sarah Palin to the ticket as the VP and we saw the base light up. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough because our main guy still wasn't willing to stand up for conservative values and go toe-to-toe with Obama's campaign. The Democrats had convinced John that what moderates wanted was a kind, nice, super-positive campaign that treated the opposition with kid gloves. And yes, there were other issues as well, no need to rehash those now. But the point being that Sarah added a level of excitement to the race that gave us all hope maybe we could win after all. And if Sarah had been leading the ticket at the time, perhaps we would have.

But seeing Rick's passion, and past passion over issues like abortion and injustice, leads me to believe that we have someone here who can generate some excitement, who will stand up and fight for our values, and not back down. Who, while not perfect, is the best conservative and principled man we have to take on President Obama. And he is, without a doubt in my mind, the one candidate we have who has the best chance of beating Obama in the general election, and ending this nightmare of the Progressive Left's march to socialism.

First Amendment and Birth Control

2012-02-10T14:14:00.000-06:00

There are several issues in the recent debate between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church on whether the government has the right to force them to pay for insurance coverage of birth control for their employees.

The administration is attempting to frame this as a health care issue. We could argue on the points of whether women have a right to get birth control regardless of their ability to pay for it or not. The proponents of that position spin it as dealing with a woman's right to chose. But chose what? What she does with her body. Yet you don't hear that argument when it comes to obesity. When people declare they should have the right to eat what they want, to have that choice for their own body, liberals will point to the health care costs as reasons why the government should have the ability to take that right away. But when we come to something like contraception, suddenly the cost of ensuring that a woman can chose to enjoy a little nookie time without worrying about having a child, and paid for by the taxpayers if necessary, is not an issue. The consequences of eating are regulated to avoid additional health care cost while avoiding the consequences of sex are subsidized.

But beyond the debate of whether women should have a "right" to anyone paying for their birth control, no matter their position on the subject, is the question of whether this violates the first amendment. Those who want to promote Obama's position say Catholics are hiding behind the first amendment. But Catholics don't think so. Inherent for generations in Catholic teaching is the fact that birth control use is morally wrong, that it violates the prime purpose and goal of the sexual relationship, the creation of a family. Whether a specific individual believes that is the case or not isn't the point. That the Catholic Church has for centuries, is.

So is Congress "making a law prohibiting" the free exercise of religion? In this case, does the health care bill Congress passed violate the first amendment? As Obama is choosing to interpret and enforce it, yes. And this has precedent. Amish were allowed to not be drafted because of their longstanding belief that war was wrong. It was against the law for them to not show up when drafted and be part of the armed forces. But, because of what their religion believed, the Supreme Court said they couldn't be forced to serve as the law would then be in violation of the first amendment, forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs.

This is really no different. The Catholic Church believes it is morally wrong to use birth control. Yes, a lot of Catholic women use it anyway, but that isn't the point. The point is the religion has always believed it is morally wrong, regardless of the faithful's adherence to it. Can the government now come in and tell the Church that they must still pay for that which they are diametrically opposed to? An obvious violation of the first amendment. And when, not if, this goes to the Supreme Court (because the Catholic Church won't back down on this one, I can almost guarantee it), the Obama Administration will lose. If Obama gets another term and continues on this course. A new president is likely to pull that requirement on their first day in office. I don't think there is any question that this violates the Catholic Church's ability to freely exercise its beliefs.

But this is for sure, Obama could not have given the Republicans a better pre-convention gift. Want to ensure you lose the election? Piss off 25% of the voting population who are Catholic. The depth of this shows clearly in that even several key Democratic senators and representatives don't agree with this policy. And should Rick Santorum become the nominee, a Catholic, guess who's in trouble? It isn't Santorum. Obama has shot his election chances in the foot with this one.

Thank you, President Obama, for showing your true colors and not trying to hide behind your centrist illusion this time around.

Why Romney?

2012-02-09T14:15:00.000-06:00

I did one on Newt, so now it's Mitt's turn. Why am I not for Romney since he is saying conservative things, and says he's conservative, and someone like Ann Coulter says he's the most conservative candidate in the field (excuse me while I attempt to regain my out of control laughter at the idiocy of that statement).

So why am I not that enamored by him? Indeed, why are many people not, and if voting for him, only because they have been duped into believing that he is the most electable against Obama (despite the polls showing he isn't). Not because they believe that out of the field he most closely represents their values. Too often I've heard commentators like Bill O'Reilly say that there is no real difference between the candidates. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is the main reason I don't want Romney as our nominee. Not because I don't believe he can't win. Though I think Rick will be easier to elect against Obama, Mitt could still pull it off. Not because I believe he wouldn't be any better than Obama. I do think he would be an improvement, even if not as much of one as I would like. Thus if he ends up with the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him much as I do for Rick Perry in Texas every time he runs.

But is there any question whether Romney has held moderate to liberal positions in his political history? Those are well documented. Not just in stated positions, but in actual actions? "But he no longer holds those positions," you'll hear. He is now pro-life, pro-whatever you want to hear. But there still is no dissent that he has held such positions. And even is ready today to defend Romneycare, the mandate, and other such liberal ideas.

So do I believe him? That's not my problem, whether he is telling the truth or this is just telling me what I want to hear. Here's the problem. Last time people voted for a guy who sounded centrist. Who promised to accomplish a bunch of things that moderates, independents, and others wanted to see happen. Who literally promised the moon. Everyone said, "Look what he's saying! I'm voting for him." Despite the fact that his record was hard left radical. But no one wanted to look at Obama's record, his radical statements before that, his radical associations he's held. He got elected. And guess what? He has governed as a hard-left radical, surrounding himself with progressive radicals that have as their goal the socialization of our country.

And now I'm being told, "Ignore Romney's history. Just go based on what he says he'll do." Well, we did that already, and we didn't like the results. In my book, actions speak louder than words. I haven't seen the actions that back up his statements. I do see that with Rick Santorum. If I have a choice, I'm going with the proven conservative, not the one who so far I can only point to small bits of history that looks conservative, but scads of history of liberal actions and policies. Maybe he's changed. I'm not willing to bet the presidency on that hope.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm not for Romney. If he gets it, I'll vote for him against Obama. But I think we need a real conservative in there who will make a real difference. Not just tinker with Obamacare, but totally repeal it. Maybe in another eight years if he has shown he is conservative, we'll consider it. But not this time around. Please.

Surge Follow Up

2012-02-09T13:26:00.000-06:00

We're starting to see the "surge" Herman Cain didn't believe was there, showing up, confirming what I wrote yesterday about what would happen. Not a hard prediction to make, but apparently it was for Herman Cain.

Gallup tracking for the national Republican Race now shows Santorum and Gingrich in a dead tie at 20% a piece, while Romney currently maintains a 36% lead. But my prediction is that Santorum will challenge Romney's poll numbers and exceed them as this month rolls on.

And confirmation that this is in the works is a little tidbit of inside information from Stuffed Suits who is reporting that according to their unnamed sources, Newt is "considering" dropping out of the race. Well see if that comes to pass or not, but if so, it would accelerate what I've been saying, and falls right into the scenario that I've laid out in previous post as to how Santorum wins this nomination. And the sooner Newt drops out, the more likely it will be that Santorum will be able to route Romney on Super Tuesday and the contest following.

Donald Doesn't Get It

2012-02-09T00:08:00.002-06:00

Hearing Donald Trump on Greta tonight, I had to say how stupid he is sounding. He obviously has no idea how politics works.

He made the statement to Greta that he doesn't understand how Santorum could win being that he was defeated in his last election in Pennsylvania when he ran to be reelected as their senator by a big margin. He appeared to be totally ignorant that Pennsylvania is mostly a Democratic state. For a strong Republican conservative to be even elected there, twice, indicates someone who can appeal to Independents and Democrats of a moderate to conservative leaning. He seems to be ignorant that in the election he lost, there was a strong anti-Bush, anti-Republican move among Democrats, and that is why he lost, not because he did anything wrong.

But Donald seems to think if you've lost an election, you have no business running for president. He's totally ignorant of history then. Because by that rule, Regan shouldn't have run for president. I would be that a majority of past presidents lost elections at some point in their career. His analogy of someone failing math in high school or college is totally off base and has no bearing.

My guess is he is only being a spin doctor for Romney. It looks bad for Donald that no sooner does he endorse Romney, Romney loses big. And that may be the reason he is lashing out. But come on, Donald. At least lash out with logic and reason. Don't make yourself look like you have no idea how politics works. There shouldn't have been someone elected to the presidency who had no real governing experience, and yet we have Obama. Because someone loses an election doesn't disqualify them from running for any further offices. That's just plain stupid, and I laughed at you the whole time you were talking because I thought you were smarter than that.

Santorum Surge?

2012-02-08T23:36:00.000-06:00

Herman Cain on Hannity yesterday said that if Santorum wins Missouri, it won't be a surge. He didn't say what if Santorum wins Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado. I'm wondering if the Gingrich-backing commentator would now acknowledge a surge?

For sure, time will tell more, but I think last night's victories for Santorum spell a lot more doom for Romney and Gingrich than might at first be suspected, and indicate a growing trend that as this month moves on, we'll see Rick move into front runner status. Here's why.

One, the vote in Missouri, which wasn't to allocate any delegates (that happens at their caucuses next month), was a good indication of what I predicted would happen should Gingrich not be an option, since Gingrich didn't get on the ballot in Missouri. When it came down to a two man race between Santorum and Romney, Romney lost by a huge margin. Santorum won a big majority in the state at 55% of the vote, more than double what Romney received. While the vote was a straw poll, it still does two significant things. One, it proves that Santorum can win, and win big against Romney in a one-on-one match up. Two, it is a good temperature gauge as to how voters in that state will vote in the upcoming caucuses there. Yes, a lot can happen in a month, and there is a lot going on between now and when Missouri caucuses happen on March 17th. If Santorum doesn't do well on Super Tuesday, for instance, support could wane in Missouri. But see below.

Two, in states where Romney did "do battle" against Santorum, running attack ads and robo calls and mass mailings with the usual false attacks, Santorum still defeated Romney. In Minnesota, by almost as huge a margin as in Missouri. And whereas polls all showed Romney leading up to the election day in Colorado, yet Santorum came out 5% ahead of Romney on the final count. Hum, maybe those attack ads had the opposite effect? Whatever the reason, it clearly showed that Romney lost ground while Santorum gained it on him, and in a state that Gingrich was on the ballot, even though he didn't do much campaigning there.

This does some big things for Santorum's chances, as I alluded to yesterday. He now has most of the month to milk this momentum for what its worth. He is now challenging Romney on delegates. Last count Romney has 107 while Santorum had 69. Super Tuesday could change that should this momentum translate into moving ahead in the polls and staying there. With no other event scheduled save the Maine caucuses, if Santorum gets ahead in the polls, there will be time for it to solidify before the string of March contests. And if it does that, Romney will quickly lose ground.

For the next month, Santorum will in the top two, not Gingrich. And after Gingrich's loss in Florida, enduring big attack ads, and his dismal showing in the contests yesterday, he'll be seen as at the bottom of the pack for a whole month. By the time he gets to Super Tuesday, which he is counting on making a comeback, it could be all but over for him by then.

While Romney and Gingrich will tend to dismiss these wins by Santorum as window dressing, I think it accomplishes a lot more than that. Not only does it change the dynamics of the race for almost a whole month, not only does it give a boost to Santorum's fund raising ability over the next month in preparation for the big contest coming up, it shows that Romney is anything but the eventual nominee.

Why? Because I think, as mentioned previously, that Santorum's surge yesterday is fueled by more than just people groping about for someone to glam onto someone other than Romney. Santorum has a clear message, has been consistently against the key issues of Obamacare, Bailouts, and Cap and Trade, unlike his two main rivals. And people are beginning to see that and "wake up" to that reality. Many of these people are taking a look at Santorum for the first time in a serious way. And now that he has gained the national spotlight, that will happen at an even faster pace. And so far, people are liking what they are seeing.

Going back to Herman Cain, who I supported early on, his comments on Hannity when asked about what the candidates should do, he said to spell out their specific proposals of what they would do for the economy. He literally said, he had no idea what Rick Santorum would do. Despite his clear messages on that very subject in the debates. But he did know what Gingrich would do. Why? Because he went to his website and studied up on him when he made his decision to support him.

What? He's telling me when he was deciding who to endorse, he only studied one candidate? He has no idea what Santorum would do because he obviously hasn't been listening and didn't bother to go to his website and see what his plan was, which I happen to know is there. IOW, he already knew he was going to support Gingrich, and only went to his site to study to make sure he wasn't going to stick his foot in his mouth. Well, Mr. Cain, you did it anyway.

If the polls show Rick rising above Gingrich, which I can almost assure you will be the case, and even topping Romney in the coming days and weeks, will you still say it isn't a surge, Mr. Cain?

Because that is what I'm predicting will happen. Gingrich will fall toward the bottom and Rick will take either a close number 2 or be number 1 in the coming weeks. And Romney's only problem is that Santorum doesn't have any big dollars from Fannie May and Freddy Mac to rail against, or women waiting in the wings to debunk him like Gingrich did. The best Romney has is Santorum was an earmarker. Will that stick? Not likely. Because the same could be said about Romney as governor of Massachusetts going after federal money. And Rick has very conservative records on much bigger spending issues, like being against the bailouts that Romney was for, and having worked to implement entitlement reforms, where the big money is. those charges are easily shown to be pointless. Without much for Romney's attack machine to hang its hat on, look for this superpac to greatly overplay its hand and shoot Romney in the foot because of it.

And I would also suggest the vote yesterday is a backlash against Romney and Gingrich's personal attacks on each other, and a reward for Santorum staying above the fray. While it may not have signficantly swayed Florida voters when Rick made his statements on that subject at the last debate, it obviously had a big impact on these states. They don't want to nominate a candidate with ready made Democratic targets painted on their backs, which both Romney and Gingrich have painted on each other.

And that, my friends, is why this isn't likely to be a blip on the radar, but a real surge that will overtake Romney and potentially win the Republican nomination. Time will tell if I'm correct.

Santorum Surprise?

2012-02-07T02:37:00.000-06:00

Tuesday could be a day that shifts the nomination. As of the last state contests, Romney has appeared to have all but wrapped up the Republican nomination, or so it seems people would like us to believe. But the fact is this political season has been highly unusual for several reasons.

One, turnout for Republican primaries haven't been high. In Florida and Nevada, they've been much lower than in 2008. Which would indicate either the voters are not as excited about Romney or they have been turned off by the negative attack adds of Romney and Gingrich. In Nevada, it may have been that Romney was a foregone conclusion, so there wasn't much energy built up to get out.

Two, each of the candidates have won a state except for Ron Paul, the first three being split evenly. That is a very unusual outcome, and Romney's win in Florida and expected win in Nevada are not enough to really seal the deal for him.

Three, candidates have gone up and down in the polls. The voters are having a harder time making up their minds. It seems the Tea Party folk haven't really settled on a candidate yet, splitting themselves among the three top contenders.

But this day could make some major changes in the race as it regards Rick Santorum's chances. He is already rising in the national polls, going from around 13% recently to 18% yesterday. In a head-to-head match up with Obama on the 5th, Santorum beat Obama by one point, a statistical tie, while the polls show Obama beating all other candidates, dispelling the myth that only Romney is the most electable candidate in the field against Obama.

With polls showing Santorum either ahead in some of today's caucuses and contest, or very close to Romney, he is set to change the nature of this race once again. As people see him winning states against Romney, and he is competing favorably with Obama, many will start taking a closer look at him in the coming months. Thus for Santorum, today's outcomes will either propel him forward and maybe even beat Romney, or if he doesn't do as well as hoped, possibly cause him to fade into the background, never to recover.

Some wins today would do wonders for Rick's campaign, help raise some needed cash for the coming contest, and establish him as a winning candidate that is a viable option. And in this odd and strange primary season, almost anything is possible it seems. Today may be Santorum's best chance at gaining a foothold in this race. It may be his last chance. A sweep could spell doom for Romney. Time will tell.

Why Newt?

2012-02-03T02:10:00.000-06:00

I've been wondering, why are Republicans voting for Newt as one of the top two candidates? There seems little reason for it when you look at it objectively.

1) If electability is your criteria, Newt consistently polls in last place when pitted against Obama. Most of the time it is Romeny, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich. Newt usually follows several points behind the whole pack. Just a scan over the last few days of the latest polls will show this fact. As of today, the polls are showing Romney, Santorum, and Paul in a statistical dead heat with Obama, but Gingrich sits several points behind. (Rasmussen Report: Romney -1, Santorum -2, Paul -3, Gingrich -8.) Over the last few days, I have yet to see Newt move out of last place against Obama. Based purely on the polls, he's the least electable candidate of them all. No doubt due to his higher negativity rating.

2) Newt's mixed conservative record. Yes, Newt has some impressive accomplishments to tout among conservatives. He's had a good record back in the 90s, overall. And yet, he did sit down with Nancy Pelosi to encourage Cap and Trade to combat global warming. He's said that was a mistake...but only the part about sitting with Nancy. He has yet, to my knowledge, refuted belief in global warming being a real threat, or that any legislation based on that premise would be vetoed. And he has in the past encouraged government mandates in relation to health care. And he supported the bail outs. All these are hot button issues, especially with Tea Party conservatives. Newt has been inconsistent in the last several years as a conservative. And being he has failed on three key conservative concerns with no responses on the issues involved, it makes no sense why conservative Republicans would consider him.

3) Everyone knows about Newt's indiscretions. The recent airing of his second wife's accusations is no doubt the tip of the iceberg that Democrats have planned should he gain the Republican nomination. While we say to ourselves that's the past, he's changed, and that may all be well and true, do you seriously think that's going to stop the Democrats from running non-stop adds about Newt's past affairs and wives? And if you don't think those won't have an effect on the voters, just look at how much Newt lost women voters in Florida. Romney received 52% of the women vote over Gingrich's 28. While Newt may have been able to deflect it in the South Carolina debate long enough to win there, by the time he arrived in Florida, women appeared to have their doubts about him. This is the reason Nancy Pelosi says she can guarantee Newt will not become president. The method was tested on Herman Cain and effectively forced him out of the race, and now we see that a preliminary shot worked on Newt. How much more will it affect voters in the general election after two weeks in October of non-stop revelations about Newt's past?

These are no reflection on Newt's character currently. I do believe these charges are old news and shouldn't play a part in the race. But they will. The Democrats will see to that. And the other items are what they are. The fact is, if you are a conservative and concerned about electing someone who can beat Obama, Newt would have to be your last choice on the ticket, not your first.

The era of Newt is over. It is time to chart a new course.

As of this date, I think the only two that have a decent chance of beating Obama is Romney and Santorum. Romney for no other reason that he is being perceived that way (though he has his own baggage as I've described here before, mainly his rich guy status falls right into the Democratic class warfare playbook--Occupy Wall Street was started with Romney in mind by the Democratic machine). And Santorum because he has held to his conservative values and still won elections in predominately Democratic districts and state. That's compared to Romney who ran as a moderate in a Democratic state, and Gingrich and Paul who have run as a conservatives in Republican states. Santorum is the only one who has proven he can win Independents and Democrats while still holding to strong conservative values. And he is polling well against Obama in recent polls, as good as Romney is.

Ron Paul won't win if he is nominated because his newsletters containing highly racist comments that will be broadcast on TV non-stop, despite any disclaimers from him to the contrary. And his more radical foreign policy ideas and comments will become the reason to make Obama's failures look like safe bets.

So really you only have Romney and Santorum who stand a chance of winning. And if you are a Tea Party conservative, a regular conservative, or even a moderate, Santorum is the most consistent conservative running who hasn't been on the wrong side of the major issues conservatives are concerned about. And to put icing on that cake, he hasn't been involved in the politics of personal destruction like Romney and Gingrich.

So as it stands now, here is my list of who I hope gets the nomination, first pick at the top, last at the bottom:

Santorum
Romney
Paul
Gingrich

Yes, Gingrich used to be in my number two spot, but I think he's toxic now, and would have a very hard time winning in the general election. I think that the realities above are what Santorum is hoping people will wake up and see before too many more votes are cast.

Romney and Gingrich and Superpacs

2012-01-31T22:12:00.000-06:00

Some have commented that this campaign cycle has gone overboard on the negative attacks. I've heard it from more than one commentator like Sarah Palin and even recently Sean Hannity. So what is it that is bothering people about the nature of this campaign compared to past campaigns?

At first, I'm tempted to say these campaigns have always had this component. Negative ads, false or out of context statements used against the opposition. But I have to say that it does seem worse for the Republican primaries this time around. What is different?

The bottom line as to what has changed is the use of the Democratic play book, predominately by Mitt Romeny, but adopted by Newt Gingrich as well after getting shellacked in Iowa by not responding in kind. Naturally each one thinks they are speaking of issues and such, but as Santorum illustrated in the last debate, what they are dealing with is the politics of personal destruction instead of the issues. A page right out of the Democratic playbook.

And I think that is what is bothering most people. It is one thing to contrast your positions against the others in the race, and discuss the different plans or ways each candidate would handle things, and what is wrong with where the other candidate stands. Like Santorum did on Romney as it regards the healthcare mandate, that in Massachusetts, you have to have health insurance simply because you exist, and if you don't, or you don't have the right kind, you can get fined. Mitt defends the health care mandate today, not just in the past. He doesn't think the nation should do it, but it is okay for states. I don't agree with states doing it either. Mitt doesn't believe the practice is wrong itself, like most conservatives. That was a valid point for Rick to bring out, because it is a big issue and it is true.

But to attack each other over what investments you have, that Gingrich earned money consulting for Freddie and Fanny, or that Romney's tenure at Baine may have resulted in some failed company's is only shooting at straw men in order to bring the other candidate down personally. And Romney is most guilty of false advertising against Gingrich.

"But it is the superpacs!" has been the cry. They don't have control over what they do. And that is correct. But that doesn't prevent a candidate from publicly disagreeing with what their superpacs are doing. They can't call up the head of the superpac and tell them to stop running an ad, but if they disagree with the ad publicly, it will take the wind out of the sails of that ad and there won't be much reason for them to run it. And if they do, at least the candidate is on record saying he/she doesn't agree with it.

But superpacs are one of the big changes that is affecting the campaigns this time around, thanks to McCain and Feingold. Which is not to say John likes these superpacs, but it was their bill that created this situation. People at the time warned them this would be the case. Instead of taking money out of the races, it ended up infusing massive amounts of money into it that isn't controlled by the campaigns so they aren't accountable for it. Yeah, like that really helped take money out of the equation. Not! Thanks, guys.

Interesting, while listening to Rush Limbaugh while writing this, he said something along the same lines, and agreed that every candidate has been guilty of this, save one. Rick Santorum. And look where he is in the polls. The voters are rewarding the very behavior they decry instead of supporting the one candidate who has actually stuck to the issues and avoided playing the politics of personal destruction game. And we wounder why the candidates are using it. Because it gets them into office. Change that one fact, and guess what? They won't do it.

Don't whine about the negative ads, then go vote for Romney or Gingrich. A vote for them is a vote to continue the Republican party to adopt more and more of the Democratic campaigning tactics.

Santorum's Strategy

2012-01-31T00:16:00.003-06:00

I've been wondering what Santorum's strategy was going forward. Tonight, on Bill O'Reilly, he confirmed his plans to stay in the race for some time, despite his poll numbers in Florida showing he'll likely only get around 12-15% of the vote. His reasoning on the show is that the race has shifted so much in past weeks that he feels it will come his way when the time is right. So I began to wonder what he may be thinking will happen, or hoping will happen at some point.

One, the most likely thing he may be seeing is that Romney and Gingrich are slugging it out, and after some time has passed with them bloodying each other up, the people will get disgusted with the Romney and Newt show, and look for an alternative. They'll have Ron Paul and Rick Santorum to pick from, and Rick thinks, correctly, as people get disillusioned with the two front runners, they would for the most part turn to him. He's hoping, I think, for a Romeny vs. Gingrich battle that will turn voters off from them, believing that neither of them are electable anymore because they've caused too much damage to each other in the public eye. You caught a hint of this in the last debate, where Rick practically chastises both Newt and Mitt along with the media for focusing on petty personal issues between the two and not on issues that matter to the American people.

Another possible scenario, maybe in conjunction with the above, is that Romney's conservatism is highly in question among a lot of voters, especially the Tea Party voters. A lot of Tea Party voters are voting for him because they are believing what he's saying and ignoring his history (like voters did with Obama in 2008), and they perceive he practically has the experience and electability to beat Obama. As that gets damaged by Newt, however, the uneasiness with the Tea Party vote will grow and they will fear they are sacrificing values and principle to end up with Obama light in the White House. With Romney weak on Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and the bailouts, three key reasons the Tea Party came into existence, Rick's betting that a shift will come at some point and voters will turn from Romney.

Likewise, Newt is getting bashed, sometimes unfairly, by the Romney machine. We've already seen in Florida that Romney's politics of personal destruction on Newt is working. He's pulled ahead in the polls and Gingrich has fallen. The bad news in this fact for Santorum is that he got little of that fall out. The voters seem to be switching among the top two instead of trading in Gingrich for Santorum as the alternate anti-Romney vote. It would appear in Florida the majority of the electorate are swayed by perception rather than where a candidate stands on the issues and their character.

And while Gingrich has a fairly strong conservative rating, again on the three key items listed that are of concern to the Tea Party: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and bailouts, Gingrich hasn't had a stellar past history on those either. And the threat of Gingrich's past baggage being used as a weapon against him in the general election puts Newt's electability in question. While I tend to not put much stock in what Nancy Pelosi says, the look in her eye when she said she guaranteed Newt wouldn't become president because of his past, the utter glee I saw in the hope he would be our nominee, made me think it wasn't an act.

I can see 24/7 ads being broadcast about Newt's indiscretions, women they'll bring out of the closet that will accuse him of all sorts of things, to drag him down faster than Herman Cain. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that Herman Cain was a test to see how effective that tactic was, but they are saving the line of women in Newt's past for the general election. Except they've already let one out of the bag. You can bet there will be more such reveals if he gets the nomination.

So I think Santorum is hoping for the sleeping giant to wake up before it gets too late. And if Newt goes down, and Rick is able to parlay those votes into his campaign, looking at the poll numbers as they stand now, you can see more clearly how far ahead of Romney Santorum would be:

Gallup tracking has the national poll for the Republican nomination showing today that Gingrich has 28, Romney 27, Santorum 16, Paul 13. Add Gingrich's votes into Santorums, it is 41 Santorum to Romney's 27. If Newt implodes or decides he's had enough, and endorses his friend Santorum over Romeny, guess who is likely to rise in the polls and be the true conservative choice?

My guess is that's what Santorum is betting on. Stay in, be the "last man standing" after the bloody brawl diminishes the current front runners while Santorum remains above the fray, and the strongest conservative choice for voters who don't trust Romney's "conversion" to conservatism to be strong. The question is, how long will Gingrich stay in it? Will voters ever "come to their senses" in time? Time will tell.

Up Against Obama

2012-01-27T04:42:00.000-06:00

I listened again tonight as people discussed Rick Santorum's debate performance. They all seemed to agree on the CNN panel that he had a good debate, probably the debate winner in overall terms of keeping the others on the defensive, his command of the issues, his policy decisions, and his "staying above the fray" as the other two "frontrunners" attack each other over petty issues that don't play into voter's concerns.

But one of them said the concern with Rick Santorum is his electability issue going up against Obama in a general election. Yeah, like we haven't heard that one before, and I've addressed it on this blog.

But then I flip over to Fox news, and see Gretta throw out the latest polls about how each of the four candidates square against Obama in a general election as of 1/26. In the head-to-head match ups, what surprised her is that Rick Santorum fared better against Obama than Newt Gingrich. IOW, if you go by the polls, and electability is a key issue, the choice would be Rick, not Newt. The same dynamic shows up in the polls taken on 1/27, though there is a bigger point spread between Obama and the candidates, expected coming from an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. If the election were held today, and the polls were accurate, Romney would lose to Obama by 6 points, Santorum by 15 points, and Gingrich by 18 points. And yet Newt is the front runner in the national poll, 9 points ahead of Romney.

Obviously electability is not the issue everyone said it was. Otherwise the weakest candidate in the polls against Obama would not be leading in the national polls among the Republican candidates.

But seriously, these numbers won't make a hill of beans. Here is what will happen, no matter who gets in as the Republican candidate. Once the general election gets underway, and the ads and debates and campaign starts to make its case against Obama, those numbers will change and the Republican candidate will rise above Obama. The fact that Santorum can poll better against Obama than Gingrich should say something, because it is Newt with the name recognition, not Rick. Once Rick gets more well known, the better he will look, and the better he will poll, and the more electable he will become.

