joewilson2012

Raising Cain

2011-05-24T10:41:00.003-04:00

The field of contenders for the GOP nomination for president is beginning to take shape. Over the past few weeks there have been notable names decide not to run while others have officially thrown their name into consideration.

Already voices are beginning to cry that there are no real moderates. We're being told that for Republicans to win back the White House, a credible moderate needs to rise above the other contenders. These pundits claim that the "right wing" of the party is calling the shots and as a result, it will hurt the nominees chances of being elected.

Nothing could be further from reality. The Republican party is conservative or at least it used to be. We need to return to Reagan conservatism. Be proud to be conservative. Advocate smaller government, smaller budgets, strong national defense and take a stand on morality issues.

We tried to win the White House in 2008 with a moderate. We were told John McCain was a bridge builder. He could work across party lines and attract Democrats. He was conservative on some issues but more to the middle on other points. McCain not only lost the election, he lost it soundly. I realize a lot of that had to do with the Obama phenomenon but he lost just the same.

There are real differences between Democrats and Republicans. The differences in core beliefs and what the parties want for the country are striking. I believe as more people see Obama as the mistake that he is, they will want a real, striking change. Nominating a candidate who leans to the middle on issues is not a striking difference. Poll after poll show that in presidential elections, more voters consider themselves conservative than liberal. Give the voters a clear, obvious choice.

Nominating someone on the right of the spectrum will highlight the stark differences between Obama and the GOP challenger. I believe that challenger should be businessman Herman Cain. Cain immediately takes the race issue out of the hands of Democrats when anyone disagrees with Obama. Cain is a proven businessman, well spoken, plain spoken and has a great idea of what's needed to rescue this nation from the fiscal train wreck that seems to be approaching.

The biggest complaint I hear now about Herman Cain is that he's never held public office. Big deal. If the country can elect a community organizer to the highest position in the land, why not take a chance on a successful and proven business leader? At least Cain's experience is relevant to the job at hand.

It's Time to Act Presidential

2011-03-21T09:45:00.002-04:00

In little more than a week, Japan was hit with a major earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear disaster. The internal conflict in Libya worsened to the point that the Arab League asked the United Nations to impose a "no fly zone" over that country so Qaddafi would quit killing his own citizens.

President Obama was strangely silent during these events. He only spoke publicly about the Libyan situation late last week after the U. N. resolution concerning the "no fly zone" was passed. He spoke about it from Brazil where he and his family went for five days.

Given a golden opportunity by an Arab organization, the president had a great chance to step up, be a leader, help the oppressed people of Libya and help the U. S. take the role of good guy in the Middle East. He wasn't able to fully take advantage of that because he was so busy with other pressing matters.

Obama received more face time on ESPN last week than on the news networks. The NCAA basketball tournament started Tuesday and we all know how important it was for the president to reveal his bracket picks to the world. He's done that before. Of course when he showed us what a basketball whiz he was in the past, the world wasn't facing such rapidly developing, negative events in two parts of the world.

There's a time and a place for everything. This was a year when the president would have gained a lot of respect at home and around the world if he'd have shown a little more concern about what was taking place in Libya and in Japan instead of worrying about picking against Duke like he did last season.

We can only hope that it wasn't too late before the "no fly zone" was enforced. Across political lines experts are saying this should have been taken care of a couple of weeks ago for it to be effective. I guess they don't realize Obama couldn't have been bothered with it then. After all, the conference tournaments were still being played!

The Embarrassment of the United State

2011-02-24T09:47:00.004-05:00

President Obama broke his silence about Libya yesterday. The protests and riots have been taking place for nine days. After 41 years in power, the regime of Muammar Gaddafi seems ready to topple as he loses control of the people, his military and land day by day. It took our president more than a week to even open his mouth and make a statement about this incredible, world changing event.

The United States stands for freedom. It's long been our policy to support the quest for democracy in nations around the world. Over the past several weeks we've seen revolutions spring up in Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Libya and several other nations with varying degrees of success. Throughout this time our president, the man considered the leader of the free world has been very reluctant to speak up and speak out about these developments.

I certainly do not suggest that the U. S. should go into these nations uninvited. I also realize that the State Department needs to watch what they say so that passions are not inflamed. However there's not a regime in the world that doesn't or shouldn't know that our country and our government stands for and believes in democracy. What an opportunity to go to the United Nations and propose a resolution condemning the actions of the governments in Libya and Iran. Why not look into the possibility of a U. N. peacekeeping force being made available if things continue to deteriorate in Libya? Instead, Obama wants to speak about gay marriage while a nation burns.

There is absolutely no reason for Obama to wait nine days after the Libyan revolution started before he even speaks on the matter. When he did make a statement yesterday he didn't even mention Gaddafi by name even though that dictator has ordered the killing and bombing of his own citizens. Obama waited fewer days to speak in support of union protests in Wisconsin than he did in criticizing Gaddafi. That is pathetic.

We shouldn't be surprised though. After all, this is the same guy who made a trip to the Middle East one of his priorities early in his administration. That was the trip to Egypt when he basically apologized for the actions of the U. S. in that part of the world. We should be disappointed but certainly not surprised in his most recent failure of action concerning that part of the world.

This is an historic moment. The flame of freedom is being ignited in places we never thought possible. Unfortunately President Obama has decided so far to sit this one out and just watch the flame to see if it fires or flickers out on its own.

Obama Math

2011-02-15T10:19:00.003-05:00

President Obama unveiled his budget yesterday. Unfortunately there are no surprises in it. He talks about reducing the deficit yet his plan will projects $1.65 trillion in deficit spending which is a record. It would make the country's deficit the largest percentage of the economy since 1945.

