My View of the World

Political Sleight of Hand

2012-02-18T19:45:00.001-05:00

The Obama administration has been busy trying to convince the Supreme Court that the healthcare mandates are new taxes while others in his administration have been busy trying to convince the rest of us that they are not new taxes. At this point, most of us are well aware that no one in the Obama administration is opposed to telling outright lies, but we need to be aware that the depth of their deception is not always so obvious. Currently, we are experiencing a game of political sleight of hand that even I failed to recognize at first glance.

President Obama, along with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, feels that employers should be forced to provide free contraception and sterilization to their employees. This has, of course, raised a furor on the grounds that such a mandate tramples on the religious freedom of many employers. Even the most incompetent Constitutional scholar, such as President Obama, can see that it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. One has to wonder then, why the President has chosen to stand firm on this issue. Could it be that the First Amendment portion of this debate is intended to be a distraction so that we will watch his left hand while he does something else with his other left hand?

The main issue the administration faces with Obamacare is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to force individuals to purchase a product from a private company. That being the case, it also has no Constitutional authority to force individuals to purchase a product from a private company and then give it free of charge to another individual, yet that issue is being overlooked in the current debate over contraception.

Aside from the fact that the government has no authority to force people to engage in commerce, to force someone to purchase something and give it away amounts to an illegal seizure of private property, and is a backdoor method of wealth redistribution. Admittedly such a method is somewhat more efficient because it eliminates the federal treasury in the role of middle man, but I’m confident that the Obama administration can find an effective way of wasting tax dollars on it anyway.

I will have to give the administration an ‘E’ for effort on this one. No doubt they are taking some heat for their attack on religion, but they obviously believe the possibility of establishing this beachhead in the battle over constitutional powers is worth the risk. If the President can keep us angry about the violation of religious freedom long enough, he will then be able to later back down and grant waivers to certain employers while we feel satisfied that we have won the fight, and he will then be able to have this mandate in place without our having noticed the larger issue.

Once again, it is becoming clear that the Obama administration is unconcerned about the will of the American people, and just as obvious that the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. What is even more obvious is that it is imperative that we deny him a second term. Given Obama’s disdain for the Constitution, as well as his utter disregard for the opinions of anyone other than those on the extreme Left, we simply cannot afford to allow him another four years.

Daniel Prayed

2012-02-12T07:55:00.003-05:00

Most of us remember as children hearing the Bible story about Daniel in the Lion’s Den. In case it has been awhile, you can find the story in the sixth chapter of the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament. It truly is an inspiring story, and one that our present government might very well say is seditious.

Let us, for the sake of those who might be unfamiliar with the story, take just a few minutes to review what happened. Daniel was a Jew who was taken captive by the Babylonians, who were in turn conquered by the Persians. Daniel found favor with King Darius, and was put in charge of the entire kingdom. Other officials who were jealous of Daniel plotted against him. Unable to find any fault with Daniel, these other officials tricked King Darius into passing a decree that anyone who prayed to anyone other than the King for a thirty-day period would be thrown to the lions. Daniel, being in the well known habit of praying from a very visible spot on his roof top three times a day, ignored the decree and continued to pray; which of course, led to his arrest. He was subsequently thrown to the lions, but remained unharmed by the big cats.

Fifteen or so years ago, I stood in the pulpit of my small Baptist church in Georgia and delivered a sermon based on this story. At that time, I predicted that one day in our lifetime, we would see the day that Christians in this country would be faced with making a choice between obedience to the government or obedience to God. That day has come.

In the past few days, King …., or make that President Obama and his minion Kathleen Sebelius have decreed that the phrase ‘access to’ means ‘free of charge’, and that religious institutions must ignore their own tenets and provide to their employees services they consider to be against the will of God.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe that the use of birth control is sinful. I do strongly believe however, that the First Amendment to our Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The President, being a ‘Constitutional scholar’, should be at least as aware of this fact, and I am sure that he is; but it is quite obvious that he has no intention of letting this antique and outdated document stand in the way of his plans.