And one thing that I'm a bit mystified on is why the Tea Party has been so far a non-factor in these races. Like Rick said in the debate tonight, the very policies that got the Tea Party fired up in the first place--Obamacare, Cap and Trade, government bailouts--are the very things that both Romney and Gingrich are weak on, but Rick has been strong on. If you're willing to back a candidate that is polling in last place out of the three, you might as well go ahead and pick the clear and consistent conservative candidate, Rick Santorum if you're a Tea Party supporter. Not only will he hold positions with a solid history behind them that he can strongly contrast against Obama, but Obama will have little to attack him on other than his social conservatism, which is a losing issue when the economy and terror threats top the nation's concerns.

Meanwhile, Romney's riches will play right into Obama's class warfare, Occupy Wallstreet, plans. And Newt has so much baggage with his being run out of congress in the 90s, and all his personal sins, existing in the past as they may be, will be paraded over the air on countless Obama TV commercials. While good debate performances can make or break a campaign, we can't rely upon that one tactic to win the election. Often the debates don't play a key roll in who wins elections as often as they do.

So Obama will go after Rick's stance against gay marriage. Alright, we lose the gay sympathy vote. Now what? What Republican that has won in times past has ever had that vote? Not in any big numbers, I can guarantee you. All that will be left is the old issues against conservatives in general, wanting children to starve and the like. Like that's going to get a lot of mileage.

I'm not saying Mitt or Newt couldn't win against Obama. Sure they could. The polls now don't mean a thing. But if your concerned about electability, Mitt and Newt carry a lot more targets for Obama to shoot at than Rick. It is clear to me that Mitt and Newt are conservative lite. Rick's worth a second look by the voters, especially the Tea Party folk, and they should get behind him if they really want conservative values to be in the Whitehouse come next year.

State of the Union?

2012-01-26T03:39:00.000-06:00

I placed a question mark on the title because Obama's speech pretty much painted a bleak and negative picture concerning the state of our country.

No? You say he was positive? Where?

Oh, when he said, "From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about."

Did that sound positive to you? Well, sure, on one level, if you ignore the reality, it could sound positive and upbeat. Just one big huge problem. Well over a majority of Americans do not feel we are back. They do feel the country is in decline, both domestically and in foreign policy.

As of this date, the average of several polls by Real Clear Politics indicates a majority of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. A majority. So what the president just did in that statement is to tell a majority of the Americans who do not agree with him, that they don't know what they are talking about. That they are ignorant, stupid, and unable to see what is going on around them and intelligently conclude what the reality is.

I don't know. Sounds pretty negative to me. He just labeled over half the country ignorant. Are we sure he's actually running for reelection? If so, he has a strange way of doing it.

Media Smack Down

2012-01-25T13:54:00.000-06:00

We're seeing a trend developing, and it's about time. Newt started it with his rebukes concerning various media questions during debates, the most famous of these now being the John King smack down at the final South Carolina debate that likely had a lot to do with him surging head in the South Carolina primary, winning it with a double-digit lead.

But we're also seeing other candidates, like Rick Santorum, standing up against the media as he did with MSNBC in this video.

What I like about what Rick Santorum said is that it was MSMBC's job to defend President Obama. I know, that in and of itself isn't a true statement. As journalist, it shouldn't be their job to defend the president. But the fact is, out of all the media outlets, in the last election and even today, they are the most in-the-tank for Obama out of them all. They repeatedly ignore negative stories about Obama, dismiss them, all the while nit-picking minor snafus or perceived wrongs as they attempt to do with Santorum in this interview, chiding him for not defending President Obama from being called a Muslim by an old lady at a town hall meeting.

What Rick Santorum points out here, is whether they admit it or not, MSNBC has seen themselves as the defender of Obama. They couldn't be more biased if the President himself sat as the CEO of the company. And in the presidential election, the overt bias and intentional campaigning for the democratic candidate by much of the media outlets was so over the top as to not go unnoticed by most of the American people. It is that biased reporting and overt positive reporting on Obama while slamming the Republicans at every chance that has caused them to be discounted as viable avenues for news. Their overt bias has turned Fox News into the only station left standing that one can expect to get both sides of the issues. And is why their ratings are in the tank while Fox's soars.

What is painfully clear is due to much of the media becoming the equivalent of superpacs for Obama last time around, the same media outlets are being put on trial during this race as much as the candidates themselves. People aren't going to put up with all this gotcha journalism as an extension of the Democratic party. Obama may not have pushed through laws which violated the first amendment in regards to news organizations, but he's sure as heck been successful at convincing them to give them up willingly. They cannot be counted on to give fair news report as it concerns the elections. They are not free to report the truth.

And I'm glad at least two of the Republican candidates are calling them out on it. And from the response by the people, I think many feel it is about high time we take the debate to their channels and make what they are doing painfully obvious to all their viewers. Kudos to Newt and Santorum.

Abortion should be Aborted

2012-01-23T19:08:00.003-06:00

As the March for Life shows their support this day for repealing the Row vs. Wade supreme court decision that "legalized" abortion in America, I felt it appropriate to reaffirm the issues involved in this debate.

Many have cast or spinned this in many ways. People say "belief" comes into play, that by a person's belief they can make someone real or not. But when you come down to it, there is only one fact. Abortion is the termination of a life.

I know, some don't believe life begins at conception. That flies in the face of all facts. Fact #1, once conception has taken place, in the embryo is the full map of a specific individual's DNA, totally separate existence from the mother or the father. At one point, I was an embryo, with my whole life ahead of me, the color of my eyes, what my face would look like, what color my hair would be, etc. all the characteristics that would go into making me, me, detailed to the finest degree.

In most cases, such an embryo left to nature, will survive and become a living, breathing, individual. Yes, sometimes nature aborts those embryos. We have no control over that. And they are only a small percentage. The odds are that it will live. So any intervention at that point is the snuffing out of a specific life, a specific individual. No one can argue otherwise. To do so borders on insanity. The fact is, if my mother had aborted me before my heart started beating even, after my embryo was formed, I would not live today. I would not exist. I would be dead.

Therefore, to suggest that abortion is not killing a life at any point in a pregnancy is crazy talk and not supported by the facts. I don't care when someone believes "life" is granted to the fetus. It is an individual, and it is alive, once the chromosomes have merged and formed new DNA. The stage is set. An individual will exist barring interference from outside circumstances. To kill it, is to kill a life.

Now, sometimes the taking of life is necessary, usually to avoid a greater evil. One could argue about those instances all day long, like going to war, death penalty, etc. But would any of the following reasons resonate with anyone? What would happen to me as a father or my wife as a mother if we terminated the life of one of our children for these reasons?

Don't have enough money to support them.
The mother was raped.
Didn't intend to have a child.
They're living off my money, I should have the choice whether I want them or not.

No, I'd be thrown and jail and the key tossed into a lake. No one would stand for that. What is so magical about the womb that someone goes from being a disposable fetus to a living person? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Just because the baby is connected to the mother for life-giving substance, doesn't give the mother a right to terminate that life anymore than I should have the right to do so because a kid lives in my house and eats my food. A baby will die just as well if left unfed and undernourished at one week old as he/she will one week before leaving the womb and the food supply is cut off then.

The "woman's right to chose" is silly when you translate what it is they are choosing. They are demanded the right to end a life simply because that life is in their body, when it wasn't the baby's fault he/she is there. Sorry, if I don't have the right to kill my kids for convenience sake, a woman doesn't have the right to kill a baby in her womb, short of it threatening her own life.

So remember all those babies that have died in our nation's own death chambers, and all the politicians who have been an accessory to the crime of murder. There are other solutions much more humane for women to deal with their problems than ending a life before it ever has the chance to get going.

Newt's Open Marriage

2012-01-19T15:25:00.002-06:00

As you may have heard, tonight Nightline will be airing an interview with Newt's second wife. A clip was released today where she says he asked for an "open marriage" and she said no. Actually, she didn't say he said that, but that he wanted to have a mistress, which isn't the same thing as an open marriage.

The problem with this is these events are over ten years ago. The insinuation is that Newt is immoral back then and therefore is immoral now, and you don't want to elect an immoral president, do you?

I hope people don't fall for this sleazy journalistic attempt to take down Newt as Obama's "campaign employees." One, it is highly likely that Newt's confession that he did do some bad things in the past and he has repented of those and corrected it is the truth.

It is obvious what the media is trying to do on behalf of Obama. Mitt's investments are being questioned even though he's done nothing wrong or illegal, and they are even getting desperate enough to interview Santorum's wife's boyfriend before they were married, over 20 years ago! How stupid do they think the American people are? Apparently they think we're just mind-numbed robots that take what's said to us and believe it all.

What they are trying to do is knock out the main players, Mitt, Newt, and Rick, so that Ron Paul, who they know is the one unelectable candidate, is left to run against Obama. They are working to make Ron look the best and the most electable by tearing down the others.

But I don't think it will work. People don't care about an old ten year old affair if that happened, or what Rick's wife's boyfriend thinks from events that happened twenty years ago. Really? People will see through this. What this does isn't to make the candidates damaged goods as they hope, but make ABC look like political hacks of the president, and not a real journalistic company. Thanks, ABC, for overplaying your hand and showing us your true colors. This is why you are not being watched any more than you are, and why Fox is #1 in news.

Another prediction fulfilled

2012-01-19T12:34:00.000-06:00

I stated a few days ago that I expected John Huntsman and Rick Perry to bow out of the race. But I expected it after the South Carolina primaries. With John Huntsman announcing this Monday he was quitting, and Rick Perry announcing today he will end his bid for the presidency, the only part I didn't predict was that they would both do it before the South Carolina primary.

I think this is a good and needed move for both of them. The field narrows and the conservative vote will be more consolidated. This effectively leaves the conservative vote going to Newt and Santorum, with Ron Paul getting a few of them who have more libertarian leanings. But most of those aren't in the Rick Perry camp.

John Huntsman endorsed Mitt Romney while Rick Perry has endorsed Newt Gingrich. Which has had more impact? Rick's, I'll wager. For two reasons. One, while Rick's following wasn't huge by this point, he has a lot more clout overall than Huntsman. You saw that when he entered the race and shot to the top of the pack, for no other reason than he had clout. John Huntsman was a blip on the screen and never garnered many votes other than in New Hampshire where he spent most of this time.

Two, because while Rick endorsed someone with who his campaign focus matches. John Huntsman attempted to portray himself as the real conservative in the race, and criticized Romney for his more moderate stances, sometimes in scathing ads. Then suddenly, instead of endorsing a conservative, he endorses Romney, a moderate, and now says he agrees with him. Which John Huntsman is the real one? I would suggest most will see the moderate endorsing Huntsman is the real one, just as people feared who didn't go for him. So everyone who went for him, believing him to be the conservative he portrayed himself to be, now seeing him endorse the establishment moderate, what will they do? Go to the Romney camp? Not likely. So I suggest his endorsement will not have as big an affect on increasing Mitt's numbers, but we will see a bump in Newts, and maybe even Santorum as a result of Perry's leaving the race.

Now it is a battle for the conservative vote between Newt and Santorum, as I predicted in my previous posts. It appears at this moment that the conservative vote is going to Newt. While I have reservations about that, I would take him over Mitt, and most certainly would take him over Obama. But a Newt and Obama race will be a slaughter house. I think Newt can come out with the presidency, but in what shape, that may be the real question.

SC Debate Outcome

2012-01-18T18:57:00.000-06:00

It seems the general consensus is that Newt won the debate this past Monday night. And I would agree. He made the big points in a way that struck a chord with the people, getting one of the few standing ovations you'll see in a debate. He came across as a fighter, and someone who knows how to take an attack on him and turn it around. Something he'd failed to do in previous times as well. Instead, choosing to complain about negative ads. That never works to make you look strong, only to make you look thin-skinned.

Santorum did well, but nothing big. His biggest point was about Romney's superpac ads placing Santorum in a jail striped shirt because of his support for felons who have served their time getting their right to vote back. Not a real hot topic; he probably should have gone a different route with the question. But he did for a moment corner Romney, taking the offensive and making Romney look like he was a bit lost.

Perry as well did well. He made a few points, but he also seemed to avoid answering the questions several times, going to his talking points that barely addressed some questions. At one point, it felt like he was more concerned with going for the big lines that had little to do with the question than answering the question.

The two that came out of this hurt and bloodied are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, because some of his more unpopular and extreme positions were highlighted. And the strange thing is he doesn't even seem to realize they are despite some boos he received. I think you'll see his numbers slipping.

But the biggest loser is Mitt. Why? Performance wise he didn't seem to be that bad, but he made some critical miss steps, which for a front runner could cost him the nomination. Keep in mind, the main reason people are voting for him is not because they feel he is conservative enough, but because people are being suckered into the mainstream media and establishment Republican myth that Romeny is the only candidate that can stand up to Obama in the general election and win.

But in this debate, we watched as Romney faltered on topics that he should have known were going to be addressed, and he didn't come out with a clear, concise, and pithy explanation of Baine and his tax return release. That doesn't look good for Romney. More like McCain who came across as tentative and defensive in the onslaught of Obama's attacks in 2008. He not only didn't maintain or help his candidacy Monday night, he didn't look like someone who was prepared to go on the offensive and win against Obama in the general election.

So it is no wonder that Newt has gained ground while Romney has lost ground in both South Carolina and the USA overall. Again, Romney is not likely to be the nominee for the Republican party this year. He doesn't have enough support. At some point, either Santorum will drop out, or if things change, Newt will, and in either case, the votes for one or the other will go to the other. When you take the percentage of Newt and Santorum together, they show a much more competitive race than we are lead to believe. Add in Perry, who will (should) drop out after South Carolina, and the numbers are even more compelling.

For example, today's polls on the national level are the following:

Rasmussen has Romney at 30%, Gingrich at 27% and Santorum at 15%. Combined conservative vote: 42%, +12% over Romney.

Pew Research has Romney at 31%, Gingrich at 16%, and Santorum at 14%. Combined conservative vote: 30%, -1% under Romney.

Gallop Tracking has Romney at 33%, Gingrich at 16% and Santorum at 14%. Combined conservative vote: 30%, -3 under Romney.

Real Clear Politics tracking as of Wednesday, Jan. 18.

IOW, this is at least a neck and neck race, not the blow out everyone thinks. On a one-on-one face off, Romney is at best running a close tie. But I would suggest once one conservative candidate wins out in this race and the other bows out, that many of the undecided conservatives in the race will get behind the conservative candidate, will generally be more excited about their guy, and tea party support, whatever it is for Romney, will wane in favor of the more conservative and electable candidate. Especially true if Romney continues to look less and less strong. We had reserved and not be "offensive" candidate last time. Most conservatives don't want a repeat of 2008.

And if we're talking electability here, which as I said last time is not a good way to pick your candidate, Romney fails on that point. Obama wants him to win because Romney has plenty of weaknesses that play right into the Democratic talking points. Rich guy, capitalist who made statements that he enjoys firing people. He is ready made for the Democratic class warfare attack. Its no wonder they say they fear him getting the nomination the most. Translated, that means they hope he gets it. They aren't going to tell the truth on that point, are they? If you believe they would, don't get into politics.

And on the Republican side, he didn't include a reduction in the top tax rates for fear of giving Obama something to be critical of, as the Wall Street Journal article reported on Santorum's tax plan being bolder than Romney's a couple of blog posts down. Republicans want someone who will stand up for conservative values, not duck them for fear they will be attacked for them. Romney has more liability in the general election than most any other candidate save maybe Ron Paul, and thus I would suggest less likely to get elected in the general election than either Gingrich or Santorum.

And let's not forget what the Democratic and liberal media's plan was last time that got Obama elected. Make our weakest candidate look like the best and predestined choice, get him nominated, and then go on the attack to make him look like the worst possible choice. Unfortunately, it seems many of the people are being influenced by the media to think Romney is the presumed nominee, so why vote for anyone else? And that he is the most electable in the general race, which nothing could be further from the truth.

So I would say Romney lost the most in the debate this week, because he didn't give good, solid, pithy and smart answers to the voters. He seemed on defense most of the night, and that isn't the type of candidate most people think of as being electable against Obama. Being that is the strongest reason for voters to vote for him, I think he really hurt his chances of coming out of this process with a ticket to the general elections, assuming he had a very big chance to begin with.

Trickle Down Still Works!

2012-01-13T14:07:00.000-06:00

Obama has proved one thing. Trickle down economics does indeed work. Only problem is, he is using trickle down in the opposite direction. As businesses hurt, struggle, go out of business, or go bankrupt, the lack of jobs, pay rates, and tightening over the whole economy makes the poor poorer, the middle class smaller, and his rich buddies richer as Obama "spreads the wealth around." Yeah. Right.

But it makes sense. If they stuck their heads in the sand that businesses doing well would result in a a rising tide that lifted all boats in the bay, they will stick their heads in the sand when it works in reverse. Might explain their total ignorance on why their attack on small and business in general would extend the recession, keep unemployment high, and giving the economy a sever case of arthritis.

And that is why any of the republicans who become president will create an immediate improvement of our situation, because Obama will not do the simple things that would revitalize our economy either from ignorance, pure ideology, or an intentional attempt to destroy America's strength in the world.

But yes, Obama has proved that trickle down economics still works.

Going Into South Carolina

2012-01-12T03:41:00.000-06:00

The latest poll, taken by Insider Advantage, shows Mitt Romney at 23%, Newt Gingrich at 21%, Rick Santorum at 14%, Ron Paul at 13%, John Huntsman at 7%, and Rick Perry at 5%. Undecided is at 15%. What do these numbers tell us as we head into next week's primary?

One factor is there isn't a huge number of undecideds. I'm sure what's left there will dwindle as the week goes on and each candidate makes their case. But more important is what I feared would happen that I stated in a post two weeks ago coming out of Iowa. I said if conservative voters didn't start supporting mainly one man, and/or some of the conservatives didn't get out before South Carolina, this would ensure the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, gets in. And looking at those numbers, that is exactly what is happening.

Most glaringly, it is obvious Rick Perry's attempt to make a last stand in South Carolina is a bust. I pretty much feared he'd be wasting his money there. When you come in 5th in Iowa, dead last with 1% in New Hampshire, you simply don't look like a serious candidate. And if Rick Perry had dropped out of the race after Iowa, that 5% in the poll would go to other candidates, most likely Gingrich or Santorum. And Newt, being only 2% behind Mitt (a statistical dead heat), it would push him into first place in the poll. A significant number going to Santorum would make him look more viable in the race as well.

But it is very clear that the five people splitting the "anti-Romney" vote are in effect making Romney the front runner, and barring something crazy happening, he could win South Carolina. But even if Newt wins, or Santorum, Mitt will still be high up on the list. It won't be a blow out. Most likely if one of the conservative alternatives gets first place, Mitt will still be second, and that will make him a strong contender going into Florida.

So here's my predictions as of this point. Either Gingrich, Romney, or possibly Santorum wins South Carolina. If Gingrich or Santorum wins, the other will be down in the low teens, or barely breaking out of single digits close to Ron Paul, and Romney comes in a close second. The end result will be that both Rick Perry and John Huntsman, seeing the writing on the wall, will end their campaigns. That will have the result of sending Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul into Florida.

Ron Paul won't factor into the anti-Romney vote too much, as his Republican support is small. For instance, out of his 13%, only 7% of Republicans said they would vote for him, while big numbers of Democrats and Independents would go his way, mostly anti-war votes I'm sure. Most republican voters are not going to vote for Ron Paul. But he does pull away some more conservative votes. While some of his policies are liberal, the more conservative elements of his economic plan and adherence to the Constitution attract some conservative Republicans. But Paul's voters are a known number and he is unlikely to expand beyond them in the coming contests. Most of his votes a Republican would not get anyway.

That in effect leaves the conservative Tea Party vote to be divided between Gingrich and Santorum going into Florida, and I believe by the time Florida is over, it will be clear who the conservative choice is going to be as an alternative to Romney. And once that person is revealed, I believe he'll take front runner status as the much bigger conservative block, which is now highly fragmented, pushes that person into a high percentage polling and votes in the states yet to come, which will be the bulk of them.

There are a couple of scenarios I can see playing out here. Either Santorum or Gingrich, if they lose the conservative vote and it goes to the other person, is likely at some point, maybe even after Florida if the spread is huge, will drop out and all the conservative voters will get behind who is left. When that happens, Romney doesn't stand a chance being nominated. So the sooner the better for conservative voters.

But I can see another path. Let's say Romney stays in the lead, and Gingrich and Santorum stay evenly split, statistically. And as a result, they both stay in the race all the way to the convention. What could still happen is that Romney would then not have the delegates at the convention to be nominated outright. And either Gingrich or Santorum would bow out, release their delegates, which would then go to the other, and secure the nomination, leaving Romney out.

So I'm seeing even if Romney wins South Carolina and Florida, it is not a done deal that he'll win the nomination. If we get a clear conservative option at the top of the field before March, it will likely be over for Romney at that point. And whenever one of the candidates decides to end the campaign, you know those delegates are going to go to the other conservative, because Gingrich and Santorum are close friends, and both don't want Romney as the nominee.

So personally, I don't see Romney winning the nomination. It is possible. There is a lot yet to go, and strange things happen in elections. Something crazy could happen even before the South Carolina primary that totally changes the picture.

What would I like to see happen as far as who gets the nomination? I'm still rooting for Santorum, as I feel he would be the best candidate to beat Obama that has the least negative baggage. Yes, he does have some, but from the Obama standpoint, the only thing they really have on him is the gay rights issue. Unlike the Republicans, they aren't going to care that he voted for No Child Left Behind and other such things. Obama can't complain that Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling (that would be a laugh considering how much Obama has raised the debt since being in office). So most of the Obama negative ads for Santroum would be his social conservatism, and that isn't so much on voter's minds right now. The Wall Street Journal said Santorum's economic plan was bolder than Romney's and notes that Romney's proposal refuses to cut tax rates for fear of Obama saying he is favoring the rich. Another instance of why Romney will not fair well against Obama once their machine goes into full gear. He's too fearful to stand up for conservative values like lowing taxes for everyone, not just the political base. Rick Santorum will.

Gingrich would do well too, though I'm not as sold on his total conservatism. I think he gets too ahead of himself and does things at times that are not conservative, and I expect his reaching across the aisle to sometimes sacrifice conservative principles for convenience. But overall, he would make a good president and be more conservative than Romney. But, Gingrich does have a lot of baggage that Obama can attack, moreso than Santorum. For that reason, I think he'd have a harder time in the general election, but he could still win.

So assuming Rick Perry and John Huntsman drop out of the race after South Carolina, if poll numbers are reflective of the coming voting, my choices in order of preference as to who will get the nomination is:

Rick Santorum

Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

Who knows what is going to happen. The whole picture could change drastically in the next few days. But that's my take on it at this point, and why I don't think Romney has this sewn up by a long shot even if he wins SC and Florida.

Electability - Really?

2012-01-09T04:25:00.000-06:00

It has been said that for Republican voters, electability is the biggest criteria upon which they are deciding who to pull the lever for. But you know what? That is a meaningless criteria upon which to evaluate a candidate. A lot of it depends upon what electability one is talking about, and the other depends upon the person deciding whether a particular candidate fits in that category.

For sure, in the context of this election, electability is shorthand for whether it is perceived a certain candidate can beat President Obama in the general election or not. But this is a lot like editors at a publishing house trying to pick the next best seller. They know 90+% of the time, they are going to be wrong. When you're publishing hundreds of books a year, you can take those odds and make it work. When we're talking a presidential candidate, it means most of the people are going to be wrong most of the time. It means, that is a very stupid way to decide on who the nominee of the party is going to be.

Now, sometimes due to certain circumstances, it is obvious that someone won't be electable. If there are things they have done that will be near indefensible, the opposition will tear them apart on those issues. For example, among the current list of candidates in the group, the only one I would come close to putting in the unelectable category is Ron Paul. Why? Two reasons. One, he will get chewed up on the newsletter deals. They are ready-made fodder for Obama's campaign to take full advantage of. Whether Ron ever wrote them or knew what they said, or how often he says he disavows what was in the newsletters, the opposition will quote statements out of those and paint him as a radical-right racist and most people will believe it. And for an administration who's favorite tactic is to play the race card, that would be like a cakewalk into reelection. Add to that Ron's unpopular foreign policy among republicans, and this would make for easy target practice for the Obama reelection campaign. I don't think Ron Paul is electable. But maybe time will prove me wrong on that. We'll see.

But out of all the remaining candidates, I think they all have about as good a chance of beating Obama as the next one. First, while the general election will not be easy, Obama is greatly damaged goods. If any one of those candidates can compare the mess Obama has made with what the Republican candidate will do to get our economy back on track, they win. I don't care whether it is Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry, any of them can win against Obama, and I don't think one is stronger than the others by much, if any. Actually, what will make one fail to get elected is a poorly managed campaign. More rides on the skills of the campaign staff than whether one of them has business background or debating skills. Case in point, McCain's loss to Obama in 2008. Here's a decorated war veteran, with loads of government experience, and a long list of accomplishments, and he is defeated by a new senator who's accomplished nothing, and the only experience on his resume is community organizer? Obama won in part because McCain's campaign didn't campaign like it should have.

But if anyone thinks they can pick which one of these candidates will beat Obama in the general election needs to check themselves into a psychiatric ward for a narcissistic condition. Let's just say for the sake of argument that there is only one of them out of the current contenders who will beat Obama. How will you determine which one is the electable candidate? This isn't a math formula because you are suggesting that you know what voters in general will do. And each voter is an individual who has their own criteria and measuring sticks about whether they will vote for one or the other. It is like picking the next best seller. As we in the writing world say, if you can pick a best seller constantly, if you know what people will buy, then stop writing and go into publishing, because you'll make a killing if near 100% of the books on your list are best sellers.

But it doesn't work in the publishing business, and it won't work in the pundit business either. You may decide that you think a particular candidate is more electable, but you are taking a gut stab in the dark is all. You can no more predict who is electable than I can predict what football team will win the 2013 Superbowl next year. Get real.

If voters were picking their candidates based on electability back in 1980, Reagan would never have become president. Certainly if someone has identifiable dead weight that makes them highly unlikely to be electable, that is one thing. But since you can no more predict what voters are going to do this coming November than you can predict who will win next year's Super Bowl, that would make this the most inaccurate and dangerous qualification upon which to base one's pick of the party's nominee.You might as well have a monkey throw darts at a board with the candidates' pictures on it and see who gets the most hits to decide the party's nominee. It is likely to be more accurate.

Maybe we should try finding the candidate that most clearly represents our values and policies, and work to get them elected. Maybe we should try that. It worked in 1980 against Jimmy Carter the first. It is my hunch that is a surer method to victory now that we face Jimmy Carter the second, on steroids.

Another Prediction

2012-01-04T14:03:00.000-06:00

Well, oddly my two predictions, that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would get out of the race ended up being a mixed bag. And I was pretty sure Rick would leave and not so sure Michelle would do it any time soon if she did. Yet, what I expected was flipped. Rick Perry is staying in and Michelle Bachmann is getting out.

So now I have another prediction. Now that Rick Santorum has turned this into a two man race with his 8 vote second place upset against Mitt, look for HuckPac to endorse Rick Santorum. I don't have any inside information on this, it is just my inner gut that says it will happen sooner than later. Simply because Rick is now the conservative going against the establishment candidate, an admitted moderate. Because Rick so closely aligns with Huckabee's values and agenda, there is no longer any reason why Mike should stay out of the race, and put his support behind Rick to help him in the coming New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. If he continues to stay out of it, I think he is risking Mitt becoming the nominee. Rick will need all the help he can get against Mitt's superpac ads and phone calls. What better than to put the HuckPac resources available to Rick's efforts to give us a true conservative nominee. It's now or never.

Also, noticed Mitt got another endorsement today. From none other than John McCain. I'm sure that from Mitt's view point, this is a good thing since John won New Hampshire in 2008. But he lost the presidency. Whatever support he has in New Hampshire will have diminished greatly from 2008, and his endorsement could actually be a weight around Mitt's neck in the coming more conservative contests. For that reason, even if Mitt wins New Hampshire because of it, I think this endorsement actually helps Rick. Not only because you have a loser endorsing Mitt, but because the McCain endorsement will solidify in conservative minds that Mitt is a moderate and establishment candidate, making it much harder for Mitt to pass himself off as a real conservative. So thanks, Mitt, for helping Rick's campaign.

Rick Perry Update

2012-01-04T13:17:00.000-06:00

Just heard Rick Perry's plans to continue. That is unfortunate. Since Rick Perry doesn't plan on competing in New Hampshire, he will have minimal effect there. I think there is still a good chance for Santorum to at least come in a close second there if not win, when you consider the momentum he has and Newt using a sledge hammer against Mitt.

Hopefully Rick Perry will reconsider soon. His time would be better spent continuing to do his job as a govener of a state which he is getting paid for, rather than thinking he can pull off a surprise in South Carolina, and possibly cost the one conservative in the race with a chance of securing the nomination votes he will need to show the establishment that they don't always get their way.

Wow, Can I Call Them?

2012-01-04T12:43:00.003-06:00

Today, Michelle Bachmann said she would end her campaign. I just wrote last night to look for her to bow out. But I didn't expect it to happen this fast. I figured Perry would announce before she would. But who knows, maybe she read this blog and said to herself, "You know, he's right." "Yeah, right!" I can hear you saying. And you'd likely be right. I would be surprised to find out she was one of the few who read this blog.