His biggest solution? Taxes of course. We can't say that's a surprise from the left. What is surprising is that while the deficit becomes a bigger issue by the day, Obama and his followers continue to try the same old "tax and spend" tactics the left has championed for decades.

While he proposes decreasing spending in the Department of Agriculture by 1.5%, he ups spending in the Commerce Department by 13.9%. He can point to a 6.1% decrease in Corps of Engineers spending but that's offset by 38.5% increase in Education. Transportation is the biggest winner with a proposed increase in their budget of 68%.

For years Democrats have continued to pour money into the black hole of public education without holding teachers and administrators responsible for results. Apparently the president wants to continue that trend. I suppose old habits really are hard to break.

The biggest farce is the increase in Transportation spending. I realize our bridges and roads need repairs and upgrades. However, a large portion of this new spending is geared toward rail service; specifically high speed rail. That's something that would be nice to have but not if we can't afford it, and we can't. Why not make that a long range goal and focus short term on what really matters; reducing the deficit as much as possible as soon as possible.

Obama was given another great opportunity to show leadership. Put entitlement programs on the table. Show us how deep you're willing to cut spending. Show us some fiscal responsibility. Of course he's trying to put Republicans in the position of advocating cuts while he can offer a plateful of goodies. He can play class warfare by promoting tax hikes on those that already pay the most taxes. That way he looks like the good guy while he and the rest of the left can claim that fiscal conservatives want old people to die from eating dog food because "their" money is being taken away.

It's a risky move with the presidential election on the horizon. Now is the time for Republicans and even conservative Democrats to stand firm and fight. This country literally cannot afford this budget. Call and email your representatives. The election was only the beginning for the Tea Party movement and the revival of fiscal conservatism. This is now the real battle and we must all fight.

Real Hope and Change

2011-02-01T18:21:00.004-05:00

Egypt has been an ally of the United States for several years. It's been an alliance built on self interest really for both sides. In the 70's and 80's the U.S. thought it was important to be close to countries that weren't aligned with the Soviet Union. Since Egypt had been a model of stability in an unstable region and were next door neighbors to Israel, it was in the best interests of our government to stay on friendly terms. Egypt receives 1.5 billion dollars of aid from our nation. They have received military parts and supplies over the last three decades so both sides have benefited.

Things change however including the political winds. In the past, our nation could overlook some of the misdeeds of other leaders. There's a difference in a person being a bad guy and being "our" bad guy. We could overlook Hosni Mubarak's behavior as he ignored human rights issued. We didn't worry when he wouldn't hold free and open elections. After all, the alternative could be worse. Egypt could become another Iran. We at least could sway Mubarak on the important matters in the Middle East.

Then a funny thing happened. As President George W. Bush predicted, when people see their neighbors living in a free and open society, they want the same for themselves. Thanks to the internet, text messaging and cell phones the world has gotten smaller. Egyptians look across their borders at Israel and see political stability. They can look further east and see that Iraq has become a representative government.

We as a nation have stated time and time again that we will always support people's in their quest for democracy, self rule and freedom. Now is the perfect and possibly the only opportunity for the Obama administration to stand behind those words in Egypt. They've been reluctant to come down hard on Mubarak because of our long relationship with him. His rule is over. It's only a question now of when and how it will end.

If the United States wants to continue to be taken seriously in the Middle East, we need to announce that we are solidly behind the people and their protest. There is no middle ground on these issues. It has worried me over the past few days to hear Secretary of State Clinton try to straddle the fence on this issue. We're looking at an event that possibly rivals the collapse of the Berlin Wall yet this administration wants to sit on the wall.

To be taken seriously as a leader, this is a time for Obama to stand up and be counted. For this nation to show the Middle East and the world that we do more than pay lip service to freedom, we need to tell Mubarak his time is up. Egyptians are creating change. The United States needs to give them hope.

Politicizing Lunacy

2011-01-18T12:23:00.002-05:00

When I first heard about the shooting in Tucson, one of my early thoughts was whether this was politically motivated. At the time I only knew that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had been shot along with others. As the afternoon wore on information seemed to change quickly. NPR reported that Ms. Giffords was dead then within the the hour changed their report. As I watched the coverage on the cable networks I wondered how this story would play out politically. It didn't take long to find out.

There are two amazing aspects to this story. The first is that the Congresswoman is reported to be recovering at an incredible pace. The second is that just as we were finding out the name of the gunman, fingers were already being pointed and groups of people were being condemned for having caused this.

Almost immediately the clowns at the part-time news network (MSNBC), led by their ring leader Keith Olbermann began blaming Tea Party members and most notably Sarah Palin. Because Palin used cross hairs on a website "targeting" certain congressional districts including Giffords', she was blamed for inciting hate. Keep in mind that at that point in the story we knew only the gunman's name and little else. Even CNN jumped in on it. Roland Martin who somehow landed a network gig at CNN also was quite sure that conservative talk radio was to blame.

As days went by and more information came out it has become more and more obvious that Jared Loughner is mentally disturbed. This shooting was the act of a nut; nothing more. All reports have been that this young man had behavior issues and strange thoughts that college administrators and students were aware of. His former friends knew he had problems. I have yet to hear one person close to Loughner state that he had even a passing interest in the Tea Party movement. There is absolutely no evidence that he was influenced by political thought.

