We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

The Untouchable President

Really interesting article worth the read on how President Obama has been the master of manipulating the press.

The strategy has proved to be very effective.  Very impressive from a PR perspective.  He has to be the most unaccountable President in the history of the United States.

(I do, however, disagree with the assertion that the press is not in the tank for Obama.  When they have been afforded opportunities to ask the tough questions or write the tough articles, they don't take them.)

Freedom of the Press was included in Amendment #1 in the Constitution for a reason.  It is critical for a free people to be able to hold their leaders accountable.  This shift ought to be extremely unnerving for any who value our Constitution and our freedom.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

The Axis of Evil... Minus One

Over 11 years ago, President Bush really riled up the left by referring to the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address.  He named three governments that were sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction:  Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

Based on intelligence that said Iraq had already obtained WMDs, the U.N. sent inspectors into Iraq, but Iraq would not comply with the requests made by the inspectors.  After 9/11, Pres. Bush committed, in essence, that the best defense was a good offense, and that the Americans would not be attacked on their home soil again on his watch.  As such, he gave Iraq an ultimatum:  Comply with the U.N. inspectors, or we will invade.  We all watched the hours tick down to the deadline that was given, and then watched as our troops crossed the border into Iraq.  Ten years after the "Axis of Evil" speech, the U.S. finished withdrawing its troops from a free Iraq.

Question:  What type of a threat does Iraq pose to the U.S. and the world today?

The greatest threats to the world today are (who would have guessed it?) Iran and North Korea.  All of the headlines today are talking about how yesterday, North Korea had a successful test of a nuclear weapon that initially registered as an 4.9 earthquake.  The news has set China and Japan and the rest of the world including the U.S. on edge.

Even Iran called for an end to the nuclear arms race after a successful North Korean test, which would be comical if it weren't so scary.  Iran has been working feverishly to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.  The U.S. and others threaten them to stop, and they say they will... and then we find out that they have just kept on building the nuclear weapons.  Over and over again.  Our old ally, Israel, said today that Iran is closer to the nuclear red line and that they are accelerating their efforts.

The two nations that are currently creating the biggest headaches in the world are North Korea and Iran.  (One does have to ask himself:  Wonder what Iraq would be doing today if it hadn't been invaded 10 years ago?)  Bush, as we have found out over and over again, was right on the money when it came to terrorism.  We see it with situations like Guantanamo, where Obama promised to shut it down, and yet it's still open in his fifth year of his presidency... because that was/is the best way to deal with suspected terrorists.  We read that it was the tactics that Bush put into place that led U.S. intelligence to track down Osama Bin Laden.  There has not been a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.  Bush may not have been perfect, but the way he dealt with terrorism was extremely effective.  He took the fight to the terrorists.

The current administration, on the other hand, has chosen to deal with Iran and North Korea the way that some parents deal with their children:  "Hey, stop that.  I said stop that.  I really mean it.  No, this time I really mean it.  Alright, I'm going to count to three.  1... 2... 2 1/2... 2 3/4.  I'm serious.  Okay, if you don't knock it off, you're really going to be in big trouble.  Okay, how about this?  If you knock it off, I'll give you some ice cream.  Doesn't this look good?   Please knock it off.  Alright, now I'm really serious.  I really mean it.  This time is for real.  Knock it off!  Oh, well... Kids will be kids."

And two-thirds of the Axis of Evil laughs.

It won't be funny though, when our lack of Bush-era tactics of a good offense ends up culminating in another attack on the U.S. and the world.  Pres. Obama has ridden the Bush anti-terrorism wave just about as far as it can go.  It's time for the U.S. to get serious in finally dealing with the other two members of the "Axis of Evil" (a term I can guarantee you won't hear in the State of the Union tonight.)

Monday, December 31, 2012

Going Over the Fiscal Cliff

As the rest of us prepare to bring in the New Year tonight, our elected representatives are working on avoiding taking the country over the "Fiscal Cliff".  What that really means is that they are busy politically posturing.

This is an example of politics at its worst.  Pres. Obama has repeatedly blamed the Republicans.  He has given one major speech and is apparently planning on another today.  The gist of these speeches is, "We're doing everything we can, but the big, bad Republicans won't let us fix this."  He talks about how far they have come to meet the Republicans in the middle, but how the Republicans are squabbling over $100,000.  He makes it all sound so petty.