Anyway, I think my predictions are moving toward fulfillment. Keep and eye on it. Next expect Rick Perry to get out. That will leave the bulk of the conservative vote moving toward Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, and if Iowa's breakdown is any indication, Rick will get the bulk of that vote. Which will make it much more likely he can beat Mitt for the nomination.

And listening to Rush I hear he is defending Rick in regards to the attempt to label him as a "big government" Republican. That was another sign I was looking for, whether the conservative pundits would now start taking sides with Rick. I see the signs of conservatives gathering around Rick as their candidate. Maybe tentatively, but they are leaning toward him. Look for that to strengthen in the days ahead.

Iowa Winner? Santorum

2012-01-04T03:48:00.000-06:00

Back on Dec. 11th, I wrote concerning Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, "...either could pull a Huckabee surprise victory in Iowa next month. Time will tell."

Well, time has shown that I was pretty much dead on. I was leaning toward Rick for reasons I stated in that blog post. While Mitt eked out an eight vote win tonight, for him it really didn't amount to much. Why?

Because he didn't really do any better than he did in 2008. He has worked and worked, and yet cannot break out of the base support he has always had in Iowa. For him to have really "won," he needed a strong showing, with a significant lead over the other contenders. Instead, he barely "won" by the skin of his teeth.

And to who? To someone who back on Dec. 11 when I made that prediction, was polling in single digits. Who only in the days leading up to the Iowa contest started surging. All those "undecided" voters? I had a feeling they would swing Rick's way, and I was right. So what does this mean?

Rick has the opportunity now to use this momentum to not only get funding for his shoestring campaign, but to parlay this into more than a fluke. I was glad to hear that he'd already planned and laid the groundwork for this event. It will not go to waste as it has for other candidates who rose in the polls only to slide back down.

Now, before I go any further, anything can happen. Someone could pull another Cain attack on Rick. Santorum could have another mis-speak moment like Huckabee did in the South Carolina primary in 2008 about the Confederate flag which many believe was the beginning of the end and why he didn't win South Carolina, effectively ending his possible nomination. Or Mitt's superpac can fire up the attack machine and tar Rick with negative ads like he did Newt. Or any other number of currently unforeseen events. In these political races, you never know what can happen.

However, here is the path to victory I see happening for Rick over Romney, who even now most see as the eventual nominee, even though it is no longer a foregone conclusion.

First, Newt is going to act as the spoiler for Rick. Apparently, Romney's attack ads on Newt has pissed him off. He is apparently prepared to spend significant money going into New Hampshire and South Carolina to beat up on Mitt. And I'm almost left feeling after Newt's speech upon finishing fourth in Iowa that he is doing this in order to help Rick Santorum. Some of the commentators on Fox were mystified that Newt was going to do what sounded like a vengeful attack on Mitt. Sure, Newt will probably enjoy the payback, but I don't think that is why he is doing it. He stated clearly in his speech that he is friends with Rick Santorum and praised Rick for his success and for running a positive campaign. To me it is clear, whether it is orchestrated with Rick or not, that Newt intendeds to pull Mitt down in order to give Rick a better chance of winning. He'll never come right out and say that, because he has to at least act as if he still thinks he has a chance, and that's why he's still in it. But I read clearly in his speech that he will make the case that Romney is not a conservative, and that can only help Rick who has now taken on the mantel as the Conservative candidate to go up against Romney.

Then you noticed that Rick Perry is going back to Texas to decide whether he should continue or not. I caught that early when that evening when it was apparent Rick Santorum was doing well, and they interviewed Perry, that when given the opportunity to bring up Rick's spending record, earmarks, and raising the debt ceiling, Perry passed on it and didn't go after Santorum as he had on practically any other occasion the issue was brought up. When he decided to head back to Texas to think about whether to continue or not, it is clear he is planning on a graceful exit.

Whether Rick Perry is doing that for the following reasons or not, the practical result is it will help Santorum. Who are those Rick Perry supporters and voters going to go to when Perry bows out? Mitt? Not likely. Ron Paul? He might get some, but he is too radical on foreign policy and an ideologue for most Republicans. Michelle Bachmann? Doubtful, as she won't be seen as a candidate who can win now. No, they will see Rick as potentially electable and sharing more of their values and economic ideas than Mitt. The bulk of Perry's supporters will move to the Santorum column. Not only that, but it could open up ad space in New Hampshire and South Carolina TV for Rick to run ads now that he'll have some money to do so.

And for this reason, look for Michelle to find a graceful way to bow out as well. She will get more pressure from the conservatives in the party to not divide the conservative vote in contests like South Carolina and Florida that will be key for Rick to win if he becomes the nominee. And if she is smart, she will do that. Because with Perry and her supporters moving to Rick's column, the momentum will be massive going into the next contests against Mitt. If she wants a conservative to win the nomination, her best bet is to put her eggs in Santorum's basket. Whether she will see it that way and ignore the pressure for her to bow out will be seen. But I wouldn't be surprised, despite her head-in-the-sand approach she took in her speech tonight, which sounded more like a victory speech than any kind of concession, that she doesn't leave the race before South Carolina. She may have to due to lack of funds if nothing else.

If Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann both leave the race, and Newt stays in to beat Mitt over the head with his most liberal moments as Mitt did to him in Iowa, I believe you could see Rick winning in South Carolina and Florida. And I'll even go out on a limb and predict if those things happen in the next two days, Rick could win, or come in very close as he did in Iowa, in New Hampshire as well. For as long as the conservative vote is split among three or four candidates, Mitt is likely to secure the nomination in these next three contests. By Florida, it will probably be clear who is the eventual nominee. If Conservatives want to win, they will need to get behind the one conservative who is winning against Mitt. Otherwise, we'll have a repeat of 2008, where our weaker candidate ends up being nominated.

Not that Mitt wouldn't be far and above a better choice than Obama, but he wouldn't be the best choice to actually pull our country out of its tailspin. He's not a strong limited government proponent. While Rick has a "mixed bag" on that, I believe he'll govern that way and has some history of doing so. Mitt is much more mixed on that point, the most obvious reason being Romnycare, which to date he has not said was a mistake. To me that illustrates a very fundamental philosophical difference. Rick has said he will not only push to get Obamacare repealed, he'll defund it from the executive branch. We need a sharper contrast to Obama if we are to win in November.

I was also impressed by Rick's speech tonight. It was inspirational, and he not only genuinely connected the viewers, but he had some good one-liners sure to be picked up on sound bites. Like his comment on the 28% tax bracket, that if it was good enough for Regan, it is good enough for him. Or his opening statement, "Game on!" I'm sure that will end up on newspaper headlines. The speech reminded me of what drew me to Huckabee the last time, the ability to connect with people as a real person who cares about people. Most all the other candidates aside from maybe Ron Paul, I felt were wearing a mask. I could tell they were coached to "smile constantly for the camera" when they were interviewed. Because it just looked fake. Especially Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Sorry, it didn't work. Santorum, however, connects and gives a good speech. And we'll need that ability in going up against Obama who is known for his skill in that department.

That's my route for Rick to win the nomination. We'll see what happens in the rest of this month. I think that will tell the story. But the bottom line tonight is that even though Mitt technically won Iowa, practically speaking he lost. Because instead of an outright win, it is more of a tie in that an equal number of the delegates will go to each candidate, and Rick significantly out preformed expectations, unlike Romney, and because of that, he can come out of the starting gate as being the conservative alternative to Mitt, making Perry and Bachmann irrelevant in that contest. For Rick, he got what he needed out of Iowa to potentially win the nomination. Now we'll see if he'll play the cards he's dealt with in order to win, or if he ends up folding.

Oh, Ron Paul? Why I have not mentioned him? Because this was his best showing. I don't expect him to do as well from here on out. Why? Because his foreign policy will scare away most Republicans. The news this week that Iran said they have created their first fuel rod puts egg all over Ron's face that there is no evidence that Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon. And he's crazy if he thinks Iran won't use it on Israel and us when they start producing them. Most know Ron Paul's approach would invite another 9-11 type attack on our soil. Except this time, with massive explosions that will make 9-11 look like a picnic.

And while I take Ron Paul at his word that he didn't know what was in those newsletters back then, the truth of the matter is Obama would use that to devastate any chance of Ron Paul winning in a general election. The voters are not going to buy that he didn't know what was in his own newsletters anymore than conservatives buy that Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for years and years but didn't know about the his pastor's racist and radical views. Obama will have Ron pained as a radical KKK racist so fast the election will be over within a week after the convention ends. And out of all the candidates in the Republican field right now, Ron Paul is the only one Obama could contrast his foreign policy in a positive light in a way that most Americans would buy. No, if by some crazy chance Ron Paul did end up with the nomination, I think you would see two things happen. One, he would lose to Obama. Two, you'd almost certainly see a third party candidate like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Donald Trump enter the race, making it more likely Obama would win.

But it is for those reasons Republicans are not going to elect him. And if you look at the numbers, a good part of his win in Iowa was from Independents and Democrats that registered as Republicans on the day of the caucuses in order to vote for Ron Paul. If you take those away, instead of 21% of the vote, he would have got 15% of actual Republican votes. Once it becomes clear that Ron Paul isn't going to be the nominee, those people will not return for the general election unless the eventual nominee can win them over. And that isn't likely since what most of those people liked about Ron Paul was his liberal policies like getting out of the wars and his shaky foreign policy which none of the other candidates share.

Bottom line, Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee. He may influence the GOP in certain directions. But he isn't going to win. So this really boils down to Mitt and Rick now. May the most conservative man win.

Charges Against Rick Santorum

2012-01-02T23:43:00.000-06:00

Interesting how so far, I'm picking those that surge ahead. A week ago, while Rick Santorum was still sitting in the low digits, I picked him as my replacement candidate after Herman Cain dropped out of the race. I felt he was a good "dark horse" chance of, if not winning, placing high enough to continue on. Then I saw Huckabee agreeing with me on a news program, to watch Rick as a potential come-from-behind candidate. And then, he actually started surging in the polls, enough if you take the last two days of polling, he is actually in second place behind Mitt.

Predictably, as he has surged, the other second tier candidates started throwing what they felt were his deficiencies to the public. So I thought I would take them and consider the issues raised.

1. Ann Coulter, a Mitt Romney supporter, recently stated that Rick Santorum was against e-verify. As Sibyl West points out, that is false. Where Ann is getting that idea is that he voted against a bill that had the e-verify provisions in it. What she didn't say was that the same bill would also have given amnesty to illegal aliens on a massive scale, and that Rick had voted in favor of e-verify several times before that. Ann is either purposefully distorting the truth here, or relying on unreliable sources for her information without checking them out first. Shame on her.

2. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have both accused Rick Santorum of being a big spender. And while he has had a good record cutting costs, it isn't perfect or stellar. As a matter of fact, Club for Growth indicates that he tends to be tight on spending only before reelections. That is certainly not a shining spot on his record. That said, he has several bills he's pushed in Congress that would have cut costs. As Club for Growth cites, he is a "mixed bag."

3. Another accusation by the same two is that Rick Santorum is ear mark heavy. Club for Growth in the above referenced "White paper" indicates this is true. But the same outfit also notes that while Michelle has sworn off ear marks in the last few years (in planning a presidential run?) she used to be hot and heavy in the system as well when Rick Santorum was leaving Congress. And of course there is no point in him making a pledge now to not take them, since he's not in Congress and not running for a congressional seat. And Perry, while he's turned down some money, has taken a lot as well from Washington. Neither of these two should be throwing stones as if they have a pristine record.

And actually, I can understand why congressmen and women need to do this. Unfortunately, it is the system in place. If a senator or representative doesn't go after ear marks, they are in effect doing a disservice to their constitutes. It is the route that some major projects will get federal funds. Until that system has changed, ear marks will happen.

What I'd like to see these candidates do is not just pointing fingers (even Ron Paul has taken some, despite his resistance to them, citing the reasons I just gave), but to talk about what they would do to change things so ear marks are no longer the method used to get federal funds for local projects, or even to have the conversation whether the federal government should even be involved in such a thing. But I don't fault Rick Santorum for working to help his constituents within the system. Not working to get them only penalizes your constituents and does nothing to change the system. What is needed is to change the system, not criticize people for using a bad system because it is the only way to allocate funds for projects.

And there is a big difference here that should be considered. Yes a congressional voting record is important to take into consideration, but it is not a one-to-one correlation of what he would do as president. For two reasons. One, the president is an executive function, not a legislative function. Two different modes of operation. So the fact that he voted yes or no on a particular bill may not tell the whole story because of the complexities of a particular bill. Whereas the executive will generate proposals and take specific actions without worrying about what other riders might be attached that he is approving.

Two, since Rick left Congress, the recession has hit, which he along with President Bush tried to prevent but was stopped by the Democrats in Congress, and our economy is teetering, with a debt way higher than anything he saw while in Congress. The circumstances are much different than when he was in office. I'm sure he wouldn't have voted the same way then if today's situations were in effect back then.

If we are to believe what Rick Santorum says he will actually do once in office, then we would have to say as president, he will be conservative when it comes to spending. Granted, the "political expediency" issue is of concern. But as president, he will have "political expediency" to hold to his promises and plan. And really, I worry about that with all the candidates. But Rick Santorum has given me no reason to believe he won't stick to what he believes and work to reduce the size and reach of the federal government. And if he gets in with a full Republican congress next year, we could see a lot of his proposals put into place.

So for me, while I do have some concerns, I don't feel that the one's presented are either true or of a concern enough to make me feel he won't follow through on his promise to cut, as he says, 5 trillion in 5 years. That's bolder than Ron Paul's version which just talks about 1 trillion in the first year. So I'm not buying the recent attacks on him by those jealous he is rising in the polls now as they head into Iowa's caucuses today.

On the economy, I feel he is as strong as any of the other candidates. Michelle Bachmann is also strong too. I only wish she would tell the truth. No, she is not the "only" true conservative in this race. Really? She may be the most conservative, maybe even the most consistent one, but not the only one. And that statement she repeats every time I see her or get an email from her is what bugs me most about her. But she would be my second choice.

Freedom of Speech

2011-12-26T15:24:00.000-06:00

You hear all the time people declaring that their freedom of speech is being restricted, or will be if a certain bill passes Congress and becomes law (ex. SOPA bill). But I don't think people really have a clue sometimes what the first amendment really says or does concerning freedom of speech. The common perception appears to be that no one can tell you or prevent you from saying or distributing your views on any subject, no matter how offensive to anyone. But that is not what the first amendment protects!

First, here's the full text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bypassing the establishiment of religion clause, another grossly misunderstood item, let's look closer at the "...or abridging the freedom of speech..." section. Actually everything that follows after that is a reflection of the freedom of speech, because if the government could make a law restricting the rest, they restrict the freedom of speech.

But look toward the end of that amendment to find out the purpose of what is specifically being protected: "...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

IOW, the government cannot make a law restricting your ability to criticize and debate where the government has gone wrong, whether you are an individual, the press, or an assembly gathered to peaceably protest an action of the government. That free speech is all the amendment protects! If it doesn't fall into those narrow parameters, it is not a violation of the free speech rights given by the Bill of Rights.

So let's look at examples of what doesn't violate the first amendment.

SOPA - As the bill is currently written (that could change), there is nothing in the bill that would enable the government to restrict access to a website because it was criticizing the government. I know, because I've read it. Restricting access to a site because it has a gross violation of copyright infringement is not giving the government the ability to shut down a site because they said something bad about the government. Whatever other faults and problems the bill may have, it isn't because it provides for the government to restrict addressing grievances against it.

Some will suggest that it gives the government an inch to be able to do that in the future. But that is possible now. Because to do that, the government would have to break this law, which specifically upholds the first amendment. If the government is going to break law to restrict free speech directed against it, then it can do that now. They took that inch a long time ago.

Occupy Wall Street Crowd - Much in the news has been made about the violation of the OWS crowd's first amendment rights to free speech and assembly being violated by the police breaking them up. Do they have a leg to stand on making that charge?

No. For two reasons. One, they are not protesting the government. They are not petitioning "...the Government for a redress of grievances." They are protesting to private citizens about people making too much money, assumed by corrupt measures, and not giving them any of it. Insert whatever other of the many "goals" the protest is supposed to be protesting. (Most protesters have no idea what they are protesting.) The fact they are not addressing government with their concerns, the only ones with the actual power to make any changes, and protesting private citizens, means they are not protected by the first amendment.

Two, in many of the cases, they are not "peaceably" assembling. Rather, there have been deaths, drug use, trashing the property they assemble on, destruction of private property, and essentially violating the Constitutional rights of many citizens. This is not a peaceful assembly. It is violent. I'm sure some protestors have been peaceful in their actions. Many have not. When it is destroying private property and becomes violent, the police have the duty to protect the rights of other citizens from those who break the law. The fact many, if not most of these assemblies, have been anything but peaceful, means they are not protected by the first amendment.

Firing [insert famous star] from a job because they offended their customers - It is a common event that when some sport star, movie star, TV anchor, reporter, or commentator, radio personality, says something that offends a large number of people, and gets fired from their job because of it, that they protest their right to free speech has been violated.

Poppycock. The person in question has the right to say what they want, that is true. But they have no right to expect no consequences to their words. Unless the person badmouthed the government specifically, in order that the government might address their grievances, then they don't have a leg to stand on. Saying something offensive is not protected by the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't force private organizations to distribute what you say. And your lack of a public forum is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. It would only be a violation if the Government made a law saying that anyone saying offensive things had to be fired. Or couldn't be fired. But only if the person being fired could prove that they addressed a grievance they had with the government, and a government law forced their firing, could the prove their first amendment rights had been violated.

There are others, but these show some of the main ways people overextend the reach of the first amendment. It has to involve the government making a law that restricts the ability of the citizens to address their grievances with the government. Anything else falls outside the boundaries of the first amendment. There is no legal protection in this amendment from the consequences of a person saying whatever they want other than to complain about the government.

People need to not fling "they are violating our free speech rights" around so flippantly. It devalues the real protection we have in that amendment, and unnecessarily ends up allowing other rights of private citizens to be trampled on as well.

Payroll Tax Cut, Good?

2011-12-23T05:10:00.002-06:00

Lost in the whole debate about whether to extend the payroll tax cut for two months or a full year or not is whether the so-called tax cut is a good idea to begin with. It is my opinion that cutting Social Security funding is one of the worst thing you could do for the country right now. If the Republicans in Congress had any backbone, they wouldn't be discussing whether to extend it for a year or two months, they would be talking about replacing it with a real tax cut that will actually help stimulate the economy.

Rush Limbaugh mentioned on his radio show that the deduction for Social Security was billed as funding a retirement plan (Rush called it "insurance" but properly speaking, it is akin to a retirement plan deduction). So it is like many companies that offer 401K plans you can contribute part of your paycheck toward. Big difference is there the deduction goes into a private account you own. You know you'll eventually get that money back with interest, assuming a system-wide crash doesn't happen. It is a savings for retirement.

But Social Security, while tracking your contributions and your retirement money is based on those contributions, has the outward appearance of being a retirement fund, but it is not. Unlike a retirement fund, the money I send in doesn't get stored in an account with my name on it to earn interest. Unlike a retirement fund, if I die, the remaining money does not go to my estate and heirs. Instead, the money deducted from my paychecks goes to pay current retiree's benefits and if I don't use all of what is "due me," I lose it. And unlike a retirement account, the money I send in isn't restricted from any other use, but is available for the government to take advantage of if and when they so choose to offset their defect spending.

And reports have long been in play that the Social Security fund, along with Medicare, are due to not have the money to pay benefits in a few short years. The crisis was already looming on the horizon. This "tax cut" simply pushes the pedal to the floor so we'll get there much soon. In the end, this is not a tax cut. It is a benefits cut, and our current retirees will be the ones to feel it first because the shortage of money in that fund will have to be addressed or benefits will have to be cut. This is even more true when we realize that it is right now that many of the baby boomer generation is retiring. Over the next ten to fifteen years, massive amounts of retirees will be added to the system, requiring either massive increases in Social Security deductions, or massive benefit cuts if it is to stay solvent.

That's why this is not a good thing for the citizens of this country, especially our senior citizens, many who depend solely on the small check they get each month just to eat as it is. Are our representatives in Congress really gun ho on having this "tax cut" of approximately twenty dollars a week at the expense of grandma not having enough money to eat? Are we to say that Democrats want senior citizens to starve to death? Will senior citizens be allowed to die without proper care to offset the lack of benefits?

I'm not suggesting that Republican's lower themselves to the extreme lunacy of the Left in power who routinely declare that Republicans want children to starve or black churches to burn, just to name to stupid statements in times past. But certainly we can point to the truth, that by calling for a cut in the Social Security deduction from our paychecks, Democrats are in effect accelerating the Social Security crisis, as this is the only funding mechanism for sending out those monthly payments. To cut that deduction means to cut benefits unless they figure out where else to confiscate that money.

And that is really what this is about. The Social Security deduction is the only "tax" that anyone who earns a paycheck pays on the lower income levels. Having taken approximately 40% of the population off the income tax roles, Dems are saying to themselves, "How can we endear the poor to us more and make the 'rich' pay for it? How can we further redistribute the wealth of this country?" And the only "taxes" the poor are paying is Social Security and Medicare. So the goal is to cut that and tax the wealthy again to cover for the cost of it. Which in effect says that not only are the "rich" paying for 40% of the population's income taxes, but now they are being asked to pay for their retirement as well. It is a political move by Dems to shore up their base and to say they passed a tax cut. No, you passed a benefits cut.

Because one of the unintended effects (or so we would hope to believe) is that future benefits are being reduced for current payers by the simple fact they are paying less into the system. What you get back in your retirement years is based in part on what you've contributed over the years. Contribute less, you get less benefits when you retire. Granted, I have my doubts the system will be around by then for even me, and I'm about fourteen years from the age to get those benefits, if they are still there to be had. So many will scoff at such a concern. But it may be a real one when you get to the end of your life, the fund is still operating, and you get several dollars less to live on than you would have otherwise.

Consider as well that this "tax cut" does little to stimulate the economy. Sure, if you're hurting financially, every little bit can help, even twenty dollars a week extra. But if a person gets an extra twenty dollars a week from their check, and extra forty on a bi-weekly paycheck, they are going to use that to pay bills, or buy food. They are not going to spend it on "extras" by and large. And for those not in survival mode, it will amount to a little extra cash in the pocket, but they aren't going to use that to go buy a boat or iPad. It simply isn't enough.

No, if you wanted that money to stimulate the economy, you'd do it like Bush did, send what would amount to one year's amount of that twenty a week to the citizens in one lump sum of one thousand dollars. In that form, they'll tend to use it to go buy things they've been needing, a down payment on a car or helping with one for a house. Some could even take that thousand and start a business on a small scale to grow. But an extra forty bucks in the paycheck? Nope. It'll cover the weekly beer, if that.

Republicans should have taken this fact by the horns and made their case. It is stupid that anyone would see Republicans as against a tax cut for failing to pass this, much less fighting to do a two month extension. It would be so easy to unveil this for what it is, and turn public sentiment against the Democrats, who are in effect voting to cut senior citizen's Social Security benefits for the political purpose of redistributing wealth. The responsible thing to do would be to end this so-called tax cut and put in a real one, that cuts the capital gains tax, which would spur business investment and growth, which would create jobs, and get this economy moving again. And then ditch the current tax code for the Fair Tax, which has so many advantages for both poor and rich it isn't even funny.

But once again, the Republicans have dropped the ball. Instead of fighting for what would be beneficial to America, they have allowed the Democrats to set the agenda to be about a fight over how long to extend the Social Security payroll deduction funding cut. I pray whoever the Republican nominee is for president, and should he or she get in, that they will have the leadership ability to rectify these political games and guide these sheep without a shepherd that have an R in front of their name.

Shifting Sands of Politics

2011-12-11T02:11:00.001-06:00

Been intending to get back here for a while, being so much has happened. But I've limited time now days. But I'm cutting out some time finally to get this up.

So it appears my man Cain is out of the race. Hard to know whether the allegations are true or not. He denies everything, chalking it up to the political machine out to get him. And it isn't beyond the realm of possibilities to suggest he could be telling the truth. All these people had their alleged sexual harassments and the affair many years ago. Why would they come out of the woodwork now? Certainly sounds like someone digging up dirt, even if true, and "encouraging" these women to come forth. He's been on talk radio and head of big companies, why didn't they prosecute back then? It leaves some doubt about their truthfulness and motives.

But the sheer number of them, appropriately trickled out (can anyone say "planned") certainly cast a huge shadow of doubt over Mr. Cain's honesty. So if it was political sabotage as he suggested, and none of it is true, it was obviously effective. If that is the case, then I guess the establishment won on that point. Take out a candidate they couldn't control very well. I could see the DNC doing this because the last candidate they want to go up against President Obama is another black man. That would have totally erased their race card option. Kind of hard to yell that Republicans want black churches to burn when the candidate for President is more "black" than your own candidate.

Be that as it may, if true, this only proves the value of a good vetting process. Something that President Obama never had to face. And his inexperience in dealing with criticism and the rigors of the job showed up these last few years like an airport beacon on a moonless night. If this stuff had come out in the main election, it could have been devestating to Mr. Cain and given President Obama another four years.

So, I'm back to picking a candidate to support. I like some things about Newt, but I feel too much like he is attached to Washington too much. He's smart, a good debater, and has some good ideas. But what I don't know is will he stick to strong conservative values, limited government, or will it be another repeat of Bush on that front? Willing to compromise too much of his stated values to get something done? The only good thing there is that at least he knows how to get things done there. His biggest accomplishments were when Clinton was president. Whether he still has that fire in his belly, however, is another question.

I'm hesitant on Romney for some of the same reasons I am with Newt. A polititian, too attached to his state's health care plan, not solidly conservative. While I applaud his move to a more conservative set of positions, my radar warns that such changes right before becoming a candidate may be more for expedincy than core convictions. So I'm leery of Romney. And unfortunately for him, he just looks and comes across to me too much as polished and not "real." That may be a total misread, but that's what strikes me. But with my belief that what we need now is a strong conservative in the White House this next time who will fix the fine mess we are in, because Obama obviously doesn't know what he's doing, I would much rather not have Romney as our choice. If he gets it, I'll support him, but I will be sad for the missed opportunity to make some real change.

That knocks out the current two top dogs in this race so far as my first option. That leaves four others that I'm aware of: Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum, and Ron Paul. They are all low in the polls at this moment. I think Ron Paul has a little more than some of them, but mostly in Iowa. It is said he'll make a good showing there.

I like some of Ron Paul's positions, but others I can't handle. Mainly his foreign policy and the whole legalization of drugs thing. And I don't feel he's electable. I know it's unfair, but too many people vote based on looks and impressions, and he simply comes across as a cranky old man. Not saying he is, but that's the vibe that comes across. McCain had the same problem the last time around. I heard from several of the younger set that they didn't consider him strongly because he was so old. They thought he would die on them. (And yet, here we are coming into the home stretch of Obama's last year for this term, and he's still showing up on TV and working in the senate.) Like I said, not fair. But one thing a candidate must have to be a serious contender is a good "stage presence" and the ability to communicate in a positive way his or her core convictions that moves people. That was one of the main reasons I liked Huckabee off the bat last time around. I felt he had the ability to connect to the people in a way that Regan did. Add to that his social conservationism and I felt it was a winning option. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he doesn't have that. He'll have a hard time competing with Obama in the general election. Not saying he can't win, but I think it would be an uphill battle. When you take his lack of ability to connect with the people, and some views that are out there, to me he would have the hardest time of any of the candidates in the pool of making it to the White House.

As far as John Huntsman goes, I admit to not having looked into him as much as the rest. But what I've seen hasn't enticed me to go his way. Like Romney, I'm not solidly sold on his commitment for limited government and conservative values. He would probably do okay in the general election, but like Romney, I want someone in there who is a strong conservative. From what I've heard him say, he doesn't convince me that he has that conviction.

That leaves me with Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Rick Perry. lol. Well, I do live in Texas, and I guess I never really considered him a viable candidate. Mainly because while he's tried to position himself in recent years as a conservative, obviously planning a long time ago for this run for the White House, he's done things here in Texas that are not conservative, that don't follow limited government. While I knew W would be president one day, and it surely came about, I don't want to see Rick Perry as president. He's too much the politician. But when he entered the race, while he shot up in the polls, I knew once people had a good look at him, it wouldn't last. Too much non-conservative decisions he's made in the past to convince anyone he is a true conservative. So like Romney and Huntsman, I'm not eager to see him on the ticket. The only reason he keeps winning here in Texas is because the GOP doesn't ever put up any real qualified options to him, so each election cycle we hold our nose and vote for him simply because there's no one better being offered.

Now, between Bachmann and Santorum, both are very conservative folks. Both have worked for and fought hard in the House and Senate to uphold conservative values. I think out of the pack, I would be most happy with either of these two getting the nod. And both have been campaigning hard in Iowa, and either could pull a Huckabee surprise victory in Iowa next month. Time will tell.