Sarah Palin is as responsible for this crime as "Catcher in the Rye" was responsible for Mark David Chapman killing John Lennon. There is no connection. Chapman blamed the book. The left wing idiots are the ones blaming the right. My biggest question lately has been why Olbermann, Martin and the like haven't been talking about the need for mental health services in the country. No, that would kill their message and unfortunately that's all they care about.

Obama's New START

2010-12-09T18:38:00.002-05:00

This is an outstanding article from the Heritage Foundation about Obama's attempt to get a new START treaty passed. It's a little long but well worth the read.

The New Myths of New START

What do Senators Jon Kyl (R–AZ), Scott Brown (R–MA), and George Voinovich (R-OH) all have in common? One Senator is from a blue state, one from a red state, and the other is retiring from office all together. But last week each of them told the White House that, despite their belief in the need for a nuclear treaty with Russia, this lame duck is not the right time to vote on President Barack Obama’s New START.

Faced with these setbacks, the Obama Administration has gone into campaign mode, throwing out any argument they can think of to browbeat Senators into voting on the treaty now. Their favorite talking point is that none other than President Ronald Reagan himself would have supported this treaty. The President invoked Reagan’s name three times at a White House event last Thursday. And this Saturday he mentioned Reagan’s name five times in his weekly radio address. The problem is that Reagan would never have signed on to President Obama’s New START.

While President Reagan did negotiate and sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, that does not mean he would have signed any agreement that reduced U.S. nuclear weapons. As Heritage Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes notes, Reagan would never sacrifice our missile defense capabilities for treaty concessions: “Why did Ronald Reagan walk away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons if only we gave up the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why did Reagan not take him up on that offer? The reason is that Reagan believed strategic defenses were the essential ingredient in disarmament—the exact opposite of what Gorbachev’s vision was then and President Obama’s vision is today.”

And President Obama’s New START contains at least five sections that limit missile defense, including: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol, and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.

Claims that Reagan would have supported New START are not the only myths emanating from the White House. Other false claims include:

(1) Without New START, terrorists would get nukes: There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!

(2) Without New START, Israel’s security would be compromised: In their zeal to see the treaty passed as soon as possible, some proponents have proclaimed that New START is “a Jewish issue.” New START is only marginally relevant to Moscow’s policy in the Middle East. And not every foreign and national security issue is a “Jewish issue” because it has some tangential connection to Iran. New START should be considered on its merits.

(3) Without New START, our nuclear arsenal would not be modernized: By threatening to withhold funding unless the treaty is ratified, the White House would be playing crass politics with national security. If funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive military capability in the military’s arsenal, they should never be held hostage to a political deal. To bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis of the appropriate behavior of a commander-in-chief. It would also demonstrate the lack of the President’s real commitment to his responsibility as the steward of America’s nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New START is playing politics with our national security. If the dollars are needed, they should be provided without conditions—period.

(4) Without New START, we can’t verify Russia’s arsenal: The Administration and proponents of the treaty are also arguing for a quick “lame duck” ratification by saying that the U.S. is in danger without New START, because without a verification regime it lacks insight into Russia’s nuclear forces. This is rather amazing, considering that Administration officials have insisted that Russia is not a threat. Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.

(5) Without New START’s inspections, satellites would be diverted from other missions: The New START inspections are not nearly valuable enough to alter our satellite needs. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, told The Washington Times: “Our overall satellite capability is not what it used to be and not what it ought to be. Eighteen spot inspections a year is not going to fill the gap left by inadequate NTM capabilities. If we want better coverage of Russia’s strategic threats, we are going to have to launch more satellites.”

In his weekly address this Saturday, President Obama said about New START: “Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense—it will not.” Forgive us for not taking this President at his word. This is the same President who said Americans could keep their doctor under Obamacare, the same President who promised a net spending cut, and the same President who promised that his economic stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year. The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. And they still have not released the negotiating record. Just like Obamacare, they want votes without legislators knowing what they are voting for. If the case for New START is as strong as the Obama administration claims it is, than the White House should act like it and stop pushing for a lame duck vote.

Not What Voters Want

2010-12-06T20:01:00.004-05:00

On November 30, the lame duck session of the Senate voted on a ban of earmarks. The proposal was voted down with the help of eight Republicans who voted to against the ban. Those voting to keep sending the pork home were:

Bob Bennett (UT)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Susan Collins (ME)
James Inhofe (OK)
Dick Lugar (IN)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Shelby (AL)
George Voinovich (OH)

Bennett had nothing to lose as he was ousted during Utah's primary caucus. Perhaps this was his way of "sticking it" to the Tea Party voters who were instrumental in defeating him.

Cochran's vote was no surprise. With the death of Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Cochran became the king of pork. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Cochran sent more earmark money home than any other senator; over $490 million. Voters need to remember he comes up for re-election in 2014.

Inhofe's vote seems to be a bit of a surprise. Considered one of the most conservative senators, he is also up for re-election in 2014.

Lugar will seek re-election in two years. His seat is sure to be a target of conservatives if he doesn't start legislating like a real Republican.

Murkowski's vote isn't a surprise at all. She lost in the primary to Joe Miller. Instead of playing by the rules and accepting the outcome, she felt it was more important to stay in power than to follow the will of the voters. She pulled out all the stops and will certainly continue to legislate the way she wants to, regardless of what voters want.

Voinovich is retiring so it seems he had nothing to lose with this vote. Still, it's a disappointment considering his history of service first as mayor of Cleveland, then Governor of Ohio before becoming a Senator.

Collins is one of the fence riding Republicans, not at all considered a conservative. She's not up for re-election until 2014.