Lest anyone pretend otherwise, this issue is not about contraception; it is solely an issue of First Amendment rights. President Obama, who recognizes no higher power than himself, is determined to force the Catholic Church to bow to him with their backs turned toward God. In his self-elevated position as Ruler Over Everything Imaginable, President Obama will not hesitate to step over the Constitution in his effort to subjugate Christians to his will.

The time has come for anyone claiming to be a patriotic American to stand up for the Constitutional rights that our founding fathers fought and died to give us, and that so many others have died to protect. Those of us who love freedom, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Atheist, have a duty to stand firm against this blatantly unconstitutional power grab by Barack Obama. We cannot give an inch nor can we accept compromise on this fundamental right. We must be willing to publicly and visibly stand with the Catholic Church on this issue, or we will have no room to complain when King Obama issues his next decree. Daniel’s faith in God gave him the courage to make a stand when the King tried to put himself over God, and we should do the same.

As a former member of the United States Navy, I took an oath, from which I have never been released, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. There may be room for debate about whether he qualifies as foreign or domestic, but there is no room for doubt that President Obama is an enemy of the Constitution. With every means made available to us by the Constitution, we must stand firm and resist, regardless of the consequences. We owe it not only to those who came before us, but most especially to those who will follow after us.

Worth Getting Angry About

2012-01-28T22:46:00.002-05:00

“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about,” Mitt Romney said when challenged on his stand healthcare mandates during the GOP debate in Jacksonville.

It would be easy to take this statement and write about why Mitt Romney is one of the worst possible choices we could make for President, or to write about the evils of socialized medicine; but there is a bigger issue here that needs to be addressed.

The implementation of socialized medicine in America is probably the largest power grab by the federal government in modern history, and is definitely something “worth getting angry about”; but moderate politicians such as Mitt Romney are part of the crowd that views the federal government as a source of power rather than as a defender of our freedom.

For years we’ve heard about the virtues of being a moderate and of being in the political center. Those of us who have strong political convictions are labeled as ‘extremists’ and looked upon with suspicion. It’s quite alright to get excited about a football game or an auto race, but there are two subjects we’re told to never discuss in public – politics and religion, two of the most important areas of our lives.

Chuck Holton is a Christian author whose most recent book, Making Men, examines the detrimental role passivity plays in the lives of men. Passivity, according to Holton, is a lack of passion that results in a man failing to live up to his calling in life. I believe that passivity is just as detrimental to our nation as it is to our families. By subscribing to the notion that strong opinions and firm convictions are extreme we are allowing ourselves to be lulled to sleep while our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us. Much like the proverbial frog in a pot of lukewarm water, we are slowly being boiled alive by the demand for tepid politics.

In 2008 conservatives lost the fight for the GOP nomination, leaving the plain vanilla John McCain to carry the GOP standard into the general election. Ronald Reagan often spoke of “raising a banner of bold colors, not pale pastels”. The moderates in the GOP establishment are waving a banner of pastel pink, and would have us believe that only the Prince of Pastel Mitt Romney defeat Obama, but we cannot be so foolish as to buy into that line a second time. If John McCain was plain vanilla, Mitt Romney is vanilla crème.

There was a time in this country when men who made statements such as “Give me liberty, or give me death” were applauded as patriots and heroes. Now, Patrick Henry would be labeled an extremist and probably put on a no-fly list. Imagine what would the ladies on The View have to say about Thomas Jefferson, who said “what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

If there has ever been anything “worth getting angry about”, if there has ever been anything worth fighting for, if there has ever been anything worth dying for, it is the ability to live our lives free of tyranny and oppression. We owe it to those who fought and died to give it to us, and more importantly, we owe it to those who depend on us to give it to them.

South Carolina Primary Observations

2012-01-21T22:25:00.000-05:00

Okay, the results of the South Carolina GOP Primary are in, and Newt Gingrich is the big winner. Although this primary is important, the race is certainly not over. There are however, some important observations that we should make.