Let me ask you this, Pres. Obama:  What is it exactly you have compromised on?  

The major sticking point is that Pres. Obama wants to raise taxes on any households making more than $250,000.

Republicans understand that people making over $250,000 are the individuals that create small business and invest in business and keep the economy running.  For anyone who is reading this, how much money have you invested in a company and/or the stock market?  In other words, if the economy was dependent on you, what would be happening with your money?

I know that whenever I receive a large chunk of money, I do one of two things:  1)  I put it into savings, or 2)  I pay off debt.  Putting money into savings is one of the worst things for the economy, because you have now pulled those dollars out of circulation.  They aren't buying anything.  They aren't growing any business.  If you pay off debt, you are paying off something that has already been purchased, and it also has little impact to help the economy.  What keeps the economy going is money circulating.  By pulling money from those who actually do invest and start businesses and buy large quantities of stuff, you slow the economy.

Think of it this way.  I'm going to see a movie this afternoon.  What if everybody decided they couldn't afford to see anymore movies and that they would put that money into savings instead.  How long would it take for the movie theaters to go out of business?  One month?  Two?

Republicans are fighting on principal, that raising taxes on those who keep the economy moving and growing is the worst possible thing you can do in a slow economy.  They want instead to keep the same tax rates or even lower them to encourage growth in the economy.  What about the problem of the deficit and the national debt?  Republicans want to fix it by reducing spending -- By living within the government's means.

Keynesian economists (who are all liberal) argue that, when money is pulled from those making $250,000 or more, that the government spends it.  So it's still going into the economy.  And, in fact, they argue that it actually goes further, because there is no tax on the money like there would be in a corporation.  It's called the Government Spending Multiplier Effect.

This might be true if the government ran anything efficiently, but unfortunately they do not.  Let's say the government raises $1 trillion through the new tax increases, and then they buy a $1 trillion candy bar from a factory that employs one person, and you eat it.  The individual that sold them the candy bar makes a lot of money, but it goes to that one individuals.  The individual will likely invest it and some will get distributed back into the economy.  But how much money went to waste in that exchange by overpaying for goods?  What happens when you give $535 million to Solyndra to manufacture green products and they go out of business?  What happens when you bail out GM and then push them to emphasize green vehicles like the Chevy Volt that there is no demand for, and the product fails?

The biggest flaw in Keynesian economics is that there is no consideration for what happens to productivity when you hand people money rather than make them work for it.  No consideration for what happens in the market when you don't let the natural laws of supply and demand dictate what is produced.

If you look at all the money that was wasted in the stimulus and all the money that is going to be wasted in Obamacare, it is a significant amount.  That money would simply be better served in the hands of an entrepreneur or an investor (WHOSE MONEY IT IS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!  THEY EARNED IT!!!)

So Republicans made a major compromise from "Absolutely no new taxes" to "Okay, we will meet you halfway and allow a tax increase on those making more than $1 million."  But that's not good enough.  Pres. Obama pushed for $250,000 still and said he would not negotiate on that.  He will "not put more of the burden on middle income families."  (Ummmmm... How about a decrease in spending then?  That would be a much more effective solution.  Reduce the amount that everybody has to pay!)

So Democrats finally said, "Okay... We'll meet you halfway and go from $250,000 to $450,000."  (Since when is $450,000 halfway between $250,000 and $1,000,000?)  So that is their big sacrifice they are making, and they can't see how Republicans could be against that.

So now they are debating between raising taxes on incomes $450,000 or $550,000, which is the $100,000 they are describing.

Why not compromise to save the economy?  Here is the dirty little secret:  Pres. Obama wants to go over the cliff.

That way, he can raise taxes on everybody, and he can just blame the Republicans.  Middle income families will see a significant tax increase, but he doesn't have to be the bad guy.  He can have more money to spend on more government programs, and he can further increase his control over the American people.  His major compromise is not to raise taxes to the 70% rate it was under Jimmy Carter, which he would like to do!  He feels like he is giving up a lot, which is why he is probably dumbfounded with the Republicans.