Shelby's vote could be considered a mild surprise. Usually conservative, he does have a history of voting against the party. He seems to enjoy making a name for himself as much as doing the right thing. Unfortunately, he was just re-elected so Alabama voters won't have a chance to vote for a more conservative choice for another six years.

Banning earmarks could have sent a very strong message; a message that the GOP truly is listening to what voters around the country want. We want smaller government and less spending. Shame on these Senators for continuing the "politics as usual" that we all want changed.

A Failure at Justice

2010-11-22T10:42:00.002-05:00

Ahmed Ghailani was on trial last week in the Federal Court of Manhattan. Ghailani faced 281 counts related to the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In those bombings 224 people were killed including 12 Americans. This was the Obama administration's first attempt at trying a terrorist in a civilian court. It was a total and complete failure.

Ghailani was acquitted of 280 of the charges he faced. He was found guilty of exactly one charge. That's it. The problem wasn't a question of whether or not he was a part of the bombings. He was. The problem was, this trial should never have been allowed to take place in a civilian court.

The prosecution wasn't even allowed to call their star witness. Hussein Abebe was to testify that he sold Ghailani the dynamite he used to make the bombs. The CIA learned of him while interrogating Ghailani. Federal judge Lewis Kaplan decided because the CIA got Ghailani's statement, "under duress." Judges like Kaplan are exactly the reason why these terrorists need to be tried by military courts.

Ghailani is not an American citizen. He is not due the same rights as American citizens. He is a terrorist, a murderer. He went to war against this country. He considers himself a soldier. He should be tried as a soldier. The scary thought is the question of how many other terrorists who were detained at Gitmo will also face civilian courts and liberal judges.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind is scheduled to be tried in a civilian court. Attorney General Eric Holder claims that trying people like this in civilian court is fair and just. This case proves it certainly is not. These cases do not involve local police agencies gathering information and issuing arrests in traditional civilian methods. These cases involve foreign murderers, terrorists using any means necessary to kill civilians, preferably Americans. Our security forces are therefore forced to use any means necessary to stop them, arrest them and keep this country safe.

Last week's miscarriage of justice will probably be a signal to terrorists that they are free to wreak their destruction knowing that if caught they can hire a top dollar American lawyer. That lawyer can then wrap himself in the American flag, use the courts and the Constitution as their weapons and help their clients escape true justice.

God help us all because our government is of no help at all.

Vote For Pelosi

2010-11-05T23:27:00.002-04:00

Nancy Pelosi announced today that she plans to seek the position of House Minority Leader. She claims there's still, "unfinished business" to attend to and she wants to be the person to continue to lead her party. I hope her fellow Democrats pick her. I really do.

This announcement came just a day after soon-to-be former Speaker Pelosi offered her opinion on why her party was handed its worse loss in the house since the 1930's. She claims it was a result of her party not doing enough over the last two years. She must be oblivious to the fact that voters in virtually every state used their vote to express anger at her party for everything they had done.

She apparently doesn't believe a government take over of our health care system was enough. Maybe she doesn't believe the government spent enough taxpayer money on the failed stimulus spending. She must believe that Republicans were able to take control of 19 state houses not because Democrats like to pass bills first so we can then read what's in them. She must think voters would like to see more of that. This woman must really be delusional.

Quite obviously there are fewer Democrats in the House now. There are even fewer "Blue Dog" Democrats. That means the radicals make up a higher percentage of their representation than before. Those are people that are probably going to be more loyal to her. With any luck, she'll be able to convince them to give her the position.

The GOP's "Fire Pelosi" campaign was a total and complete success from every angle. It appears to be getting even better. One would expect major changes from a party that lost as badly as hers did Tuesday. To date though there have been no changes announced in the White House. Now it looks like there will be no changes in the party leadership. The same cast that made the same mistakes want to keep doing what they've been doing. I hope they do. Their efforts were what made Tuesday so successful. With any luck they can keep it up and we can all celebrate their continued failure two years from now. Good luck Nancy!

Welcome to the (Tea) Party

2010-11-03T23:02:00.002-04:00

Winning sure feels good and today Republicans and specifically conservative Republicans feel great. In race after race, in virtually every state conservatives were victorious in last night's elections.

Of course it didn't take a full day for the liberal media to try to downplay last night's results. They point to the Tea Party candidates that didn't win; Christine O'Donnell, John Raese. Obviously we want all the conservative candidates to win but those losses cannot and will not take away from the enormous gains made by conservative Republicans.

In dozens of states, Republicans took control of state houses or strengthened their existing hold. Alabama's state house is in GOP control for the first time since Reconstruction as is North Carolina's. Republicans have a super majority in Texas. With redistricting coming up, the importance of this cannot be overstated. With just two short years until the next presidential election, having so many GOP governors will be nothing but a bonus.

Those loudmouth liberals in the media are already talking about how everyone must compromise now. The Tea Party winners and the "establishment" Republicans will have to compromise with each other. The Republican controlled house will have to compromise with the Democratic Senate. That's crap, total crap. Winners don't compromise. They don't have too. Winners set the agenda, make the rules and control the game. That's a fact.

Everyone has been put on notice. There are 21 Democratic Senate seats that will be voted on. Most are held by radical liberals who backed Obama's agenda to this point. They know they will be held accountable by the same people who brought us last night's results. There will be 10 Republican seats up for grabs. Many of those are held by people who have two years to decide if they're conservatives. If they continue to waffle they'll find out how much staying power the Tea Party has. Of course there will also be a presidential election that year as well.

