Below the Gnat Line

The Righteous Right-Wing Republican Rant on Florida

2012-02-01T03:27:00.003-05:00

- A Not-So-Moderate Message to Moderate Republicans -

The members of the Republican Party and conservatives - often two separate groups - are feeling a widespread range of emotions right now. Some of those emotions include thoughts of hatred, betrayal and incredulity toward each other. You don't need to be Dr. Phil to know that this is not a good thing.

I'm not going to yield to my own emotions right now because I pretend to be a somewhat objective writer and I know that I will support the eventual GOP nominee because, quite frankly, Barack Obama is less qualified to run this country than Patty Murray and Cindy Sheehan are to become chapter presidents of MENSA. I won't knock someone now that I will actively campaign for in November.

So, without attacking any Republican Presidential candidates, I would like to point out a few things.

The Sun Sets in Florida
Image by Odalaigh via Flickr

First, choosing a candidate based upon perceived "electability" is a joke. Do you believe in your principles or not? If you do, then at least give them a chance. "We have to appeal to independents" may be one of the most ignorant, asinine comments uttered by otherwise respectable people. Of course you have to appeal to the independents, but does abandoning your own positions do that? No. What ever happened to reasoning with independents? Whatever happened to forcefully putting forth what you believe to sway other people's opinions?

If you won't stand up for what you believe, then there are one of two things possible. Either you don't understand or believe your own stated opinions or you are a coward. And this is why conservatives become skull-popping outraged with GOP moderates. It's like having the French protect your flank. You're pretty sure they are going to break ranks and run, but you are forced to count on them. And then when they do shriek and scurry away like rats, it will be at the worst possible time - every time.

Please stop licking your finger and sticking it in the wind. Stand for something! Polls are a tool for shaping your message, not a method of determining what you believe. If you rely on polls to tell you how to vote, then do us all a favor and stay home on election day - and don't breed.

Why would you throw away your own set of beliefs in favor of some open-mouthed breather who just happens to answer the phone one day and talks to a pollster? Why should any stranger or number of strangers be allowed to influence your personal choice? Why would you care? Personally, I wouldn't let the opinion of the masses inform me on which breath mint to give a stray cur.

Second, if nominating a "moderate" who can "appeal to independents" is so important, then why isn't President McCain running for re-election right now? And what ever happened to President Dole? And why was George H. W. Bush denied a second term? Those are your GOP Moderate All-Stars; the Murderer's Row of the Pragmatic, Mixed-Signals, Ideology-Free, In-Betweeners who were neither fish, nor fowl nor conservative; proudly batting a collective .000 with a base on balls given to Bush 41 in 1988 thanks to Ronald Reagan.

"Moderates" don't appeal to independents and "maverick" Republicans who depend on a friendly press will ultimately fail when the media prefers the liberal candidate each time. It does not take a genius to see this obvious pattern of repeat failures.

If the conservative moniker is so repulsive, why do the handlers and supporters of moderate candidates insist upon misappropriating it? Putting the conservative label on a moderate fools no one above the age of six and upsets the real conservatives. Just stop it. Some political pundits know better and I will save them for a personal skewering when I can devote the necessary venom to do the job properly.

Conservatives want a candidate who knows what he believes and who can articulate a vision of the country that he will lead. We do not want a timid candidate who has memorized his lines but does not have a heart-felt allegiance to freedom, liberty and individualism. Freedom is not a slogan; it is a concept, a passion and an overwhelming drive that pulls at the heart of every man who draws breath. Sadly, there are too many who feel an equally strong tug from an access to power.

Third, everyone wants to plan the wedding ceremony but few plan the marriage. The real question is what will happen for the next four years, not what will happen on election day.

Conservatives want someone who will boldly go forth, dismantle the Obama constructs and lay waste to the overfed, parasitic federal government that not only sucks up our resources but also sucks up our time and our freedoms. Is that really too much to ask?

We live in perilous times. We need a leader who will not be afraid to make earth-shattering changes. Washington will not succumb to a meek moderate. It will fight with every resource it can bring to bear against those who attempt to change it. There are entire bureaucracies and agencies in Washington which should be destroyed and their names never again spoken aloud in good company. A "moderate" who "appeals to independents" and who therefore has no mandate will neither attempt nor encourage such changes.

We do not need an uninspired caretaker who will allow us to gently continue on our established route to decline and insignificance. You may say, as I would have said in the past, "The American people will never allow that. There is too much patriotism and too much pride and self-respect for us to ever be less than the world's superpower." And I will look you in the eye, because you deserve no less, and I will tell you the painful truth.

"It is already happening and the results in the Florida primary are only a symptom. It's not a matter of prevention anymore; it's now a matter of reversal."

"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it." - Benjamin Franklin

A Disgusted Review of the NBC GOP Debate

2012-01-24T04:10:00.000-05:00

It was a debate for the ages - or at least that's how long it seemed to last. An audience drugged with Thorazine and NyQuil combined with a Floridacentric thrust and inane questions led to two painfully long hours. I cannot say with certainty that those in attendance were opening their veins in the lobby as they brutally bashed their own heads with mallets to escape the pervasive boredom, but it is almost an inescapable image in which I found refuge while suffering through NBC's vacuous version of a political debate.

NBC tugged Fidel Castro into the GOP debate
Image via Wikipedia

I "do" politics like some other junkies do heroin and even I had reached my limit well within the first hour as I began to wonder if I would OD on the ceaseless droning of Brian Williams's voice. The drip, drip, drip of uninspired syllables forming uninspired questions began to feel like undergoing Chinese Water Torture on amphetamines. My skin was beginning to crawl as I was rescued by the first commercial break.

Attention, you addlepated, lizard-hearted, makers of television: The all-sizzle and no-steak formula may work for advertising but it does not work for theater or for informing the populace of anything greater than 30-seconds from Vince the Pitchman on why the world will collapse if we don't all own a Shticky within a fortnight - or maybe it's 3 Shtickies, who the Hell knows. At least Vince knows his audience and has some passion for his product, two things clearly absent from last night's floor show.

Substance was the victim last night. While there were questions about sugar cane, Cuba, Terri Schiavo's death in 2005, English as the official language of the United States and Florida tourism thrust upon us, most us were wondering about the 170 billion barrels of oil (700,000 barrels per day if the Keystone XL Pipeline is ever completed) that president Obama had declined and how quickly Canada would sell those many years' worth of petroleum reserves to our economic rivals, the Chinese.

While NBC wanted to know hypothetical, and frankly delusional, questions about the death of Fidel Castro possibly causing hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flood into the United States, I sat open-mouthed wondering quite a few things. Once I got past the diminished mental capacity of the question's author - Why would people flee Cuba at the death of their tyrant? Would they not be more likely to celebrate and reclaim their country? - I wondered why NBC did not ask a more logical, and thought-provoking hypothetical: As President, what would you do if Iran furnished missiles to Cuba? Shades of Democrat demigod Jack Kennedy! That would have awakened the comatose crowd in the slumbering Sunshine State. Yet, it was not to be.

I am grateful we avoided questions about the University of Miami football season, orange growing and potential Great White Shark attacks. I was actually happy to see a space-related question even if it was brought about because Cape Canaveral is in Florida. Yet, I would have swapped it for a single, good question about jobs and unemployment.

Don't get me wrong; I'm happy that the people of Florida got some questions with a local slant, but Florida's unemployment rate was still at 10.0% at the end of 2011. Don't you think that at least ten percent of Floridians might have appreciated some questions about solving the unemployment problem?

I'm sure if debates are held in Georgia, there will be the all-consuming question about Brunswick Stew: English peas or no English peas, Governor Romney? Or perhaps it will be: Mr. Gingrich, a decade ago there was a controversy over the Georgia state flag. As a Georgian, what was your take on that racially divisive topic?

The pitiful truth is that NBC and the remainder of the MSM are either willfully ignorant of what Republicans seek in a President or they refuse to break from their left-leaning ideologies and prejudices long enough to ask pertinent questions. Meanwhile conservatives want appropriate questions that will lead us to select the next American President.

If the MSM can't do any better than this, then there are alternatives. How many Slap Chops and Shtickies would we have to buy to get Vince Shlomi to host the debate? Apparently he's reformed and is not punching tongue-biting hookers in the face these days. If he's available, I'd prefer him to last night's vain vigil of peninsula pandering and progressive pablum.

Written by Ken Carroll

Keystone: How President Obama Politicized American Jobs

2012-01-21T03:11:00.002-05:00

- How Intentional Ignorance, Political Correctness and Thoughtlessness Shape

Obama's Energy Policy -

There are two theories on why President Barack Obama blocked the implementation of the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXP) and neither is good. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Incompetent) had blocked KXP and it was suspected this was at the request of President Obama and this recent development gives more credence to that theory. See: The Do-Nothing Senate's Pipeline to Hell

The Man Who Killed 20,000 Jobs At Once
Image via Wikipedia

The first theory is that Obama was following the dictates of the Green movement. This is where the willful ignorance comes into play. The tie-dye crowd is of the opinion that if the evil United States refuses to buy Canada's oil reserves that it will sit idly in the ground. Canadians; however, are not dumb and we are not the only nation on the planet in need of oil.

The Canadians are our friends and it made economic sense for us to get first shot at this much-needed oil. President Obama wanted Canada to sit on the oil while he waited until after the 2012 election to make a decision, which does not make sense. President Obama rejected a great opportunity to make our supply of oil more secure and create 20,000 jobs.