Republicans are the sensible, thrifty group in the marriage, and the Democrats are the ones with 15 credit cards that are all maxed out, and they're asking if we wouldn't mind co-signing on another.  Then, when we say no, they throw a fit and blame us for their financial woes.

Unfortunately, Republicans are too soft-hearted, and they will likely say "Okay, just this one last time..." and compromise to once again save the people of the United States from the Democratic policies.  Raising taxes on those who keep the economy moving is an incredibly stupid thing to do in a bad economy, but it's even worse to raise taxes on everyone.

We've got about 10 hours left at the time I'm writing this.  It'll be interesting to see what happens by the time the ball drops in Times Square.  Hopefully Republicans can once again save this economy, despite the best efforts of Pres. Obama and the Democrats to destroy it.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

A Conservative's View on Gun Control

What happened in Newtown, CT on Friday is absolutely horrific.  It is almost unimaginable that someone could do something like this to innocent children.  Even bad guys seem to have limits.  And this is one that hasn't often been crossed.  As a parent of a child of a 4 year-old child, it struck all too close to home.

My first reaction as a father is that Adam Lanza got off too easy.  He should have lived, because he needs to be made to pay for what he did.  But then I realize that he will yet face justice, and his punishment will be worse than any punishment that man could inflict.

As a great man once said, "Justice is mercy."  I believe that Adam Lanza will yet face the perfect justice of God, and the families of these victims will have mercy.

The next thought is naturally to search for a way to prevent these types of things from happening in the future.     My little boy is in pre-school and will soon be starting grammar school.  I don't want him to have to face what those children at Sandy Hook Elementary had to face.  I want my son and daughter and any future children that may come along to grow up in a world that is safe.


As a write down my thoughts in these posts, I try to be logical and to avoid inflammatory statements.  I try to respect individuals who may think differently than I do.  I don't speak on behalf of all conservatives obviously, but I am one conservative.  I do my best to explain my point of view, and to support it with logical arguments.  And I don't claim to be right -- It's simply my point of view.

I have always had a desire to be able to sit down with a liberal and have them explain to me why they think what they think.  There have been a few individuals in my life who have been able to express to me their opposing views, and it has always been enlightening.  But mostly it just upsets individuals to talk about politics, and it often escalates.  So on this blog, I simply try to provide a conservative's viewpoint for anybody who is interested. 

I would love to be able to find a comparative blog on the liberal side, but it seems like most liberal blogs resort to name calling and personal attacks.  The arguments are rarely based on logic, but rather on emotion.  But that is one major difference I have noted between conservatives and liberals:  Conservatives tend to focus more on logic, and liberals tend to let their emotions guide them.


That seems to be the case whenever one of these mass shootings occur.  The left immediately pounces on the issue of gun control.  It always seems strange to me that there is no worry about using a tragedy for political expediency.  But then again, it was Pres. Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel who said that, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."  I suppose this fits the bill, sad as it is.

When the right defends their right to bear arms as it faces the overpowering voice from the left, the left seems to almost be in disbelief that the right could defend the use of guns.  Does the left really think that we want our children to be killed by a gun-wielding maniac?  Obviously not!  That is ridiculous.  Yet that is the reaction I have seen.  Piers Morgan last night seemed almost dumbfounded that a guest on his show would defend gun rights at a time like this.

And yet I, as a conservative, sit here in disbelief that any level-headed person would think that gun control would have done anything to prevent this mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.


Did you know that Sandy Hook Elementary is a "Gun Free Zone"?  That means that by law, it is illegal to have a gun there.  How then, is it possible that a shooting occured there?  Shouldn't the "Gun Free Zone" law have prevented this from happening?

The answer is obvious:  Adam Lanza simply disregarded the law, because he is an evil person.  Because of the law, all of the law-abiding citizens didn't have guns.  The only person roaming the halls with a gun at Sandy Hook Elementary that day was the murderer.  My guess is that every teacher at that school would have given anything in that moment to have had a gun as they frantically tried to protect their children.  But the only person with a gun was the person who had no regard for the law.

It is that simple.

The school had a buzzer system where guests are supposed to buzz in.  He reportedly broke through a window.

He didn't have registered guns and never went through a background check.  The guns he had were not his.  He stole them from his mom, who had gone through the background check and registered them legally.