But I'm leaning more toward Rick Santorum. After reviewing his positions and watching him on videos, I think he has the appeal that could move him forward. Bachmann? To some degree, she does too. But here are her downsides that cause me to lean to Rick. One, she's already peaked. In and of itself, doesn't mean I shouldn't support her, but all else being equal, it does give an edge to Rick who has not yet been "noticed" by the folks, has not been in the spotlight yet. Two, while due to her fighting for conservative values, she has a lot of negative perceptions out there about her. That is unfair and unfortunate, but it is the same thing Sara Palin would be fighting. Santorum, on the other hand, hasn't been on the national scene enough to have high negatives. Yes, that will no doubt change if he were to go frontrunner and get the nomination. Still, it means he is able to potentially frame the perception, whereas Bachmann has to fight uphill on it. Three, and this goes back to connecting to the people like Regan did, I'm not sold that Michelle is going to be able to do that well. I certainly think it is possible, but she's on the edge. Like Mrs. Clinton would often come across as sounding "shrill" when she became passionate about something, not to the same degree, Michelle can sound that way as well. Compared to Sara Palin who certain could passionately make her point and say it in a connecting way as well, Michelle just doesn't garner that same appeal. Santorum, while I wouldn't put him up on Regan's level, is articulate, speaks well, communicates well, and I think has some of that ability to connect, more so than Bachmann.

Also, I especially like Rick Santorum's strong social conservative stance. Huckabee hasn't endorsed anyone yet that I've heard about, but based on Hucakbee's focus and values, I'll bet he'll endorse Rick Santorum. And I hope he does it soon, when it can still make a difference in the outcome of the Iowa races. Because all I've seen, Rick is the kind of conservative Huckabee tends to endorse. And if Rick doesn't pull out at least a very strong showing, if not an outright win in Iowa, chances of him continuing will be small indeed. He's put most of his eggs in the Iowa basket.

So for those reasons, here is my priority list of who I would like to see get the nomination:

1. Rick Santorum
2. Michelle Bachmann
3. Newt Ginrich
4. Ron Paul
5. Mitt Romney
6. John Huntsman
7. Rick Perry

The last three are a pretty close tie for last place, for me. I'll support whoever gets in, but folks, this country needs some major help. We don't want to put Conservative Lite into the White House again because it will take someone with strong convictions, ability to communicate with the people, and proven conservative ideas that will work to bring our country out of this mess that Obama has only made worse. Out of the pack, I feel Rick Santorum gets the closest to meeting those goals. For as long as he's in the race, I'm backing him.

Occupy the Whitehouse

2011-10-22T03:57:00.000-05:00

The "Occupy Wall Street" crowd makes no sense to me. Why are we attacking people who earn money? Oh, because they got a bail out? And whose fault is that? It is the government for deciding they were "too big to fail," which is exactly what should have happened to correct the mess, and playing favorites by the current administration divvying out money to their rich contributors as political payback.

I'm not saying the capitalist on Wall Street don't have blood on their hands. Lots of people do. But we're protesting the wrong people. It isn't a sin to be rich. It isn't a sin to invest your money with the hope and expectation that you'll make something off of it. It is what makes this country the most prosperous and free country in the world. But people who want wealth can get cut throat about it. And that's where the government steps in, to regulate and ensure the playing field stays fair.

So the fact that there are capitalist with blood on their hands is whose fault? Yes, theirs, but it is also a failure of our government to ensure they are playing by the rules. As a matter of fact, the government not only failed to ensure that, they promoted cheating! They promoted an atmosphere of corruption among Wall Street. It is the government we should be protesting, and it is the government that we can actually change with a protest and at the ballot box. I mean, what do these protestors really want them to do? Become socialist and give away all their money?

How did the government do this? By the following:

1. Failing to regulate Freddy and Fanny. Then President Bush wanted to regulate them because they saw what was coming, that they were making loans that couldn't be paid back, and needed regulation to keep from promoting that to the banks. But Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, along with then Senator Barack Obama, with the support of the rest of the Democrats, blocked any efforts to reform and regulate the out of control agencies. Why? One might say it was to help the poor who had trouble getting a house loan. Uh...riiiiight, they really helped them out. How many of those poor still have that house or the job they used to have back then? Yeah, they really helped the poor...NOT! Or could it really be because all three of them were getting money from the activity in those agencies? Awe, surely not. No way they would sacrifice the financial health of a whole country for their own economic gain. No one would really do that, would they?

2. When the house of cards the government encouraged capitalist to build came crashing down, what did the government do? Allow capitalism to correct itself by those companies failing? No, they predicted gloom and doom and said we couldn't let it happen. People who made bad decisions should be rewarded instead of prosecuted for crimes. Sure, there would have been some doom and gloom for a while. Things probably would have gotten bad for a year or two. But that is the way it works. People make bad decisions. People do unethical things. Then the business fails, and if a crime has been committed, people go to jail and are fined. Example: Enron. That's how capitalism is designed to work.

But when you have the government step in and interfere with that process, however well intentioned and seemingly necessary, they interfere with the way it should work. They prevent the house cleaning from taking place as it was designed to do, where the stupid fail and the ethical and smart succeed. But the government propped the failing business up and patted them on the back and said, "No matter how stupid and wasteful you are, we'll keep you going. Don't worry." By so doing, the system didn't make the corrections it needed to make, and they have only delayed the inevitable for a much bigger crash down the road. And we're seeing that unfolding today.

3. The government now owns private businesses, and so they ones who are supposed to be overseeing and offsetting the affects of corruption in capitalism are now owning and running businesses with no one to look over their shoulders. So not only are they not doing their duty as watchdogs, they are now the ones needing a watchdog, but there is no one. Who's going to watch over the government's handling of the riches? These moves only promote more corruption, not prevent it.

People should be free to earn as much money as they ethically and legally can. It is the government's roll to enforce the ethical and legal aspects of that process. It is not the government's role to decide who makes too much money and to take that money and give it to others who didn't earn it. That is in itself totally unethical. It is called stealing if anyone other than the government does it. People get sent to jail for doing that. But the government can get away with it by calling it a social program. It is the height of arrogance for me or anyone else to demand that the rich not earn as much money as they do.

Some people among Christians have said that the Bible promotes a "redistribution of wealth" in reference to the year of Jubilee. Not so fast, quick draw! This is a gross misunderstanding of the year of Jubilee.

The year of Jubilee in the Bible notes that on the 49th or 50th year (there is some debate which is really meant), that all land sold reverts back to their original owners, and all slaves are released. The land, however, doesn't include houses in walled cities, or other property the people might have, just the land itself, mostly referring to farm and cattle raising land. But this is the exact opposite of redistribution of wealth. This is the intentional retaining of property to the original owners. And the Biblical law says that the closer to the year of Jubilee it gets, the less a person should pay for the land.

What does this really sound like? Leasing. When someone "bought" land in Israel, they did so knowing they didn't own it (the reason given was it was the Lord's as mentioned in Lev. 25:23), and that the land would revert back to the original owners on that date. Pure capitalism. For it to have really been redistributing of wealth, it would mean the Israelite King would "tax" the land owners by taking some of their land, and then finding some poor people to give it to. That didn't happen.

When they "sold" it, both parties knew it wasn't a permanent arrangement, and the one selling it would get it back. It was a business arrangement. No, this protected the generally accepted premise that land stayed within the family, being divided among the heirs. It effectively prevented anyone from giving or selling the land to anyone else. It protected the right of the family to keep the land in the family. Property rights. Does that sound like socialism to you? Far from it.

No, the protestors should be doing the "Occupy the White House" protest instead of Wall Street. Reform the government who is failing at their jobs, and then they will fix whatever the Wall Street problems are. They will audit and shut down the Federal Reserve if need be. That is the job of the government, to watch out for our best interest. To keep everyone playing fair. You can't fix the problem by railing at the capitalist who have taken advantage of whatever they were allowed to get away with. You fix that by fixing the government.

In other words, they need to join the Tea Party. These are exactly the kinds of things they are protesting. Except they are getting to the root of the problem with solutions that can work. Not just photo ops to make it look like they are doing something.

And of course we should start at the top, with the "Occupy the White House" meaning a new president who isn't in bed with these corrupt corporate entities and put a new president in place who will listen to the American people instead of the corrupt capitalist, whoever they may be, and clean things up. Go to the source of the problem instead of mucking with a system that generally works when government stays out of the way other than to prevent manipulation of the system to one company's or group's advantage.

Then we might actually be able to turn this country around economically and really help the poor by encouraging more jobs to be created, so people can once again work for a living.

Herman Cain in Front

2011-10-13T00:38:00.002-05:00

Been a while since I've posted, in part due to some issues I had to deal with over the past few months. But as you can tell from my previous post back in April, I know how to pick them. :) With Herman Cain leading the Republican pack in some recent polls, ahead of Romney who everyone believes will carry the day, I can only say, yep.

Why did I know? Because of one important factor that I think most Americans are looking for. And I'll preface that with the following comment, because this is true for the same reason. For already, there is talk that Cain is another rise up and will soon drop back into the lower spots in the pack. They cite Bachmann and Perry's subsequent rise and fall. But I think they are missing some key points here in assuming Cain will end up the same way.

First, Bachmann ran second behind Romney for a while. Most said it was in part because of strong Tea Party support, and that may have had something to do with it. But the Tea Party had several favorites. Cain has also been strong among them. I think it was in part due to not such a great showing at the debates. She did well, just not enough to snag voter's interest to surpass Romney. Then when Rick Perry jumped into the race, a good number of her supporters shifted towards him. You could see the rise of Perry in the polls and the dip for Bachmann. After Perry dropped, those same supporters were left feeling like maybe Bachmann had too many negatives and would have trouble going up against Obama. She could win, I have no doubt, but perception is everything among the voters, and I think that is to a large extent what happened with her.

Perry is another animal altogether. I'm a Texan, so I know him fairly well as far as politics in the state goes. When he was way up in the polls, past Romney, I told someone it was temporary. Why? Because as a slick politician, he's worked to position himself to look like a conservative over the past few years, but other decisions he has made have offset that. He's a mixed bag. I knew once people got a closer look at him, as policy's he's supported in Texas come into the light of debates, that interest in him would wane.

And that's exactly why I don't think Cain will "fizzle" away as the others have. The main reason I liked him as a candidate, like I liked Huckabee, was that he comes across as genuine and honest. I get the distinct impression that he will do what he says he will do, or will do all in his power to accomplish the goals he has laid out. I think if he gets elected, he'll be a game changer for America, in a very positive way. I think he has the vision, the leadership ability, and the smarts to get the job done. Which is what I think other people see, and why I don't think he'll fizzle away as the other candidates have.

Polls will go up and down. I'm not saying he'll necessarily stay on top. It is really too early in the election cycle to name a front runner. Too many people aren't even paying attention yet. But what I see is when they do pay attention, they like Cain. And the fact that he has the highest support rate among his followers than other candidates, means when people do start looking, they will, like me, like what they see.

We'll see how well my predictions play out. But I think he's in the front pack to stay. And I'm hoping he wins the nomination and the presidency.

Presidential Candidates

2011-04-21T02:14:00.000-05:00

Last time around on the presidential election, I supported Mike Huckabee. There are a lot of good things about him that I like. His views and policies are good, and he has a good ground game, which means he stands a good chance of going against Obama in the general election should he gain the Republican nomination. I think he would make one of the best, if not the best, president for the nation in these troubled times.

That said, he has a tendency on occasion, to say something that ends up hurting himself. The prime example of that was the South Carolina primary elections, where he made a comment about the flying of the Confederate flag. One could make the case if he hadn't fumbled the ball at that point, so that the opposition could paint him as someone who would bring God back into the class room (something our side may find good but the liberals can use to paint him as a religious radical).

The other time I specifically recalled was his discussion with Gretta about the underwear bomber. He made a statement that what he would do with the guy is to strap a bomb to his underwear and tell him to run, and then blow him up. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I couldn't believe he said that. From the look on Gretta's face, I think she was a little taken aback by his comment as well.

But, I really didn't have another candidate who I felt was a viable option, so I figured I'd still be for Mike in the upcoming election, should he decide to run. Until now, that is. I've been checking into another candidate, Herman Cain.

What I like about him is like Huckabee, he supports the Fair Tax, which I think would stimulate the economy in a big way, and save people from getting in debt to the Feds. And it would get rid of the whole IRS, its strong arm tactics, and free the American people from tax slavery. But where I see Huckabee as having some weaknesses, Herman has strengths.

One, he has successfully ran businesses, saved Godfather's Pizza from the edge of bankruptcy. He knows business, and he knows how taxes work. He would be the ideal candidate to know how to fix the mess we are in.

Two, you can tell in hearing him talk that he has leadership skills. Huckabee has those too, but not to the degree I feel Herman does. The sense I get from listening to him is that when he says he will do something, he'll do his best to get it to happen. He knows how to lead and manage people. Unlike our current president, he would not be coming into the office with no experience.

Three, like Huckabee he is a good communicator. He knows how to give a speech. Like Huckabee, he seems to think well on his feet, which will pare well in debates against Obama.

Four, he's very conservative. Some have questioned Hucakbee's conservativism, wrongly I feel. But it has been questioned and I'm sure that will all come up again. I don't think anyone would say that Herman isn't a conservative. That issue goes away.

Five, he takes the race issue off the table. Since he is black, it would serve him as well. It would become harder for the President to claim racism. Might not stop him, but that takes away that argument. What people don't seem to get is the color of your skin doesn't matter. Obama would not have been elected if what he said was true.

Those are five points. What are your thoughts? Does Herman sound like a viable candidate?

Health Care Scare

2011-01-18T21:01:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow the House will take up the bill which will repeal the Obama health care bill, which Congress passed in the wee hours of the night, by hook and crook, despite the fact that an overwhelming number of the constituents whom they purport to represent said they didn't want this bill. Not only the fact that we didn't want the bill, but also the way in which the leadership of Congress twisted arms, bribed congressmen, and used every trick in the book to pass a bill that otherwise would have never seen the light of day, and which hardly anyone had read, resulted in the trouncing many members of Congress received at the polls this past November, and the ascendancy of the Tea Party candidates into a viable block in Congress.

And the response from the left on the House considering this bill is predictable. They say it is a waste of time. They say it won't get through the Senate, and if that, the President will veto it. And even if it reached the President's desk and he vetoed it, the chance of overriding such a veto is nearly impossible in the Senate at least. So, yes, it is unlikely that the House passing a repeal will get signed into law and actually repeal it.

But is it a waste of time? By no means! First, I would suggest, that many of these new members of the House were elected primarily to work on repealing this health care bill. They wouldn't likely get reelected if they came home showing no effort to doing what they promised to do. For the people who elected them, repealing the health care bill is a huge priority. Perhaps the biggest priority facing our country, as it threatens to not only do our economy in, but the way it was handled ripped the fabric of our republic democracy. How it was done told the people who they represented, "You don't matter in the governing of this country anymore, we can do what we want."

No, these representatives, if they are to represent the people who put them there, must and will deal with repealing the health care bill, no matter the likelihood of it being signed into law.

"But what possible good does it do other than to ensure their reelection?"

Very simply, it will show the American people who's jobs should be put on the chopping block in the next election. We've already seen that this movement has only grown over the past two years, not waned. The evidence is strong that it will only get stronger. People's attention are not only focused on this one issue, but watching the Congress to hold them accountable if these new ones fail to represent us, and get sucked into "business as usual." We put them in there to start swimming upstream, so that's what we expect them to do.

And one of the key criteria the American population will have in deciding who to reelect or who to vote out of office come the next election, will be who says "Yea" to this repeal, and who says, "Nay." Everyone who says "Nay" will essentially be saying, "I wish to be voted out of office come the next election, because I don't represent you, I only do what is expedient for my own political gain and power."

The House passing this repeal of the health care bill will force those in the Senate to take a stance on it, one way or the other. And if, as expected, a lot of Senators vote "Nay" on the bill, and kill it, you can bet they will have a very, very difficult time getting reelected unless they are in the most liberal of liberal states.

For that reason alone, the House passing this bill is not wasted time. And I would suggest that this is not the only test the House should toss into the Senate. There are the defunding bills that can be passed. There are other bills which would make provisions of the health care bill gutted and unusable, like a law disallowing the federal government to sell anything, as it is a conflict of interest with the Inter-state Commerce clause (how can the regulator effectively regulate and prosecute itself?). A bill could be passed erasing all provisions that anyone, including the President or Congress or Unions that have been cut special backroom deals on this, are exempt from the provisions of this health care bill. It either goes for everyone, or no one. And I'm sure creative people could come up with others.

Point being, we the people, who in this representative democracy, are the ultimate bosses, want these bills passed by the House to make it clear who else needs to be given the pink slip come 2012, so we can prevent this bill and others from eroding our country economically and politically. We the people won't stand for you the Congress ignoring us. So, go ahead. Vote "Nay" on this bill. We need to know who no longer wants to serve the people as a member of Congress. We intend to put in people who will listen to us. It's that simple.

Health Care Like Auto Insurance?

2010-12-13T21:47:00.000-06:00

In the face of the Virginia court's decision that the federal mandate to buy health insurance in the health insurance bill passed almost a year ago is unconstitutional, President Obama made the claim that this is no different from people being mandated to buy auto insurance.

Really? Does he really believe that? Or is this another smoke and mirrors "Oh, this sounds right" trick?

I mean, think about it. You don't have to drive. You don't have to own a car. There are people who chose not to. Being able to drive is a privilege the state (not the federal government) grants someone who owns or has access to a vehicle and wishes to use it for transportation purposes.

What state, or even federal law, gives me the privilege to live? Is the President really saying that the federal government holds the privilege on whether I get to live my life or not? For the only way this is equal to the auto insurance laws in the states is if they are the ones who grant that right.

Yet according to the Declaration of Independence, our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right granted by our Creator. The Constitution of the United States was put into place to ensure that the Federal Government not only protected those freedoms, but wouldn't get big enough to take them away.

The provision in the health care bill to force people to buy health insurance strikes at the heart of the rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It would whether by intent or incidentally, place our freedom to life in the hands of the federal government, both legally and literally. This is exactly the outcome that the founders of this republic did their best to prevent. If this is allowed to stand, it will be the final blow to our freedom as a people, and open the doors to a Big Brother dictatorship.

Let us pray that when this reaches the Supreme Court, that the judges will see it for what it is, and defend the Constitution as they took an oath to do. Or our republic will soon disappear as it did for Rome when the Ceasars came into power as rulers and gods.

Here Comes the Calvary

2010-12-11T10:42:00.000-06:00

It is now apparent that where previous conservative wins like Brown in Massachusetts were brushed off by President Obama and his progressive companions as flukes, or because their candidate ran a bad campaign, or any other number of excuses, the November 2nd conservative run on the house has finally forced the president to realize the fact is a majority of Americans are no longer with him. He's lost the vast majority of the independent vote.

And it really is no more complicated than the fact that those who voted for him thought they were bringing in a centrist. Presenting himself successfully as such, despite his past history to the contrary which few took into consideration, people piled on to elect the first black president.

Historic? You bet. Unfortunately for our black brothers and sisters, he will likely go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. Right beside Jimmy Carter. And I hate that. I wish they had actually elected a good centralist president. One who isn't beholden to the fringe left of the country. One who represented a majority of Americans rather than the progressive few. Then we could have all held our heads up high, no matter the race or color of the skin. And I would have been proud to do that. But now, because of his ultra-left policies and actions, his drive to socialize America, which a majority of Americans see as a direct threat to this country, the first black president will go down as not only inexperienced and clueless on the economy and foreign policy, but the Whiner in Chief.

The November 2nd elections forced him to deal with these facts, though I doubt he fully understands the gravity of his situation with the majority of the American people. Surrounded by like-minded socialist and communist czars and staff, insulated by the D.C. bubble, he has been able to ignore the polls, ignore the chatter, and say that he simply hasn't communicated well enough to the American people. As if he can explain socialism better, we would be on board. "Oh, so he wants to redistribute my hard earned money to those who didn't earn it. Well, that's different. I'm cool with that." Not!

The problem isn't that we don't understand. It is that we understand all too well. And we can't stand for it at all. We do believe that socialism is the route to widespread poverty in this country. That capitalism, while it has its flaws, is the system that will produce the most prosperity for the most people, and allow those that have to voluntarily give to those who are between a rock and hard place, as America has always been famous for doing, both at home and abroad.

We do believe in a limited government that works to preserve our freedoms, not take them away.

We do believe in enforcing our laws, by securing the borders, and rewarding people who come here legally looking for a better way of life than poverty and looking over your shoulder fearing death is nearly upon you for daring to speak your mind, which is a good example of a socialist country. Is that were we wish to head? Will Canada look at us like we look at Mexico today, and debate border security with the USA?

We do believe in a strong military, that peace is best preserved through strength, and that America is in a unique position in the world to not only be a leader, but the driving force in world politics and economies. A strong military to protect our freedoms from enemies of freedom is the primary duty conferred upon the federal government by the Constitution. Without that, there's little reason to have a federal government at all.

The majority of Americans believe this strongly. Any "clear" communication of goals contrary to this are to be fought against. And Mr. President, your actions speak louder than words. Bringing in Bill Clinton says only one thing: you still think you can fool the American people through triangulation and word games. This isn't about public relations, the right spin, or attempting to make yourself look centrist again. That paste has already been squeezed out out the tube and won't go back in. There's no way to trangulate your way out of this one.

The only solution? Dump the fringe left and truly become centralist. To really make amends, become fully conservative. Not that I expect that to happen, but that is pretty much what it would take to gain back the trust of all those independent voters you fooled once. I doubt they'll fall for that line again in big enough numbers to get you reelected. If they do, they are bigger fools than you.

The Cost of Tax Cuts

2010-12-09T01:28:00.000-06:00

With the debate over President Obama's compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts for another two years, one might miss an interesting tidbit of info. Everyone focuses on the concessions Obama made, the Left feeling he caved in too readily, or the concessions the Republicans made, extending the unemployment insurance for another year for those on unemployment.

The compromise is a mixed bag, and because of that, all Americans will probably lose. Maybe not as bad as if the tax cuts weren't extended at all, but we still lose. Part of this is the mixed messages President Obama is sending out. His rhetoric was also a mixed bag. Consider this confession of Obama, contradicting a long-held Democratic belief that tax cuts will hurt the economy:

This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth.

So on one hand, the president admits that the way to spur economic growth is to cut taxes! Is he finally getting the message? Is he finally on our side? Has some advisor convinced him of the economic spiral his currently socialistic policies are going to produce on our country, putting thousands more out of work and risking a major inflation in the coming months?

One could only hope. Yet, he still says things like the following, which would indicate he doesn't get it:

At the same time, I’m not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And I won’t allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who’ve lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses -- because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

So now he's saying that tax cuts will add $700 billion to our deficit? No, he doesn't get it. His economist are wrong on two points. One, they aren't factoring in more people getting back to work, thus more people paying income tax (because they are now earning an income...duh!), and therefore, a bigger amount of revenue rolling into the government's treasuries. If anything, we shouldn't be just preventing these tax cuts from expiring, but if we really wanted to spur the economy, we should cut them even further!

And I can't help but asking, why wasn't he concerned about the deficit before now? He has increased and added to the deficit since he's been in office more than any other president in history, combined. Now he's saying he won't add another $700 billion? Give me a break. He'll say that, then turn around and propose a favored pet project that will add to the deficit. What he's really saying here is, "I don't want to allow Americans to keep more of the money they earn on a permanent basis, because we will keep spending that money on items never authorized by the Constitution anyway, whether we have it or not."

In essence, he and the Democrats in control of Congress are holding the American people hostage to spending items few if any Americans would agree to pay for, and willing to steal our money to do it. And our representatives are aiding and abetting. (Thus the reason, folks, it is called the "Tea Party" because right now we really do have taxation without representation. That's what you call it when a majority of Americans oppose the Health Care bill but your representatives vote to make it law anyway. We are not being represented by our representatives.)

But his most inane comment comes on the heels of that statement, "...we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses."

One, because if the tax cuts are kept in place, taxes will not rise on "parents and students and small businesses." And, this is not a tax cut for anyone! Including the wealthy! The tax cut was given many years ago. This is keeping in place what everyone already has. Liberal progressives, get this through your head: THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT, IT IS PREVENTING A TAX INCREASE ON EVERYONE!

What President Obama is really saying in the above statement is, "...we should increase the taxes on the wealthy while giving everyone else a tax cut in the form a payroll taxes and a few other little goodies thrown in."

In other words, standard liberal class warfare. He speaks as if Republican's only care for the wealthy, when he knows that's a lie on two fronts. One, I'm a Republican, and I'm no where near wealthy. But I've done much better financially under Conservative Republican leadership in general. Why? Because the economy tends to be much better under them. The policies of the Republicans help the poor far more than the Democratic, liberal, progressive ones do, which only seek to keep the poor poor, and under the government thumb.

Two, because President Obama's stimulus package went to some of his rich, wealthy friends, companies who didn't even need it, like GE. He gives wealthy union bosses special deals. No, the Democrats are just as much, if not more, in favor of the wealthy. The only difference is they pretend to not be, so they can keep fooling the poor that they are on there side, because they hand them a little money to get along with, but never enough to break out of poverty. Rarely helping people to actually get a job.

But there is one more issue that destroys the benefit that might have come from the meager tax breaks given to working Americans, aside from preventing them from going up. Extending the unemployment taxes. Here's what this means. It means that states will have to take more money from businesses in order to pay for the added unemployment insurance they will be forced to collect and distribute. For that business, it means one of two things, or both: lay off workers or not hire any additional workers, and/or raise prices.

In either case, you nullify the tax savings he is giving. One, because the unemployment rate will rise higher. That means fewer people working, less income to tax, thus less taxes and an increase in the deficit. And after the printing of money recently done, if businesses are forced to raise their prices to pay for the increased taxes, that means the average middle class and poor will now have to pay more for their groceries, and everything they buy. So for the few people who actually get a paycheck, they will see their social security cost go down (for one year) to then take that savings and spend it on a higher price for gas and groceries. And because this new federal spending program will add to business taxes, it means many more people will lose their jobs when businesses don't have the money to pay them, because they have to pay the people who aren't working first.

This doesn't even address the fact that we are a scant few years away when Social Security will be in the red. This will only speed that process up.

To be clear, unemployment tax is a tax on the middle-class and poor of this nation, and not on the wealthy. By putting this into effect, they have done the exact opposite of what they claim to be doing. They will be forcing the working Americans out of their paying jobs, and raising the prices on everything we buy, causing a greater dependence upon government, and less prosperity for everyone, while the wealthy will remain relatively unaffected because this cost isn't progressive, it is regressive.

So, President Obama finally admits that reducing taxes will spur economic recovery, but he loses sight of two important factors. The wealthy who invest their money in businesses will not have less incentive to invest in new businesses because, 1) they have to pay more of their money in taxes, 2) the tax cuts are only temporary, so two years down the line is uncertainty, and the government could do anything. By reducing the cost to do business and provide a stable political landscape for business, they will be much more likely to take the risk with their money to get business started and growing again. Without that, don't expect a lot of economic growth over the next two years. Jobs are not created by the middle-class or the poor, but by those successful in investing and creating thriving businesses. In other words, the wealthiest Americans. A tax on them means fewer jobs and reduced prosperity for everyone.

But he doesn't seem to get the idea that cutting taxes will increase revenue to the government, despite the fact that the last four presidents who have tried it, increased revenue to the federal government. And it works specifically because it puts more people to work, and more people at work means more people earning income, which means more income to tax, which means more revenue rolling into the treasury.

I am glad the President has finally received the message that the way to spur the economy is through tax cuts. If he really believes that, let's put in place some big ones! Now, if we can get it through his head that this will not produce an increase in the deficit, but help to reduce it, and the real focus should be to cut programs that a limited government our country was founded on should never have taken up. For what it ends up being is very simply in no other terms a robbery from the American people of the highest order.

That's what it is when you take my hard earned money and spend it on things I would never in a million years, that a majority of Americans would never approve of if we were actually given the vote. It is stealing from my pocket, Mr. President. I'll pay my fair share, but only on the essential functions of government authorized by our Constitution, not some senator's pet project, or to give money to someone who isn't working. Leave that to private charity which can handle such things much more efficiently than the government can.

The People Have Spoken

2010-11-05T01:50:00.000-05:00

I warned them. Not that any of those politicians read this blog, I'm sure. But the writing was on the wall. The tidal wave hit Washington DC. Over 60 new Republicans will be coming into the House, and as of this date, possibly eight senators. The Republicans will now control the House, but came up short in the Senate, yet have moved the Senate away from the one or two vote swing that the Democrats had to have to end a filibuster.

There are several thoughts I've had, most likely voiced by more widely read pundits than I. But I thought I would offer them anyway. Otherwise, why have this blog?