Now Canada will ship the oil to Asia (read that as "China") where the environmental regulations are as imaginary as Obama's jobs program. So, by blocking KXP, the environmentalists have assured more pollution, increased the likelihood of a massive oil tanker wreck or spill, and ensured that anyone paying attention understands that the environmentalists are as stupid as we had imagined. In case you haven't been paying attention, I believe they are pretty stupid. I mean "I dropped my brains in a running Veg-O-Matic for inspiration to write haiku for my cat" stupid.

The second theory is that President Obama wanted to wait until closer to the election so that he could gather more credit. Think of it as a reverse October Surprise. Following the pay increase for federal employees and increase in Social Security payments in a Presidential election year after a long drought and it's understandable.

With an economy in the doldrums and fewer Americans in the workforce than in 2009 and Obama's game-playing with the livelihoods of American families, he has been far too clever in his manipulations. It's apparent that President Obama has no jobs plan, but who knew that he had an anti-jobs plan?

The Obama Administration has declared war on American business and the mainstream media is asking questions about the accusations of ex-wives, making birth control illegal and the phrase "Food Stamp President". If one collected the finest minds of the elite media, would there be a detectable brainwave?

What are these people thinking? More to the point, what are the people thinking who hear this reality-free electronic caterwauling and picayune prose? Do they swallow this tepid, tasteless pablum or are they willing to look at cold, factual statements?

Apparently it has become politically incorrect to ask President Obama difficult questions or to even fail to defend him from accurate portrayals by his opponents. Somehow, describing a man who adds nearly 50% to the food stamp rolls in three years as the "Food Stamp President" is racist. This is despite the fact that there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So, it's not enough that the media fails to report the huge increase in poverty under Obama, they also find ways to deflect his critics.

Is it any wonder that the crowd reacted with a standing ovation when their own thoughts were stated with passion and clarity?

"I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans!" - Newt Gingrich

Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the papers." If Will were alive today, I fear that would make him a half-wit for the newspapers are seldom good for more than half-truths.

It will be up to the citizens who pay attention to educate those who do not. Do not be shy in sharing your thoughts. Get your facts first and then add your informed opinions. If you do not inform your neighbor, who will? Do you really want your friends to get their news from Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper?

The CNN GOP Rhubarb

2012-01-19T23:09:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich started off with a bang and ended on an even, but less-than-exciting note. Rick Santorum did well during the debate, and probably won the debate on points, but is proving irritating and tiresome. Mitt Romney, for the second consecutive debate, looked unsure of himself at times but escaped the debate relatively unscathed. Ron Paul got lots of rest and would have been ignored more often by CNN if he had not been persistent and if the Paulistas in the audience had not been so vocal.

Former Pennsylvania Senatoe Rick Santorum
Image via Wikipedia

CNN managed to both host and lose the debates; a feat of marvel and amazement. CNN moderator John King, proving he deserves that bed allotted him at "the home," began by picking a fight with Newt Gingrich. You can imagine how that went. King was outgunned intellectually and emotionally before Gingrich rolled him into a little ball and dropped him, smoldering, into an ash can.

King insisted on bringing up Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne's statements about their divorce. Marianne Gingrich has long flirted with the idea of "ruining" Gingrich's political career "with one interview". With, not just South Carolina but, the entire GOP nomination at stake she decided to strike. Angry much, Marianne?

I don't know what happened between the former US House Speaker and his ex-wife. I don't care. I'm not looking for a relationship or a provider. I'm looking for the next Leader of the Free World - the position is now vacant. If the past 24 hours are an indication of Marianne Gingrich's personality, then Newt should have dumped her years before he did.

My most retweeted comment on the debate: Once Newt ripped off both of John King's faces and danced on them, the debate got much better. - @KenInEastman

The important news that President Obama decided to nix the Keystone XL Pipeline and thereby cost thousands of American jobs generated zero questions from CNN. This backs up Gingrich's challenge to CNN's King. From The Telegraph UK version of the debate transcript:

Gingrich: John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They're attacking the governor. They're attacking me. I'm sure they'll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.
I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans (emphasis mine).

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum deliberately went after both former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Speaker Gingrich. Santorum went after both men and is attempting to claim the "conservative" mantle in the race by differentiating himself from the more liberal Romney and his conservative rival Gingrich.

Santorum's former positions on Right to Work legislation and his desire to have a different tax rate for manufacturing make his claim questionable. Santorum has been described by those opposed to him as a "big government conservative".

Texas Representative Ron Paul was mostly ignored by the CNN host. He successfully forced his way into two questions and the audience got him recognized to participate in a third. The mainstream media has already been outed for planning to ignore certain candidates, but with the field reduced to four, there should be no excuse for continuing to do so.
Saturday's South Carolina primary will have far-reaching results. If Governor Romney wins South Carolina, he will certainly be in a commanding position because of the publicity. Despite the Marianne Gingrich interview, I believe Newt Gingrich will still win the South Carolina primary, but by a diminished margin.

Written by Ken Carroll

Gingrich Clearly Wins South Carolina Debate

2012-01-17T02:23:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich clearly dominated the South Carolina GOP debate last night. He received two standing ovations and his statements were often followed by loud, lengthy applause. The former US House Speaker needed to do well after he allowed the negative ads run against him in Iowa to affect him and his campaign, and he did so.

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Image via Wikipedia

Gingrich won the debate by dealing in specifics. Other candidates, President Barack Obama comes to mind, do better when they are allowed to make broad, gilded generalities that have less substance than a cotton candy hologram. Gingrich revels in applying the lessons of the past to the present and it's one of the reasons most people believe that Gingrich would destroy the sitting President in a debate.

Gingrich started slowly, having an uneasy time defending his attacks on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's stint at Bain Capital. He muddled through eventually, though.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum cleaned Romney's clock in an exchange about the attack ads run by the superPAC that supports Romney. Santorum forced Romney to admit that his state of Massachusetts had a more liberal law than the one Santorum voted for and that the representation in the ads did not fairly depict Santorum's position. Santorum failed; however, to look at Romney and add the killer line that I expected: "In fact, Governor Romney, the position your superPAC accuses me of having is identical to the one you tolerated as Massachusetts Governor, isn't it?"

Not letting a good opportunity go to waste, Texas Governor Rick Perry jumped in to add that the "two insiders" were discussing business that should be decided at the state level in deference to the 10th Amendment. For this, there was much applause.

Perry did well during the debate and was consistently upbeat and confident. He projected an aura of dependability and understated self-assurance that were missing in the earlier debates.

Senator Santorum has a tendency to talk too much after he has made his point. He must overcome this flaw if he wants to keep audiences alert and following what he wants them to hear. He is; however, much less grim than in earlier debates which makes him somewhat more likable.

Santorum was on his game last night. He was aggressive and responded well. If he had been less verbose, then I would have graded him much higher.

Representative Ron Paul does not do well with foreign policy simply because the majority of Americans and a large majority of Republicans do not agree with his positions. Naturally, most of his questions revolved around foreign policy rather than his strong point of economics.

After getting beaten up during the first part of the debate, Governor Romney was like one of James Bond's martinis: shaken. He did get his act together and performed acceptably during the remainder of the debate, but that was it. It may be all he needed to do to maintain a shrinking lead in South Carolina, but I don't think so.

Speaker Gingrich was at his best, most specific and most blunt during an exchange with Fox News contributor Juan Williams and with Congressman Paul. Juan Williams actually was booed by the crowd for asking Gingrich to address how his statements might be offensive to African-Americans, but I believe Mr. Williams was simply doing his job and it certainly worked well for Gingrich.

From the Fox News Insider site's transcript of the debate, here is a part of the exchange:

WILLIAMS: The suggestion that he made was about a lack of work ethic. And I’ve got to tell you, my e-mail account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.
You saw some of this reaction during your visit…
(BOOING)
… to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as “the food stamp president.” It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.
(BOOING)
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know among the politically correct, you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Second, you’re the one who earlier raised a key point. There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built the road. They haven’t helped the people. They haven’t done anything.
(APPLAUSE)
So…
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Finish your thought, Mr. Speaker.
GINGRICH: One last thing.
BAIER: Yes, sir.
GINGRICH: So here’s my point. I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Okay. When we come back — they can’t hear me, but I’ll talk to you, foreign policy. Bring me your questions, BretBair, include hash tag SCdebates after this break.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier could not be heard by the audience because of the raucous, standing applause Gingrich was receiving. Later, pollster Frank Luntz stated that in his 16 years of involvement in politics he had never seen a standing ovation during a debate.

Gingrich came back later and nailed down the debate when he added this, also from the transcripts:

GINGRICH: . . . Furthermore, when you give a country $20 billion, and you learn that they have been hiding — I mean, nobody in their — nobody believes that bin Laden was sitting in a compound in a military city one mile from the national defense university and the Pakistanis didn’t know it. Now…(APPLAUSE)We’re in South Carolina. South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them.(APPLAUSE)

Gingrich got more wild applause for this statement and if he had not previously won the audience over then this would have done it. Is it enough to carry Gingrich to victory in South Carolina? I believe it will do so unless Gingrich makes a huge mistake between now and primary day.

Please take time to vote in our poll. It's located in the upper right hand corner of this page.

Written by Ken Carroll

A Part-Time Congress Is Not the Answer

2012-01-16T01:26:00.000-05:00

- A Well-Regulated and Restrained Federal Government -

Texas Governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry has suggested a part-time Congress as a way to reduce the power of the federal government. Governor Perry is still one of the candidates that I would prefer to both President Obama and to leading GOP candidate Mitt Romney but, in this instance, Governor Perry is wrong.

Image via Wikipedia

I am certainly in favor of the reduction of federal power, but this is the wrong place to start. I understand that people are disappointed with Congress, but the US Representatives and the US Senators are directly elected by the people. If we citizens do our jobs properly, then we should want them to be full-time agents of the American people. We have certainly made mistakes in whom we have chosen, but we can also correct those poor choices.