Murder is against the law.  Yet, somehow the law didn't stop him.

I honestly have a hard time seeing how a rational person could believe that enacting more laws is going to stop people from Adam Lanza doing what they are going to do.


Gun control is simply an emotional response.  It cannot be based on logic.

Interesting fact:  Not one gun was used in the 9/11 attacks.  The terrorists used box cutters.  And they killed 2,296 people.  More than 100 times as many people as died in those attacks as did at Sandy Hook Elementary.

(By the way, one of the responses to those attacks was to put armed air marshalls on the planes, so that somebody besides the terrorists have a weapon in case of an attack.  More guns = More safety.)

Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 (and injured 700 others.)  Not one gun was used.

Guns are currently the simplest solution for someone who wants to kill others.  If guns were taken away, we would simply see a shift to bombs or arson or poison.  Killers will find a way to kill.

I said it in a previous post, but sad as it is, I believe that guns actually limit the amount of people that can be killed, because there is a physical constraint on how many times a trigger can be pulled and is limited to the accuracy of the shooter, which gives individuals a chance to flee.  That is not true with a bomb.


The first amendment states:

"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."

Second only to the freedom of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press is the second amendment, which states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Why did the Founding Fathers feel so strongly about the right to bear arms that they would make it the second amendment?  When put in the context of what it had just taken to free themselves from the oppression of Great Britain, it makes perfect sense.

Everything in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is set up around a blatant distrust of government.  When men get into power, the power goes to their heads.  When individuals willingly give up arms, they give government more power over themselves.  If things go wrong, as it did with Great Britain, the people need to be able to form a militia and defend themselves.  With no arms, that is a very difficult proposition.

It may seem far-fetched, but we have seen in the last couple years the people of Libya and Egypt raise up against their government in order to fight for their rights.  It happens, even in our day.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  Could the Founding Fathers have stated it any clearer?  I'm being serious.  Is there any way that the Founding Fathers could have worded it any clearer?  I would like to hear any suggestions.


I have heard people say, "Our arms are no match for the drones and fighters of today."  That is simply not true.  Maybe if everybody were to gather into one spot and wait to be killed, but that doesn't reflect reality.  There are not enough bombs available to kill all the people in the U.S., with as many people and as spread out as we are.  Nuclear bombs would come closest, but if we are to the point where our government would use nuclear weapons on its own people, we are in a lot of trouble.

The 2.5 million full-time or reserve military personnel would be no match for the 300+ million people that live in the U.S., but only if those people have some way to fight back.

The left always want to go back to the assault weapons ban.  The reason, as they often point out, is that the people should not have access to the same guns as the military.  They purposely want to relinquish control and give more power to the government to have control over its people.

How would gun registration have changed this attack?  How would a background check have changed this attack?  How would an assault weapons ban have changed this attack?  Some will try to argue that smaller clips will make for more reloading time.  I guess that makes sense if you are actually reloading, which takes a little more time.  But changing out clips can be done in a couple of seconds, and whether it's ten 15-round clips or fifteen 10-round clips, it's still 150 bullets.


But all of that is beside the point, because guns don't kill people.  It doesn't matter whether it is an assault weapon or not.  People kill people.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza had Asperger's Syndrome.  So why don't we ban individuals with Asperger's Syndrome?  That is obviously ridiculous, because there are many people who have Asperger's Syndrome who don't kill people.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza was a loner and may have suffered from depression.  So let's lock up everybody who is a loner and suffers from depression.  Ridiculous.  There are many people who are loners and who suffer from depression who don't kill people.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza played violent video games.  So let's lock up anybody who has ever played violent video games.  Ridiculous.  There are many people who play violent video games who don't kill people.

There are tens and hundreds of millions of people who own guns (which include assault weapons), and almost none of them kill people.  It has been estimated that there are 300,000,000 guns in the United States among an estimated 50,000,000 gun owners.  There were 14 "mass shootings" in 2012.  300,000,000 million guns, 50,000,000 gun owners, 14 mass shootings.  That means that 49,999,986 individuals that own guns (including assault weapons) did not go on a killing spree.  Yet, the left wants to take away guns from those individuals because one was used in killing others.  It makes as much sense as banning people with Asperger's or who are loners or who play video games.