One, a key part of this is not so much that we elected Republicans, but that we elected strong conservatives. That is critical. What we don't need are more of the same old establishment Republicans going to Congress to play "cards" with the Democrats and claim to be helping the country. We need people who will really trim government, limit government, reduce the power of the bureaucracy, and lower the spending and cost of providing the governments basic services: establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the public welfare, and the other basic constitutionally given powers of the government. We need to get the government out of our lives. We don't need them telling us whether we can buy a Happy Meal without vegetables or not. (Get real, California! No wonder you're going broke faster than the speed of light.)

It very well may be that these newly elected congressmen and women will find this is not an easy job. And I'm sure it won't be. Entrenched politicians who feel threatened will fight back. Politics can be pretty dirty, not only what you see in campaigns, but also behind the scenes, in closed doors, where deals are made and threats delivered. But for the first time since Regan was in office, I have a sense of hope with these guys. Why?

Because for the simple reason that the people who put them there are so focused, watchful, and energized. What that means is now that they are in office, they will be judged very strongly on how forcefully they work to put into place the policies and laws which they promised to do. As has been said, they are on probation, and for the most part, I believe they realize that. If they fail to put forth the best effort at repealing the health care bill, cutting taxes, reducing the reach of government into the lives of Americans, and most importantly, getting government out of the way of businesses being able to do business and so revive our economy. Even if they can't get those things done, now that they have the House, they must put forth those bills.

They must put forth those bills for more than just proving to us that they are trying to do what we sent them there to do. They must do so in order to put on record the other senators and representatives who's election will be coming up in 2012. That will create two dynamics. One, if they vote against repealing health care, their constituents will take note of that, even as many of them have already taken note of their votes this past two years. Two, having seen how many of their friends have lost their jobs due to their support of Obama's agenda, the Obama administration will no longer be able to convince them that voters will be okay with their support. They will or should realize the only way they can possibly save their job come election time is to vote to repeal it. And you never know. If enough of them realize that and support repealing it, they could have a veto-proof majority vote.

But by sending conservatives to Washington, instead of liberal Democrats and Republicans, we might actually get to see something accomplished, because these new folk will not remain silent. They didn't come there to get along, but to take our country back. And the voters who put them there will not be satisfied with anything less than an energetic attempt to do just that.

The other issue is since the Senate is still in control of the Democrats, while not ideal, it leaves the Republicans with a strong card to play. As hinted at above, they can crank out bills in the House which the Senate will have to take up. But as I've pointed out before this blog, it is the Senate which holds the purse strings, and the president with minimal influence on the budget, the economy is still fully in the Democratic hands. It will remain their economy not only because Obama is president, which everyone seems to focus on even though the president is limited in his ability to affect the economy, but the people who actually decide what to spend and what to spend it on, the Senate, is still Democrat.

Either the Democrats will take their lead from the House and cut taxes, stabilize the business environment by putting a halt to knee-jerk regulations, and stop making it harder and harder for businesses to perform by creating uncertainty and putting up road blocks unnecessarily, or they will blindly keep shoving the policies down the throats of working Americans like they have over the past four years (when Dems took over the Senate and got us into this mess) that threaten to kick inflation to levels never seen in our country since the days of the last president who didn't have a clue what he was doing with economics: Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

But it boils down to this. As promised, Americans fired a number of senators. In a few places, Democrats were able to hang onto their seats either because their districts are so populated with Democrats wearing blinders that their Senator/Congressman could be a serial killer and they'd still vote for him/her (Frank and Boxer), or the the candidate was able to tell enough lies and fearmongering that the guilible among their constituatants bought the bait, hook, line and sinker and voted out of irrational fear (Reid), or they moved to a conservative enough position that they people accepted them as a conservative, forgetting that the Democrats rarely break from their party, even when they say they have principles and won't (so based on history, you're taking a big risk on the future of this country trusting them).

But the people fired a whole bunch of them. Some of them long time career politicians. Some of them high ranking members of Congress. Now preparing to pack up and move out. This is what we warned you would happen. This is what we told you we would do. You didn't believe us. I only have one last thing to say:

Can you hear us now?

Mud in Your Eye

2010-10-26T14:41:00.000-05:00

It is no surprise, that bereft of issues and platforms that people can support, liberal candidates in races across the country, including those like the President campaigning for them, are avoiding evaluating their failed policy and promising to reverse them (which might actually save their jobs if they could get enough people to actually believe they meant it), and instead slinging mud at their opponents, hoping something will stick, hoping that some uninformed voter out there will be influenced to vote their way.

What they fail to realize is, yes, there will be those who are lead by the nose, don't seek the truth, believe the lies, and vote to keep a corrupt politician in power to continue to destroy the freedoms that have made this country great, but there are not nearly as many of them as their used to be.

The electorate, thanks to the horrible legislation that congress has shoved down our throats, failing to represent the people who were in vast majority numbers against this (thus, the reason people call it the "Tea Party," because it is obvious we are no longer represented in Congress, and being taxed against our will to pay for things we either greatly disagree with or don't believe should be the purview of our government), are much more aware now of the dirty tricks, the lies, and have stopped believing anything you say as being truth.

This Democratic mantra of "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" is getting very old and sick. More people than ever realize what is being said is lies. You can only cry wolf for so long, then we stop believing anything you say. That's where the majority of the American people are at now. That's why next week, many of you will be packing it up later this year.

So, throw your mud. We have water hoses of truth to clean up after you, which we're going to have to do anyway once we get in and start returning the government to the people and for the people. For most of us, the mud you throw only strengthens the conviction it is time for you to leave. We've let you play in the pig pin for too long.

Thanks for playing your hand these last two years, which has woken up people all over the country to the reality of Progressive repression. Once they found out the change you really intended was to destroy our country's freedoms, wealth, and turn us into another arm of the government, they revolted within the law. And that is what you will see on Nov. 2nd.

And Mr. President, for the last two years the Republicans haven't been able to block anything. Your Democrats had the votes to put through anything you wished, and you just about did. Don't come crying to us that the Republicans are blocking this or that. They can't block much at this point. Luckily, that will change come January. Thanks for your part you played in waking up our country to your Progressive and damaging policies. We couldn't have done it without you.

Failed Policies?

2010-10-13T02:42:00.000-05:00

A common phrase of the Democrats, which we are beginning to hear more and more as the mid-term elections near, is that the Republicans, indeed the country itself, is attempting to take us back to President Bush's failed policies that "got us into this mess."

Reality check:

The president offers a budget, yes. The Senate controls the purse strings, and votes on what financial policy will be. Not the president. He can only support a certain policy, procedure, etc. The Senate decides what it will actually be and funds it.

Now, when did the Democrats gain control of the senate? Oh, I think it was in 2006, yes? And wasn't it this same Democratic senate that blocked President Bush's attempts to get them to reform Freddie and Fanny? Yes, I believe so, even while then Senator Obama was a member of said senate.

So, who's failed policies actually got us into this mess? That's right. The failed Democrat policies. The same policies that they are now being forced down our throats in an attempt to choke out the remaining life left in the economy.

No, when Republican's had control of the Senate, while they certainly didn't score 100% rating on how they handled things, including the economy, at least the economy was going the right directions. It wasn't until the Dems took over the senate that within two years of being sworn in, they "got us into this mess".

And the sad thing is, if Republicans gain control of the Senate again this November, as polls show is a definite possibility, and if they do the things that need getting done over any potential Obama veto threats, and the economy improves, watch President Obama claim his policies are working, and that his stimulus packages have pulled us from the brink of economic ruin. But the reality will be, the Republicans who controlled the purse strings and the economic policy will have done it.

It's sort of crazy, really, to attribute how well the economy is doing to the president, because he actually has very limited effect on it other than as a bully pulpit and not putting in place regulations that will choke it.

That's why we will be changing horses this coming November, because we need someone to get us out of the failed Democratic policies that have gotten us into this mess, and are prolonging it further than it needed to be prolonged. The Dems took a good economy and destroyed it. Time to put them into the minority, for a long, long, long time.

Another Reason to Clean House

2010-09-21T21:03:00.000-05:00

Senators are working overtime to give the American people further reasons to throw incumbents out of office this coming November.

As reported from the Miami Herald concerning the recent failed attempt to end the filibuster on the military defense bill, it contains a little more than just a spending budget:

The legislative stalemate came after Republicans pushed to vote on blocking the repeal of the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy, while Democrats wanted to include in the defense bill a provision that would make it easier for high school graduates who had entered the country illegally to attain legal residency.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/21/1835743/senate-bid-to-end-dont-ask-dont.html#ixzz10Dcypv6n

On the Don't ask, don't tell, no matter whether one is for or against it, it makes sense to let the military finish their study due out in December on the affects of removing this policy. Why not listen to what those who will be affected by it will say? What's the hurry? It's not like the end of the world to wait a few more months.

But really, no matter one's position on that, or on illegal immigration, here's the real issue and problem here:

THIS IS A MILITARY DEFENSE SPENDING BILL!

What on earth are political footballs like "Don't ask, don't tell" and illegal immigration doing there! They don't have anything to do with spending in the military.

If they are worthy to be passed, they can be put forth on their own, and debated on their own merits. Not attempting to attach them to an unrelated bill, and then have the audacity to accuse those of complaining about this unethical maneuver of holding up funds for the military!

Dems somehow think because I'm out here in middle America, in the "fly over country," that I can't see through this charade? It is those who inserted these controversial measures into a military spending bill who are to blame, and everyone who voted for it.

This may have been a practice in the past, but it is wrong, unethical, and just gives us one more reason to throw you out of office. Stop trying to screw the American people! We're tired of it.

Here's what you do if you even have the decency to do the right thing. You first read the bill all the way through. Then you remove those two provisions and any other unrelated spending provisions that are hiding in there, then you pass this bill and get the money to our troops. If you don't do that, don't support that, then you are the one who is not supporting our troops. You are holding our soldiers hostage to your political agendas.

Guess what? In Novemeber...bye bye.

Can They Win?

2010-09-16T02:48:00.001-05:00

That's the question that's been put forth by various people in regards to the up and coming challengers running against incumbent Republicans. First they are told they won't win the primary. Well, several have, including in Delaware, where the incumbent had been a big political player for the last forty years.

Now they're being told they won't be able to win in the general election.

Here are two points these politicians need to keep in mind on both sides of the aisle.

One, as I mentioned in a previous post, the American people are fed up being ignored and considered as second-class citizens. They don't like their employees--the president, senators, and representatives--shoving laws down their throats that they don't like or want. They are done having their freedoms and constitutional protections of their rights eroded by power-hungry politicians.

If you voted for the health care bill, the stimulus package, or cap and tax, guess what? You're one of those employees the American people are fed up with, and will fire from your job. Go ahead and schedule the U-Haul. We warned you before you voted for those things what would happen, whether you were Republican or Democrat. You've made your bed, now you must lie in it. It's too late to change things now.

The point is, most of you politicians don't get this. You think we are just doing knee-jerk reactions, and it will blow over. You think we are just "extremist" or far-right radicals who are taking over the Republican party. Excuse me? Since when is 60 to 70 percent of the USA population considered "far-right"? What planet do you live on, anyway?

Oh yeah. I forgot. You're planet is called Washington D.C. Well, I'm afraid you'll be shipped off that planet soon, because you don't have a clue what is really going on. Maybe that's because instead of addressing your constituents in town hall meetings, you hid and didn't talk to them, refused to take their calls. Didn't have the respect for them to sit and listen to their real problem with what you're doing. Why did you do this? We don't know for sure, but the only reason that comes to our mind is that you want to do what you want to do, and don't want to hear what we want.

That's why we are firing you, and hiring someone who will listen and obey us, the boss.

Two, there's a simple rule that some rhino Republicans, and most all liberal Democrats forget. Those who fear these candidates most, are the ones who will say they can't win. Especially on the Democrat side.

I mean, think about this for a minute, Republicans. What Democrat is going to give the Republicans advice on how to beat them? So when they say things like, "Oh yeah! Give us Sarah Palin for your presidential nominee. We'd beat her ultra right-wing radical agenda like nobody's business," what they are really saying is "Please, oh please don't select her, because we know she'd tear us to shreds and we can't stand the thought of her as president!"

The only reason they are going to tell us that they want her as our nominee is so we'll do the opposite. What they really mean is they greatly fear someone like her being the nominee. It scares them silly.

So when you hear someone saying, "Oh, so-and-so can't win," that really means, "Please don't elect her, because she'll win and we don't want her kind in the White House, or the Congress."

Sorry, liberal and liberals pretending to be moderate Congressmen and women, that line will not work. Because you don't understand the real reasons Americans are tossing you out (or don't want to face the fact) and we want our freedoms back. And because of that fact, Congress is about to go through a major shift in power. And not simply shifting from Democrats to Republicans, but liberals no matter of what party, to conservatives no matter of what party.

Not only can these new conservative candidates in the Republican party win, they can win big. Not because they are Republians, but because they are conservative. Mainstream conservatives, where the majority of Americans are at.

Time to take back our country.

The Koran: A Burning Issue

2010-09-08T22:06:00.001-05:00

I figured, having commented on the mosque at Ground Zero being built, the planned burning of the Koran needed to be addressed as well.

There are several reasons why this is not a good idea, even if the Constitution's freedom of speech allows such things. There is the safety of our troops, for one. A backlash against Christians in Islamic societies, for another (the Crusades resulted in the decimation of Christianity from Northern Africa, for example). And comparable to my argument why they should not put up a mosque at Ground Zero, it is unnecessarily hateful and divisive, rather that uniting and healing. All those things are true, and valid reasons why it is wrong.

But I've heard some say that the Islamic world tends to do far worse in relation to Christianity. They've burned lots of churches. They burn bibles. They kill and behead in the name of Alla. While Christian history is not clean of these types of things, Christianity doesn't have near the history and widespread actions of these types of activities as Islam does. These are all true concerns, and on the surface would seem to lend credence to those who support the burning of the Koran.

But I want to offer two primary reasons from a Christian perspective--not because of their reaction--why this Koran burning should be canceled.

One, What real benefit will it provide? We know the cost, mentioned above. What will it prove? What will it do that is positive for the cause of freedom, that will illustrate why Christianity brings healing to man?

If there is one, I can't think of any. What this act says is, in essence, the very thing that a Muslim says who burns a Bible: because they hate Christianity and Christians, and they want to show that by disrespecting our Holy Scriptures. If we could even possibly attribute a positive motivation to this act, then we'd be required to admit that Muslims burning Bibles could also be doing so for the same noble reasons.

Just like there isn't any positive reason for them to build the mosque at Ground Zero, there is no positive reason that can be found to burn the Koran. It will accomplish nothing, except to inflame hatred, promote backlash, put our troops in greater danger, not to mention destroying their work to attempt to promote a spirit of cooperation and friendship with the Muslims in those societies who are on our side, plus, it will become one more recruiting tool, one more rallying point for the radical Islamic groups to generate more hatred for the West.

Not that we shouldn't do it because of those negatives, but if we are going to run up such a high price tag, there better be some very big payoffs on the other side of the scale that will say, "Yes, it was worth it." I can't see any, even meager payoff, much less a big one, from doing this. It accomplishes nothing more than sticking the middle finger out to Islam as a religion and people and waving it around.

Two, this act is antithetical to Christianity. While some on the Islamic side may have a hard time being able to say as much due to some of the more harsh commands in the Koran, Christ tells us to love our enemies. How is this loving? Christ tells us to turn the other cheek. How is this forgiving? Christ tells us to work things out with our brother before we come before the judge. How is this healing?

This act violates the basic premises of the Gospel of Christ. I'm sure the pastor and his flock have put a good theological face on it. They see it as a protest, and a protest may in some form be in order to let them know we disagree with them on certain points. But such a protest should be respectful and loving even if they are not. We don't do an eye for an eye as their law demands. We don't burn their sacred text because they burn ours.

This act sends a very unChristian message, no matter how wrong they might be, or how much we feel they might deserve it, or what message we are tacking onto it, even though they will certainly not read it that way. Is this the light that Christ said we are to shine into the world in order to glorify Him?

I say with full conviction as a Christian: It is not!

So I say to those who plan on burning the Koran, honestly, answer this question and act accordingly. What would Jesus do?

Please, if you do this, don't do it acting in the name of Christ, because I don't think He'll be too happy with such overt misrepresentation of his message to the world.

Redistibution of Wealth

2010-09-03T15:34:00.000-05:00

Communism is based on the idea that if the fruits of production were spread around equally, then everyone would be able to live a nice lifestyle. Poverty would be eliminated. One doesn't own property or the means of production, the state owns it all and distributes it to everyone "equally."

Socialism is similar, but not as all-encompassing as communism, in that it allows for the ownership of personal property, but highly taxes to run certain businesses as an owner. So, for instance, government-run health care is an example of socialism. Instead of the private sector running it, the government does, usually with the intention of providing to everyone (which never happens, because it always results in rationing, so you have some bureaucrat deciding who gets health care, and how much).

In a Capalitist system, government can't own property except for that needed to conduct its own business. It can't run any for-profit-business. IOW, the separation of government and business. Inherent in this system is the right to own property and our means of production. That is why there are strict limits on the federal government on being able to come in and take away your property or money without first giving cause to a judge because of criminal activity. The government isn't allowed to set up the equivalent of a WalMart to compete with them.

The first two models are founded upon the concept of redistributing wealth. That is, what a person earns is no longer theirs to keep. Rather, it will be taken from them and the state decides who is worthy to get it. Some people call this "fair," especially those who are poor, because they struggle to make ends meet, to pay the bills, and have food to eat and a roof over their heads. Sometimes this situation is due to laziness, sometimes because circumstances beyond their control ended up a person in that condition.

There is a very basic, bottom-line reality that separates these two views when it comes to "fair." Views one and two view this limited pool of resources, and those fortunate enough to get to the trough first take way more than they need, thus not leaving those not as aggressive or skillful with much to share. So government has to step in to equalize, either by taking over the trough and regulating the distribution of it (Communism) or by going to those who have taken too much out, taking some of theirs and giving it to someone else (Socialism). Then everything is "fair."

Capitalism, however, sees what is "fair" is if I work hard for something, and earn money, it should be my personal property to do with as I see fit, within reasonable bounds that don't trample upon other's rights to do the same. If I sit at home and watch TV, or play video games, I get what I deserve. If I work hard, start a business that becomes successful, then I should enjoy the fruit of that labor. After all, if I hadn't done that, it wouldn't have been there. There is no trough other than initiative and drive, and not even necessarily a finite amount of resources, because it is based upon human creativity and ingenuity.

So, why is Communism and Socialism so unfair, even if we were to take the first view? It's simple, really. In a Communist or Socialist society, most people will have small chances to live comfortably, and there will always be those who live high on the hog way and above the average person. Who are those people? Those in control of the resources and means of production. Look at any communist society, and the leaders of the country take way, way, way more than they dole out to the average person. The only way to live well is to be part of those who rule, or good friends with them.

Socialism fails in the same way, but is in proportion to the amount of control and power over the means of production that the government has, how much they tax you.

Capitalism is based on one fact that makes it work. You will never get away from greed. In Communism and socialist societies, greed is manifest in those who control everything. The great power held by so few means the rest of the country will live in poverty. That was clearly demonstrated by the USSR of old. When the wall came down, the difference in the standard of living between those in West Germany and East Germany was like night and day. In that system, the whole country except for a select few in power, live in poverty.

You don't get away from that corrupting power in the hands of so few. That's the genius behind America and its Constitution. It was designed to keep that kind of power-pooling from happening. By dividing the authority so no one person or branch had too much power, by not allowing the government to take our property from us, or our means of production, which is our property, by allowing full competition in the marketplace, it allowed for the greatest growth in the standard of living than any other country in the history of the world, and reduced poverty as well. How often have we heard that our poor would be the rich if we moved them to a different country?

The only way we can play fair, and for any one individual to have the best chance at living comfortably, is to keep anyone from gaining ultimate power over the economy and what we work to obtain. It provides checks and balances on greed, and thus makes it more equal for the greatest number of people. That means protecting ownership of property, ownership of what we earn from our labors, and ownership of our freedoms, from greedy government officials.

Unfortunately, through the last several years of our country, those rights have been chipped away at, until today we find us wallowing in the worst economy since the Great Depression, which also was fostered by the same type of government "stimulus" that is being done today. And is also why we are still in this mess. If Obama had simply done nothing, the economy would be in better shape today.

Why, because of the above. The more the government takes away our property whether it be in the form of land, buildings, or earnings, the less incentive there is for anyone to work hard, generate income, revenue, wealth. It's basic common sense. If you would get paid $500.00 for watching TV for a week, or cleaning sewer lines for a week, which do you pick? Or, to put it another way, if you get paid that same $500 for watching TV all week, but it doesn't really matter whether you watch ten programs or fifty, are you going to force yourself to watch all fifty even if you're tired of watching TV? Why? You'll get paid the same. Do the minimum and then go do what you want.

Capitalism fosters wealth creation for the most people. Redistribution of wealth fosters widespread poverty for the most people. Now, in all seriousness, tell me which is "fair" by any measure of fairness? Don't let ideology lead you to emabarass yourself here. Honesty demands that we chose the method that controls greed, uses greed to foster the greatest good for the most people. And for those who miss out due to misfortune, luckily there are many generous people who are wealthy enough and want to help, that they can be taken care of and given a helping hand when needed.

It has worked admirably for a long time compared to other countries. Fairness demands we reverse our trend towards socialism, if we really want to help those who are poor.

Ground Zero and the Mosque

2010-08-19T23:05:00.003-05:00

As many have no doubt heard, there are a group of Muslims who wish to build a mosque near Ground Zero, the site of the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11/2001 due to a terrorist attack, by some radical Islamic groups.

It is understandable why so many are against these people building a mosque near that site. Legally, they may have a right to build there, if the city's zoning permits it. To deny them the right in a properly zoned area, while they might allow a Christian Church, or a Buddhist temple, or whatever else, would be religious discrimination and violate the first amendment of the Constitution.

To not build it there is simply the decent thing to do. And I've heard Muslims who agree with that, and don't want the mosque built there, because they know:

1. It will be offensive to a lot of people.
2. It will be interpreted as all of Islam spitting in their faces.
3. It will hamper healing the relationships that the event put under stress.
4. A backlash could, unfortunately, lead to even more discrimination of those from Arabic descent.

Forcing this issue makes absolutely no sense. Building it there is offensive. There are plenty of mosque all over New York City, they don't need one right there. It can sever no other purpose than to insult those who died in that attack and their loved ones, and all of America.

But seriously, unless some legal loopholes can be found, the government's hands are tied on not allowing it to be built. So what can be done?

I think this issue is in the hands of the American people, and specifically in the hands of New Yorkers. Allow them to expend all the money to build the thing, and then conduct a peaceful, but noisy protest at each and every worship service they have. I would bet a substantial number of protesters could be found to appear regularly, in large enough numbers.

The government's hands may be tied, but not the citizen's. A peaceful demonstration and protest would let the radical Islamic leaders operating that mosque know that America will not stand by and be insulted. And eventually, they may give up trying to insult the American people and desert their building, at which point another can come in and put up something different.

One thing the government can do, however, is to investigate the leader's association with terrorist organizations, and the state's funding of those trips to the Middle East. Since these terrorist groups often use religion as a shield to covertly hide their terrorist activities in the United States, I would keep a close eye on this mosque if and when it goes up.

Then again, maybe someone can simply buy the land out from under them.

This has nothing to do with being against Islam or those of Arabic descent. It has everything to do with respect for the values of America, for those who died there, and having the ethical and moral character to not want to insult those by unnecessarily building yet another mosque at the site where radical members of Islam killed thousands in the name of Islam. There's not one good reason that can be given for building it there, and many reasons why it should be avoided by even any honest Islamic follower.

Let's strive for peace, not insensitivity and hate that this act represents, and would foster among those on both sides of the issue.

Gay Marriage: A Different Perspective

2010-08-13T01:09:00.000-05:00

I almost want to talk about a happy marriage. But no, I decided to wade into this topic as the California decision has come down to only hold off allowing gays to marry until a certain date if the appeal hasn't gone through. Gays are naturally excited that they'll be able to get married in the near future.

Now, being conservative and a Christian, one might expect me to join in the chorus of condemning the idea of gay marriage and encouraging people to fight back, sign petitions, etc. One of my favorite and respected political figures, Mike Huckabee, is promoting just that approach. I understand where he and many others are coming from, but I think the approach is flawed because it isn't based in the truth.

Now, before fellow conservatives start getting all bent out of shape, hear me out. Yes, I believe that homosexual relationships are not healthy for two people or a relationship, just as I believe adultery and fornication are equally destructive. They are both immoral behaviors. And the fact that some people may have a proclivity to either homosexual behavior or fornication, whether due to one's genes, culture, or a combination of both, doesn't clear the fact it is immoral anymore than we would say it's okay for a serial rapist to go rape people because it's just who they are. The point is, if it is destructive, it is destructive no matter the temptation or motivation behind the acts.

But of course, that's precisely where the real difference is. Gays have rationalized to themselves that it isn't wrong, they don't believe it is destructive to their lives and those they claim to love. I think that is a debate neither side will agree upon, at least in the near future. But we'll leave it at the fact that for most of those who are opposed to the gay lifestyle, it is because we believe it is inherently destructive and divisive to a relationship.

But that needs further defining. Because I can hear someone out there asking, "Why?" On the surface it appears nearly the same thing, just a change in gender. Two people enjoying sexual bonding with each other. It is the word "bonding" that is the key. Sex is meant to be a bonding, a unitive event between two people. But what does that really mean?

Marriage is two people who have committed themselves toward uniting in a potentially creative act. That is, children. No, I'm not saying a couple has to have children to bond. I'm not saying that a couple who can't have children cannot bond and unite. What it means is the "hardware" is there so that the act could potentially create life. There have been incidences through history where someone thought sterile suddenly conceives. The point being, the sex act between a man and woman has the potential to create life, and marriage is the commitment of those two people to potentially create that life, but if they do, to care for that life as long as they live.

Think of it. If sex never produced a new life, what's the point of getting married? There would be none. It would simply be an act to have a good time, like going to the movies or enjoying an ice cream cone. Unfortunately, that's how many people do treat it. But that's just the point. If that's all it was, then there would be no reason to get married. The only real purpose of marriage is to create the environment to raise children.

"But what about love?" I love a lot of people, but I don't need to marry them. Infatuation, or sexual love can be as fully expressed without marriage as it can within marriage. Getting a piece of paper from the state adds nothing to one's love, other than the fact you're legally binding yourself to that person, as a sign of love. But real love is self-sacrifice, giving of ones self for another. I can do that to my best friend or my wife equally well. While one would hope a married couple would love each other, not only is that not a requirement, we know a lot of marriages where the husband and wife love each other less than many gays or straights who are not married.

No, if sex couldn't produce children, there would be no reason for marriage. The whole point of two people getting married is because they are bonding in a creative act. And while children are not necessary to fulfill that in a marriage, the entrance of children into the equation does create a literal bond between a husband and wife. That child links the two, even if they divorce and never see each other again. In that child, his and hers genes are mingled and bonded together into one unique individual. Or maybe two or more. That can never be erased.

But it is this creative act which forms the basis of what marriage is all about. And guess what? I don't care how much two men engage in sexual activities, or two women bring each other to climax, they will never, ever, in a million years doing it a million times each year, ever produce one child. A man and women doing it that many times would produce a generation, and quite a large one at that.

This is why no matter what the judge in California says, no matter what voters say, no matter what legal definitions are toss around on either side, the law can no more call two men living together and having sex as constituting a "marriage" than they can make a law that all apples are now oranges, and have them actually transform because of it.

No congress, governor, president, or judge can redefine what marriage is. They can change the legal definition, but they can't change the the truth of the matter. It doesn't matter if they call them marriages, or legal contracts, or whatever, it can never be a real marriage, because those people cannot truly bond in a creative act into one person, ever. Not like a man and woman can.

And for that reason, I don't see the legal battle for gay marriage as being all that important of a fight. To me, it misses the boat. It can't change what marriage really is. It can't turn an apple into an orange. And I think the gay community will eventually realize that if they get to legally marry in any state of the union, it will be an empty victory. It won't really change their lives or their relationships. It might add some additional "rights," but rights that they could have under a simply legal agreement. It wouldn't have to be called a marriage to accomplish that.

Now, I'll also add the following. While I think homosexuality is a destructive relationship, I don't agree with any form of discrimination based on that. If you discriminate based on that, then you will also have to be equally discriminatory against fornicators, adulterers, liars, cheaters, thieves, etc. Every gay man and woman deserves the same respect and love as if they were Christ Himself. If they wish to engage in this destructive act, then that is their decision. I shouldn't treat them any different than I do anyone else I know. I should, instead, treat them as a human being who is walking this road with me. Just because we disagree on the destructive nature of their activity doesn't mean I treat them any worse than Christ ever treated anyone who the Pharisees had labeled as "sinners." Christian love demands no less.