Far more importantly, the power in Washington will not go away simply because Congress is in session a lesser amount of time. All of the power that the federal government has purposefully accumulated over the past 150 years or so will not disappear. Those powers will be wielded by others that we do not elect. The usage of those powers will be publicly justified as the necessary means of conducting the people's business.

The proper way to uncoil the serpentine rope that now seems to entwine every portion of our lives is to untie those cords that the federal government has used to restrict our state and local governments. Those tightly knotted bindings are made of the very money we pay in taxes to the federal government. The chains that bind our lesser governments are forged in taxpayer gold; taken and given to both discourage disobedience and encourage passivity.

The federal government has used federal grant and federal program money to ensure that state and federal governments follow its directives. Those directives have prevented governments that are closer to the people from developing more efficient, more responsive and more innovative measures.

The proper way to lessen the far-removed power of the federal government is to restore the proper responsibilities and the proper funding for such power from the federal government to the individual states. The closer government is to the people, the safer the people will be.

In the meantime, if Congress is unable to exercise its power, that power will devolve to unelected agencies, enforced by unelected bureaucrats. Those agencies and federal employees will fall under the influence of a full-time executive branch if not indirectly under its power. This would be an outcome that would outrage every Founding Father, but especially Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, though for different reasons.

A part-time Congress would be at a loss in writing proper legislation. It would find itself dependent on a full-time bureaucratic staff and the real experts on individual issues: full-time lobbyists. People forget that lobbyists provide more than money; they also provide information. Like all good salesmen they are well-informed about their products and their offered solutions. I do not think that this is what Governor Perry or his supporters desire.

The problem is not Congress. The problem is the unrestrained power of the federal government. Give the power back to the people and to the individual states. Follow the 10th Amendment and the original intent of the Founders and restore the power and the responsibility where it belongs. This should be our ultimate goal in repairing our wayward government.

Written by Ken Carroll

Analysis of the 2012 Election for Conservatives

2012-01-15T01:07:00.001-05:00

Let's step back from this squirming pile of electoral nonsense for just a moment, take a calming breath and quietly look at things. Just you and me. No agendas, no group think, no hidden motivation. If you haven't had a chance to do this, who can blame you? It's been a whirlwind from the beginning and there is no sign that it's going to slow, but it needs to be done.

If you're a conservative or a libertarian, then the current president is doubtless as unacceptable to you as he is to me. Please keep this thought in mind as you read this and then as you choose a Presidential candidate.

The Liberty Bell - Image via Wikipedia

Even the supporters of President Obama cannot deny that his own Congressional Budget Office numbers show a massive increase in debt over the next decade and those numbers assume nearly miraculous job growth with none of the negative symptoms of the "quantitative easing" policy of Obama.

The continued printing of money will destroy the small amount of wealth that the middle class had managed to retain. This is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. The people of the middle class are the glue that holds our nation and our society together. As the size and wealth of the middle class decreases, so do our chances of surviving this economy and this lack of national leadership.

Why is it that when the Left aims at the wealthy it always shoots the middle class right between the eyes?

Four more years of President Obama possibly means another three US Supreme Court nominations from the most radical, far-left President we have ever had. Unless you embrace the transfer of freedoms from the individual to the state, then you know we cannot allow this to happen. The ramifications would echo through the coming decades and even longer due to the principle of judicial precedent.

What we must do in November is win the Presidency and win the US Senate by a majority large enough to provide a conservative majority. Notice that I did not say a Republican majority, but a conservative majority. If Republicans retain the US House, win the US Senate and win the White House, then the expectations of the American people will be understandably high. Those expectations will be ruined if we are forced to rely on the liberal, New England Republicans for a majority.

If Republicans fail to deliver then the Republican Party will prove itself to be ineffective and it will soon end; and, our country may soon end afterward. I am not an alarmist, but the numbers dictate that we, as a nation, are in dire jeopardy.

I am not going to endorse a candidate at this time, because that is not what this column is about. Support the candidate of your choice and explain to one and all why you have offered your support. At the end of this exercise in choosing the Leader of the Free World, a position that currently sits vacant and wanting, we know that a change must be made.

If you believe in the principles of liberty and economic freedom that made this nation great, then you cannot stand with President Obama and, as a patriotic citizen, you cannot stand idle. Keep these things in mind as you reach your decision.

As for me, I have my preferences in the Republican Presidential Primary. I am concerned about all of the candidates, some more than others, but conservatives can influence a GOP President and time has proven that neither conservatives, nor facts nor greater truths can sway the ideologue at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Any Republican is more within our reach and ability to influence than President Obama.

Choose wisely, hopefully for a conservative, but remember that we are on the same team. We love freedom; we love our country and we will not succumb to silence. The truth must be told in a loving but uncompromising way.

November is coming, but we will chat again before then if you choose. I hope I have given you food for thought and that you will choose to share those thoughts with me. I do want to know what you believe and what ideas you have.

In addition, I ask you to have courage; courage enough to approach your co-workers, your neighbors and your family and tell them why 2012 requires a change for the better. As a citizen you cannot afford to be shy; your nation cannot afford for you to be neutral. This is your fight and if you stay at home you will lose; and, if you lose, then we all lose. Your country needs you to be thoughtful; to be faithful; to be courageous and then to act boldly and decisively regardless of the Republican candidate. You will not do these things for a candidate. You will be do them for yourself and for your country.

Thanks for reading.

Written by Ken Carroll

Congratulations, Debbie Wasserman Schultz!

2012-01-13T04:20:00.000-05:00

Admittedly, congratulating Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) for her recent behavior amounts to praising your pup for leaving an unusually large pile of crap on your carpet, but when the towering pile of doggie doo is actually larger than the dog himself, it's at least noteworthy. When it comes to crap, Schultz is a scatological genius.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Image via Wikipedia

Schultz continues to blame the Tea Party for causing the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords. Despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence to the contrary, DWS continues to appear on national television and lie. In the hands of the left, truth becomes a victim, expendable in the quest for the one thing leftists' prize most: power.

If you actually believe that Schultz cares about finding answers, then I suggest you consider something. One year ago yesterday, I asked a simple question that I believe continues to make an important point.

There was no mourning on the “Professional Left”, just gleeful expectation at the opportunity to undermine a particularly effective foe. When the editorialists of the New York Times launched their attacks on the TEA Party, the name of the vile, worthless shooter in Tucson was still unknown – as were his political beliefs. It didn’t matter and, frankly, I don’t believe it would have mattered, regardless of facts.

Here’s a reality check question for you: Since the Tucson shooting, have you seen more verbal attacks on the presumed shooter, Jared Loughner, or on the Tea Party movement? Just ponder that for a moment. Does this strike you as people upset that lives were violently taken, or does it appear more likely that political hacks are not allowing “a good crisis go to waste”?

After a year, we know that Loughner was mentally unstable, that he was not a part of any movement, that he did not even listen to the news or talk radio. Loughner was simply not political; he was just crazy.

Just like us, Wasserman-Schultz knows this. She's the opposite of Loughner; DWS is all about politics and while she is reprehensible, she's not crazy. And that is why she continues to blame the Tea Party for Loughner's shooting of Congressman Gabby Giffords. It is all about political advantage.

DWS (Pixels are free but I hesitate to waste them on her full name) continues to remind me of why I so strongly dislike the left. Not only do they lie, but it is a foundation of their politics. When the truth reveals you to be bereft of any viable ideas, then the options are change or prevaricate like a pallet. DWS regularly lies like a rug, making her unworthy of the tiniest modicum of respect - but there is even more.

Normally a leftist would rush to defend the presumed shooter, Loughner, and offer her defense of the mentally unstable who commit violence. Loughner; however, comes between DWS and her prey, the Tea Party. One could argue that Loughner cannot help his behavior, as I believe a court will find; while DWS certainly can.

Then there is the reason that DWS is truly more vile than Loughner. While proclaiming her "friendship" for Gabby Giffords, she uses Giffords near-mortal wounding to make political points. I am sure Giffords has some real friends and I am equally sure that DWS is not one of them. The left has no shame and never will for they do not care for humanity, only power.

For now, DWS has indeed produced a mountain of fecal material that dwarfs her political importance. It is not praiseworthy, but it is noteworthy. In addition, let it not be said that I can find nothing good to say about people: Schultz does have an amazing smile - just like the other contemptible, carrion-consuming crocodiles.

New Poll: Is the GOP Presidential Primary Over?

2012-01-12T03:49:00.001-05:00

The talking heads, the cream of the crop who live in our televisions are proclaiming that the GOP Presidential Preference Primary is either over, or nearly over. What do you believe?

The poll is located in the upper right corner of the pages of this blog. Feel free to add comments below.

New Poll: What's Your Opinion? The GOP Presidential Primary:
- Is already over; Mitt Romey has won no matter what.
- Is over if Romney wins South Carolina.
- Will be down to two people after South Carolina.
- Will be down to three people after South Carolina.
- Will be over after the Florida and Nevada results.
- Will still be up for grabs in April.

Please vote in the poll which is in the right column near the top of the page. You may vote once, and in this poll you may choose to vote for multiple answers. The poll will close at Midnight, the morning of January the 20th.

Poll Results: How Important is Winning the Iowa Caucuses?

6.7% - Extremely Important
40.0% - Somewhat Important But Overrated
6.7% - It All Depends on the candidate
26.6% - It's Good to Get Delegates, But That's It
20.0% - Not Important, Could Be a Negative

Please note that this is not a scientific poll and is used for entertainment and to generate discussion. Do you have more to say? Add your comments below. I'd like to hear them.