But it fits with the theme of the left -- Turn everything over to the government, and those benevolent people in power will take care of everything for its people.


Guns have been around for a long time, and in the 50's and 60's when there were no background checks or gun free zones, there were also almost no mass shootings.  If the gun laws were more relaxed then, how is that it possible that there weren't more shootings?  What has changed?

This people in the United States have turned away from a belief in God.  One person in a school of hundreds or even thousands can stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being read because it uses the phrase "One Nation, Under God", which offends them.  We have to say "Happy Holidays" so that we won't offend anyone.  Don't even think about putting on a Christmas play at school.

I was at graduation for our University on Friday, the day the shootings took place.  I have been to at least 10 of these graduations in my time as a teacher at the University.  For the first time in all of the graduations I've been to, I watched at least half and maybe closer to two-thirds of the graduates and their families get up and walk out before the graduation ceremony was completed.

Graduation has changed since I got my first degree back in 2003.  The majority of graduates and guests don't dress up anymore.  They are loud and disrespectful and bring air horns to blast when their graduates' names are read.  And when they get bored and want to leave, they just get up and leave in the middle of the ceremony.

It seems like a simple thing, but it is indicative to me of what has happened in society.  Anything goes.  Whatever you do is right.  Have everything handed to you in life.  It seems as though there is no respect for anything in this up and coming generation.

I read a great quote over the weekend:

"In the days of uncertainty, when men are running to and fro seeking for some new plan by which peace may be brought into the world, know this: that the only way to peace for this world is the pathway of the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord.  There is no other."


But that will offend our friends on the left.  They do not want to hear about God.  They would have him banned from all public aspects of life.

So without a turn to God, is there an alternate solution?

In the debates, Mitt Romney was asked about gun control, and he was ridiculed by the left because he talked about the importance of children growing up in a family with a Mom and a Dad.  He was dead on in his comments.  The solution comes from children learning and being nurtured inside the home.  By being taught by good parents what is right and what is wrong, and by having standards to live by and to be held accountable to.  It all starts in the home.  Respect starts in the home.

But parents don't raise children anymore.  The day care and the television do.  More and more, parents hand their kids everything they want.  Discipline is a thing of the past.  I just picked up my son from his pre-school class, and it is very apparent which kids hear the word "no" at home and which don't.

But we obviously cannot control what happens in other people's homes.  This problem will only get worse.  So what is another solution?

It is simple.  We obviously cannot (and should not) arrest individuals who are loners or are depressed or who play violent video games or who have Asperger's syndrome.  Taking away guns will only shift the method of killing.  So what can we do?

What we need is not less guns; It is more guns.  More education and training with guns.  What if the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, had a gun locked away in a safe place in her office when the shooting first began?  What if Victoria Soto had locked her students in a closet and then gone to retrieve her firearm and hid herself in a corner with the gun pointed at the door?  What if every teacher in that school who wanted to had been armed that day?  But no, it was a "Gun Free Zone".

What if a dozen people in the theater in Aurora who had concealed weapons permits had been armed when the gunman opened fire?  How many lives could have been saved?  No, the theater was a "Gun Free Zone". Those with regard for the law didn't have any weapons.

One of my best friends was on a construction site when a man across the street came out of his house, yelling and waving a gun.  My friend, who has a concealed weapon permit, calmly walked out to his truck, where he pulled out his weapon, and then he went back inside the house and sat and waited and watched.  The police were called, and there was a standoff where the man was eventually arrested and no harm was done.  But I have been hunting with my friend, and I know that the shooting wouldn't have gone on for long had the gunman decided to open fire on anyone.


We can continue gun registration and background checks.  We can continue to try to identify people who are a threat.  We need to continue educating individuals on using and respecting guns.  But if we are not as a nation going to address the heart of the problem, then we simply need to be able to defend ourselves against these maniacs when they decide to strike.

Would Adam Lanza have even entered that school that day had it been known that every teacher was armed?  I heard a proponent of gun control on Piers Morgan's show admit that "Burglars wait until nobody is home to break into a house in Texas."  I believe that is true.