But my message to my fellow conservatives is the push to ban gay marriages is energy spent in the wrong directions. The outcome of that will not redefine marriage or change what it is. It only further divides people into camps instead of healing the breaches. We can firmly stand for what we believe, and yet love and treat everyone as Christ would. Gays getting married around the country will not change that, the same way it cannot change what marriage really is. The bond between a man and a woman is something no gay couple can ever experience. Trust me. The plumbing simply doesn't allow them to participate in a real marriage, whether they acknowledge that or not. So, what's the point of spending time and money to prevent them being legally called "married"? It would be, as it would for the gays, an empty victory.

Wanted: Leadership

2010-08-05T00:58:00.001-05:00

I don't know when I've seen worse leadership, on several fronts, than we currently have in our Federal Government.

First and foremost, the whole "blame Bush" rhetoric has not only become old and stale, it clearly points out the lack of ability of the Obama administration to take this bull by the horns and do something positive about it. Say what you will, but you didn't ever see President Bush complaining about how President Clinton put our nation at risk through his lack of responses to terrorist attacks. He didn't start off his speech on 9/12 by pointing fingers back at Clinton's failures. Instead, he exhibited what all great presidents do in a time of crisis: they lead to a solution.

But what does President Obama want to do about a crisis? Find out who's ass to kick. Wow, a lot of good that will do us.

And instead of taking the lead and doing the only proven method of getting jobs rolling again, by reducing taxes on business (who he labels as "rich"), he creates more government spending, more bureaucracy, more government bloat, interference in the free market, and a tax hike that will go into effect on January 1st to rival any other tax hike in the history of this country. These actions will do nothing but insure the unemployment rate remains high, if not shooting it solidly into the double-digits. It will insure our economy remains weak. It will insure that we remain indebted to China and other foreign countries by the record high national debt that Obama has managed to triple since in office.

That's not leadership. He's being driven and pulled by the Democratic congressional leaders, letting them come up with the laws, while he attempts plays goalie in the public arena. None of this is presidential. Instead, it is backwards looking, can't take responsibility, blame everyone else but you, non-leadership.

What employer would keep an employee with that kind of attitude for very long? Based on Obama's falling popularity, the huge backlash his and the Congresses actions of late have unleashed, and poles showing that Obama would handily lose to Bush if that race were run today, the voters will soon have their say and fire the employees who fail to listen to their employers, the American people.

Remember this when you get to November 2nd, senators and representatives who voted for the health care bill: when you ignore and do exactly opposite of what the American people want, expect to get fired by us, your real boss. Expect to have your shoddy work destroyed and rebuilt the right way. Expect your name to be forever smeared with one who was more concerned with ideology than with representing the people that elected them. More concerned with pretending your are a mini-dictator over your district and know what is best for us masses out here, than you are with really listening to the American people when they say, "No, no, no, no! Vote against the health care bill that will do more harm than good. Vote against government spending as a way to get us out of the recession." (Because it's never worked in history before, why would any sucker fall for that scam again?)

You didn't listen to us, so we will not listen to you. Bye. Enjoy your upcoming retirement.

What is Fair?

2010-04-08T00:43:00.000-05:00

Had a chat with my daughter the other day. She is apparently one to drink the koolaid for Obama. Despite all his broken campaign promises, the unprecedented debt he has placed upon us and our children, the massive tax increases upon everyone in the country despite repeated promises he wouldn't tax anyone who makes under around 200K per year. Despite all of this, she still supports him.

And one of the things she supports is the redistribution of wealth, and her support was that it was "fair." I guess the idea is that its unfair that some people have lots of money while others struggle to make ends-meet. As you can probably guess, she's in that last category, and so is most of the people she is friends with.

When I said that there is no difference between that and a thief breaking into my house and stealing my stuff, she, for reasons that she could never articulate nor any reasoning that could make any sense, never gave a real response to that other than, "No it's not the same."

Well, if there is an inherent difference between the two, it is a fantasy to rationalize what is essentially a criminal activity.

Simply put, what is the difference between someone coming in and taking my stuff by force, or the government taking my "stuff," money in this case, by force and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it?

To put it another way, what is more freaking unfair than my government who no one can oversee, taking what I've worked for and giving it to someone who doesn't work! Who probably uses it for buying drugs, or any other type of things.

It's not that I don't want to help people when they are down and out. But guess what, that's called "charity." That is called a voluntary donation that I decide what it will be. When the government comes in and takes it from me by force, when I don't have a decision over it, they steel not only my money, but they steel my benefit of being able to give that money freely. As a matter of fact, I would offer that if the government didn't take the money to "redistribute" to the "needy," they "needy" would get more money than they do now because the government is so inefficient at the administrative task, and without real oversight, can easily fall into corruption and waste, as they have historically done many times in the past.

I don't make more than 60K a year, with my and my wife's salaries combined, and I pay a lot of taxes as it is. Obama will be increasing that drastically, contrary to his campaign promise (one among many that he's broken). It's not like I'm living in the lap of luxury. But I do work hard and what I get, I earn. I've never expected that the government would take care of me. The one time we did take advantage of that in the 90s, I didn't like it at all, and was glad when we finally got off of it. And that was in the midst of making $100.00/week, along with being provided housing as a pastor.

I would rather live in poverty than to lose the opportunity to make something of myself. That's the shortsightedness of many who are poor. Maybe they plan on staying poor all their life, but what if they work hard and earn more money? Will they be that happy to have their paycheck cut in half or more because the government takes most of it for handing out to people sitting on a couch everyday watching TV? It means the ability to be successful and have the freedom to use your resources in the ways you feel are best is gone.

That is simply horribly unfair. It is highly unfair for the government who is supposed to be protecting me from criminals has become one themselves. The concept of redistribution of wealth is completely unfair and goes against all common sense and logic. To put it bluntly, it is the most stupidest concept and destructive to society concept one could come up with.

Some call that social justice. No, that is totally against the Gospel. Jesus never preached the government forcefully taking people's money and distributing it to others. It promoted each other freely giving to help the poor. But the government taking my money without my permission is not me being a "cheerful" giver. It is not social justice, it is criminal injustice.

On top of that, if that wasn't enough, such a redistribution takes out incentive to work hard, to take financial risk to start new business, to fund research for new products and drugs. It promotes inactivity and laziness. IOW, our standard of living will take a nose dive as people become dependent upon the government to house them, feed them, and providing health care. Instead of being world leaders in these areas, we will be sub-standard.

It is time to elect representatives this year that will reverse the course of socialism. Simply put, don't vote for a candidate unless they promise and are willing to sign a statement that they will cut spending, lowing taxes, repealing the socialistic programs that have been put in the last several years, and free the American people from an ever-expanding federal government, violating the very concept upon which our country was founded and the Constitution was built on.

Now, that would be fair.

House Historic Vote

2010-03-21T22:23:00.004-05:00

Today the House voted to approve the Senate version of the Health Care Bill. Historic? Yes, but for all the wrong reasons. It could be that this day will go down in history when the United States of America left representative democracy behind and became a socialist nation.

Of course, there are still hurdles the legislation has to get through. It has to return to the Senate so the can turn it into a "reconciliation" bill, which means all those points that don't have direct budgetary impact will get stripped. And the Byrd issue can help Republicans either strip out the most horrible parts of the bill, or totally cripple it if key parts are taken out by point of order.

On top of that, if this does get signed into law by the President, there are several legal challenges by states and their attorneys that have some merit, and it could be struck down by the Supreme Court. But that would be a long and drawn out process. One to certainly get underway if other measures fail, but not one to "count" on as there are many paths.

So, the House has voted to destroy America, in essence. Why? Because the cost of this will weight down our businesses with hefty taxes and penalties. Payroll taxes will be going up. That means businesses will not be able to employ as many people. In an economy in a downward spiral, or struggling to get out of one, fewer employed people means fewer taxes going to the government, which means shortage of money coming in, which means huge deficits going forward as we spend even more money.

It would be cheaper and more effective to simply buy everyone who doesn't have insurance, health plans on the open market. I bet that would cost less, stimulate the economy, and help businesses grow. Instead, the House has voted to throw heavier tax burdens on businesses and Americans for substantially less return in benefits.

Plainly said, if the goal is to insure those not insured (who deserve it), there were much more cost effective and economy stimulating ways to do this without shredding a system that has given Americans access to the best health care in the world. Even those who are poor and can't afford it, can still get it.

Does the system have problems? You bet. There is reform that needs to happen. But it involves helping doctors to not spend so much on liability insurance so they can lower their prices to the general consumer. It involves mandating that health insurance companies don't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, as well as whether you are employed or not (you don't have to be in a group to get the same price, all things otherwise equal). It means allowing insurance to be bought across state lines to break up monopolies.

The current bill does little to none of that. Instead, it thinks government control of our health care is the only real solution, despite evidence in history that it is more inefficient, higher cost than the private sector, and more bureaucracy laden. The fact is, it will cost more in the long run to use government insurance than we are paying now for private insurance. Except then we will have little recourse because we won't be cutting a check to pay for it, or have a choice whether to pay for it, it will simply be taken out of our checks like the near-bankrupt programs of Social Security and Medicare are now.

Most people agree on the goals, but the route the Democrats want to take is to turn America into a socialistic country. Polls show most Americans are not willing to trade in their liberty for such benefits. The trade is akin to Esau trading his birthright for a bowl of stew.

But at a minimum, when Americans see their payroll taxes escalate, their take home pay reduced, and little to no benefits (which don't start in earnest until 2012, after Obama's next run to be "socialist-in-chief"), they will know who to blame. I applaud the Republicans in the House for standing firm together. It makes it clear that unlike every other landmark legislation in American history, this one does not have even a hint of bipartisan support. Every "yes" vote for Dems up for reelection will be a clear sign who to throw out in the next two election cycles. I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash is so big, that this marks the end of the Democratic party, or at least severely weakens it. When people ignore their constitutes to this magnitude on something that is so important to them, that affects their lives in big ways, you can bet there will be heaps and heaps of angry voters to throw them out, and get people in there that will reverse this mess.

And the Dems will only have their own myopic view of the world to blame, their own inside-the-washington-bubble filter that ignores the people who put them into office to institute a radical, and violent left-wing program that violates our country's Constitution and the will of the people.

They think they are safe. Well, keep thinking that. But I know for a fact that come November, you'll be singing a much different song. A MUCH different song. Welcome to the world that actions have consequences.

Same Old, Same Old

2010-01-29T02:56:00.002-06:00

I think many people waited to hear what President Obama would say in his State of the Union address in response to the recent string of Republican victories: two in traditional Democratic strongholds which Obama carried with big margins in 2008. Especially with the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, filling the seat Senator Ted Kennedy used to hold. We've seen several Democrats in Congress finally hear the people, and stand down from pushing the highly unpopular health care bill. But what would the President change? What new directions would he go in response to this loud and overt call to change course?

The answer, sadly, is it is business as usual. Instead of saying, "I've heard the people, and we are taking a new course," he said instead that obviously we aren't getting it, and he only needs to explain it clearer to us--to dumb it down for us since obviously we can't understand what's best for us. But the problem is we do understand this bill, and we are against it on principle, not because we're too stupid to get it.

But the one thing I hoped he would do is to move away from the blame game and move toward the future, looking to build bridges now that the Republicans have enough votes to block legislation. I had hoped maybe he'd at least take up his words of wanting bipartisan relationships on bills and make it a reality. He said the words, but then contradicted them with his attitude and words on other issues.

And the one thing I think he had to do in order to move forward is to stop blaming the past for his problems. Unfortunately, he continued down the road of blaming President Bush and his administration for the problems we face today.

He spoke of "facts" when he mentioned the deficit he inherited. Well, Mr. President, allow me to bring up a few other facts, inconvenient though they may be.

Government 101: The senate holds the purse strings. They make the financial decisions for the country. They pass the budget and bills authorizing the spending or not spending of money as the case may be. The only power the president has is to veto the bill. You yourself experienced this with the first bailout bill you signed into law, not to mention the pork-laden stimulus bill. Despite your campaign promise to veto any such bills, you realized you had no option but to sign it if you wanted the money to fund those activities, because it would be a cold day in Hell to convince those senators that they would have to do without their special pork projects to get their votes.

According to TreasuryDirect, the debt in place when Republicans gained control of the Senate in January, 1995 was 4,796,537,934,595.60. Rounded, that's 4.8 trillion. When President Bush took office, the debt had grown to 5,727,776,738,304.64 in 6 years--almost 5.8 trillion. That's a total increase of the debt when Clinton held office and the Republicans the Congress of 931,238,803,709.04, just under 70 billion short of 1 trillion. It is an average annual increase of 155,206,467,284.84, just over 155 billion a year.

What's that? You thought Clinton had created a "budget surplus"? Guess again. That budget surplus was figured based on slowing the growth of government so that they took the difference between what it would have been and what they shortened it to, and called that a "surplus." They didn't actually lower the debt, however. Just slowed it down.

But, if anyone is to blame or praise for that, it isn't Clinton. It's the Republican controlled Senate. All Clinton did is talk and sign a bill. Sure, he submitted a budget, but it was the Senate that slashed the budget and created welfare reform and cut taxes, causing government revenues to rise. Clinton signed it as he had little choice.

So what happened during the time the Republicans controlled Congress while President George W. Bush was in office? When Democrats regained control of the Senate in January 1993, the debt stood at 6,387,841,175,651.97, or 6.4 trillion. In two years, the debt had grown by 660,064,437,347.33, 660 billion. An annual increase of 330,032,218,673.66--330 billion each year. Of course, this was the time period when 911 happened, and we actively went to war with the terrorist.

The totals for the time the Republicans controlled Congress: in eight years the national debt increased by 1,591,303,241,056.37, nearly 1.6 trillion, with an average annual increase of 198,912,905,132.046, almost 200 billion a year.

Is that too much? You bet. Certainly Bush could have done more to reign in the deficit spending, but the primary blame goes on the Republican led Congress, specifically the Senate. While they made progress in slowing the spending, they failed to turn the tide and cause the debt to go down. Every year it increased.

So, the Democrats gain control of the Senate in 2003. Let's see what their record is during the remaining years of Bush's presidency. In January 2009, the national debt stood at 10,625,053,544,309.79 or 10.6 trillion. That's a total increase in six years of 4,237,212,368,657.82 or 4.2 trillion. An average annual increase of 706,202,061,442.97, just over 706 billion a year compared to the 200 billion a year under the Republicans. Most certainly the spending had accelerated during the Democrat's control of the Senate, nearly quadrupled. But what does the picture look like with the last year of President Obama's control included?

As of January 21, 2010, the national debt stands at 12,300,163,248,044.69, or 12.3 trillion. In one year, the national debt has grown by 1,675,109,703,734.90! One year we have spent over 1.5 trillion dollars! It is the first year in our history that we have spent over 1 trillion in a year, much less 1.5 and is about equal to the amount the Republican's overspent in six years.

When you add that amount into the Democrat controlled Senate's time, their total debt increase in seven years is 5,912,322,072,392.72 which comes to 844,617,438,913.25 or rounded is 845 billion a year in spending. That's an annual increase of around 645 billion a year from what the Republicans did prior to that.

Granted, President Obama did come into office in the middle of a financial crisis. But it was a crisis which the Democratic controlled Congress had fostered for the previous six years. President Bush had even tried to regulate Freddie and Fanny, but was blocked by the Democratic controlled Congress. If he'd been successful then, it is doubtful we'd even be in a recession right now. But as I said, the president only has the ability to offer up his proposed budget, speak to Congress, lobby Senators, and veto a bill he can't live with and hope the Senate can't override it. But he can't keep the Senate from spending more than they want to, primarily because he doesn't have a line-item veto power, and in most cases to not sign a budget bill means the government defaults on its debts and has to shut down. No president wants to be the first to do that, and every president knows they aren't going to get all they want in a budget bill, and will have to hold their nose on some things and swallow.

President Obama, I'm just stating the facts. This crisis is the Democrat's doing. They had control of the government's purse strings for the previous six years when you stepped into office. It is even your doing since you were a Senator prior to becoming president. So you get blame not only for what's happened this past year, but also because you were a willing participate in the increasing debt and lack of action on reforming Freddie and Fanny which precipitated this mess prior to becoming president.

So quit it with the blaming Bush game. He certainly isn't guiltless, but in the grand scheme of things he had very limited control over this mess. A case could be made that he saw it coming and tried to prevent it, but the Senate, while you were a member, blocked that effort. So if you're looking for blame, look to Harry Reed, look to Barney Frank, look to Chris Dodd, but primarily look in the mirror. Stop blaming other people and take responsibility for your lack of experience and inability to govern. Get some help. I'm sure Rush would be willing. Give him a call. You never know.

Spinning on a Merry-Go-Round

2010-01-22T03:29:00.001-06:00

It is amazing how the Dems are attempting to spin Tuesday's election. The President essentially says it is a referendum on Bush's eight years. What planet is he living on? Some are attributing it to incumbent backlash. Uh, Marsha wasn't an incumbent. And the only way to prove that is if in November incumbent Republicans also get thrown out. Some are still sticking their heads in the sand like an ostrich.

But what is most entertaining to watch are those on the far left, who's primary response is to say that the people of Massachusetts are stupid. Let me translate here. They think the majority of Americans are stupid simply because they don't agree with them. Period. That's the only reason. There can be no dissent, no difference of opinions, no toleration, only mean spiritedness.

Conservatives have seen this tactic used multiple times on them. Sarah Palin being a prime example of this personal attack mode. Which essentially is admitting that they can't win on issues, or they wouldn't need to resort to that. Now some Dems who suggest that perhaps they should listen to the voters, also get personal attacks from the far left.

Yes, please keep that up. We like it when you have no substantive argument to back up your position, and use a tactic which will only succeed in alienating you from people. Look at Sarah Palin. She's as popular as ever, her book being on the best seller list. Has all the vain "she's stupid" attacks worked? No. She's more loved and thought of as an intelligent person by Americans than not, despite the far left's attempts to do otherwise. So keep it up. You're only helping our cause. And whatever you do, don't become reasoned, professional, respectful, tolerant examples of the best of your party. Because then, you just might make some headway, and that wouldn't be good for the country.

Remember, that "stupid" George Bush who you thought couldn't win, did so twice. Your track record of keeping people out of office by calling them stupid isn't working. But keep trying. I'm sure if you bang your head up against that brick wall enough times, you might, well, uh, get it to move a millimeter or two. If your head last that long.

Arrogance?

2010-01-21T02:19:00.000-06:00

I've heard the term "arrogant" in reference to Obama and the congressional leaders, specifically Harry and Nancy. But these charges caused me to have a back flash to a few years ago.

It wasn't too long ago that President George W. Bush had that term tossed at him regularly, primarily as it related to our foreign policy. It got me to thinking.

First, I'm a conservative. But I'm hearing pundits fling this word around too readily and frequently. Here's the beef. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had some very strong beliefs about the direction of our country and the best route to keep us safe, ensure a thriving economy, etc. The fact of the matter is, if such a person is leading your side of the aisle, they are "principled" and "don't stick a finger in the air to figure out which way to go," (a charge made of Clinton). But, if such a person is on the other side of the aisle, they become "stubborn," and "arrogant."

Granted, from this side of the fence, President Obama comes across to me as dismissive of the people, has a socialist, even communist agenda, and acts as an elitist--out of touch with mainstream America. But I'm sure liberals felt the same way about President Bush.

Indeed, this may account for both the high negative marks President Bush had in leaving office, and the amazing drop in public support in the nation for President Obama's agenda. Both appeared to be setting their party up for a backlash with the voters.

There's where President Obama got it wrong. People were not voting for him because they were necessarily in favor of his agenda. They voted for him because the didn't want more of "Bush" that they perceived any Republican would be. Add to that, President Obama campaigned as a centrist, but has governed as a far-left radical, you have the recipe for disaster. And the bad news for him if he doesn't take drastic steps to change his direction, is that Tuesday's election of Scott Brown may only be the beginning of the end.

There is one key difference, however, between President Bush and Obama. Polls show that America is a "center right country." More people call themselves conservative than liberal. So when President Bush stuck to his guns in going to Iraq, for instance, it angered those on the left, but their numbers were much smaller. When Obama tries to cram a bad piece of health care legislation down our throats, he angers a much larger percentage of the population by the fact that there are more conservatives. Thus you are going to see a bigger backlash.

The bottom line is you have a president who believes in a certain course of action, and doesn't want to let the political winds throw him off course. And truthfully, there is something to admire in that. I don't agree with his direction, his understanding of economics, or share his view of America, but I wouldn't call him arrogant. Rather, he firmly believes in something and is willing to sacrifice his presidency over it. While not politically smart, it is admirable even as it was in President Bush.

Now, what these two needed to learn is what President Regan accomplished. He was certainly principled and didn't bend to the political winds of Washington, to the dismay of the far left. But, when he left office he was loved and revered. His vice-president was elected as president. People all over the country would have elected him again if he could have run. They wanted more of the same.

There is an art to sticking to your guns while gaining the respect of your opposition. A lesson that President Bush had for a while, but he lost that battle toward the end of his presidency. President Obama doesn't seem to have a clue how to accomplish that. He's spent any and all political capital on a bill that appears to be dead. The public is reeling from his "change" for the worse. Now he is the one in Bush's shoes, except there are so many more angry at him than there ever was at Bush.

But can we drop the "arrogant" name calling? Makes for a nice sound bite, I know. But to condone its use now makes one a hypocrite when we defended President Bush from similar charges. That said, President Obama needs to show real humility and a listening ear. Not to listen so he can say he listened, but to take the words given to him to heart, and act accordingly. Allow his views to be changed based upon valid argument.

And the People Have Spoken

2010-01-20T02:25:00.001-06:00

Congratulations to Scott Brown in an amazing come-from-behind bid to do the near impossible: become an elected Republican to a Massachusetts senate seat.

Now comes the spin. Dems will spin that this has nothing to do with Obama's agenda, specifically health care (despite what the people of Massachusetts are saying themselves...that is all about the health care bill and what it represents). And some Republicans will take it to mean a blanket acceptance of Republicans.

But what is true is that Scott Brown ran on a conservative platform (though not everything about him is conservative), appealing to Independents, and won upon the promise that his vote would kill health care. It built upon the anger and disillusionment out there by various people concerning the actions of Congress to get this health care bill passed, no matter the cost to them and their political futures.

What blew me away is on Hanity one contributor was saying that the backroom deals like were given to Sen. Ben Nelson and others wasn't unethical, wasn't corrupt, and wasn't buying of votes.

You see, Dems, it is this attitude right there why you will be in so much trouble come election time. And still you can't see it. Absolutely amazing. If you think this is normal, acceptable, and good--that is why we are getting rid of you. Because you think unethical behavior is acceptable. Your bosses, the people who elected you to do a job, are setting new rules. We expect ethical practices. Live with it or you'll be out of a job. And that goes for Republicans too.

When Obama campaigned on as a centralist, I didn't believe him. Why? Because I'd seen his votes in the state Senate and the Federal Senate, and he always sided with ultra-left, radical sides. So he has broken nearly every one of his promises made in the campaign. He said no lobbyist. Yet the lobbyist help him write the health care bill. He said there'd be transparency. Yet this health care process has been done nearly all behind closed doors, with a small handful of people cooking up a plan that few will have time to read before voting on it. Hardly anyone knows what's in those bills. He said there would be no taxes on people earning below 250K. Yet, they'll let the Bush tax cuts expire, effectively putting in place a tax increase which affects me who makes well below 100K. Taxes on health plans, energy, and we almost fear the air we breath, hit the lower classes the hardest.

Broken promises, corruption, unethical behavior, and most of all, ignoring or denigrating the dissenting opinions of the majority of Americans. If you seriously think the people of this country will be happy with that, think again. I hope that maybe now, having heard the shout from Massachusetts, Democrats will reconsider the road they are on and turn to the bipartisanship that Obama promised in his campaign.

And here's a suggestion. Hold off on this health care legislation, and let's work on it again after the November 2010 elections. Okay? You'll need that time to draft health care reform that really does lower cost, make it more affordable, and preserves and increases the quality of care that we get in this nation.

Health Care Bill Unconstitutional

2010-01-16T03:12:00.000-06:00

How far will the Democratic majority in Congress go? Are they really willing to concede to years of conservative rule in order to pass a badly flawed piece of legislation? Are they seriously not getting the message of the American people that what they are doing is contrary to the desires and rights of a majority of Americans? Does Obama really want to be a one-term president?

Based purely on their actions, one would say a resounding "yes." I fear the bigger reason is they are so locked up in their elite ivory tower that they refuse to hear even the loudest messages of the American people.

And it would appear the people are ready to hand them the loudest message yet: a Republican victory to fill the Senate seat formerly held by the late Senator Kennedy. In one of the most, if not the most, liberal states in the union, to fill a seat held by a staunch supporter of a single-payer health care system, the Republican campaigning on being the vote that can stop the health care bill is coming out of nowhere to take the lead in the polls over the Democratic candidate who supports the health care bill.

Could the American people give a louder warning shot across the bow of the Democrats? They can't spin this as radical, right-wing nuts. They can't claim these represent Hitler-loving racist. These are the base of their own party, the very people who elected Obama to the presidency in droves. Any attempt to spin this in a positive light for the Democrats will only highlight the insular Baghdad Bob mentality they've adopted, and/or their elite belief that we are the biggest idiots on the planet and will believe them if they say the sky is really a giant screen projecting the sun and stars.

Nope. Any Democrat who continues to take the American people for granted, who continue to ignore the American people, who call us names, treat us like little kids, and force us to eat what we have clearly said we don't want, will not only find the plate of health care thrown back in their faces, but also out of a job.

Even if Brown fails to win, the message is now clear. What the Dems are doing will ensure years of Republican rule (assuming the Republicans don't act stupidly, and I'm not putting that past them either) and conservative rule.

I'm not sure why, but it appears nearly every generation has to learn this lesson. In my time, it was President Jimmy Carter who ensured the next decade and a half would be in conservative hands. President Bill Clinton's initial over reaching brought about a conservative backlash, but he was wise enough to read the message from the people and conform to it and so softened the blow.

And now a new generation learns what liberalism really means. They learn that the accusations of tax, tax, tax; spend, spend, spend, wasn't just a political slogan but a lived reality for everyone who's been around for a while. They learn what the real cost of socialism is: a reduced standard of living for everyone, in addition to less freedom.

Here is a basic truism you can take to the bank. The more the government controls, the less freedom you will have. The founders of our country structured things to prevent what is happening today: a powerful, federal government.

Because, there's no provision in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to tax us in any way other than an income tax (and that should be repealed). There is no provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to mandate everyone in the country has to buy health insurance, that businesses have to pay penalties, or that the federal government should pick up the job assigned to the private sector and offer up competitive health care plans. Once the government gets involved, you have a loss of freedom.

Why? Because no one can regulate the government. That's the government's job. Congress doesn't even have to abide by the laws they pass (which is why they will never have to abide by the health care bill they are passing). And once a government has that kind of power, they take more, and more, until they become a dictatorship. The elite few have the power and gain the wealth at the expense of the majority of Americans. With no one to stop them, they will not be able to resist the temptation to eventually take over the whole thing.

There is only one group standing in their way--we the people. And the one good thing coming out of all this is that Obama's extraordinary over-reaching is waking people up to the dangers of liberal, progressive, socialistic/communistic philosophy and causing them to get involved, to work to prevent this. If this results in the clipping of the federal government's wings in the long run, then perhaps this will have been worth it.

So, Dems, keep on ignoring us. Keep on spinning this. Keep on showing the American people what true liberalism is: broken promises, lies, corruption, and a total disregard for the American people on a scale never witnessed before in American history.

"Why are you against Health Care Reform?" some might ask. A good question. The answer is, because this isn't health care reform, it is a government power grab via the illusion of health care reform. This isn't a reform. It is a deformation. Health care is being used as a vehicle to accomplish the real goal: to gain power. To control us. To rob us of our freedoms.

We the people can stop this. And I really want to see three things happen. One, to see Mr. Brown become Senator Brown from Massachusetts. Two, to see everyone who voted for this health care bill to lose their House and Senate seats who are up for election this coming November. And three, to see Sarah Palin win the White House in 2012. More on that later.

The bottom line? Yes, our country needs change. It needs reform. But it needs change and reform in the opposite direction than we are headed now. We need to move back to restricting the federal government, returning to the states the power the Constitution gives them, and ensuring the checks and balances remain in place to protect us from this kind of powergrab in the future.

Morality and the Law

2010-01-15T01:50:00.000-06:00

All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

Yes, you heard me. I know, people say all the time, "you can't legislate morality." Yet, that statement is self-contradictory. Why? Because any law passed is an attempt to prevent certain behaviors or encourage others based upon someone's moral code.

For instance, let's take the speed limit. When I obtained my driver's license back in 1976, the Congress had passed a law that the maximum speed on the nation's highways was 55 mph. It wasn't until the 80s when that law was repealed and decisions of what speed limit to set returned to the states.