Ken

Pack Up Your Daughters, Jon; It's Time to Go Home

2012-01-10T23:16:00.003-05:00

- Jon Huntsman: The Non-Republicans' Favorite Republican -

Politics is filled with uncertainties. For that reason, it is somewhat reassuring that the mainstream media can be counted upon to miss or misinterpret the main story.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman
Image via Wikipedia

"I suppose tonight's big story is whether Jon Huntsman finishes second or third," intoned a news anchor this evening. Of course this was agreed to by those present and so group-think again fails miserably. It doesn't matter where Jon Huntsman finishes tonight, because after tonight Jon Huntsman is finished for good.

It's not even a question of, "Where will Huntsman win?" It's a question of, "Where will Huntsman finish third again?"

I don't see another third place finish for Huntsman anywhere unless at least two or more major candidates drop out of the race before the former Utah Governor. Huntsman's trip to South Carolina will succeed as a vacation trip, but as a political mission it is dead on arrival.

Who voted for Huntsman in New Hampshire? Huntsman got 41% of the self-described Democrats who voted in the Republican primary, 23% of independents and members of other parties and only 10% of Republican voters. As an excellent tweet pointed out, the exit polling data reveals that Huntsman is running in the wrong party. Go to this page on Politico for their story and the link to the numbers.

Texas Representative Ron Paul is a libertarian by nearly all measures. Paul does well among what are often called "non-traditional Republicans" and that seems a fair description. Based on today's exit polls, Paul scores 60% better among self-described Republicans than Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is polling at about four percent in the most recent polls in the Palmetto State. I see no reason for this to increase noticeably. Yet Huntsman is pushing on to South Carolina.

The real story tonight was that polls show 47% of those voting in the New Hampshire Republican primary are self-described independents and four percent were self-described Democrats. This begs the question, "If Jon Huntsman were the GOP nominee, how many of today's Huntsman voters would actually vote to re-elect Barack Obama?"

While we do not have an answer, it appears that 51% of those who voted tonight for Jon Huntsman are "satisfied" with President Obama. Check out this short, but informative video of Chris Wallace and Joe Trippi on Fox News. This is a higher number than the nationwide polls that include proportionately represented Democrats and Independents.

Tonight, when Jon Huntsmen said, "We go South from here," he was correct; but not at all the way he meant it. Romney edged closer to the GOP nomination tonight; however, despite what pundits say, this is not yet over for the GOP. It is over for Jon Huntsman.

Pack up your daughters, Jon, and go home. Get ready to help the eventual Republican nominee win an election and possibly save our country. November is coming and it is all on the line.

President Obama Doubles Down on Ignorant and Stupid

2012-01-10T02:13:00.000-05:00

- In (Jacob) Lew of (William) Daly -

Like all socialist regimes, the Obama Administration does not tolerate dissent. William M. Daley, the brother and son of former Chicago mayors, has discovered this open secret for himself. Daley was brought into the Obama White House as President Obama's Chief of Staff. This move was hailed by brain-dead pundits as a sign that President Obama was sending a pro-business signal.

Daley lasted less than one year, which is far longer than Obama's furtive nod to what makes the nation work. This is not surprising. Daley's successor, Jacob Lew, will be Obama's fourth Chief of Staff in less than three years. It was not even that Daley was overly pro-business, it was that he was insufficiently anti-business.

Former Obama Chief of Staff William M. Daley
Image via Wikipedia

I have no idea why businessmen should have seen Daley's appointment as a positive sign. Daley was never a businessman; he has always been a mere appointee. Daley was appointed to: be the special counsel to President Clinton on NAFTA, the Advisory Council of Economic Opportunity, the Fannie Mae Board of Directors, US Secretary of Commerce, President of SBC Communications, Chairman of Al Gore's Presidential Campaign, Advisor to the Obama-Biden Transition Team and the Midwest Chairman of JPMorgan Chase.

Daley has not been an entrepreneur or a venture capitalist. He is a constantly recycled board member whose last name is Daley. But, if Daley did represent a positive turn toward business, then what does it mean that Daley "resigned" and why does the media ignore the continued anti-business moves of the Obama Administration?

Daley's replacement, Jacob Lew, has spent his life in academia, government and a stint as a practicing attorney. He became the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which means that he oversaw the brain trust that developed the econometric models that so inaccurately predicted both the economy and the results of President Obama's failed policies.

Now the leader of the gang that couldn't think straight is the White House Chief of Staff. Call me an optimist, but I don't think Lew's understanding of business is much less than the understanding of ice fishing held by a gila monster. Well, perhaps not the dumb gila monsters, anyway.

And get this: The talking heads - not David Byrne and company - think Lew was appointed to shore up the White House team while it fights about the budget with Congress. Will someone please explain to me why anyone could possibly think that Jacob Lew understands anything about a budget other than how to blow one? And I don't mean that in a fun way, at all.

Lew's appointment means that President Obama is doubling down on stupid and reinforcing his failed policies with a failed budget director. All of us are wrong at times, but if we are reasonable we review our efforts and their results and correct our mistakes. President Obama, who displays so much arrogance for so little reason, refuses to admit mistakes so that he cannot correct those mistakes.

It is now up to us to intervene in the ongoing insanity. I suggest we make that intervention at the first possible opportunity, which will be in November.

Written by Ken Carroll

ABC GOP Debate Reveals ABC's Positions

2012-01-08T01:17:00.002-05:00

By my unofficial and admittedly incomplete count, there were nearly as many tweets sent about the questions and commentators during the ABC New Hampshire GOP Debate as there were about the candidates' answers. One candidly blunt tweet was, "Does Diane Sawyer know these debates are not about her?"

Diane Sawyer, expression enigmatic
Image via Wikipedia

Not completely unexpectedly, ABC News spent the vast majority of the debate asking questions about the hard-core left's favorite topics and encouraging dissension and attacks among the Republican candidates. Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos and Josh McElveen spent more time on gay marriage and gay adoption than on energy policy or jobs.

The answers were relatively unimportant because ABC News was determined to be in the spotlight at the expense of extracting relevant information and informing voters. If ABC News is so Hell-bent on being irrelevant, then the GOP should oblige and just skip their future debates.

This is my unofficial take on the debate questions. I tweeted a lot and didn't take exact notes, and for those reasons, the wording may be off a little. These are; however, the true gist of the questions:

Diane: Senator Santorum, Congressman Paul called you a Poopy Head and a bedwetter. Would you like to call him some names now on national TV?

George: Governor Romney, Senator Santorum is an extremist because he holds the same position on gay marriage as President Barack Obama, may he reign forever. In your own words, tell us why Senator Santorum is crazy.

Josh Whats-His-Name: While I impress you with my 1960s radio DJ voice, Senator Santorum, tell me why you hate gay people? Oh and then tell me why you hate any other Republican candidate of your choice. Do you think any of your GOP rivals might be secretly gay?

My most retweeted debate-related tweet: In case you forgot why you do not watch ABC news, ladies and gentlemen: Diane, George and some dude named Josh - @KenInEastman

Diane: Governor Romney, why should a loving couple which is gay - is there any other kind, really? - not be allowed to adopt children while the Catholic Church is halted from assisting in adoption because it is a homophobic institution?

George: Governor Huntsman, I'm going to incorrectly invoke the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut decision, would you please arch your eyebrow in that reassuring way of yours as I try really hard to look smart? I should be up on stage instead of all of you anyway.

Josh Whats-His-Name: Governor Huntsman, did you notice how deep I can make my voice? But that's not your real question. Your real question is this: Speaker Gingrich is a bad man. Tell me why I'm right in 60 seconds or less. Oh and be sure and drop in some Mandarin Chinese, would you? Thanks.

Diane: Speaker Gingrich, aren't we amazingly clever?

George: Speaker Gingrich it's not polite to point out that we are not clever and encourage the audience to laugh at us. You are, after all, our guests and to add insult to injury you are just a bunch of lowly Republicans. In light of the fact that you are an adulterer and you made money in Washington just like everyone else, explain why Governor Romney is a hypocrite.

Josh What's His Name: Congressman Paul, you hold the same simpleton foreign policy positions as our liberal heroes and demi-gods. Sadly for you, you're a libertarian and a Republican; therefore, please restate your positions so we can have another candidate ridicule them. We're afraid to do it ourselves.

Diane: Governor Romney, don't you just love Congressman Paul's foreign policy? Please entertain us by attacking him.

After seventy-three minutes of excruciatingly self-serving questions that a group of winos with delirium tremens could have bested in their addled sleep:

Diane: We have run out of ways to discuss homosexual issues, so we have a couple of minutes to discuss the economy. President Obama just created 200,000 jobs this month. Governor Romney, isn't President Obama, may he reign forever, brilliant?

George: Considering that President Obama, may he reign forever, has such a brilliant energy policy, tell me how you could do better . . . let's see . . . I call on . . .

Governor Perry: Oooh, me! You barely called on me. Me! I know the answer! Me! Me!

George: Did anyone hear something? You, Governor Huntsman. You're a terribly important candidate; all my friends tell me you are. You may answer the question.

Josh What's-His-Name: Who hasn't attacked anyone lately? Oh, Congressman Paul, tell us why Senator Santorum is not a conservative.

Diane: Speaker Gingrich, you say you're going to cut spending, right? Where on Earth could you possibly get the money with which to cut the budget? No, it doesn't matter that this question makes no sense. Answer it anyway.

George: Speaker Gingrich, we had counted on you losing your temper to increase our ratings. What are you thinking? Please remember that all of these other people on stage hate you. Could you please lose your temper and say something snarky and quotable?

Josh What's-His-Name: Governor Perry, Speaker Gingrich is not being cooperative. Please say something memorable and dumb.