First of all, this clearly demonstrates that the “politics of personal destruction” no longer carries the weight it once did. The whole ‘ex-wife interview two days before the election’ thing not only didn’t hurt Newt, it may have actually helped him. The entire incident also demonstrated how important it is to have a candidate who is quick on his feet and willing to stand up for himself. One has to wonder how much more effective George Bush would have been as a President if he had been as defiant as Newt.

Another thing worth noting is that campaign organizations and abundant cash aren’t the be-all and end-all for a candidate. There is even reason to believe that ideas might once again have a place in the election process. Mitt Romney has been running for President since the 2008 campaign season, and had an already established campaign organization ready to go. Add that to his large amounts of cash of which we have been steadily reminded, and one would expect that this race should have been a walk in the park for him. So far, that has not been the case.

We can also discount the notion that a candidate must have the blessing of the party establishment to succeed. Although Newt has served as House Speaker, he certainly is no darling of the GOP leadership. Despite their obvious fondness for Romney, Newt managed to pull off a double digit win.

One of the more satisfying observations for me is that, despite their best efforts, the media was not able to choose the winner. Newt was unwilling to grovel before the media talking heads, rendering them totally impotent and largely irrelevant. His epic smack down of John King won’t soon be forgotten, and will make anyone else think twice before attempting to deliver a killer ‘gotcha question’. Hopefully, other potential candidates for public office were taking notes, and will learn from Professor Gingrich.

“Electability” will become one of those words that should fade out of the public lexicon. For months, or years really, we’ve been lectured about Romney’s “electability”, and hopefully that whole idea will be put to rest. It’s pretty hard to argue that Romney is the only candidate that can defeat Obama if he can’t defeat the other candidates in the race given all of his advantages. Electability has to be demonstrated rather than bestowed.

The final and possibly the most important observation to make is that, contrary to what Harry Reid would have us believe, the Tea Party is far from dead. With South Carolina being a hotbed of Tea Party activity, Gingrich won the Tea Party vote by roughly a 2:1 margin. Obviously, Romney failed in his attempt to convince the Tea Party that he really was a conservative despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We are still at an early point in the GOP Primary process, and as we have seen, almost anything can happen. Newt has a big win under his belt now, but he has a long fight ahead of him. Already word is out that that a group of evangelical leaders are lining up to support Santorum in an effort to derail Newt, and there is little doubt that the GOP establishment will double down on their efforts to coronate Romney. Needless to say, the next couple of months will be very interesting.

Defending The Constitution

2012-01-16T05:25:00.006-05:00

As one might expect, I sometimes engage in political discourse with some of my liberal friends (yes, I do have some), and quite often during those discussions we find ourselves debating the constitutionality of various liberal positions. In virtually every case, these liberals are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, which of course explains their ability to hold the political views that define them as liberals.

Typically when I ask them to cite the particular section of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority it must have relative to the issue at hand, a vague reference to the “general welfare” clause is the best they can do. More often than not, they resort to claiming that the Constitution was written in different times in different circumstances, and that it wasn’t meant to be interpreted literally. Taking position of course, means that they have conceded that the Constitution really does not support their position and that the desired action is outside the lawful authority of the federal government. Sadly, most of them aren’t dissuaded by that knowledge.

I remember one such conversation with our family doctor, who supported Obamacare. When I pointed out the fact that the plan was unconstitutional, she asked “Does that really matter?” Prior to our discussion about Obamacare, she had been complaining to me about a neighbor who was trying to build a fence several yards on her side of their common property line. Sadly, she didn’t see the correlation between her neighbor infringing on her private property and the government infringing on her rights. At that point, I knew we needed to find a new family doctor.

This notion that the Constitution shouldn’t be “interpreted literally” is one that is almost as ridiculous as it is dangerous. Unfortunately, we often let the liberals spout the line without immediately challenging the assertion and nipping it in the bud. For the record, legal documents are written by people who spent many years in school learning how to write them in very precise language for the very reason that they are intended to be ‘interpreted’ literally. The reason we go to that much effort is that these legal documents must comply with laws that are written in very precise language because they are intended to be complied with literally. Would you feel comfortable going in front of a judge with the defense that you didn’t interpret the law literally?