That law was based upon a moral understanding of two things. One, that driving a maximum of 55 mph would save a certain number of gallons of gas. The nation was in a "shortage" and lines stretched down the streets as people waited to fill up their tank. Some study showed that someone who drives from point A to point B at 55 mph, and another at 70 mph, the later will use a lot more gas doing so.

So the morality behind the law was to reduce gas consumption, not only because we had a shortage (produced artificially to accomplish a different goal), but to help the environment by burning less gas into the air.

The secondary moral argument for it came later in that the lower speed saved many lives. From the time the law was enacted, death rates on the nation's highways went down. Once repealed, death rates have gone back up.

Indeed, every state sets their speed limit laws based on what they believe to be a safe speed for a road or curve. It is based upon the belief that human life should be protected from those few who would fly down the road at dangerous speeds, endangering the lives of everyone they meet. If not for the safety of human life, who would care how fast someone drives down a road?

Look at the reasons given to pass the health care bill. They are moral arguments. A belief that people have a right to health care, compassion for those without it and can't get it. The expressed disdain at the prices of drugs, insurance, and any company that dares to make a profit (Congress is exempt from not making money off their bills, though). These show that the health care reform act is an attempt to legislate someone's morality upon the nation as a whole.

Every law has some basic moral principle upon which is based its reason for existence, why we need to restrict certain behaviors or encourage others.

The real question is, who gets to decide the morality upon which those laws are based? And that gets at the heart of the question in today's political battle. The morals of those labeled as "Progressives" or "Liberals" are decidedly different than what the country has had in the past. And as the current leaders attempt to legislate their morality upon the rest of the nation, those who don't agree with that morality are able to put people into power those who more fully represent the people's morality.

I know. What people really mean when they say "you can't legislate morality" is you can't make a law that will force people to do the right thing. Of course not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't place penalties upon someone who violates society's morals. If you speed and someone dies, there should be a penalty. The law is there not because we believe it will force people to do the right thing, rather, it is to encourage them to do the right thing, and when they don't, to provide a real consequence for violating that morality.

If that isn't the basis, then there should be no law against murder. After all, we can't legislate the morality of how valuable human life is to people, so let them kill without going to jail. Society may fall apart into mob rule, but who cares? To say you do is to say you have morals you want enforced, that our current police enforcement of laws is better than anarchy, which is everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes. The opposite of corporate morality being imposed upon the whole. Instead, it is individual morality being imposed upon other individuals, based on who is the strongest or smartest, or even, who has a gun.

The question that will be answered this year, first in the Massachusetts election and in the November elections is just whose morality we will elect to be controlled by. The government, those in power? Or as a democracy, a representative government for the people, by the people, and of the people? The morality of socialism, or the morality of the Constitution?

Take your pick. But pick carefully. Everyone's future hangs in the balance as you chose who's morality will get legislated.

Merry Christmas - From Congress

2009-12-24T01:36:00.000-06:00

It is hard to put into words the route by which the Congress plans on giving us a "present" this Christmas Eve by voting in this health care "reform" bill. I could think of a few: corruption, bribes, bigotry, power hungry politicians, traitors, willing to sell one's principles down the river for the proverbial bowl of stew.

The willingness of senators to be bribed by special deals in order to vote "yes" on a bill they haven't read in all likelihood, or at best only have a vague idea what's in it, is not just a dereliction of duty, but in light of the Constitution, a federal crime of the highest order. Only traitors stab their fellow Americans in the back like this.

And if that wasn't enough, Senator Reed has the gall to come out and tell the American people this is the way it is always done, and that senators who failed to hold out and take bribes are not good senators--excuse me! Is he and his ilk so far removed from reality that he doesn't think we'll see this as the slap in the face that it is? He's literally mocking the American people, thinking we are so dumb that we will say, "Oh! I see. Yes, this is good." Maybe this is the way it's been done in the past. If so, they are all wrong! They are all criminals! Don't complain to me about big bonuses at AGI when a senator has the gall to be bought off for a special deal! And then to say it is a good thing?

Didn't Obama promise that this would change? Where's the change if this is how they've always done it? Isn't that in and of itself an indictment against them? Would that excuse have worked for the slave owners if these senators would have been in office back in the mid-1800s? No, real reform, real change, real extraction of corruption from government has been thrown under the bus by Obama. His change was more of the same and tripled.

Now, based on Obama's love affair of dictators like Chavez and Castro, I'm guessing that's the road he thinks this is going down. He and Congress have kicked the socialistic engine into high gear. If this health care bill passes, and the so-called carbon bill goes through, the government would own and control around 70% of our economy. In any book, that's near socialism if not all the way there in principle.

But he's forgotten one key problem with his plan to become America's dictator of the Socialist States of America. We have a constitution, and we know how to use it.

While we still have a constitution, we'd better use it. I had thought a few days ago if this ends up going through, which it appears it very well may, there is still the fact that health insurance has been a state issue for a long time. It's the reason why I can't buy health insurance as a Texan from, say, Oklahoma. I have to buy it from a company in Texas. That would fail to even invoke the interstate commerce clause. This is a area according to the Constitution that the states alone control, and the Federal government has no jurisdiction to make any laws concerning it.

So naturally I found it heartening that I wasn't the only one thinking about this. Last I heard, ten attorney generals of ten states are ready to initiate legal action challenging the constitutionality of this bill.

Granted, they are focusing more on the unequal treatment by Congress of the states in this bill, the fact that certain states, cities, and senators received special deals that other states will not have, but I think that is certainly a big issue, as well as the Federal government doesn't have the authority to to this according to the Constitution.

I also wondered about the possibility of Americans everywhere refusing to pay these taxes, and then suing the Federal government if they take action against us for refusing to participate in an unconstitutional law. If enough people did it, it would bring the government to its knees, or force them to do the Tienanmen Square attack which would show their true intentions.

What these senators, representatives, and Obama forget is that this is a government for the people, by the people, and of the people. And the people will not allow them to dismantle and take over our country. We can still demonstrate, we can still vote, we can demand impeachment, and if it comes down to it, we can still take up arms against an oppressive dictator want-a-be. I'd hate to see it come down to that, but it is how we got rid of the first king. If we had to, that's also how we would get rid of another king.

Americans like their freedom. Too much of it has been allowed to slip away over the past eighty years. The progressives have been turning the heat up gradually over the past several years. Obama became too greedy, turned the heat up too fast, and now the frogs are leaping from the pan.

And maybe that's one gift Obama has given us this Christmas. He and his friends in Congress have infuriated enough Americans that we the people are aware of what he's trying to do, and are standing up for our rights. Listen and obey your employer, or you will find yourselves not only out of a job, but facing criminal charges for attempted murder of the American people's freedoms.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Unless we reverse this, the American people, poor and rich, will be soaked and end up on a lower standard of living due to less money, less health care, and less freedom. Welcome to the world of Big Brother.

Buying Votes

2009-12-17T02:38:00.000-06:00

I listened as Greta interviewed Senator Nelson today, and he made a statement that blew me away, even though it appeared to pass right over Greta.

Apparently to this point, he was undecided on how he'd vote on the health care bill. But when Greta asked him, he said he'd made up his mind, and would vote for the bill. When asked why he'd decided to vote for it when the cutting of Medicare Advantage would be cut, he explained that he'd been assured that those currently on that plan would be grandfathered in...especially in his state!

I said, "What!" He then clarified that by saying only certain states would be grandfathered in. Translated, that means in states where senators were undecided because of this, they would grandfather in those American citizens, but leave the rest of the American's in the cold.

I couldn't believe it. Blatant discrimination. If you're going to grandfather in one group, you must, without exception, grandfather in everyone in that plan. To do otherwise is to suggest that certain citizens in certain states are less worthy and less human than those in other states. It may not be a race discrimination, it may not be a sexual discrimination, but it is political discrimination and in my book, just as big of a sin.

I don't know what the senators and the president are drinking up there at the White House and Congress, but they are in effect grabbing a political dagger and committing suicide with it. Obama is putting a sword on the floor and asking them to fall on it for him. And these senators and representatives are doing it. Numbed by Washington-speak that it will blow over once it's in place, and people will accept it, while ignoring the boiling anger reflected in all the polls, where anywhere from the 50s to 60s percent are against this bill, they are willing to sacrifice their political careers for this one shot at Obama's glory.

But such overt political bribery as we have seen, the promise-breaking secret meetings where the bills are cooked up by a small handful of people, the name-calling and attempt to silence any and all voices of dissent as if this were Cuba, tells one all one needs to know about this bill. If put into place, it will destroy this country.

If it were good for us, they wouldn't need to go to these lengths, to this level of radicalism, to shoving something down our throats in hopes we won't realize it until it's too late, and of out right lying about what this bill will do--they wouldn't need to do any of these things. It would be open, all sides would debate it fairly, and it would have support from both sides of the isle. Instead, they are buying off votes among the Democrats because not even enough of them are comfortable with this bill to actual pass it on merits alone (what few merits we actually know about).

That says all you need to know. No one who uses these kinds of tactics is passing anything we will look back on and thank them for. Instead, we'll find ourselves with long lines, rationed care, and the government's fingers in our most critical life-death decisions with no oversight or recourse for the American people.

Democrats, wake up! If you want to keep your job, you'd better listen to the American people instead of the leaders of your party. There is no reason to fall on their sword. You don't want to go down in history as one of the people who voted "yes" when asked if you wanted to end America as we know it, and head down the socialist/communist road.

Listen to the people! Or enjoy your retirement.

China says, "Thanks for the cash."

2009-10-30T02:08:00.000-05:00

Do you realize that a good part of the year, the taxes you send to the US Government goes to China? And the future indicates that even more of it could.

What do you mean? Foreign aid? Nope. We're talking about interest on our nation's debt. You see, we are borrowing money as a country at an alarming rate, much more than we ever have before. As we spend and spend, we gain more debt, and China owns the biggest hunk of it.

And thus, China owns us. Maybe that's why Obama's in the White House now. Maybe that's why he's surrounding himself with people sympathetic to Mao, who are promoting the destruction of the free market system in hopes of installing a more communist economic policy.

Everything our President and Congress is doing is taking us down the road of collapsing the free market system which has made our country the envy of the world, and making everyone in the country poor by taking their money, to be used and distributed as the people in power wish.

If you're not for this type of system, contact your senator and representatives. Tell them you will not re-elect them if they don't support freedom instead of slavery to the government, which is what communism is, pure and simple. Whoever controls the money controls you. The genius of the free market system is that you control the money, so you control you. If the government controls the money, says how much you can get, and what strings are attached to it, you are no longer free. You are a slave. Pure and simple.

Now, which will it be. Vote, become involved. If not now, you may find you won't have another chance later.

Freedom

2009-10-27T01:16:00.003-05:00

This country was founded on the promise of freedom. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to own property without the fear of government taking it away from us.

There was one thing that would stand in the way of such freedoms: a central government either too weak to defend us, or too strong that we couldn't stop it from stealing from us.

The United States of America has been very successful, overall, of accomplishing the former goal. But in the last hundred years, have fallen very short of the later. Since the turn of the last century, the US Federal Government has grown and taken more and more of our property to be used as they see fit. And the more they took, the less freedom we had. The bigger they became, the more they controlled us.

What we are seeing today is the fruits of that cancerous growth in our nation. The radical leftist plan has awoke many to the reality that's been going on for years. Already in some states, 60% of people's income goes toward paying taxes. 60%! Who am I working for then? Certainly not myself.

While we've been promoting freedom abroad, we've been losing it at home. That's the choice before us. Do we vote for freedom, or slavery to the state? As long as the government feels they can steal our earnings and do with them as they please, we are not free. We are no better than share croppers. No better than slaves working for someone else to make money.

The core of freedom is to be able to earn a livelihood, to earn a wage, to enjoy the fruits of your labor whatever that may be, without fear that it will be taken from you. The opposite of that is slavery, even if it goes by titles such as "share the wealth." When government takes over half of what I earn, I am not free. I am a slave.

The only route out of this is one of two things. Either we elect people who will actually go in and cut all the unconstitutional programs which amount to nothing more than taking money from one person and giving to another with strings attached in order to "modify behavior," and then reduce taxes. Or, at some point, there will be a revolution, an overthrow of a government who is no longer for the people and by the people. I pray it never gets to that point. But it will, if people continue to hand away our freedoms for promised freebies, only to end up with a stone.

The freedom our forefathers fought and died for is being willing handed over today by those ignorant of history and government. Let's fight for it, and pray it's not too late to stem the tide.

Consiracy Theories?

2009-10-19T10:45:00.002-05:00

I'm not one to get wrapped up in various conspiracy theories. And admittedly, some of the accusations about the Obama administration have sounded that way.

But when evidence starts piling up, at some point it becomes hard to ignore. Consider these facts:

1. Obama ran on "change." He has stated more than once, to different crowds, that he intends to change America, fundamentally. Interestingly enough, he never bothered to indicate what kind of change he was talking about during his campaign, nor did anyone in the media successfully pin him down on it--most didn't even try. If they had, he probably wouldn't be president right now.

2. He has surrounded himself with anti-America-as-it-stands-now people, circumventing the Senate confirmation process by setting up a vast number of "Czars" who would have never survived a grilling by the Senate and the attention of the senator's constituents. In their own words, most all these folk are guided by communist economic ideals rather than free-market, which they see as evil. People like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck have adequately documented this. And before the traditional "attack the person, not the argument" takes off, remember, these are the czars' own words. The point being, Obama has surrounded himself with advisors who are anti-democracy and anti-free-market. Those are facts that cannot be circumvented.

3. Obama himself gave away his plan in the campaign when he told "Joe the Plumber" that he intended to "share the wealth." In other words, he planned on being Robin Hood. Take from the wealthy and give to the poor. That's a communist ideal, that everyone shares equally in the goods of production. Which causes everyone but the most powerful in office to be poor. It has never worked.

4. Obama's economic policies appear to be designed to destroy the American free-market system. True, he could simply be stupid and not have a clue how economics works. After all, he's never run a company before. He's never been governor, or even a mayor. He is undoubtedly the least qualified candidate to ever have been elected to the presidency. Sarah Pallin had more experience than he did.

But I suspect he knows what he's doing here. If he wanted to create jobs and turn the unemployment slide around, he'd reduce taxes on businesses. That would spur economic growth and job growth. It would increase revenues to the treasury because the more people that are out of work, you have that much less taxes being collected. The higher the taxes on businesses, the more likely they are to fail, the fewer people who will be employed, and the less income tax the government will get.

Since Obama isn't doing that, since he's doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done by increasing the national debt to more than three times the previous high, and it is expected to go even higher in the years ahead, since he is having money printed up out of thin air which will and is devaluing the dollar, since he is spending lots of government money, mostly on pork projects of influential senators and special interest groups while leaving the highest unemployment racked states with the leftovers: one can only conclude one thing.

His goal is to destroy the American economy so that he can come in when it all collapses and introduce a more "equitable" or "communist" way of life. His economic policies will result in the destruction of the American free-market economic system.

5. His foreign policy consist of making nice with communist dictators and nations who have supported terrorism, which all previous presidents have avoided, and snubs our more traditional allies. Much has been made of his "apology tours" around the world, which started even before he was elected.

He either thinks that getting on the enemy's good side will help us get along with them, which in certain circumstances is a valid approach, but only without appearing weak and subservient. Obama is literally stepping down from the platform of world leader in the sense of someone to look up to.

Or, his ties with those "enemies" is such that the intent is to take down America from its world-power state. Sometimes it appears that the president, given his denial of presenting a birth certificate, and the words he speaks in front of other nation's leaders and assemblies, is collaborating with anti-American world dictators with the intent of weakening American enough that they can take over through Obama. I'm not saying he is, but that it gives the definite appearance of doing that, which in itself is troubling.

6. His health care reform attempts, and the "cap and trade" legislation make it clear the intent is to expand government control over the most significant aspects of our economy, yanking them from the public sector. It is clear the current health care reform will not lower prices on health care, will not insure more people in any significant amount (but will create lots of extra expenses and taxes on all segments of the American population, no matter your income range). It is clear that "cap and trade" will raise energy prices on everyone, poor and rich, and will do nothing to help the "global climate" issue, if one could even bring themselves to believe there is a global warming problem (especially when the last few years the temperature has been going down or steady).

No, the primary goal of these two massive pieces of legislation is for government to control these key aspects of our economy, and thus have more control over us. There are free-market solutions that could accomplish both of these things, but they are shot down in Congress. Why? Because the real goal isn't to solve these problems, but to control us. It's socialism, pure and simple. That's not the principle this country was founded on and has operated on to make us the beacon of hope for a better life that has caused people to flock here. You never hear about a problem of Americans crossing into Mexico illegally, do you? Nuff said.

When you put all that together, it paints a picture of a president who is intent on destroying what we know as America in order to put a more communist/socialist country in its place. I would pray it isn't true. I would love to believe it isn't true. But the piling evidence to the contrary says if it is, and we don't act, it will be too late.

And how do we act? By working within the American political system while there is still time. Before that gets fundamentally changed by a "crisis." Contact your Congressional representatives to let them know where you stand on issues. And when they write back with their reasons why they aren't going to represent you because you're wrong, write back telling them you are not asking them for their opinion, but to know how to represent you. And if they refuse to represent you in Congress by voting opposed to your wishes, then they can be assured you will not vote for them and will do everything you can to ensure they don't get re-elected.

Then, follow through with it. The 2010 elections are right around the corner, and we need to send a clear message to Congress that we will not tolerate what they are doing, and will replace them with representatives who will listen to their constitutes. Who will really represent the majority of of people in Congress, and not those of narrow interest groups, no matter what side of the isle they are on.

We are, after all, at fault. The vast majority of the American population has ignored politics for too long. They want everyone to get along and don't like the sausage grinding that politics tends to use to get from point A to point B. So they stay out of it. They go along with whoever sounds nice without ever checking their history or qualifications. Most Americans don't have a clue how their congressional representatives have voted on key issues.

So, in a way, what Obama is doing now is a good thing. It is waking up those people, forcing them to face the facts that their vote has consequences. That they can vote in someone who will destroy life as they know it. If Obama hadn't been so radical, so left-of-center with his policies, you wouldn't see the vast movements like the Tea Parties, the march on Washington, and others.

And Obama sees the handwriting on the wall. Why else do you think he is desperately trying to get health care passed this year? Because he knows that next year the Republicans could very well be in control, at least have enough members to prevent the more radical proposals like health care reform from going down. Let's not disappoint him. The "Silent Majority" needs to awake, become informed, and take back our country from the radical elements trying to destroy America as we know it. If we don't, we may find ourselves in the next few years without the rights to have that ability.

In 2010, we can turn this ship in the right directions. Write your reps. Take a stand. Be part of the sausage grinding process. It will be less messy this way than what would have to happen under a dictatorial reign.

Liar in the House?

2009-09-15T23:30:00.005-05:00

Today, the house slapped the wrist of the congressman who called out in the middle of President Obama's speech, "That's a lie!" This happened when President Obama said that the health care plan wouldn't cover illegal aliens while giving a speech to the House.

There are several issues this incident raises. Let's dispense with two of the more obvious ones right away.

One, was it right that the congressman to have said that? No. It wasn't. No more right than when the Democrats did it to President Bush, granted not in the middle of a speech on the House floor, but they've called him worse and have booed President Bush in the middle of a speech before as well. In either instance, it is bad form to interrupt a speech, especially one given by the President, to revert to childhood name calling and boos. In short, Congress, grow up! Professionalism is part of your job, and when partisanship devolves into childish tantrums, it does no one any good.

Two, the House spending time to vote on a slap on the wrist is silly. It always stretches one's patience to watch the people we elected respond to childish displays with equally childish attempts at political retribution. I thought this health care bill was supposed to be so important...people dying every day because they don't have health care (if you accept the President's analysis), and our Congress men and women are spending a few days and lives on this? Maybe they know that was all political rhetoric, and not real facts. I can't imagine anyone who really believed that taking a few lives to say, "You shouldn't have done that."

But, can we call President Obama a liar? Facts are facts, as it goes. And those who have read the bills making their way through the House and Senate all know that none of them require proof of citizenship. This doesn't make President Obama a liar, necessarily. He could be, but he could also simply be incompetent. Either he knew that the bills didn't require proof of citizenship and so illegal aliens would have access to health care, or he simply hasn't read the bills himself, none of his advisers have read it, or if they did, didn't bother to tell the President the truth.

In the first case, the President would be a liar. Sure, he may have some Clintonesque statement that there is no wording specifically including them, but he knows that will not stop illegal aliens from gaining access to their proposed health care. To not cover illegal aliens, you'd have to put in wording excluding them and have a method of verification. If he truly believes it doesn't cover illegals as currently written, he's delusional and needs to seek psychiatric help. Or he knows full well they'll be covered and is lying to the American people in order to "sell" his plan.

In the second case, it means the President hasn't done his homework. He is ignorant what the key touchstone legislation of his Presidency even says, includes, or doesn't include. He looks far more incompetent than Sarah Pallin did when Charlie asked her whether she agreed with the Bush doctrine. He should know this inside and out. He should be keeping daily tabs on the progress of the various bills going through Congress and what is in them. It's his job. To say you don't know what's in this bill, is admitting to the American people that even this massive and country-wide changing piece of legislation is not worth his time to keep up with. If not this, then what other "less" important objectives is he ignoring?

This is another case where "ignorance of the law" is no excuse.

In either case, whether he's lying, or is simply ignoring his duties as President, he comes out smelling bad. And the polls are reflecting that. People no longer trust him. He's broken too many promises, spent way too much of our money, and is eager to make massive changes to our country that the majority don't want to see, that pretty much anything he says by this point is meaningless.

And folks, this race card thing is getting stupid. I don't care if it was President Regan doing this, I'd have the same reaction, and so would most people. Yes, I'm sure there are those out there who oppose anything the President says or does purely on racial hatred. Unfortunately, there are those folk still out there. But that is not the majority of Americans. If a majority of Americans are opposing Obama because of racism, a majority would never have put him into office! Not unless you are ready to say that millions of Americans became racist since January--in a short eight months! Come on. To say it's because of racism is pure stupidity. Don't lower yourself to that level of inane blathering. It only makes you look like an ultra-radical, communist-loving, socialist-craving, leftist.

No, it's real simple. 85% of Americans like their health insurance. Most Americans are not at all opposed to helping the other 15% obtain insurance they will like as well, but they don't want to destroy what the 85% like about their insurance to do it. They don't want this to become an excuse for the government to gain more control over our lives. They don't want to implode our country with crushing debt to foreign nations who can then pull our strings at will. These are all directions that the President's policies are leading us toward. If he doesn't do them, you'll see a change of opinion. But the further left he reaches, the more you're going to see the moderate and right react. It would be the same if we had elected a member of the KKK as president and he wanted to ditch the Civil Rights Act. The majority of the American people wouldn't stand for it.

President Obama has dug himself a hole here. He can't compromise or he'll lose his base. He can't please his base, or a majority of the Congress will not go along with him. And if he tries to ram it through by a reconciliation vote, it will mean massive retribution by the American people come the next few election cycles, possibly spelling the beginning of the end for the Democratic party. It is not good political sense to go against a majority of the country who are already hot under the collar at what's been pushed through so far.

Obama's only hope is to convert to the center. Not just talk the talk, but to walk the center walk, and trade one base in for another. Whether he has the political savvy to do that, however, is another matter. Time will tell, but I'm not holding my breath. This is, after all, revealing his vast inexperience as an executive. Unfortunately, his on-the-job training isn't proceeding well, and the country will pay for it. It's too bad the positive change he promised has only resulted in further division in the country by not delivering the changed people voted for.

Political Suicide

2009-09-06T01:31:00.002-05:00

This is something of a good thing, really. But I have to worry about politicians that do this. I suppose they can't help themselves, especially when they are on the far left as the current administration is.

So, you posit yourself as a centrist, and call for change. The people simply accept you at your word instead of believing how you've voted in the past, what influences you have in your life, etc., and vote you into office simply because they like the way you talk and the nice words you say.

But in the end, the blinders have to come off. If you're extreme left wing, or even extreme right wing, it comes out in your actions. People realize they've been sold a bill of goods, that they were gullible for accepting you at your word, not believing all the naysayers who said you were a radical leftist. Actions speak louder than words, especially when you say one thing, then do another.

So it is interesting that these same radical politicians want to think they are in the majority. They think those who oppose them are a vocal minority. They ignore the polls that say otherwise, and despite the fact that a majority of American's don't want the policy or plan being promoted, they intend to ram it through anyway.

Political suicide. You'll see a massive shift away from the Dems. Clinton had sense enough to pull to the center when he saw the obvious winds of discontent. He was good about sticking his finger in the air and going where the wind blew. Not great for leadership, but good for political survival.

But when you have someone who is a true radical left-wing liberal in the White House, they don't care about such things. They think the people will forget, or once the plan is in place, love it. So they call the American people names who disagree with them. They attribute the opposition to lobbyist and special interest groups (while they don't deal with tort reform because of special interest groups of their own).

The Democrats are in big trouble now. The leadership is headed toward a political cliff, and the rank and file know it, especially the more Blue Dog Dems. Yet, they can't seem to do anything other than follow them off the cliff. But this is what you get when you elect a radical: a one term president and a slew of congressional changes come election time. Especially when it appears to the average person out there that you don't care what we have to say, will just nod and do what you want.

My only lament is I don't think this situation is healthy. If the current leadership of the Dems keep this up, they could send their party into a seriously declining state. That's what happens when you make the American people angry, when you want to radically change the country whether we want it or not. That's called a dictatorship, not a representative form of government. And I'll wager the Dems are going to find that out real quick, unless our current President does have a plan to take over the country and end this form of government.

It has happened to other countries. Germany, anyone?

It's either political suicide, or the end of this country as we know it. I'll vote for the former. Please.

Racism?

2009-08-19T01:46:00.004-05:00

I keep hearing the charge by some left-of-center pundits and others of like mind, that the opposition to President Obama's health plan is born and due to racism. That at the heart, if not the driving force, of the tea parties and town hall outrage is the aghast of the white man that we have a black man for a president.

I'm sure those individuals are out there. I don't know any personally myself, but I don't doubt there are some white guys who are racist and don't want a black man for president. However, those are a very small minority on both the right and the left (I know more on the left in that situation than on the right, but they do exist, I agree). But I can guarantee you one of two things is really at the root of this racism charge.

One, those pundits are so locked up in their own bubble, their own left-wing view of the world, that they really do think this is all about racism. They are so out of touch with real Americans all across the country, that they sincerely think the racial world of the 60s is still active today. Because, after all, who could possibly be against their brilliant and amazing policies? It has to be racism, because it couldn't be real concern about the policy! Uh...yeah...right.

Or two, they are well aware that racism isn't the driving issue in the outrage experienced in the tea parties and the town halls across America, but their sole purpose is to defeat the majority of Americans who are against this bill by attempting to paint them as racist and extreme. They are throwing mud up against the wall and hoping it sticks, in order to distract Americans from the real issues. The issues a majority of Americans are concerned about in this bill.

There are some facts here they need to be aware of. Maybe this simply hasn't crossed their minds yet. Polls show the majority of Americans are against this health care bill. Well over 50%. So when anyone on the left accuses people who are against this health care bill of being racist and extremist...they are literally saying the majority of Americans are racist and extremist.

Hey, wait a minute! How can the majority be the extreme, radical, minority? Isn't that a contradiction of definition? Are they not in effect saying that the left, which they are a part of, are the real extreme minority?

But the real issue is, do they not realize they are insulting a majority of Americans? Showing disrespect for those who will be voting in the next election? By ignoring their concerns as "radical" and "racist" positions, instead of really addressing them, don't they realize they are cutting their own throats? I don't care whether they fall into the first or second reason listed above, the only result in attacking the majority of Americans as stupid morons is to expect to be voted out of office when that comes up.

Let me spell it out for you. In case you're so blind you simply can't see it. Having our government control our health care system, whether by small incremental steps, or tossing in the single payer system right up front, is the definition of socialism. You can't get away from that. Once government goes beyond regulation and enforcement, to actually controlling it one way or another, the free market is destroyed.

And yes, this has been going on ever since the early part of last century, and government, once it got its nose in the tent beyond where the Constitution allowed it to be, has moved ever more closer into the tent. Republican presidents and Congresses were just as guilty of this, but Democrats have tended to push down on the gas pedal instead of the brake. And the real problem is President Obama has not only pushed down on the gas pedal, he's attached rocket boasters onto the problem and blasted off into space.

And the fact is, that when people heard Obama campaign on "change" they were only thinking in terms of change away from what Bush was doing. Obama cleverly hid from them what change he was really talking about, and for some reason, the American people didn't bother to ask about. Aside from a few of us who knew, based on his past history, what "change" he really was talking about. But as it happened, people were ready to believe what he said rather than what he'd done. Go figure. I guess each generation has to learn this lesson. Mine learned it with Jimmy Carter.

But that's history. The American people now see the change President Obama had in mind and they don't like it. Not because he's black. After all, that same majority put him in office. How can the majority of Americans against this bill now be racist when they voted for the President? If they were as racist as the pundits are making them out to be, he would never have come close to being elected.