Diane: Well it appears no one is being particularly cooperative and we certainly don't want to raise any issues such as the federal debt, the job-destroying healthcare package, unemployment, home foreclosures, the trade deficit, China's rising power, North Korea, income tax reform, the massive reduction in our military and certainly not jobs or the current outrageous scandals of the Obama Administration. The debate is over. Stick around while our paid analyst lapdogs pretend we actually conducted a debate tonight.

Maybe that wasn't quite the way it happened word-for-word, but it's closer to the truth than the carefully sanitized waste material you'll see in the mainstream media's synopsis in the morning paper. The American people deserve a better media. Sadly, these talking heads will influence the ill-informed in November. Perhaps the ill-informed are ill-informed because they watch ABC News. After watching the performance of tonight's panel, I believe this is true.

Written by Ken Carroll

The Unaware, Undecided and Indifferent will Choose Our President

2012-01-06T00:41:00.003-05:00

If you've been closely following the current events of the past few years because you are concerned about the massive unemployment, trade deficits, increased government spending, the galloping herd of Obama Administration scandals and Obamacare then I am about to make you angry. If these issues are your concerns, as they are mine, then make yourself a stiff drink and sit down.

Obamanomics
Image via Wikipedia

The Gallop Poll conducts a daily Presidential Approval Poll. They now have president Obama's approval rating at 47% - above his disapproval rating of 46%. Scott Rasmussen's daily Presidential Approval Poll has President Obama's approval rating at 45% and his disapproval rating is 53%. Rasmussen also measures strongly approve and strongly disapprove, which reveals that 20% more Americans strongly disapprove of President Obama's performance than strongly approve.

What does this tell us? First of all, a poll is a snapshot of people's beliefs at a given time. Second, a poll is not necessarily a predictor of the future. Third, polls can often disappoint you in your fellow human beings.

The fact that the US economy is a ghost of its former self, that the President's economic "plan" amounts to pumping nickels into airport slot machines and investing in alpaca ranch franchises while playing the lottery numbers from a stale fortune cookie. Actually, that's not true; it's worse. The president's economic "plan" consists of choking our energy resources, attacking the few remaining successful manufacturing entities with his National Labor Relations Board whoremongers, drowning the taxpayers in a tsunami of debt that will take generations to repay and stealing every economic freedom not nailed down for the federal government. And people support this.

Actually, I don't think they support it; I think they don't know or don't understand what it means. They're lousy citizens. I called the post "The Unaware, Undecided and Indifferent will Choose Our President." I could have easily titled it "The Ignorant, Weak-Minded and Lazy will Condemn Us to Failure."

“The most important political office is that of private citizen.” - Justice Louis D. Brandeis

There is no sane way to defend President Obama's record. It is obviously an unmitigated disaster for anyone who pays attention. The problem? About 46% of Americans are either completely clueless or are grading on the curve. Either one fails themselves as individuals and fails us as their countrymen.

The problem is that the votes of the clueless, inattentive and ideology-stricken count exactly as much as the person who has painstakingly researched candidate positions and who has an actual understanding of economics and reality. It's one of the flaws of our imperfect system.

We now have eleven months to show the lost sheep some truth or lose our country to four more years of economy crushing, middle-class destroying, socialist ideology - and yes, Barack Obama is a socialist. November is coming, people; are you ready?

Dear Yankee Pundits: I Apologize

2012-01-04T22:41:00.001-05:00

Dear Yankee Pundits (And you know who y'all are),

Please accept my humble apologies. I was wrong and so I will make a real apology. A real apology restates the offense without any euphemisms or diminishing comments or excuses. Here is my offense. A mere two days ago, in "Romney's Southern Problem: The "M" Word", I wrote this:

I can see Romney winning Iowa or at least finishing second in Iowa. He should win his neighboring state of New Hampshire; anything else would be a major upset. As for South Carolina - listen to me, well-meaning Yankee pundits - it's not going to happen. It's the "M" word.

Cobb County, GA Courthouse - Image via Wikipedia

What? "Mormon"? No, get real; you guys are far too quick to project your prejudices on others. There are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints all through the South and while they may not be ultra-active in politics, they are viewed as being good people and good neighbors. They are walking examples of the "family values" that the Republican Party endorses so heartily. Mitt Romney's "M" word problem is Massachusetts.

I still stand by the vast majority of that statement: Romney's projected finishes and the likelihood that non-Southerners project bizarre things upon us with little or no evidence and that Mitt Romney's real problems are the ramifications of his successful Massachusetts elections. I can no longer honestly say; however, that Governor Romney's religion is not an issue in the South.

A real apology also states why the statement or action was wrong. In this case, my friend and a fine writer, Jason Pye made a post on Peach Pundit entitled, "Judy Manning is 'afraid' of Mormons" this morning. The content of Jason's piece means I cannot continue to issue a blanket denial that religion is not an issue in the South.

Jason's piece was based upon this story in the Marietta Daily Journal, "Lawmakers sound off on '12 hopefuls". You see, Judy Manning is an elected Georgia state representative from Marietta, the county seat of Cobb County. She was interviewed because she has endorsed former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Before I go farther down this road, let me add that you cannot blame Gingrich for Manning's statements. That's only one click off of judging Romney solely on his personal beliefs.

I don't know Representative Manning. She may well be a skilled lawmaker and a wonderful person, but she needs to think before she speaks. Perhaps she really fears members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. If she does, perhaps she deserves our sympathy.

Manning is no political neophyte. She is a 12-year veteran of the state legislature and holds an undergraduate degree in education and a graduate degree in business. Her legislative profile describes her as "a devout Presbyterian" and I point that out because if I don't some people will make assumptions and attribute the statement to a Southern Baptist. It wasn't us, okay?

I figure if one of our elected officials is responsible for that statement then I can't blame it on "some crank" and so I might as well own up to it. I refer to myself: Ken Carroll's First Law of Politics: Never Defend the Indefensible.

The JudyManning.com website has been suspended, though I do not know when that happened. I am hoping that Representative Manning has a credible explanation for her statement and whether she does or not, I hope she issues an honest apology. It was a dumb thing to say. Period.

Mitt Romney is neither my first nor second choice for the GOP nomination. I have concerns with his commitment to conservative beliefs and that he will not aggressively move to reduce the size and the scope of the federal government. Would I eliminate him from consideration because he is a Mormon? No, because to do so would be stupid.

The saddest thing is that I thought we were better than this. I really did.

Written by Ken Carroll

Romney's Southern Problem: The "M" Word

2012-01-02T23:11:00.001-05:00

- It's Not What You Might Think -

For all of the pundits who are putting a spit-polish shine on Mitt Romney's coronation-ready, GOP crown; slow down. The fat lady is still in the wings running through her scales.

I'm actually seeing predictions that Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina. I would rate those projections as obviously possible, almost certain and simply not going to happen.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Image via Wikipedia

I can see Romney winning Iowa or at least finishing second in Iowa. He should win his neighboring state of New Hampshire; anything else would be a major upset. As for South Carolina - listen to me, well-meaning Yankee pundits - it's not going to happen. It's the "M" word.

What? "Mormon"? No, get real; you guys are far too quick to project your prejudices on others. There are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints all through the South and while they may not be ultra-active in politics, they are viewed as being good people and good neighbors. They are walking examples of the "family values" that the Republican Party endorses so heartily. Mitt Romney's "M" word problem is Massachusetts.

The fact that Mitt Romney could have been elected the Governor of Massachusetts makes him suspect to a lot of Southerners. If The Bay State is not the most liberal state in the union, then it's so close that the difference is negligible. That Romney could be chosen to represent them is not a ringing endorsement for conservatives. Look at whom the people of Massachusetts have chosen to represent them.

Somewhere down the line after having Samuel Adams set a good example, something went very, very wrong. Do the names Ted Kennedy, Paul Tsongas, Michael Dukakis, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank ring a cracked bell with you? When you read this list do you think that maybe they burned the wrong folks at the stake in colonial Salem?

For decades the state of Massachusetts has been one of the greater providers of America's Loony Left, whether in politics or as the source of bizarre interpretations of the US Constitution. This state was home to an author whose unique approach to life seems to be reflected in the political outlook of the residents. His name was Theodor Geisel, though you probably know him better as Dr. Seuss.

It's not a personal dislike; I've spent a little time in Boston and enjoyed it. Breakfast at the Parker House followed by anything for lunch and then dinner at Legal Seafood and you've had a great day regardless of what else happens. The residents I encountered were extremely nice, competent and genuinely gracious. We did not; however, discuss politics at all. Not a single word or syllable, because the normal Bostonian's politics would never fly with the average Southerner, which is Mitt Romney's problem.

Ah, you may point out, but the South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, has endorsed Mitt Romney and she is a Tea Party person which should shore up Romney with conservatives. Wrong. As previously discussed, Tea Party supporters may be influenced less by a politician's statements than anyone else in America. Governor Haley's endorsement may be nice and it may help with a state organization, but it will prove next to useless in converting Tea Partiers to Romney supporters.

If Mitt Romney is to have a chance in South Carolina then he has to answer questions about a self-described conservative who could have been elected in a state so blue that Crayola may change the names of its three primary colors to red, yellow and Massachusetts. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how he could go about it, but I am quite sure that if this is not resolved then Mitt Romney will not win South Carolina.

Written by Ken Carroll

Disclaimer: At this time I have still not settled upon a personal choice for the GOP Presidential nomination. I will support the eventual GOP nominee.

Desperate and Nasty: Obama's Coming Campaign

2012-01-02T00:51:00.000-05:00

The 2012 US Presidential campaign will be the most ugly, mean-spirited, bloody, public event since the War Between the States. I know that people constantly complain about negative campaigns, negative campaign commercials and negative political messages, but this time it will be inevitable, nasty and pervasive.