This being the case would it then be reasonable to believe, as our leftist friends would suggest, that our entire precisely written legal system is based upon a nebulous document that is to be left open to ‘interpretation’? Of course not, that would be as silly as building a finely engineered skyscraper atop a mound of shifting sand. Naturally the left likes the idea because it frees them to implement their extra-constitutional programs.

The fact is however, that our founding fathers wrote the Constitution in very precise language because they were all quite familiar with the perils of a tyrannical government and knew full well the tendency for government to expand its control over the people. These learned men intended for the Constitution to be read rather than interpreted. All too often, we have Supreme Court justices who subscribe to the liberal idea that their job is to interpret the Constitution, when in fact their job is to read the Constitution and determine if the law in question complies. Hamilton addressed this very notion in Federalist Paper No. 81, where he said: "…there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

They also knew full well that times would change, which is why they provided a mechanism by which to amend the Constitution as deemed appropriate by the people living in those times. That mechanism is deliberately slow and cumbersome, requiring the expressed consent of a wide majority of the people to make even the smallest alteration to the document. To suggest that the opinion of five unelected people is sufficient to change the meaning of the words written in the Constitution flies in the face of all we know about the intent of our founding fathers. In 1819 Thomas Jefferson wrote "The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Those who desire to have a government that controls every aspect of our lives would like for us to follow their views on the Constitution, and it is our duty as citizens to resist and counter this lie every time it is told. It is just this type of lie that Jefferson warned us about when he said, "Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people".

Why Not Mitt?

2012-01-14T22:40:00.001-05:00

Following the 2008 election, somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the RNC, it was agreed that it was Mitt Romney’s turn to be the party’s nominee in 2012. Unfortunately, Mitt’s difficulty in gaining a clear majority in the polls clearly shows they forgot to convince the rest of us. Over the past few weeks every political commentator in America has opined on the various reasons why the GOP faithful haven’t bought reserved seats on the Mitt bandwagon, and while some have come close, none have hit the mark. Fortunately for America, I’m here to do what none of them could do. Well, at least in my mind anyway.

To be quite honest, figuring out why Mitt’s poll numbers have been so weak is less difficult than trying to figure out why they’re so high. It’s pretty much a given that, if you take both sides of an issue, you stand a better chance of losing followers on both sides than gaining any. Mitt of course, has staked a claim on both sides of pretty much every issue he could find. Of course the other candidates have alienated people as well, so I’m thinking Mitt has attracted the sum total of the people who have been alienated by all of the other candidates.

I will have to admit that I do like Romney’s business experience, including his time at Bain Capital. Despite the unpleasant nature of some aspects of that business, I can see a real need to have someone in Washington who has the ability to trim the fat from bloated, inefficient organizations. Currently, he is taking positions on most major issues that I could be quite happy with, but there are certain things that I find quite troubling.

Most of us are quite familiar with his past sins revolving around RomneyCare. That in itself is enough to give any good conservative reason to keep a healthy distance, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that Romney really does understand that the government has no business controlling our healthcare.

The single biggest red flag for me has to be Romney’s many positions on gun control. I say many positions because he has done a considerable amount of flip-flopping on the issue, but so far the only position he has failed to take is the right one. His so-called support of the 2^nd Amendment is only skin deep, and his rhetoric on the issue tells me that it owes its existence to the need for conservative votes.

Admittedly, gun control has not taken center stage in this campaign, but the issue is very important. Also, a candidate’s position on gun control is a prime indicator of the candidate’s understanding of the Constitution. For instance, Romney claims that his support for a Massachusetts gun control bill was due to the fact that overall the bill loosened up licensing requirements and “allowed more people to have guns”. This statement is troubling on several levels. First, because it shows that he believes it is up to the government to “allow” people to have guns. Another is that he wasn’t doing his best to repeal a state law that is in direct violation of the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One thing that is imperative for any elected official to understand the limits of his authority and where those limits are established. Judging by Romney’s own words, I can only conclude that he simply does not get it. That one simple fact is why conservatives cannot bring themselves to support Romney.