Don't let anyone tell you the Tea Party didn't make a difference. So many people laughed at the Party. Look who's laughing now. So keep laughing and let's hope this movement continues to grow and continues to lead this country back to true conservatism. You can believe in what you just witnessed or continue to be overtaken by it. Either way, the Tea Party will continue.

It's Nothing New

2010-10-28T09:59:00.003-04:00

As we draw closer to election day next Tuesday, one of the debates I'm enjoying is listening to the leftist media continue to try to understand the Tea Party and voter frustration. They still can't figure it out. Why are voters so upset? How has the Tea Party been able to have such an influence?

The Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann types still can't believe the Tea Party has had the staying power they've had. They still act as if Americans are going to wake up next Tuesday, change their minds and vote to keep the likes of Harry Reid and Russ Feingold in office. It ain't happening fellas.

Think back to the summer of '09. That was the summer of the town hall meetings. All the senators and congressmen went home to their districts and tried to explain how important it was that we all support Obama's health care plan. That of course is the plan that had to be passed first so we could then see what was in it.

At meeting after meeting, voters confronted their representatives. In district after district, state after state voters told their congressmen how angry they were. While we all worried about the economy and the lack of jobs, people like Claire McCaskill and Harry Reid kept talking about "monumental" and "historic" health care reform. They weren't listening to the people that put them in office.

Over most of the next year, the Rachel Maddow's and Keith Olbermann's of the world just laughed. Oh look at those funny, angry middle class people showing up in three cornered hats acting like they were going to affect their own change. They made disparaging remarks about the Tea Party and it's members. They acted like this wave of outrage would disappear in the next news cycle. It didn't. The outrage is still here and it's very real and next Tuesday the results will be on display for the entire nation to see.

There is not a single incumbent Democrat campaigning on their previous support of Obamacare. They're running from it. Now they're promising to fix it and change it if only they can return to office. All of a sudden they started paying attention to the voters. Too bad for them they didn't listen sooner. Never mind the fact they ignored these voices in 2009.

Unless the leftist media wants to look even more insignificant than they are, maybe they'll start paying attention too. Start listening to the outrage from voters because those voters are in the process of making their own monumental and historic statement. That statement will be made loud and clear in five days.

Real Clear Politics

2010-10-16T10:20:00.001-04:00

If you enjoy the political season like I do, check out realclearpolitics.com by clicking on the title to this post. It's a "catch all" website with great articles and videos.

During the campaign season they have results from ALL the polls for every election in each state. Believe it or not it's what everyone else claims to be; fair and unbiased. It's a great resource.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid Now: "The Surge Worked"

2010-10-15T10:57:00.002-04:00

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid Now: "The Surge Worked"

Remember Harry is the man who said of the Iraq war in April of 2007 that it was, "lost, and thi surge is not accommplishing anything." I see Harry's singing a different song these days. Click on the title to see what he's saying now about the surge; the surge ordered by President George W. Bush!

Speaking of the soon to be defeated Senate Leader, he looked lost and senile during his debate against Sharron Angle. Here's a link to what the Las Vegas Sun had to say about their esteemed Senator's performance.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/15/reid-lost-debate-angle/

A Couple of Quick Thoughts

2010-10-13T20:03:00.002-04:00

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that loudmouth James Carville wrote that book "40 More Years, How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation"? Was it stocked in the humor section of bookstores? I wonder what the arrogant know it all has to say about that now?

If anyone thinks this election cycle is not a referendum on Obama just look at the Senate race in West Virginia. If it's not about putting an end to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid way of doing things, how come a Democratic governor with 70% approval ratings can't get elected? Why in a state that had a Democrat Senator since 1959 turning their back on a Democrat they previously elected in a state wide election?

This election is most definitely about the Obama way of doing things and state after state is getting ready to make up for their mistake of 2008!

Country Road Take Joe Home

2010-10-13T10:51:00.004-04:00

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin is in the political fight of his life as he attempts to win the Senate seat held for decades by former Klansman Robert Byrd. There was a time when this wouldn't have been a race worth watching. Manchin would have easily won this race because he is a Democrat and West Virginia used to be a Democratic state. Byrd held his place in the Senate longer than anyone in history. The other Senator Jay Rockefeller has also been in office for decades. The days of an easy Democratic victory are over in the Mountain State.

According to the latest Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll release yesterday, Manchin now trails Republican John Raese by three points. What's most striking about this is the fact that as the sitting governor, Manchin's approval rating in his state has consistently been in the 70% range.

This race as much as any other shows how much the Democratic party has changed. Back when they owned this state, Democrats were known for their support of the working man. As a result they could always count on the labor vote. Of course having the King of Pork (Byrd) as a senator didn't hurt either. He ran around the state giving away federal money and putting his name on everything.

Byrd is gone and so is his party. The Democrats are no longer the party of the working man. They're the party of loud special interest groups; abortionists, gays and those bent on enlarging the federal government and its reach even more.

The voting man, the working man in West Virginia doesn't see a place for himself in today's Democratic party. He's working, paying taxes, raising a family and going to church. He's exactly the type of person that Obama blew off with his remark about clinging to guns and religion. Now he realizes if his voice is going to be heard it's not going to be with another liberal, give it all away Democrat senator.

Little ol' West Virginia, often made fun of, looked down on and laughed at is making a difference this year. Joe Manchin is staying home and Republican John Raese will become their Republican Senator. It wasn't Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts and it's not former Klansman Robert Byrd's seat in West Virginia. The voters spoke loudly in Massachusetts and their getting ready to speak loudly in the Mountain State.