President Barack Obama has a record of accomplishments that would make even the most loving mother wince, undergo plastic surgery and move to Antarctica under an assumed name. The Obama record cannot be overlooked without wholesale misdirection, an army of SEIU's pathological liars and the introduction of mass amnesia among American voters - or $1 trillion or so of negative advertising.

Can President Obama defend:

Image via Wikipedia

1. Being the only US President to oversee a reduction in the sovereign credit rating of the United States.
2. Spending 25% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by the federal government, the most since the last world war - with nothing to show for it.
3. Increasing the average time spent on unemployment insurance from 19 weeks to 39 weeks.
4. A home ownership rate of only 59.7%, that is the lowest since 1965.
5. An increase in the federal debt from $10.6 trillion to $15.1 trillion dollars with another $1.2 trillion on the way.
6. Twenty-one consecutive months of unemployment rates over nine percent and 34 consecutive months (and counting) of unemployment rates of 8.2% or higher.
7. The misery index increasing from 7.83% in January, 2009, to 11.99% in November, 2011 - an increase of over 53%.
8. Thirteen million more Americans being forced onto food stamps, an increase of nearly 41%.
9. And all of the many more embarrassing numbers.

The answer is that Obama cannot defend his record. His economics team has yet to accurately predict anything. The rumor is that Obama's economists once projected Monday would immediately follow Tuesday. If that was a true story, it would be their best effort to date; and, at least the answer wasn't February.

With no leg to stand on economically and a foreign policy that seemingly consists of a cheap, dart-riddled globe and the detailed study of fresh goat entrails, President Obama cannot go positive in his campaign. His only hope is to convince Americans that someone else would do even worse. Do you realize how difficult that would be?

Envision every television commercial from July to November being from gold investment companies, auto insurers and ridiculous attack ads from our President. I can imagine a time when people actually look forward to the new Geico, Allstate and Progressive ads or even, Heaven forbid, a change-of-pace, non-attorney spokesperson inviting viewers to join a class-action lawsuit. Yeah, it's going to be that bad.

And you can thank Senator John McCain (Addled Septuagenarian Republican - AZ) and former Senator Russ Feingold (Another Wealthy Socialist Democrat From - WI) for all of the Political Actions Committees (PACs). Feel free to curse McCain and Feingold for trashing the first amendment while ensuring our lives would be filled with so many negative ads from Super PACs, 501(c) 4 ads and a mob of 527 groups that our brains begin to rot like that bruised banana that's been hiding in the bottom of your grandparents' fruit bowl since the Ford Administration.

Once the GOP has a candidate, the negative ads will fly in both directions which will drive down voter participation so low that the aged Florida "volunteers" who still write in Ross Perot (Donald Trump's Crazed Idol - Tinfoil-Covered-Location Unknown) might be a major influence on the election outcome. Get ready for the negative onslaught. Pick up your metaphorical sword, gird your loins and don noise-cancelling headphones. Or you could follow the sound advice of one of my favorite songwriters, John Prine:

"Blow up your TV, Throw away your papers;
Go to the country, Build you a home.
Plant a little garden;
Eat a lot of peaches;
Try and find Jesus on your own."
- John Prine - Spanish Pipedream

If you take Mr. Prine's thoughtful advice, be sure and find your way to the polling booth in time for the election. Negative or not, November is coming.

Written by Ken Carroll

The Best of Below the Gnat Line 2011

2011-12-31T18:46:00.000-05:00

- The Top 10 in '11 -

Happy New Year!

I hope we all have a wonderful year and because it's New Year's Eve, it's not only time to look forward to next year, but also to reflect on 2011. Listed below are my favorite Below the Gnat Line posts from 2011. These are the posts I enjoyed writing the most or for different reasons became most proud of the result. I hope you enjoy them.

Ken

10. Cracks in the FunHouse Mirror, Part I - January 12th - After the Tucson shootings, the left wasted no time in assaulting the Bill of Rights and the Tea Party, proving once again the progressives are not just opportunists, they are also just plain creepy. Excerpt:

Here’s a reality check question for you: Since the Tucson shooting, have you seen more verbal attacks on the presumed shooter, Jared Loughner, or on the Tea Party movement? Just ponder that for a moment. Does this strike you as people upset that lives were violently taken, or does it appear more likely that political hacks are not allowing “a good crisis go to waste”?

9.The Top 10 Things About the Obama Administration - August 4th - My top things are likely different than the ones the Progressives would select. Sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.

8. Democrats and the Art of Doing Nothing - May 26th - What have Democrats done to help the budget crisis? Why the same thing they have done to help the economy; nothing.

7. 14 Hours, 29 Minutes, 49 Seconds of Democrat Sacrifice - March 14th - Putting Democrat spending cuts in perspective. Excerpt:

In February alone, the US had a deficit of $222.5 billion. To put things in perspective, the Democrats could only suggest $4.8 billion in tax cuts for the entire year. If you do the math, these cuts would have balanced federal spending in February for just 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds. Let’s be clear, this is only the difference it would take to make up for the deficit, not actually pay for anything.

6. Eric Holder's Sleazy World - December 19th - I've enjoyed writing about Eric Holder this year, and I'll continue to enjoy writing about him in 2012. Of the several posts I've written about Barack Obama's Attorney General, this was my favorite. Excerpt:

Caught with his hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on his lips and a tattoo that says, "The Pillsbury Dough Boy is My Bitch," Holder denies everything, including knowledge of anything.

If he is to be believed, Holder knows so little about activity at the Justice Department (DoJ) that at the next round of questioning, I suggest Representative Darrell Issa ask Holder, "Are you now, or have you ever been, the Attorney General of the United States?"

5. Ignorance, Arrogance and Government Meddling - December 14th - There are a few things the federal government does well and the rest are disastrous and expensive. Starring Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters, this Progressive Tragi-comedy illustrates why "Democrat" is simply the mispronunciation of the word "Socialist".

4. Reagan Said, "Nyet!" - February 5th - This was written in honor of President Reagan's 100th birthday. In hindsight it all seems easy now, but it wasn't. This is how it was when Ronald Wilson Reagan told the Russians something other American Presidents forgot how to say - and he said it in Russian.

3. OWS: Return of the Useful Idiots - November 5th - If you remember the Cold War, then you remember the terminology. I got to see the Hippie-crits up close in Washington. Here is an excerpt:

So, blatantly standing in our public places, incredibly arrogant in their ignorance, we see the newest version of the Useful Idiots. The people whose knowledge is without fact, whose assumptions are asinine and whose very existence raises questions about the validity of the theory of survival of the fittest.

2. One Thing to Know About Fast and Furious - December 9th - Subtitled "And Two Important Things We Do Not Know". "In the meantime, just remember that Eric Holder is to justice what Michael Moore is to competitive bodybuilding." You may have seen this on Twitter, but this is where it originated. Often, the mainstream media misses the obvious, but it's handled here.

1. Dear Hollywood: You Piss Me Off - December 11th - A classic rant in the key of Dennis Miller with some Groucho Marx throwbacks and genuine moral outrage. It was a really cleansing experience and readers agreed.

Thanks for reading. I am convinced that when people are informed they make good decisions. I'm simply trying to help people become informed and do it in a way that's entertaining.

I would ask that if you enjoy my blog, hit the +1 button or the "Like" button or better yet, do both and then follow my blog in your favorite news reader. Happy New Year and bring on 2012 - November is coming.

Written by Ken Carroll

Why 2012 is Dangerous to the Republican Party

2011-12-31T02:56:00.000-05:00

- And Why the United States Senate Will Be Responsible -

There comes a time when promises must be met with actions. Words and sentiments, even sincere sentiments, are not enough and additional words are nothing but insults to the listener.

For the past three years, the Republican Party has promised to reduce government, reduce taxes and listen more carefully to the wishes of those who pay their salaries. Their excuse has been that the Democrats have controlled the White House and the US Senate. For the first two of those years, Democrats also controlled the US House of Representatives.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Image via Wikipedia

Republicans took control of the US House at the beginning of 2011 and have fought a strong rear-guard action to slow the Obama Administration's assault on the US Constitution. It's slowed the non-stop push from the left, but it has not reversed it. This brings us to the 2012 election.

The Republican Party can satisfy the more reasonable members of its base because it has not had the power to make things better. At this point it appears that the GOP may win both the US Presidency and the majority of the US Senate to complement their US House majority. Then they must deliver.

If I am correct, those victories may be the bane of the Republican party. The reason is a combination of history and expectations.

From 2001 through 2006, Republicans controlled the Presidency, the US House and the US Senate and acted far too much like Democrats. The GOP spent too much money, increased federal entitlement programs, entered a war without a clear exit strategy, refused to deal with illegal immigration and paid no attention to the citizens. They lost their majority in the US House in 2007 and then both the Presidency and the US Senate majority in 2009.

When Democrats took complete control again in 2009, they immediately began acting exactly like Democrats (see above list of stupid actions, but add immense arrogance, naked greed and a collection of pure hubris that dwarfs Mt. Everest) and the American people decided to give the GOP another chance. Republicans took back the US House and made large gains in the US Senate. This happened not because Republicans had been good, but because Democrats had been so bad. The trend should continue in the 2012 elections. Republicans must be able to make real, meaningful changes to the federal government quickly once they have a majority.

This is where Republicans fail. The new Republican majority will be thin in the US Senate. Without the help of non-conservative Olympia Snowe (Kind of a R-ME), Susan Collins (Kind of a R-ME) and Scott Brown (Sort of a R-MA), real change cannot occur. Senate Republicans must find a way to deal with their liberal New England members to make any real progress.