Open Letter to GOP Presidential Candidates

2012-01-11T20:30:00.000-05:00

Okay, enough is enough. I feel like I’m talking to my kids here.

New Hampshire is behind you now, and the South Carolina primary battle is well underway. Newt is attacking Romney for his stint at Bain Capitol, and everyone else is attacking Newt for attacking Romney. All of you need to get a clue.

All of this yammering about Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital is getting ridiculous. Some of the things they did might not be particularly pleasant, but business is business. Frankly, the fact that Romney has experience at cutting the fat and firing excess employees is one of the few things that work in his favor. We need to do a lot of that in the federal government, and Romney would be well suited for such a task. If you want to attack Romney, you can find a lot of things that will be more effective. If you can’t think of any, give me a call.

I’m also not concerned about Newt Gingrich being paid for giving advice to Freddie Mac. That is what his company was in business to do, and Freddie Mac was a paying customer. It may not have been the best idea for him to accept them as a customer, but it’s not like he was contracting to work for Al Qaeda. Honestly, if Freddie Mac had offered me $1.6 million for advice, they would have had to make me another offer to get me to shut up. How many people actually know what Freddie Mac does, anyway? Somehow, I doubt it really matters to most Americans.

All of you are claiming to be the only real conservative in the race. True, some of you are more conservative than others, and all of you are more conservative than Obama; but let’s face facts – all of you have had some lapses in your conservative credentials. It might be in your best interest to look forward rather than back.

Yes, what a politician has done in the past is fair game in a campaign, but by now we know who all of you are and most of what you’ve done in the past. Either we’re going to overlook your mistakes or we’re not. The same goes for your opponents. Knock it off.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that you should all be friends and hope for the best. I know as well as anyone that negative advertising works, so I have no problem if you want to do some. The idea is, after all, to win the election; I get that. The key however, is to run negative ads that people are interested in hearing. So far, you have all fallen well short of the mark.

Rather than hammer away at each other over things that don’t matter a lot, how about we talk about things that are actually going to be important in the future? If you want to criticize your opponent, let’s talk about how your economic policies will be better than his. Tell me about the differences in the way you would handle Iran, or about your ideas to save Social Security. Let’s discuss the differences between your energy policies, or perhaps your thoughts on taxes. Talk to me about what you plan to do, and why your plans are better than the other guys’. These are the things that we need to hear.

Rethinking Debates

2012-01-08T17:42:00.001-05:00

Last night’s GOP Debate XIV on the ABC Network was, I am told, probably the most ridiculous thing on television. I don’t know that first-hand because I couldn’t bring myself to watch. Instead, I spent my time reading a good book (Chuck Holton’s most recent publication, Making Men, which is a great book if you’re interested). I did review some of the highlights (for lack of a better term) and read some of the commentaries about the event. By all accounts, I made the right decision.

What happened last night was typical for the Obama re-election super-committee otherwise known as the network news media. Diane Sawyer and Co. pretended to be debate moderators while focusing the discussion on the liberal agenda as they attempted to goad the GOP candidates into making statements that would come back to haunt them. Instead of discussing the genuine issues that affect the majority of Americans, such as unemployment, the housing crisis, and our currently failed foreign policy, they chose to waste the evening asking questions about gay marriage and other topics near and dear to the far left.

Of course, none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone. Let’s face it; the major network news agencies all make their bread and butter on sound bytes and “gotcha” journalism. We already know they work as the public relations arm of the DNC, so there is no reason to expect objectivity. We also know that it is in their best interest to generate controversy to increase the ratings on their show, so there is no reason for us to expect journalistic ethics to play a part in the way they conduct the debate. Why would anyone expect a different outcome than what we got last night? Given the blatant bias of the network news organizations, I have to question why the GOP continues to take part in these ‘debates’ hosted by news anchors? News agencies are supposed to report the news, not create it.

Last November, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain took part in a debate hosted by a group called the Tea Party Patriots. The debate focused on important issues, was very informative and at no point did I feel that watching it was a waste of my time. The only thing I can see that would have made it better would be for the other candidates to have taken part as well.