Reid's House Divided Against Itself

2010-10-08T08:55:00.005-04:00

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada is in the fight of his political life. One would think an incumbent Senate leader could coast to victory when his party controls the White House. After a two year period when the White House and and Congress have worked together to pass what they claim are needed bills and expenditures, one would also think Reid's position as a heavyweight would allow him to coast to victory. One would be wrong.

Reid is in a toss up race against Republican challenger Sharon Angle. Indications are that Reid will go down in defeat next month. If you've served as long as Reid has, there's no reason he shouldn't be at least 8 to 10 points ahead in the polls. This race is yet another indicator of how poorly the Democrats are going to do in the November elections.

Now his own son doesn't even agree with him. Rory Reid is the Democratic candidate for the Nevada governor's race. He has had to distance himself from his father in hopes of winning his own election.

Thehill.com reported the following: Gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid (D) said Thursday that the new health reform law could hurt Nevada. During a televised debate, Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he does not support the legal challenges against the health overhaul. Yet, he does believe that President Obama’s signature achievement could negatively affect Nevada.

“I don’t deny, however,” Rory Reid said, “that Nevada needs to be vigilant on this issue. The law that was passed gives time for the new system to go into effect, but there is potential for it to put significant pressure on states because Medicaid rates could go up significantly.”

There's no "like father like son" thinking here. The younger Reid knows where the public sits on this issue. It's just a shame he couldn't wake his Daddy up to that fact before now. On second thought, maybe that is a good thing. Now we can speculate on who the new Senate leader will be.

The Prophetic Reagan

2010-09-29T12:58:00.006-04:00

I was sent an interesting yet scary video contrasting Reagan and Obama. Listen to this and then try to tell me Obama and his cohorts care about this country. Now more than ever we need true conservatives to stand tall. I believe the upcoming elections really are the most important we've seen in a long time if not in this lifetime. Get involved and support the Reagan Republicans. If this video doesn't make you think then I really feel bad for you and wonder why you care so little about America.

Obama Proves Wilson's Point (Again!)

2010-09-20T22:33:00.003-04:00

President Obama has been singing the blues recently about those mean old Republicans. He claims he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class and only allow taxes to increase for the top earners. He claims he can't make it happen without Republican support. It's those no compromising, mean Republicans that are blocking it. If they'd only get on board then the tax cut question could be settled and we'd put an end to this recession.

That's an interesting way to look at it. The economy was problem one from the day this president took office. One of his first acts after taking office was to railroad his stimulus plan through Congress. He did that without Republican support. Remember that was the plan that would keep unemployment below 9%. That's what promised. (A lie?)

Then he just had to get his "free" health care plan passed. That was the next most important item in the hope and change playbook. He got what he wanted and he got it without Republican support. Notice also that NO Democrat currently running for re-election is claiming credit for passing either of these bills.

Once that was taken care of, even though nobody knew what was in the bill, Obama set his sights on repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Let's fact it, that was really high on most voters list of priorities as they faced higher unemployment; whether or not gay soldiers could let everyone know they were gay.

Now the end of the year is sneaking up on this administration. They realize more and more everyday that their economic stimulus has failed. Joe Biden's "Summer of Recovery" has been a flop to the point that they no longer count jobs created but "jobs touched". Just today, Obama hinted at his staged town hall type meeting that there might be personnel changes coming to his economic team. Now that a decision has to be made over these tax cuts, Obama wants to blame Republicans instead of facing up to the failures of his administration's policies.

I will give him credit at least for not blaming President Bush for this as he's done for everything else over the last two years. Obama is able to ram rod his stimulus plan and his health care plan without Republican support. Can someone explain then how he can't take care of the tax cut question in the same manner? Oh, could he be lying yet again? I thought this was the man that was going to Washington to change Washington. He was going to let everyone know it wasn't, "business as usual." Wasn't this the guy that was going to reach across party lines and build consensus?

It's just not the time and place for a man in his position to continue to blame everyone from President Bush to FOX News to Republicans for HIS mess. Of course many of us knew to expect this three years ago. Looks like it's going to be pretty expensive on the job training. I just hope the country can afford it!

Keep Laughing Chris

2010-09-15T22:25:00.004-04:00

It wasn't too long ago that the slobbering Chris Matthews was making fun of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin on his show. Earlier this summer he mentioned the fact that to that point Palin had endorsed five candidates for various races around the country. He said he was looking forward to what would happen when those candidates lost.

A funny thing happened; something many of us knew would take place. Palin's picks have won. The Tea Party is winning. They've made a statement first in Massachusetts and Kentucky, then Nevada and just last night they did it again in the Delaware Republican primary. Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party candidate and Palin pick defeated longtime Congressman Mike Castle in the battle for Joe Biden's old seat. Castle had the backing of most of the GOP. In this season of true hope for change, if you're not conservative you're not going to win.

Oh how Chris Matthews and his cohorts have been laughing over the last week at O'Donnell. She was too far to the right they said. Her positions were to far away from the mainstream. The old school of though that a person had to be in the center right to win has been tossed aside and that's a great thing.

Yes this is a time for stark contrasts between the two parties. There are very real difference between liberals and true conservatives. People are tired of voting for who they are told is electable. Voters are finally finding their true voices. Just like in the days when the "experts" said Ronald Reagan wasn't mainstream enough, the real right is making it's voice heard.

It's about time. Republicans who have been trying to lead as if they expect to be reelected, incumbents who expect things to continue as they have for the last few years are in for a real surprise. People have woken up to realize it's time to take back the party. If they do that, they know they will in turn take back this country.