Then there are the usual GOP suspects who find a way to cause chaos and make liberal editorial boards smile far too much. Combine the not-always-helpful actions of John McCain (Maverick Hypster-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (What The Hell Are You Thinking-SC) and it makes one wonder if they have any actual principles.

Add in the GOP Senators who constantly involve themselves in various groups, called "Gangs", and there is a problem. Note to one of my US Senators, Saxby Chambliss (Unnecessarily Moderate R-GA): Saxby, I knew you before you were even a lowly Congressman and had a little something to do with your election in '94. I have some serious advice: The next time you join a gang do us a favor and make it the Crips or the Bloods. Do not play with the Democrats in a way that would give them the opportunity to undermine the GOP majority in the Senate. Conservatives expect results.

Does Mitch McConnell (Lonely Leader R-KY) have the ability to keep his troops in line? If he does, it's a better kept secret than Barack Obama's college grades. Here is why McConnell better either get a whip and a chair or get a retirement rocker.

If Republicans fail to meet their basic promises to their base (smaller government, lower taxes and secure the national borders), the Republican Party will end within five years. A Republican party that acts like the Democrat Party will become the Whigs of the 21st Century. It will be replaced by a party to its right that does not have the GOP baggage of failed promises.

If the GOP enjoys the majorities I predicted, then the pressure will be to immediately use it or lose it. Get ready GOP and wear your jock straps and pads, the 2013 sessions will be full contact.

November is coming. Make it count and make it a Happy New year! That's an order.

Written by Ken Carroll

Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think 3

2011-12-30T03:00:00.000-05:00

- Taking Failure, Incompetence and Class Envy World-Wide -

If you have been focused on economic conditions, I can't really blame you. It's like driving past an endless chain-reaction car wreck. You can't help but stare. The carnage has been sickly fascinating as we watch the destruction of businesses and industries and the tightening of government-applied vices to the dwindling American middle class.

Image via Wikipedia

In the meantime, not only have other economies suffered, there is a leadership vacuum across the globe. Do you remember when the President of the United States was automatically considered the Leader of the Free World? I cannot imagine any person with a modicum of political knowledge and a good dose of common sense describing Barack Obama as the Leader of the Free World. Let's face it, Obama could not be an effective leader of Candyland. Consequently, there is no world leadership and the world is floundering.

"Nature abhors a vacuum," is a true statement whether one attributes it to Aristotle, François Rabelais or Baruch Spinoza. It's also true that nations abhors a vacuum of political power. Consequently, there is a scramble for power and for natural resources. The rules have changed and in the turmoil, countries with a real foreign policy - some of them not beacons of goodness - are seeking to take advantage.

Meanwhile, our President would rather trust other countries with world leadership than trust our own country. Besides it's more fun to continuously run for office than to accept responsibility. We have the greatest nation on Earth and a man at its head who cannot differentiate between our culture of personal freedom and cultures who place unconscionable restrictions on their citizens. No wonder he doesn't want to acknowledge the necessity of American leadership.

There are not only challenges in our future, there are current challenges that are under-reported from the perspective of their impact on the United States. So how are we doing?

China believes it should be the dominant power in Asia. It is rapidly growing its blue water navy. The addition of an aircraft carrier, an offensive weapon, is a clear signal of its intent. It is also still manipulating its currency value and driving for the yuan to replace the dollar as the world's default currency.

Our response under Obama? Borrow more money and fail to challenge China's flaunting of intellectual property rights.

Russia is surging under Vladimir Putin. Putin would like to see Russia return to the power levels of the old Soviet Union and they have the natural resources and the technology to do so. Putin is aggressive and when he has finished consolidating his power then all bets are off.

Our response under Obama? We caved under Russian pressure and abandoned plans to place missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, throwing our allies to the wind - an Obama theme - while getting nothing in exchange from the Russians.

The Middle East is now more unstable with a lessened US presence, contrary to the leftists fantasies, endangering our access to petroleum. Look for more violence and an increased influence from our enemy, Iran.

Our response under Obama? We have nearly eliminated new oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. We refuse to drill in ANWAR and Obama has blocked the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition, we have failed to make proper use of our supplies of natural gas. Instead we have pegged our hopes on the absurd flower power acid trip that "green" power is sufficient to power our nation when we have yet to demonstrate that it can be economically feasible on any scale.

Mexico is rapidly becoming a narco-terrorist state. Mexican drug lords can often exceed the firepower of the Mexican armed forces, let alone Mexican city police forces. In addition, we have failed to secure our border with Mexico.

Our response under Obama? Sell guns to the Mexican drug lords without informing the Mexican government in an attempt to lessen US gun rights and find creative rationale for not protecting our citizens. For a hobby, the US Department of justice files taxpayer funded lawsuits against states who try to discourage legal residents of other nations from becoming illegal aliens in the United States.

There are more current challenges such as a new North Korean regime, the continued attacks against Christians in Africa and the Middle East, the approaching nuclear threat to Israel from Iran, tension between the nuclear powers of Pakistan and India, the growing communist influence in South America and Europe's failing economies. Barack Obama is not capable of negotiating these problems while protecting America's best interests, because he is incapable of determining what is in America's best interests. Hello, Mr. Bystander in Chief!

We have the wrong man leading our nation at a time when the world powers are in a flux. President Obama has no appreciation for American ideals and sees no dangers from other nations who desire more power. There is no Obama foreign policy unless one counts the old finger-in-the-wind, pollster prognostication, panic and pander model.

November is coming all over the world, but it's more important here than anywhere else. Are your family members registered to vote?

Suggested Obama theme song for the 2012 elections: AC/DC's "Highway to Hell".

If you missed previous installments of this series, there is no need for concern. You can find them here: Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think 2 and here: Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think.

To avoid the potential future embarrassment of missing further installments, sign up for our reader alerts. Sorry, but these posts are not, and will not be, available in small-syllable, politically correct versions for liberals.

Written by Ken Carroll

Importance of Iowa Caucus Poll and Fast and Furious Poll Results

2011-12-29T23:59:00.000-05:00

The Iowa caucuses receive a lot of attention because those caucuses award the first delegates to presidential contenders. Are they that important in determining the next President? How do you feel about it? Here's your chance to let people know!

New Poll: How Important is Winning the Iowa Caucuses?
- Extremely important
- Somewhat important, but overrated
- It all depends on the candidate
- It's good to get delegates, but that's it.
- Not important, could be a negative

Please vote in the poll which is in the right column near the top of the page. You may vote once, and in this poll you may vote for only one answer. The poll will close at Midnight, the morning of January the 5th.

Poll Results: What's Your Opinion? Operation Fast and Furious:
0.0% - What? Never heard of it!
0.0% - is overblown and the GOP knows it.
4.9% - will make a difference to some people
14.6% - was a naked power grab by Holder and/or Obama.
80.5% - is a VERY big deal and undermines the US Constitution!

Please note that this is not a scientific poll and is used for entertainment and to generate discussion. Do you have more to say? Add your comments below. I'd like to hear them.

Ken

Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think 2

2011-12-28T07:44:00.001-05:00

- Neither a Healthy Populace, Nor a Healthy Economy -

While we can't help but recognize that the United States is struggling financially in both public and private sectors, it's time to point out that Europe is struggling even more. The fact that a European-style economy appears to be President Barack Obama's model for the fundamentally changed United States is seldom mentioned.

Like the act of socializing medicine in Europe, the goal was not about medicine; it was about socialism. In the United States, Obamacare is not the end; it is a means to an end. The purpose of Obamacare is to squeeze out private insurers and then private medical providers. In the end, the quality of medical care must decrease as surely as the costs must increase when efficient competition ends and healthcare by bureaucrat begins. If there is a second Obama term, then this will be the future.

Look at Europe where decades of promises are dying with the whimper of occasional street riots. It's as though a lie, that everyone knew to be a convenient fiction, was finally exposed. There is little real outrage, but many will go through the motions because it is expected.

Beware Greeks Bearing Gifts
Image via Wikipedia

Europe is simply another example of socialist economies failing to live up to socialist promises. The ability to pay for early retirements, universal "free" healthcare, stringent regulation of everything but workers' behavior and opulent employee benefits are dependent upon an eternally growing population and a constantly growing economy or payment by future, currently voiceless, generations.

The problem is that socialist and mythical "third way" economies stifle themselves with burdensome costs and regulations that guarantee a sluggish economy that cannot compete on the world market. What makes socialism appealing to the uneducated and gullible is what makes it always fail.

We can't be surprised that Greek workers would riot when they finally realized that all of the political promises made to them were as valuable to them as most political promises. Should the Greeks have known all along? Of course they should have known, but their uprisings are against reality. They demand a bargain of nothing for something, and that, life will not grant.

The only way Europe has survived for this long is the importation of cheap immigrant labor. Native European population rates had generally either stalled or begun to decline. Labor from former colonies in northern Africa served to prolong the inevitable, but now that is no longer enough. Europe must now deal with its economic crisis and the problems caused by a multitude of unhappy immigrants, as well.

"Well," you might say, "The Greeks of all people should have known better when their politicians were giving away everything." Yes, as the Trojans learned, beware of Greeks bearing gifts - especially Greek politicians. But look around you now.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face - forever . . . and remember that it is forever." - George Orwell

Did the American people not fall for the same, obviously unfulfillable promises in 2008? President Obama promised to insure an additional 30 million people for a lower total cost. Did all but the most ignorant not know better?

Have we not turned our heads as we allowed millions of illegal aliens to work in our country and, even worse, thousands of criminals infiltrate our borders with little fear of any consequences? We needed the cheap labor to pay for our expensive government. Isn't this exactly what Europe has done? At least most of the European immigration was done legally. We can't even say that.