Gun control will only stop those who have respect for the law.  And then the criminals who disregard the law will be the only ones that are armed.  Would-be killers will only be more tempted knowing that the innocent people gathered together have no guns.  And the number of mass shootings would only increase.

From the mind of (what I hope to be) a level-headed conservative, gun control has to be the the most illogical solution to this epidemic that I can think of.  But it sure would make those emotionally driven people on the left feel good, because they had done something about it.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Post-Election Thoughts

After a devastating loss like we had last night, the only thing to do is to try to look for the positives.  The only problem is:  I'm not seeing any.

It seems like the country has reached a tipping point.  We had a President who has basically nothing to run on.  He couldn't run on the economy, because unemployment is higher than it was when he took office.  Growth is stagnant.  The economy continues to bleed jobs.  He couldn't run on Health Care Reform, because the majority of the country opposes it.  He couldn't run on bringing the people together, because the country is more divided than ever.  All he had was Bin Laden and ending the War in Iraq.

And the Republican Party put forward the ideal candidate to fix the issue that concerns people most:  The Economy.  And we lost.

I do not see how we win another election in our current environment.


Obama used the strategy of division.  He pitted the poor against the rich, and ran on raising taxes so we could take from the rich and give to the poor.  He created a false "War on Women", which was so effective that I read tweets from people who seriously wondered if Romney would take birth control, tampons, and even the women's right to vote away.  He used the tried-and-true strategy of scaring seniors into believing that Romney would take away their Social Security and Medicare.  He used the Republican plans to combat illegal immigration to scare legal immigrants.  He picked the biggest voting bases, and then turned them against the smallest voting bases.

And the people bought it.

Obama is the Great Divider, and the strategy has been very effective.  But the effect that this strategy has had on our nation is obvious.


The problem is the people.  What is the prerequisite to vote in the U.S.?  You need to be a person.  You don't need an ID, you don't even need to be the person you say you are, and you can go in and vote.

The election becomes a popularity contest.

My dad suggested years ago that, in order to vote, there ought to be a Voter's Test just like we have a Driver's Test.  Nothing too complicated, but something to demonstrate there is a basic understanding of what the vote means.  That made perfect sense to me.

Basic questions on the Constitution like:
  • What are the three branches of government?
  • How many votes does the House need to pass a bill?
  • How many Senators represent each state?

Maybe a few current event questions like:
  • What is the current unemployment rate?
  • What is GDP?
  • What is the current U.S. debt?

And maybe a math question or two:

  • If you spend more than you earn, what is that called?
  • Are there any problems associated with simply printing more money?
  • If the current budget deficit is $1 trillion, and the top 1% of income earners make a combined $1.3 trillion, what tax rate would they have to be taxed at in order to close the deficit?  (Answer: 77%.)

It is obvious from the various videos that were posted of Obama voters bashing on Romney policies only to find out that they were actually Obama policies, to videos of people who have no idea that anything happened in Benghazi, to videos of Jimmy Kimmel talking to a group of black people in a Brooklyn Barbershop about what Romney could do to earn their vote and the first answer is "Turn black", that people are not voting for a President.  They are voting for a celebrity.


Now don't get me wrong.  I know people who are very educated on the issues, and who still vote Democrat.  I'm not talking about them.  They would easily pass the Voter's Test.  But I believe they are now the minority in the Democratic Party.

Rush Limbaugh said it perfectly:  It's difficult to beat Santa Claus.

The nice part about running as a Democrat is that you can promise anything.  We will end war!  Free health care for everybody!  Just take a little more from the rich to pay for all our spending!  Legalize marijuana!  Let the illegal immigrants come on in!

Republicans are cursed by nature to being constrained by reality.  So what happens in the long run when you just pull the troops out or define a withdrawal date?  Where do you get the money to pay for everybody's health care, and what does that do to costs?  What happens when you raise taxes on the rich?  What happens when you legalize marijuana?  What do you do about the burden that illegal immigrants place on our system?

Democrats are not burdened by reality.  And what's more, we found out in this election that Democrats don't care whether promises are fulfilled or not!  As long as they get free stuff.  Absolutely amazing.

Go ahead and kill the golden goose!  As long as I get my share of the meat!