These are voters who grew up on Reagan's watch. They saw him re-instill pride in this nation. These are the people that made the revolution of '94 a reality. They've been grossly disappointed in the lack of true conservative values in the Republican leadership of the past few years. Certainly they've been disappointed in the lack of true conservative values in their own representatives and they've had enough.

Matthews was still slobbering over himself tonight but he didn't seem to be laughing. Maybe he's waking up to the fact that there's a major shift taking place. I hope he keeps thinking that these fresh faces winning primaries aren't electable. I hope he keeps thinking there's a split in the Republican party that will doom it. There's not. The only split taking place is that of the true conservative voters and candidates throwing the phonies overboard.

So keep laughing Chris. We'll save our laughter for November.

The Cunundrum of the Left

2010-09-13T15:41:00.003-04:00

What an interesting world this has become. Thanks to the New York City Mosque issue and the Koran burning non-event, the left have now become the champions of religious freedom. Isn't that an interesting turn of events.

For decades these people have been trying to remove every symbol of Christianity from the public view. They have stood on the soapbox of "separation of church and state" so long that it's become comically predictable. Now that over 70% of Americans are offended at the thought of a Muslim mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero, they decide we need to be more tolerant of religious free.

Watch MSNBC (if you must) or CNN. Listen to them call those oppossed to this mosque intolerant and insensitive. Of course when we're being led by a president who took a Middle East tour to apologize to Muslim nations, we could be considered insensitive. I don't remember hearing Chris Matthews telling everyone to be more tolerant and sensitive toward Christianity as he slobbers all over himself.

No one is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. We all know though that the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims. It's the Muslim community that is displaying great insensitivity by going forward with this project. The only reason they won't find an alternative site for this mosque is because they want to prove a point. In proving their point they are the ones being totally insensitive to those who lost friends and family in the World Trade Center attacks. They are also ignoring the feelings of more than 70% of Americans.

For years liberals have championed free speech. In the late 80's and early 90's when flag burning gained popularity they reminded us that regardless of how offensive it was, people had the constitutional right to burn American flags. Let a kook minister in Florida threaten to burn the Koran however and you see a whole different spin.

I think it's ridiculous to publicly burn Korans. It accomplishes nothing. Even though it's stupid and yes offensive to some, why does that minister not have the same right to burn Korans as people have to burn American flags?

No matter how hard they try (and they sure are trying hard) the liberals just can't have it both ways. I'm just amazed they're able to rant about these issues with straight faces!

Frankly rewriting history

2010-06-07T21:24:00.002-04:00

I realize I should be commenting on the complete and total incompetence of the administration during the Gulf coast oil spill. However, I was in Charleston, SC this past week and read a great editorial in the Post and Courier about Barney Frank I thought was worth sharing here. It's reprinted below.

The most obvious way to accumulate power in Congress is to keep getting re-elected. Barney Frank, the Democrrat who represents Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District, has served his constituents since 1981. They apparently like his service. In 2008 he out-polled Barack Obama in his district, getting more than two-thirds of the vote.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2006, Rep. frank was rewarded with chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee. The committe has a lot of clout, reflected in generous campaign contributions from the finance industry.

Before the 2008 credit meltdown, the undisputed king of the financial services lobby was the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae. Rep. Frank was one of its staunchest friends.

On September 11, 2003, Bush administration Treasury Secretary John Snow told the House Financial Services Committee that Fannie and its mortgage buying counterpart Freddie Mac needed better supervision. A new regulator should have authority to assess the risks of their mortgage and other portfolios and set their capital reserve requirements which by congressional directive were about one-half that of competitors regulated by other federal agencies.

Then the committee's ranking minority member, Rep. Frank objected, arguing that "these two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis." In 2005, he dismissed concern about a bubble in housing prices as "excessive," adding, "Those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership." Rep. Frank and a majority of Congress rejected the core of the regulatory proposals, saying the rules would diminish wider home ownership.

On September 7, 2008, Washington finally placed financially floundering Fannie and Freddie in receivership. Current estimates of the eventual cost to taxpayers of their losses range from $400 billion to $500 billion. That is by far the biggest bailout of the 2008 crash, to which Fannie and Freddie were major contributors.

Yet Rep. Frank recently told CNBC, "One of my biggest differences with the Bush administration...was that they overdid" promotion of home ownership. Describing himself as a supporter of affordable rentals, he said, "I was very much in disagreement with this push into homeownership, and I think the federal government should not be artificially doing that."

And we think Rep. Frank should not try to dodge his share of the responsibility for the Fannie-Freddie meltdown by trying to rewrite history - and his record.

Joe Wilson WAS Right!

2010-04-28T22:42:00.002-04:00

President Obama has resorted to scare tactics and race baiting in his opposition to the recently passed immigration law in Arizona. Yesterday he added lying to his arsenal. More accurately, he just found yet another topic to lie about.

When speaking about the situation in Arizona, Obama said, "if you are taking the kids out to get ice cream, and you don’t have your papers, you are going to get harassed." Having your papers or showing your papers is one of the new scare tactics the left is using in their fight against this stand against open borders.

You would think the president of all 50 states would already be aware that 42 states currently require citizens to be able to show identification on demand. If there was any respect for the laws now on the books then any illegal immigrant would already be scared to go out for ice cream in any of the other 41 states that require this. It seems then that these law breaking illegals are breaking the law twice. First by being in the country ILLEGALLY and secondly by not being able to show a valid state issued I.D.