Finally, have we not grown our government at the cost of our future, just as Europe has done? We are more than $15.1 trillion in debt and President Obama wants another stimulus, though he may cleverly call it something else which will, amazingly, completely fool the leftists pundits.

Look carefully at Europe as a whole. If they survive their current crisis, it will be because of outside help. We will help because we don't want them to fail. China will help them because it needs markets to avoid a similar future fate.

If the United States fails, there will be no rescue. Europe is weak and cannot help. Japan's economy is too small and China sees us as we should see them: a very real threat.

There is a lesson there to be learned and this nation must learn it in less than a year. If we want a future free of government's heavy hand - and even heavier foot - we must remember that November is coming.

Did you miss part one? No problem, go to Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think.

Written by Ken Carroll

Why 2012 Is Even More Important Than You Think

2011-12-26T00:12:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court of the United States
Image via Wikipedia

- Courting the Future of Our Nation: The US Supreme Court in Obama's Hands -

You think you're taking the 2012 elections seriously. You're already paying attention. You're months ahead of your neighbors and friends. This makes you, my friend, an opinion leader. So you need to grow into your burdensome responsibilities.

Four more years of a Presidednt Barack Obama and a US Congress that, regardless of majority, hungers for re-election at the expense of good policy may cause repercussions for decades.

What if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) approves Obamacare? Four years to implement this resounding death knell for American business and it will be too late to make the needed corrections without a chain reaction of tumultuous results. Are you counting on the SCOTUS to save our bacon? Look, I don't care what your local Constitutional expert says, there have been enough questionable decisions in the past few years that I am dubious, e.g. Kelo vs City of New London, Connecticut.

And speaking of the SCOTUS, how many appointments will be made in the next four years? Are you ready to see an Eric Holder court? Four of the nine justices are septuagenarians. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be 79 in March just a few days after Justice Antonin Scalia turns 76 and just four months before Justice Anthony Kennedy's 76th birthday.

Justice Ginsberg is a sure far-left vote on the court and so an Obama replacement for her would not change any decisions, but would ensure a far-left justice on the court for three more decades. Ginsberg would be nearly 84 at the end of a second Obama term. The possible replacement of the next two justices would make a huge and immediate difference.

Scalia is not only a consistently conservative vote, he is an intellectual heavyweight. Even Scalia's dissenting arguments are hailed as important and he is a measuring stick for conservative thinkers. Antonin Scalia's loss would be a devastating blow to conservatism, but his replacement with a progressive justice would result in a clear loss for original interpretation of the Constitution.

Justice Kennedy is a swing vote on the court, though he has often voted with conservatives on the more straightforward issues. A Kennedy replacement would mean a different court altogether. If still on the bench, Scalia and Kennedy would both be 80 at the end of another Obama term.

Stephen Breyer is only 73, but if he is still on the court, he would be 78 in August 2016. Justice Breyer is a steady political liberal and a replacement by Obama would not greatly alter the court, but again his replacement would almost certainly guarantee another 30 years of leftist representation in our highest court.

How would one more Obama appointment change our lives? Look at District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that individuals (not as a part of a militia) have a right to possess firearms as the second amendment states. It was a 5 - 4 decision and one more liberal on the court would have reversed that decision and forever altered the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

The next US President could very well appoint four US Supreme Court Justices, though my guess is that Ginsberg is so political that she will step down before the end of President Obama's term if he loses the 2012 election. If that happens, Republican Senators should hold the line and allow no permanent appointments by President Obama under the circumstances. He has already made two US Supreme Court appointments in Sonia Sotomayor, aged 57, and Justice Elena Kagan, aged 51. This alone would be more than enough from a one-term, once-in-a-century, American electoral mistake.

This is the first in a series on why the 2012 elections are more important than one might think. I envision them being an irregular feature, which means that I'll write them as they come to me, but they will come out over the next few months. I don't have very long to write them because they need to be read and November is coming.

By Ken Carroll

UPDATE: Why 2012 IS Even More Important Than You Think 2 is now available.

Neither Gold, Nor Frankincense, Nor Myrrh

2011-12-24T17:08:00.001-05:00

Neither gold, nor frankincense, nor myrrh was the first Christmas gift. The most precious gift had already been given.

The Visit of the Magi ¹ Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ² “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” ³ When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. ⁴ Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. ⁵ They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
⁶ ‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULERWHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”
⁷ Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.⁸ And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.”
⁹ After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. ¹⁰ When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. ¹¹ After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. ¹² And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.
- The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 2, Verses 1-12, NASB version

The Magi
Image by Wonderlane via Flickr

The Magi gave Jesus gifts of great value. Many will tell you that these were the first gifts of Christmas and that our tradition of exchanging presents began with them. And, perhaps, the giving of gifts on Christmas did descend from the offerings those Wise Men gave, but none of those was the very first gift of Christmas.

The first gift was to all mankind from our Creator. It came in the form of a babe in swaddling clothes who was born in a lowly manger. It was God's gift of eternal life.

Though the temptation is great, do not despise your enemies, for any among us might turn our gaze to Heaven at any time and ask for that one gift; that gift which has already been given freely; the gift we can never repay, but may only embrace. It is the gift of God's love, made manifest in the form of a child born in Bethlehem who assumed both the form of man and the weight of our sins.

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. - The Gospel of John, Chapter 3, Verses 16 - 17

Merry Christmas!

Ken

The Second Democrats' Lie About Voter Fraud Refuted

2011-12-23T22:23:00.002-05:00

Previously in this series: The First Democrats' Lie About Voter Fraud Refuted

While it's not necessary to read the previous installment in this series, it will help with some background information. There are two states, Georgia and Indiana, that currently have photo voter ID. So why do Democrats not refer to the actual vote results? I'm a native Georgian and a current resident of the Peach State, so I'll refer to Georgia's voter ID law that has already been tried and tested.

Lie #2a: Voter fraud does not exist . . .

Challenged ballots
Image via Wikipedia

Not so fast. According to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, hundreds of voter fraud cases are prosecuted in Georgia alone every year. Just one month ago 12 Democrats in Brooks County, Georgia, were charged with committing voter fraud using absentee ballots in 2010.

Democrats will, I'm sure, point out that photo voter doesn't help with absentee ballot fraud; completely overlooking clear proof that the desire to commit voter fraud exists. And, knowing the desire exits, would we make the mistake of believing that those who would steal elections would stop at absentee ballots?

So what was the beginning of catching the Democrats? Officials reviewed the high number of absentee ballots cast in the election. Without real voter ID requiring a photo ID, more of the fraud would have been committed face-to-face with no way to stop it. An ID is required to pick up an absentee ballot from the Registrar's office.

How large is voter fraud? In my home county of Dodge, 26 people were convicted of federal voter fraud for buying votes. The hundreds of people who admittedly sold their votes were not prosecuted. The New York Times quoted a US Justice Department official who called it the largest voter fraud conspiracy case in the history of the country.

Surprisingly, more Dodge Countians spent time in prison for committing voter fraud and conspiracy to commit voter fraud in the 2004 election cycle, even after the previous sentences were handed down. Again, those sentenced were all Democrats. In addition, the voter fraud likely prevented Dodge County from electing its first black sheriff, Dan Wilcox, in 2004.

There are others and they are not all limited to the state of Georgia, though there is nearly always one common factor. The overwhelming majority of those charged and convicted with voter fraud are Democrats. Republicans have been convicted on voter fraud charges, but they are a small minority compared to the number of offenders who are Democrats.

Lie #2b: . . . and if voter fraud does exist, photo ID will not stop it.

The argument used by Democrats is that there is no evidence to show that voter ID does not stop voter fraud. This is very true and there is a reason there is no proof. How can one show that photo voter ID stops voter fraud unless photo voter ID is in use? And if it is in use, then it prevents the attempt to perpetrate that type of fraud. so it would be extremely rare if in use at all.

Without a photo ID requirement, how can fraud that makes use of a lack of photo ID be proved? It can't; and that is the very reason the law is needed.

Democrats like to point to absentee ballot voter fraud as being a more serious threat than face-to-face voter fraud which can be prevented by a strong photo ID requirement. This is akin to saying that bad tires cause accidents so seat belts are a waste of time.

Finally, if Democrats believe absentee ballot voter fraud is such a problem, then where are their proposed solutions? I would gladly join with them if they can find a workable way to further lessen absentee ballot voter fraud.

I have noticed that unless Republicans are talking about photo voter ID, Democrats are silent about absentee ballot voter fraud. In fact, Democrats are silent about all voter fraud unless Republicans raise the issue. Why do you suppose that is the case?

We need to ensure that all legal votes are counted and that the process is secure. After all, November is coming.

Fast and Furious Poll and Iowa Debate Poll Results

2011-12-22T23:21:00.000-05:00

Republicans are set to make Operation Fast and Furious aka Operation Gun Runner an issue in the 2012 Presidential election. How do you feel about it? Here's your chance to let people know!

New Poll: What's Your Opinion? Operation Fast and Furious:

- What? Never heard of it!
- is overblown and the GOP knows it.
- will make a difference to some people
- was a naked power grab by Holder and/or Obama.
- is a VERY big deal and undermines the US Constitution!

Please vote in the poll which is in the right column near the top of the page. You may vote once, and in this poll you may vote for only one answer. The poll will close at Midnight, the morning of December the 29th.

Poll Results: Who Won the Fox News Iowa GOP Debate?

1.1% - Michele Bachmann
22.1% - Newt Gingrich
2.3% - Jon Huntsman
64.0% - Ron Paul
9.3% - Rick Perry
1.1% - Mitt Romney
0.0% - Rick Santorum

Please note that this is not a scientific poll and is used for entertainment and to generate discussion. Do you have more to say? Add your comments below. I'd like to hear them.

Ken