Romney was right when he talked about the 47%.  It may or may not be exactly 47%, but there is a near-majority of people that don't know anything about politics, don't know anything about economics or current events, and don't know the first thing about how a job is created.

All they know is that one guy wants to give them stuff, and the other guy doesn't.

Rush said it perfectly again:  You've been out of a job for a year, you have a house, you have a car, you have a cell phone, you have a TV, and you've got food.  What's the problem?


In any other business or legal situation, having a person making a decision with the potential to benefit from the result of that decision is a conflict of interest, and would not stand.

But there is no problem with 46,700,000 people who are on food stamps voting for how we handle food stamps.  No problem with 4,300,000 people who receive a check in the mail every couple weeks for welfare voting about how we handle welfare.  No problem with 5,600,000 people who receive unemployment checks every month voting on how we handle unemployment.

This is the strangest system I have ever seen.  Would it make sense for me to be on a University committee that decides whether I get a raise?  Which way am I going to vote?!


And the media perpetuates all of these things.  The amount of advertising that "news" organizations give to the Democratic candidate is incalculable.  They tear on Romney night after night for small things like "binders full of women", and they protect Obama on four Americans being killed in a 7-hour calculated attack on "American soil" in Benghazi.

It frankly is amazing that the Republicans can ever get 49% of the vote.  Whatever Romney spent in advertising can't compare to the 24-hour barrage of advertising for Obama by "journalists" and late night shows.  There is nothing Republicans can do to combat the main stream media.  People turn to news channels expecting to get an unbiased report on the facts, but journalistic integrity is rare these days.  Everybody has an agenda.

So when so-called "journalists" spend hour after hour talking about the non-existent "war on women", people believe them.  And when someone hears something about Benghazi and tunes to the news and they say it's no big deal.

Romney's single-largest jump in the polls came after the first debate when the media finally wasn't able to control the sound-bites for 90 minutes.  The people saw the real Romney for the first time.

But 90 minutes compared to 24-hours a day, 365 days-a-year from the mainstream media is almost insurmountable.  It's a shame what the media has become.


The other part that factored into the vote is that 2 million more black individuals voted in 2008 than voted in 2004.  Stacey Dash was berated by black individuals because she dared say she was voting for Romney.  93% of black voters this election voted for Obama.  What if only 7% of white voters voted for Obama?  The media would go nuts with that!

Then there have been tweets and comments and greatly disparaging remarks about Romney's religion.  Many "Christian" individuals who normally vote Republican and do their best to uphold Christian values, but would not vote for Romney because of his religion.  I wonder how many people chose not to vote for Romney because he was Mormon.  Romney got less votes than John McCain in 2008.  How is that possible unless certain Republicans decided to stay home?

And then I believe it was Karl Rove last night who talked about how it was unconscionable that the Republicans lose the Latino vote.  These are a conservative people!  They are hugely family oriented, naturally conservative, religious people.  These should be some of the greatest supporters of conservatism.

But, in an irony of ironies, the first black President, who himself is a symbol of racism being erased in our society, works hard to divide this country.  He groups blacks or Latinos or women together, and turns them against other individuals.  Scare them.  Divide and conquer.

It worked.  Playing off of existing fears and prejudices has been an effective tactic, so it's not going to stop.


What scares me is what this economy might look like after four more years.  (Oh, wait -- I forgot President Obama is going to appoint a Secretary of Business.  Never mind.  We're all good.)

If the last four years weren't bad enough for Obama voters, I'm wondering how bad it will have to get before they would change their minds.  10% unemployment?  15%?  20%?  Where do we need to get to?  How high would inflation need to go?  How low would GDP need to get?  How much much income do middle class families need to lose?  What needs to happen to make those individuals change their minds?

How weak would foreign policy and defense need to get?  Four Americans killed in Benghazi and a cover up is obviously not enough to raise any eyebrows with Democrats.  How weak would our armed forces need to get and what kind of an attack would it take to make a change?  How bad does our relationship with Israel need to get?  For that matter, how good does our relationship with Russia need to get now that there is "more flexibility" before the average voter becomes concerned?

If the last four years were not enough to convince Obama supporters, what would it take to have them switch their votes?