With the experience we now have after the series of debates so far, it would be wise for our candidates to agree on standards for future debates that relegate news anchors to their rightful place – reporting on the event rather than moderating it. Debates should be hosted by organizations that are rightfully interested in relevant issues, and moderated by people who are objective and professional. Of course the networks will want to continue hosting their own debates rather simply covering someone else’s, but as Donald Trump recently learned, they need the GOP candidates worse than the candidates need them.

Know When to Hold ‘Em…

2011-12-31T07:38:00.001-05:00

As you may have gathered from my last post, I am feeling the same sense of frustration with the GOP that many others are experiencing. That sense of frustration is by no means unjustified. My good friend Ken Carroll writes a blog called Below the Gnat Line, and recently penned a very good discussion of “Why 2012 is Dangerous for the GOP”. It is a spot-on analysis of the situation and I highly recommend you visit his page to read it.

The growing frustration and impatience with the GOP has resulted in a great deal of discussion regarding a possible third party run, much of it involving Donald Trump. A group calling itself Americans Elect has started an effort to run a non-partisan ticket. One lesser known GOP candidate, former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, has announced that he is dropping out of the GOP race to seek the Libertarian Party nomination. Both of his Iowa supporters are expected to back Ron Paul.

I can fully understand why people are looking for other options, but as Kenny Rogers once told us, “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em”. For the sake of the country, we have to remember that the primary goal in the 2012 is to elect a better President than the one we have now. Like it or not, the only way we can do that is to vote for the eventual GOP nominee.

It is entirely possible that the GOP will win the White House, regain the Senate, and hold the House in November, presenting them with the opportunity to show us once and for all if they are any better than the Democrats. If they do manage to keep their promises and pull the country back from the brink of a socialist disaster, this could be the GOP’s finest hour. If however, they once again begin to act like Democrats, it will be time for a third party.

We have seen in the recent past that third party Presidential candidates do not fare well, and so far have only managed to get Democrats elected. A third party candidate this time around would most likely have the same result. A presidential election year, especially one as important as this, is not the time to introduce the voting populace to a new political party.

If there is going to be a viable third party option in this country, it cannot begin with a presidential candidate. No one starts at the top, and that includes political parties. Instead, the new party must establish itself and prove to us who they are and how they will govern by first running candidates in Congressional races, or even in state and local races. Once we can see what this new party is capable of doing, it might be possible for it to gain enough support to mount a successful presidential campaign. Until that happens, the best they can hope for is to play the spoiler.

All it takes to see that I’m right is to take a look at our current list of political parties. There are at least forty and probably more, but none of them are capable of even making a ripple in a national election. Although members of those parties would like us to believe they are being kept out of the process by the two major parties, their lack of success is due to the simple fact that they have not convinced enough people that their views are correct and that they are capable of governing.

The time for a third party may be coming, but it is not here yet. Unless we are able to defeat Obama in November, a third party might well be too little too late.

Colossal Failure by the GOP

2011-12-24T13:07:00.000-05:00

I am first and foremost a conservative, and as a result I have, for the past thirty years, affiliated myself with the GOP. I have done so because I believe that, of the political parties available to us, the GOP is the best organization for accomplishing the conservative agenda. While I still believe that to be the case, I am now having serious doubts as to whether or not that is good enough.

The news that Virginia voters will only be able to choose between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in our March 6^th presidential primary leaves me dumbfounded and furious. This is a colossal failure by both the Virginia GOP, and by the campaign organizations of the other candidates running for the GOP nomination. It doesn’t help that this failure comes on the heels of the spectacle our Congressional GOP leaders made of themselves over Obama’s payroll tax holiday.

On March 6^th I will be forced to cast my vote for Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for President. I wouldn’t bother even going to the polls on that day if I didn’t feel the need to vote against Ron Paul. The only thing I could imagine that would be worse than having to vote for Mitt Romney in November would be to have to vote for Ron Paul. Frankly, I think at that point I would run as a write-in candidate.