He lies when he uses this ice cream scenario because he knows good and well that this bill specifically states that race is not the criteria to be used when enforcing the law. Now if the person in his story gets pulled over for speeding while driving to get ice cream he can then be checked by law enforcement. If the person is stopped by police for any other crime he can then be checked but he or she cannot be stopped just for being Hispanic.

Let's assume though that it was OK for the police to stop people strictly to enforce this law. Who would have a problem with that? Seriously, if it were white people or black people breaking the law when crossing the border they should be stopped. We all know from what part of the world these illegals are coming from so how is that offensive? If a person of Hispanic descent were in this country legally I'd think they would also want the illegals taken care of. You'd figure the legal immigrant would be upset that so many are entering illegally and draining the resources of the states.

He might not have been referring to this specific topic back in January but you were right Congressman Wilson. Mister President, "You lie!"

Congratulations Arizona!

2010-04-27T05:45:00.002-04:00

As everyone has heard by now, the state of Arizona has just passed what's being called the toughest immigration laws in the country. When I first heard about this I wondered just how tough the laws could be. What was Arizona going to do that would be so tough?

Believe it or not, the toughness comes from that state requiring immigrants to show authorities that they are in this country and in that state legally. Imagine the nerve! Crime is out of control in that state. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the country. Farmers and ranchers in the southern part of the state are being killed by illegals. Some of those land owners are dying because they're trying to keep the illegals from crossing the border on their land. Others are dying because they make an easy target for the illegals to rob. Law enforcement in Arizona has traced a lot of the criminal activity to these illegal immigrants. The state has responded by trying to eliminate or at least slow down the number of illegals coming into their state. What exactly is wrong with that?

Arizona is now being portrayed as a racist state. MSNBC is leading the charge in saying this action is targeting Mexican immigrants. They say the state has taken on powers that don't belong to them. They continue to say this is a federal problem. What is a state supposed to do though when the federal government refuses to act? That's one of the major problems here.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to secure our borders. They refuse. We hear terms tossed around like, "comprehensive immigration reform" yet nothing gets done. Meanwhile thousands of people are illegally crossing into our country with no regard for our nation's laws. Congress instead is spending time worrying about ways to control the amount of sodium consumed by the American people. Please show me how actions like that meet Constitutional muster.

I can just about guarantee that more states will soon follow the lead of Arizona. They have to. States are being forced to spend money they don't have for law enforcement because of the amount of crime being committed by illegals. Schools, social services and hospitals are going broke taking care of these people who don't even respect our laws let alone contribute toward maintaining these services.

Those on the left that oppose the actions of Arizona won't even acknowledge who these people are. Time and again we hear these people referred to as "undocumented workers". They are undocumented because they are illegal! Why won't they admit that? Ignoring the problem hasn't fixed it. It's only made the problem worse to the point that it's overwhelming Arizona and many other states.

So congratulations to the state of Arizona for proposing common sense ideas to take care of a problem that Congress has refuse to fix. Get ready for the court battles as the liberals continue to ignore the problem and try to fight this basic first step in combating the problem. I only hope more states quickly follow the lead of Arizona.

Breaking Down The Broken Down

2010-03-23T08:49:00.002-04:00

This farce of a health care bill that was passed by Congress Sunday night is broken down and it's not even in affect yet. Seriously, forget for a moment about how illegal it is. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it's not an illegal power grab that flies in the face of our Constitution. Follow this argument and see if you can't figure out how and why this bill is tragically flawed.

Based on this bill, Americans are now forced, commanded to buy health insurance. At tax time we will have to prove to the IRS that we have insurance that we have paid for. If we don't, the government will fine us 2% of our income or up to $2,200. Let's put the typical cost of insurance for a family of four at about $7,000 a year. I now have the option of spending $7,000 a year or paying $2,200 to the government.

Because money is tight, let's assume that I elect to pay the fine. I don't have health insurance and that's fine because everyone in my family is healthy. Since I'll pay the fine instead of buying insurance I've saved $4,800. Now let's figure that even with my family staying healthy we might spend $1,000 yearly on regular doctor visits. I'm still ahead by $3,800.

Uh oh, something bad happens. Someone in my family gets sick and requires serious medical attention. It's ok though. Now that this bill has passed, insurance companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. I think I'll go buy insurance now so my sick family member is covered.

If/when that scenario is played out, who are the people with insurance? The sick people and only the sick people. Healthy people have decided they don't need to pay for something they don't use or need and they're saving money every year. Since only the sick now have insurance, payouts far outweigh the premiums being paid in. Insurance companies have to raise their rates to laughably high amounts. The sick people can't afford to pay those rates. What happens now?

Insurance companies will be forced to go bankrupt. They will no longer exist. That means the federal government is the last player standing. They are the only entity that never runs out of money. They will be now be the ones covering the sick and ill. How will that be paid for? Obviously, since the government does not and never has earned money, they will have to raise the funds. The only way they can do that is through taxes. There my friends is the public option. It will be the only option.

Don't think that's possible? Think about all the retirees who figured on earning a pension after thirty years of service with a company. Of course the whole concept of paying non-producing people is a joke, but workers were told that when they retired they'd receive a pension. As more workers retired, those companies were paying out more money. For every retiree, the company had to hire a productive worker to take their place. They were paying both the producer and non-producer. They began to run out of money. How many corporations have either shut down completely or been forced to go bankrupt because they couldn't keep up with paying out money that contributed nothing?

That's what we're now on the brink of only on a national level. Is that the "hope and change" those poor, misguided souls counted on?