No, a majority of Americans are not against this health care overhaul because of the President's skin color. If you truly believe that, you have no clue, and may not even have a clue when most of these guys get voted out of office. Such a claim is so contrary to the facts, that making the charge says more about the ones making it than it does the ones they are trying to smear as an arm of the Obama administration.

Americans are against this because they don't want to lose the quality health care they do have for long lines and rationing that will have to come with not enough money and doctors to take care of everyone, nor do they want to stretch this recession out by massive debt, four times bigger than all the presidents before him have managed to earn. They don't want to saddle our future generations with a debt requiring a majority of taxes to pay the interest on the notes.

Because if the government gets involved in controlling and delivering health care, history has shown in other countries, and states/programs we have right here in the USA, that such a result is inevitable. It has proven to not work. If the goal is to insure those who can't get it, there are much easier ways to do that. If the goal is to lower cost, there is a much easier way to do that. We do need to reform health care. But we need to reform what we have, not radically mutate it into a socialistic industry.

Race, for the majority of Americans against this, has nothing to do with it. It is policy, plain and simple. When you get lied to this frequently, the "cry wolf" syndrome will take affect, and people will stop trusting you. That's what you are seeing. Period. End of story. If you don't believe me, just remember this when elections show the majority of Americans you've labeled as racist and extreme vote your leftist politicians out of office.

My Health Care Plan

2009-08-19T01:41:00.001-05:00

Not one to simply say, "That sucks!" I'm going to give my opinion on what type of health care reform I do think would not only work, but also abide by the Constitution of the United States of America, unlike the current plans being proposed in the House and Senate.

At the core of any true reform will be choice and availability of both health care and health insurance. The government's role in this is specifically regulatory. It has the duty to protect our life, liberty, and our pursuit of happiness. It has not been granted the right to own, run, manage, or control any company, auto manufacturer, bank, much less health care. Not only does the US Constitution not allow it to do so, as I've noted on this blog, the government serves as a watchdog over industry, insurance, etc. But there is no watchdog over government. Once they are in the driver's seat, anything is possible, right up to dictatorship.

The reason that choice and availability has been limited is clear. The delivery method is through employers. That greatly limits competition. An insurance company only has to sell its services to one person or small group, and they get several to hundreds of employees for it. All the employees of a company have little to no input or choice into what is provided in the way of health insurance.

What this does is greatly reduce competition, and thus allows the insurance companies to charge more. If each employee had to go out and shop for insurance on their own in a company of twenty employees, instead of having to sell one company exec on their plan, they'd have to sell it to twenty employees to gain the same financial result.

Take the car insurance industry, and you can see the difference. In that market, you have widespread competition among individuals instead of companies. That allows each person to shop for the best price for their situation.

But there is one other aspect that auto insurance has. Everyone who drives a car has to have insurance, or they don't get their driver's license renewed. At a minimum, you have to have liability insurance so if you're in a wreck, the people you hit will be reimbursed for expenses due to the wreck. It is financial responsibility issue.

Now, health is a different situation, for sure. We don't have a license to get sick. It just happens to us, especially if we participate in risky behaviors. But, the truth is that the more people you insure, the lower the cost will be for everyone. Because what tends to happen with health insurance is those who are younger, healthier, etc., even if they can afford insurance, don't tend to get it.

That causes two problems. One, the healthier people are not contributing to the insurance pool, thus increasing the loss ratio between contributions and payments. That raises the price for everyone in the system. If everyone had to have at least major medical insurance, it would lower the loss ratio for the insurance companies, and consequently lower the cost to us as insurers compete for our dollars.

Two, even though the younger crowd feels invincible, and yes, don't get sick as often in most cases and so tend to go years without needing insurance--they can end up in a wreck, a plague, a fight, or an accident, which causes a need for medical services. They do get hurt and sick. And when that happens and they are uninsured, guess who pays for it? All those who do pay for insurance or taxes. Except for those chronically ill, most of us will go years at a time without needing significant medical care. Having a requirement that everyone be insured with at least major medical insurance would go far to reduce the cost for everyone. It's a financial responsibility issue.

How would that be enforced? True, it doesn't have the advantage of auto insurance since we can't deny living to people in the same way we can deny them the right to drive a car. But we could deal with it in other ways. Perhaps not having it when you get medical care is a bigger cost than if you have insurance. Maybe you'll get life-saving care, but not the full package. Maybe receiving medical care without insurance would automatically force a deduction from paychecks or bank accounts for insurance. Certainly we would need to have a safety net for that percentage of the population who simply cannot afford it, and we do have Medicare for that (if the government can keep it from going bankrupt). But for those who can afford it, they need to be required to. That will help keep the cost lower for everyone so more can afford it.

If those two things were changed: no employer based health insurance and requirement for everyone to have at least major medical insurance, I believe we could get most of the people of this country insured, and that would lower the cost for everyone.

But I would also make this change to Medicare. As a rule, it only does major medical. The reason it is going bankrupt is because people abuse the system, or simply jump to the emergency room for a cough. Why not? It isn't going to cost them anything? Go to the doctor as often as you want! But if they had to pay for office visits they went to, they'd be less likely to use the insurance, and the cost would be lower, and Medicare could survive as a means to aid the less fortunate obtain basic health care. But no one is purposefully going to have a major medical issue on a whim. Usually, those are things that sneak up on us. Such insurance would cover those and be far less likely to be abused.

Now some will say that this could raise cost because they also might not go to the doctor when they need to because they know they will have to pay for it. And this is a concern. It could result in them not going to the doctor until it requires major medical intervention. One, while this will undoubtedly happen, I don't foresee this as a widespread problem. Most people if they are sick, will go to the doctor. Two, the cost of those who do wait until it is a major medical issue compared to those who go to the doctor at a drop of the hat because they know it will be paid for, will still be far, far less than the later. It will save money.

And if we wanted to reform that, and still provide a way for the Medicare patient to have money for office visits, a health savings account could be set up where Medicare would put in a set amount of money each year for the individual to use for health expenses not covered by the plan. That would control cost, and the individual knowing they have a fixed amount they can use, will be less likely to run to the doctor when they stub their toe.

Another issue that will need to be addressed if we are to lower the cost of our health care is the reforming of tort law. The biggest reason cost is so high are frivolous law suits, requiring doctors and hospitals to have costly malpractice insurance and do excessive test to protect their rears. These cost are passed down to the patient's bills, and into the insurance industry, and so to everyone paying for insurance. Reducing the risk of cost in dealing with such lawsuits would free up massive amounts of money to invest in health care itself, instead of greedy individuals seeking to make a quick buck off of doctors trying to help people.

The government's current desire is to spend more of the taxpayer's money to cover the around 5000 million people who are uninsured because they can't afford to buy it, and are here legally. If they took the money they are thinking of spending on this plan to insure everyone, and simply divided it equally into health savings accounts for these 5000 million, they would have a million dollars in each of their accounts to use for getting insurance, pay for expenses, etc. In most cases, this money would last them for years, if not their whole life.

As a conservative, I'm not for them doing this. It is essentially a redistribution of wealth--the Robin Hood plan. But it does point out the reality that the costly route the government wants to take would be more effective if the money were simply handed directly to the people to buy the insurance they need. Which does dovetail into my next point nicely.

The final lynch pin in my plan to reform health care, is to lower taxes. It will provide money for us to purchase our own insurance, not to mention the best way to generate a real boast to the economy. Putting money back in the hands of small businesses is the only way to generate long-term jobs and pull us out of this recession. If that had been done to begin with, you wouldn't see the high unemployment numbers you do today. It's so simple a caveman could understand it. If you give money to those who create jobs in this economy, then unemployment will go down. As long as we keep it from them, and instead punish them with higher taxes, the recession will be prolonged that much longer, and risk sending us into a depression.

If more people are employed, more can afford health insurance. The less they are taxed on what they earn, the more money they'll have to buy that insurance plan. It is simple math.

But taking the health insurance purchasing out of the companies will result in bigger paychecks. Employers who were paying an employee's insurance, by way of example, at $400/month, will be able to add that to the employee's paycheck, giving them the money to go and buy their own. With the above cost-lowering policies in place, they'd be able to fund their own.

Sure, some people aren't going to like some of these suggestions. I would imagine some conservatives won't like some aspects of them. But the key is to keep the government in a regulatory role, not in actually delivering health care or insurance. Allow the free market to work by taking out those aspects that keep it from being as competitive as it could be. You don't need a "public option" to produce competition. It would actually stifle it and raise the cost of private insurance, forcing most people onto the public option, because it will be the only one they can afford. And enforce financial responsibility by requiring a minimum of major medical insurance much the way we currently require auto insurance if you drive.

And there are other issues that would need to be dealt with. This is just a brief outline of what I think would work to reform health care to make it more affordable, provide real choice, and still maintain the quality of care that we have in the USA.

That's my idea. What's yours?

The Cold Truth

2009-08-07T21:31:00.004-05:00

Dems are getting a big of the cold, hard truth as they come home to town hall meetings. The cold, hard truth is simply that an overwhelming majority of American's don' think this health care plan they are putting together is a good idea. They see it for the Trojan Horse it is and are calling them out on it.

And we've learned something about some of the Democrats through all this. They don't like having to answer hard questions. They don't like to be challenged. They aren't prepared to discuss the meat and potatoes of what this bill will mean to the average American out there. And aside from the financial concerns, which are huge, the drop in quality health care, which will be deep, and the inability of the government to prove to us that it can run any program like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, in a responsible, efficient, and low cost way...

Aside from those really big concerns, it is becoming increasingly evident that the main goal of this legislation is to control us. When the government decides who gets care, how much, and how long it will take to get it, guess what? They control you and can make you do anything they want you to. Especially if you get sick. Unlike our current insurance companies, there would be no watchdog looking over the government's shoulders to look out for our interests. That's supposed to be the government's job. Not providing health care or insurance.

But one of the biggest loses in these last few months, has been the prestige of the presidency. Whatever you think about Bush, he at least was respectful to those who disagreed with him. He didn't call them names. He didn't attempt to demonize a large segment of the American population as our current president does. I thought Clinton diminished the prestige of the presidency, and he did. But he looks much more presidential than our current president who can't seem to stop the blame game, the name calling, and the total disrespect and disregard for anyone who doesn't agree with him. Such a display of contempt and arrogance not only offends me, but makes me realize just how dangerous this man really is.

The only thing standing between President Obama and Dictator Obama is the American people. And luckily, it appears many are standing in the gap to prevent their country from being taken over by radical leftist who now inhabit our White House and Congress.

Use your first amendment rights to free speech now, because if you don't, you may not have those rights in a few months.

The Sarah Pallin Affect

2009-08-05T22:48:00.002-05:00

Today I heard on the news that some organization said something about one of President Obama's children. Some liberal groups responded that the President's children and family shouldn't be drawn into the political arena like that.

First, I would agree. I think it best to keep public official's families out of the political arena unless they insert themselves into it. But there is a problem.

You see, the press mercilessly attacked vice-presidential candidate Sarah Pallin's daughters and her autistic child. Few spoke up about it in the liberal media. Few objected to it on the liberal side of the isle.

Sorry, while I agree with the principle, the liberals have let the genie out of the bottle and now it can't be so easily stuffed back in. Such objections now appear not only hypocritical, but downright partisan. The liberal media and groups only have themselves to blame for all such family attacks from here on out, because they refused to shout down the ones doing it on their side, but either remained silent or even supported it outright.

How anyone can raise such an objection on that side of the isle after what you supported with your lack of denunciation when it occurred to your political opponents defies any common sense. Do you really think the American people don't notice the hypocrisy? It only happened recently with Sarah Pallin. The liberals really should treat the American people with a little more respect. We aren't blind to what you're saying and doing, and denying it won't make it go away. You're only hurting your own reputations and chances of re-election when you do the double-speak thing.

Big Brother is Back

2009-08-05T22:26:00.003-05:00

Ha, I'll bet you think I'm going to discuss the attempt by President Obama to identify blogs (like this one) who are not towing the President's line on the health care "reform" he's trying to cram down our throats. Well, I could. But just knowing he's doing that only goes to prove what I really want to say.

I watched the movie made in 1984, called Nineteen-Eighty Four the other night. Based on George Orwell's classic novel of that name, it depicts a country controlled by an elite group who use video surveillance in every home to ensure compliance with their agenda. And when someone violates it, they do some extensive torture and brainwashing to break them and force them into their mold.

After I watched this, knowing how impractical it would be for our government to control us that way, a thought suddenly hit me. How would a government do it? Simple. Through the control of the country's health care.

No one would want to believe that the powers that be want to end up controlling us like that through health care...but they already are. There is already the "fat tax" to modify our behavior away from what some group considers unhealthy food. The Cap and Trade is all about forcing us via financial incentives to get rid of fossil fuels by artificially raising the cost of using them. Why would we believe once they have the power, that they wouldn't use health care in the same way?

When government controls the health care and its delivery, they will have the ultimate control over us. They can withhold, ration, deny, call it whatever you want, to force us to do what they want. When you become dependent upon another, they control you. That is the real goal behind the health care reform. It isn't about making health care cheaper. It isn't about insuring all those who are uninsured.

It is about controlling you. Once you have no where else to turn to get your health care, you will be forced to live as they say you should live, and even die when they decide you are no longer worth keeping alive with medical treatments.

Already we see this in the current version. A majority of Americans are against partial-birth abortions--one of the most barbaric procedures that defies any attempt to not label it murder. Yet this bill will fund such abortions, as well as late term abortions of which the current administration believes in.

Look, even well-meaning liberals shouldn't want the government to have this much control and power over us. Think about it. What if Obama gets all he wants, and due to an extreme reaction to the ultra-liberal policies of Obama, the country elects a predominately right-wing extreme Congress and president in the next three years. Now they have this kind of control over you! If they decide everyone should attend a fundamentalist church, they can force you to do so to receive your health care. Get the idea? It becomes the perfect platform for a dictatorial takeover of the United States. I don't care whether it is an extreme left-winger or extreme right-winger...I fear either ever having that kind of power over me.

No thanks. I really don't care to support George Orwell's nightmare becoming reality in this country. I'll take the greedy insurance execs any day of the week. At least they won't be running the country and using health care for ensuring political compliance.

Right-Wing Fanatics?

2009-08-05T21:47:00.004-05:00

I browsed the Wall Street Journal's site a bit today, and came upon a list of comments in reference to an opinion article about the organized effort of people to express their opinion to their representatives concerning the current versions of the health care "reform" bills. The article and the predominately liberal commenters (the one opposing opinion was constantly "voted down" which meant to read it, you had to click a link...tolerance on the left? I don't see it) portrayed the folks yelling and raising a ruckus as right-wing nut jobs, or people being organized and "used" by right-wing nut jobs to disrupt these town hall meetings.

One commenter asked why only Fox covered these things? That's a very good question, because it is news. It should be covered. The bigger question is, why are the other medias avoiding it? I can tell you why, because they want the health care overhaul to go through as much as Obama does. They aren't going to show anything that puts it in a negative light. If they show it, they'll show carefully excerpted clips that make the people look like crazed weirdos. Objecitve "just the facts" journalism? No, with most of the media I'm afraid that is a thing of the past. News organizations now take sides on the policital aisle and are beholden or controled by those political interest. The bulk of the press is no longer free or objective.

What the liberal elitist on that list missed, or simply don't have the mental ability to get, is that a majority of the American people, according to the polls, are not for this reform bill. Yet, they see Obama and the Democratic Congress say they don't care, they are going to pass it anyway. What they see is someone who ignores the people of the country, and forces changes they don't want, and in many cases are adamently opposed against. That's called a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Now, is it any wonder people are up in arms? Sure there is some organization. It takes that to get anywhere in the politics. You have to organize. If you don't, you won't make a difference. However, what these elitist don't realize is that it is much, much more than some right-wing wackos sitting in a room somewhere stirring up the crowds to go out and shout down their congressmen and women. These are people who see before their very eyes the government attempting to control their lives. Attempting to forcefeed us what an ultra-leftist minority want to foist upon the rest of the country. I'm sorry, but that riles people up.

I'll agree. Ranting and shouting isn't the most effective way to get it done. But the fact is people are ultra-angry with this president and congress. It isn't about race, it isn't about right-wing extremism. It's the fact that the majority of the country doesn't want left-wing extremist to take over the country and are fighting like crazy to keep that from happening.

When the riots happened over the Rodney King beating several years ago, did the media avoid showing it? Did the media portray those rioters as extremist, radicals that should be ignored? Did they try to cover up the obvious by saying they were the result of certain groups organizing and stiring up the riots? No! They excused the rioters saying it indicated the deep anger and mistrust of the black man toward the police. They excused it despite the injuries, deaths, and vast property damage done to many innocent people in that city.

Yet, when people get mad about someone attempting to destroy our country through socialism and change we can really fear, enough to loudly voice their opposition without hurting anyone, without destroying property, etc., the media either ignores them or labels them extremist and chalks it up to some evil organization manipulating people for their own evil ends. Come on! We aren't that stupid. I'm surprised that any well-meaning liberals even buy that.

The fact is, more than 50% of the American people are against this health care reform as it currently exists. That makes the "extremist" the majority of Americans, and the elite liberals who dismiss them the extreme minority. Well, let them live in their own protected world. Let them say when reality breaks through their glass bubble that it is an aberration, some extremist somewhere. Cause they'll be that much less prepared when the American people kick most of their rearends out of their congressional seats and replace them with someone who will actually listen to the people in their districts and represent them.

In fact, I would suggest that it is this extreme overreaching by the Democrats which could signal the downfall of their party. When you alienate the majority of Americans by labeling their concerns as extremism and don't even treat them with respect, you will lose them come the next election. No one likes a bully. Unfortunately, that is what President Obama and the Democrats are doing, bulling the rest of the country into accepting their extreme socialistic agenda.

Yeah, good luck with that.

To Reform or Not to Reform? Straw Man

2009-07-23T21:30:00.003-05:00

Some of the Democratic senators discussing the health care reform amendment to the Dept. of Defense bill, make it sound like the Republicans are simply against reform because they are against this amendment.

What? Are they stupid or something? Or maybe it's that they think we're stupid. For just before those comments was a list of all the bills the Republicans had put forth as alternative that really would reform the health care system, instead of overturn it as the current amendment would do.

The fact is, according to the polls, most all Americans are against this government controlled health care bill. If those Republican senators are against reform, then they have effectively labeled a majority of Americans as anti-reform.

But that wouldn't be true. What we're against is the government controlling our health care. There are many reasons put forth. High cost, unfunded mandates to the states costing them billions of dollars, and thus their taxpayers. Rationed care. Long waits for needed service. Corruption and waste which is inherent with most government programs of this type.

Of course our President says this is not the way it will be. It won't cost us extra, we'll insure many more Americans, the government program will somehow be efficient and lower health care cost overall, and provide the quality we've come to expect.

Then why does the plan look like the UK and Canada, none of which have avoided those problems? And when other promises made don't come true (no lobbyist, no pork, bills online 5 days before votes are taken, unemployment won't rise above 8% if stimulus bill is enacted, etc.), how can we possibly believe he'll be able to deliver on this? It isn't just that we are disillusioned with government's ability to deliver, we are disillusioned with the President's ability to deliver on his promises.

When every example of a similar system says it will cost more, ration care, have long lines, reduce the quality of health care--not to mention the Congressional Budget Office's estimate on the cost of this bill, and key health organizations like the Mayo Clinic saying this is a bad bill (the President appears to have "mis-spoken" about their support of this bill)--how can empty promises with no facts to back them up possibly give us cause to trust him one more time, especially on something as critical and life-changing as this?

I read today my senator's comments on the floor of the Senate, Senator Kay Hutchison, along with a few of the other comments. She stated many of the reasons I'm opposed to the current version of this bill. But for me, it centers around the fact that any government controlled health care delivery will not work and will be a lose-lose for everyone. Here are a portion of my comments I wrote to her:

One real concern I have about any government control of the health care system beyond regulation and oversight, is that once the government gets involved, there is no real appeal or mediation when something goes wrong, corruption infests the system, or patient care is lacking, because there isn't anyone literally "over" the government.

With private insurance and care, I at least have the knowledge and ability that if I'm taken advantage of, if there is a corrupt scheme going on, the government can act as a more objective watchdog and enforcer of laws and regulations protecting me from such.

People point to the greed of insurance companies taking advantage of people, and I'm sure those concerns are not entirely unfounded. But at least they have a government "over" them who has the authority to force them to stop and make amends. Once we have the government providing the health care, there is no such objective oversight, allowing corruption to run rampant and infest all the good intentioned efforts of such a bill with crippling waste.

The worst thing we can do is to make health care a political football. I don't want ultimate control of health care to be in the Congress, I don't want it to even be in the hands of an outside committee as President Obama suggested in his address to the nation the other night. I want it to be in my hands, and my doctors.

And if my choice is between the dispersed insurance company executives who still have to abide by the law and a Congress who is exempt from the law and its effects--can even change the law if need be--I'll pick the insurance companies. I'd rather have greedy insurance companies with a hammer over their heads than a greedy Congress/medical committee with little to no restrictions on what they can do.

I encourage all who might read this blog to contact your senator and representative concerning this bill. If the polls reflect the true sense that Americans don't like the direction this is moving, then there should be a ground swell (and there is one growing) that makes it clear that we, the people, will not tolerate such a bill, and any Congressional Representative will lose our vote when the come up for re-election.

Hate Crime? Sure...I do.

2009-07-15T19:20:00.002-05:00

I've heard, and this could be a rumor, but I heard that there is an attempt to get the "new and improved" hate crime bill through the senate this week by attaching it to the Pentagon's defense appropriations bill in the Senate.

This is a dangerous bill, which will protect nothing but only increase the hatred in our country. "How?" you ask?

Let's say a man says something to a homosexual that they don't like hearing. It doesn't matter if the one saying it isn't being hateful, if the homosexual believes it is hateful, they may file a lawsuit against the man for what he said which is deemed "hateful."

This could be the source for many frivolous lawsuits merely to intimidate people into complying with one or another group's wishes. It will be a means to harass people or groups you don't like instead of prosecution over real crimes and actions against another that can be witnessed, measured, and verified.

The bottom line, no one motivation should be highlighted as more important than another when it comes to committing a crime. Anyone convicted of murder, no matter the reason behind it, should be treated equally. The law cannot discern people's motivations, nor should it matter.

To that end I've emailed my senators over this, and wanted to share my letter with you. Contact your senators as well.

Senator,

Thank you for your service. I wanted to give you my thoughts on a hate crime bill that I understand is being attached to the defense bill going through the senate this week, in an apparent attempt to get it into law. If this isn't happening, ignore the following. Sometimes rumors get started.

I certainly do not approve of people who commit crimes against others purely based on race, gender...or really *any* criteria. Crime is crime, no matter the reason.

And that is what bothers me about this bill, including the one that is on the books. People should be judged and punished for crimes committed, equally, no matter the motivation behind them. If a murder kills a baby because his/hers crying annoys him/her, or if they kill him/her because he/she happens to be black, neither is acceptable nor is one worse than the other.

What I see this bill doing is creating the pretext for harassment of religious (and other) people by frivolous law suits. If I look at someone the wrong way, I could get sued. We don't need this kind of legislation. It will not prevent crimes, but will increase the divisions in our country as individuals go after others for whatever perceived motivation they attach to their actions, and then get judged on that instead of actual actions that violate someone's rights.

I hope you will oppose this attempt to sneak this in, and expose it for what it really is. Thank you.

Positive Signs?

2009-07-11T01:43:00.003-05:00

I know. It seems in politics, it is rare when we can talk about positive things. And even then, it tends to become positive as compared to X that we don't like. And perhaps that is hard to get away from, especially in politics.

I can sense, however, that enough people are expressing their dislike and distrust of what Congress and the President have been doing, that more moderate Democrats are breaking rank--effectively stalling the push toward a government controlled health care "option" (that would eliminate all competition to evolve into a single-payer system). And there is enough aghast floating on the political waters, that wind of a second stimulus package has been shoving the idea back under the water...we hope to stay.

Polls are showing the public is becoming more disenchanted with the direction our government is headed. And why wouldn't they when Obama has broken one campaign promise after another within months of being sworn in. He said he'd have more transparency, give us opportunity to read the bills online, not sign any bills with pork in them, not have lobbyist on his staff, and not raise taxes on people earning under 200K. Yet, a pork-laden bill gets signed into law by him. Congress passes bills costing billions with no more than hours for the representatives to read them...forget about the public. Secretly cooked amendments are stuffed in them moments before being voted on with no real review of their value and worth. Several of his staff are former lobbyist. And the "Cap and Trade" Bill passed by the House, yet to be voted on in the Senate, and which the President has vowed to sign into law, would result in the largest tax increase in history on every man, woman, and child.

Politics 101: if you promise the moon and don't deliver, guess what? You'll be a one-term office holder...if you last that long. Just ask President Bush 41. Or ask President Jimmy Carter.

"Carter? Who's he?" you ask. I was a teen at the time. I remember watching as gas prices shot from $0.30/gallon to close to a $1.00 in the mid 70s. I recall seeing the long lines at the gas pumps, stretching down the streets in many cases, and rationing of gas. I was afraid by the time I had a license to drive, there'd be no more gas to drive them with, or it would be so insanely expensive it would be unreachable.

By the end of Carter's administration, inflation and unemployment had sailed in double digits--much higher than it is right now. Prices kept flying upwards, reducing the spending power of the people. People literally thought the country was headed into a second depression, it was so bad.

Then Regan took the reigns. Did he complain and make excuses about the bad economy the former president had left him to clean up? No. Did he initiate mass spending programs to "stimulate" the American economy? No. He simply put into place one of the biggest tax cuts of all times. And guess what? Within a year, the nation was creating jobs, people were going back to work, inflation dropped, and the government had more money to work with.

Yet, history shows, as in the New Deal during the Great Depression, many attribute the length to the Great Depression based on government spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Why does spending not work while cutting taxes does?

It's elementary. Tax cuts leave money in the hands of businesses and people. Who creates the bulk of jobs? Businesses, not the government. Who buys the bulk of products? People, not the government. You give those two groups more money, and guess what, you have more jobs and more spending and the economy is given a boaster shot. Not only that, but jobs created by businesses tend to last longer than the temporary jobs created by government impulse spending. So the stimulation becomes permanent, and feeds on itself to create even more stimulus effects.

What happens when governments try to spend their way out of a recession or depression? Some money goes to valid projects, infrastructure and the like. But those projects would have been done anyway, in due time. This perhaps speeds those up. Some of it goes to pointless projects, like the money used to put corner curbs at streets in a city with no sidewalks, or any number of pork projects that were slipped into the unread stimulus bill before it became law. Some of those create some jobs, others have little real effect on the economy, affecting only a handful of people.

But whether the spending is on valid projects or not, the result is the same. First, less of the money goes toward stimulating the economy. Think about it. As an example, let's say a businessman would gain an extra $5000.00 a year if a tax cut were passed. That businessman could create some jobs with that money, or improve their marketing, or product research. He has little overhead on it, and that money (except for what the government extracts from it) all goes into the hands of employees as raises so they can spend to feed their family or a night out to see a movie. Jobs are created, which in turn generate more tax money on those jobs. If we assume at least 20% of those paychecks go toward federal taxes, the government gets around $1000.00. So, government gets 1K, the people get 4K to spend, which in turn generates demand, which generates a demand for more jobs.

Now consider if the government says, "No, we can't 'afford' to let you have that 5K, send it to us instead so we can stimulate the economy." That money goes into a massive bureaucracy paying the high salaries of workers and Congressional Reps. who must debate and vote where to spend this money. Some of this money will go toward political favors, or handed to states to do pet projects with strings attached. By the time it actually is distributed to stimulate the economy, several layers of bureaucracy will have taken their cut in salaries and administrative costs. The result is less than 1K of that money will likely end up in the hands of a business man who can create the jobs or people to spend it to generate demand. And because of that, he may only end up with enough to throw a party for his employees.

In order to pay for the extra spending, they must tax people. When they tax people, they cause two things to happen. Businesses lose money and people lose money. That means less money which results in cutting job or reducing what people make, and people have less money to spend, creating less demand, causing businesses to cut jobs. This results in less money to the federal government because there are fewer people producing an income to tax. That results in government taxing more and it feeds the vicious cycle even further.

The only way out of that death spiral is tax cuts. I can guarantee you, if Obama cut taxes on businesses and people, and repealed the stimulus bill, within a year you'd see this economy stall its upward climb of unemployment and head back down. But he's not going to do that? Why? Because if the government holds the purse strings, they have power over us. If we hold the money, they don't. And they like having power over our lives. But it would work because it has worked every time it has been tried. Meanwhile history shows us that every time we've tried to spend out way out of a recession, we only dug our hole deeper.

While we may be a ways from creating tax cuts, at least some in Congress are putting the brakes on the direction we've been headed. About time. But it may not be until the Congress is changed and/or a new president is voted in before we see the real tax cut that will bring back our economic freedoms.