I honestly don't know.  I am an optimistic person, but I do not see the Republicans winning another election in current conditions.  We barely eeked out wins in 2000 and 2004.  I think we have reached a tipping point, where Democrats have played Santa Claus for so long in order to gain power, that there is no turning back.

As long as there is abortion on demand, gay rights, and free stuff for voters, then who cares about the economy?

I just don't know how bad it would have to get to change enough minds to win an election, but my fear is that we will find out.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


Which is worse:  Flip-flopping or Hypocrisy?

Obama Says to Look at "Videotape" For His Flip-Flops

When Romney changes his position on an issue, it's a "flip-flop".  When Obama changes his position on an issue, he's simply "evolving".

What would scare me infinitely more than a politician changing his/her mind based on new information would be a politician that sticks to a position in spite of new information or a change of heart because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

President Obama's "Apology Tour"

Mitt Romney has repeatedly made reference to Pres. Obama's "Apology Tour".

FactCheck.org has repeatedly "debunked" this accusation.  They say:

"Our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker both pored over those speeches, and others, and wrote detailed analyses of the content of Obama’s words. Their conclusion: Obama never apologized.  We’ve read through the speeches as well. We’ve come to the same conclusion: Nowhere did we see that the president 'apologized' for America."

It is this type of "fact-checking" that makes the fact checkers lose credibility.  They did the same thing in claiming that President Obama called the attack in Libya an "act of terror" because he said the words "acts of terror" in his speech the day after the attacks.  The fact checking focuses on semantics instead of focusing on the message.

Let's say that I get into an argument with a friend and relations are strained.  And then I call up the friend and I say:

"Look, I really messed up.  I'm a complete jerk.  I know I made you feel bad, and I shouldn't have done that.  You've always been so great to me, and I just wasn't myself the other day.  Can we be friends again?"

Did I apologize?

According to FactCheck.org and others, the answer is:  No.  Because I never used the words "sorry" or "apologize".

Mitt Romney stated it perfectly last night in the debate:

"And then the president began what I’ve called an apology tour of going to — to various nations in the Middle East and — and criticizing America."

Romney never said that Pres. Obama told the other nations "sorry".  He said that he went on an "apology tour", going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America.  WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID!

So you can be the judge.  Here are excerpts, in Obama's own words, from speeches he gave on this tour of nations:

He did not, in fact, say the words "sorry" or "apologize".  But his intention seems clear.  Just like his "Rich People = Bad, Poor People = Good" philosophy, this is a "U.S. prior to his taking over the presidency = Bad, U.S after taking over his presidency = Good".  The view that America has done it wrong (i.e. Slavery, Segregation, Overthrowing Dictators, etc.) has shaped who he is.  It is is core.  He is in the Presidency to balance out fix the wrongs that have been done in the past.

Michelle slipped and said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."  It is who they are.  This is their core belief.  The United States is a nation that needs to be fixed.

Conservatives believe that the United States has nothing to apologize to any nation for, because the United States has done more good for the world than any other nation in the history of the world.

When the subject of foreign aid to Pakistan came up in the debate last night, I thought, We give foreign aid to Pakistan?  $20 BILLION in the last decade it turns out.  We do that all around the world.  When there is a disaster anywhere in the world, the U.S. is immediately there with resources.  Wherever there are oppressed nations or people, the U.S. steps in and fights for freedom.  The U.S. has not only protected ourselves from terrorism, but we have in turn protected the world from terrorism.    The U.S. uses its military superiority to maintain peace and balance in the world.  And on and on.

To take a tour of other nations, bowing to foreign leaders, and criticizing the United States on foreign soil is unacceptable.  I hope when Romney gets into office, he goes on an "apology tour" here at home.  I hope he apologizes to American citizens for our President flying to other nations and criticizing the U.S..  I hope he apologizes for the President of the United States making regular appearances on late night talk shows like any other celebrity (which no other sitting President had done prior to Pres. Obama.)  I hope he apologizes for the $1 trillion stimulus of taxpayer money which was squandered on ventures like the Chevy Volt and Solyndra and "Cash for Clunkers" and many other projects like them.

And he can apologize for Pres. Obama initially sympathizing with the Muslim nations in the attack and killing of U.S. citizens over a YouTube video.

If there is anything Pres. Obama needs to be apologizing for, it is the last four years.