After the November election, the GOP will have to give me some kind of compelling reason to ever vote Republican again. No, I won’t vote Democrat, but the search will be on for another party with which to hitch my wagon. I am not calling for a third party only because I believe the GOP has ceased to function as a viable political party. As of late, they seem to be working harder to get Obama re-elected than are the Democrats. No, what I’m calling for is a SECOND party.

What would it take to convince me to remain with the GOP? Probably more than they can deliver. At a minimum, I would have to see a complete turnover of the GOP leadership in Congress, replacing them with leaders who are actually conservative and capable of leading rather than simply standing in front.

The proper role of a political party is to provide organizational assistance to candidates for political office rather than simply functioning as a fund raising operation for advertising agencies and sign companies. Typically, the party will assist candidates in appointing campaign chairmen on a state level, as well as at the local level. These campaign chairmen in turn will help to organize critical campaign functions such as fund raisers, and even perhaps petition drives to ensure their candidates are on the ballot.

Because I love my country, I will do what I have to do to make sure Obama does not have another four years to destroy it, and then because I love my country, I will abandon the GOP for a political party capable of mounting a credible campaign.

Producing Your Fair Share

2011-12-17T06:34:00.001-05:00

Although the Occupy movement has been largely a useless endeavor, they have managed to take the few remaining wraps off of the left’s socialist ideology. In their effort to promote the idea that our government should be in the business of robbing the producers in this country and giving to the non-producers, they have generated much discussion about whether or not the rich are paying “their fair share”.

The notion that the rich should “pay their fair share” is a common theme among the socialists. They make a big show of pointing out the inequalities they see in our system, and criticize those who dare to succeed in life. At no point however, can they provide a definitive answer as to what a “fair share” might be. As a person who is known to think out of the box, I’ve been giving some thought to this “fair share” business.

It would seem that the socialists believe only those who have managed to produce a certain amount of personal wealth are responsible for paying a fair share. Would it not also be right to ask of everyone else, are you producing your fair share?

We are citizens of the greatest nation on earth, and are presented with more opportunities than any of us will ever take advantage of. The degree of our success is limited only by our motivation, determination, talent, and courage. If there is a “fair share” that we should all have to pay, is it not then reasonable to insist that everyone should be held responsible for taking advantage of those opportunities to a degree that they produce enough wealth to pay that fair share?

As the Pilgrims learned while the nation was in its infancy, the survival of our society depends upon our citizens’ willingness to work and to produce for the feed and care of our economy. Years ago it was common to hear people being lauded as “productive members of society”, but that phrase seems to have fallen into disuse as of late. When a sizable portion of the population neglects their responsibility to be productive members of society it becomes increasingly difficult for our economy to sustain our way of life.

In my view, one of the most striking differences between socialism and capitalism is the fact that socialism focuses on taking from those who have wealth, while capitalism focuses on creating wealth. Like most parasitic organisms, socialism can exist quite well as long as it has a strong capitalistic economy to feed upon. Redistribution of wealth only works as long as there is an adequate supply of wealth. Once the supply dries up, the only thing left to redistribute is misery, which will then be in abundant supply.

Naturally, there will be those who protest that they want to work, but are unable to find a job. While I understand how difficult it can sometimes be to find work, difficulty does not eliminate responsibility. Our responsibility to be productive includes a responsibility to obtain marketable skills and to apply them accordingly. In order to do that, we must be able to evaluate what skills are in demand, and if that situation changes, to be willing to change as necessary. One striking example of a failure to properly evaluate the job market was shown in a recent photo of an OW protester. Her sign bemoaned that fact that she had spent $96,000 on a degree in Gay / Lesbian / Transgender Studies and still couldn’t find a job.

The ability to be productive requires a certain amount of thoughtful planning, and an even greater amount of effort and persistence. If I decide I want to be a furniture maker, I can get some rudimentary tools and a few pieces of wood and fashion together a simple table. Hopefully, I can find someone who needs such a table and sell it to them for more than I paid for the materials that went into it. The difference between what the materials cost me and what I was paid for the table is wealth that I have created, otherwise known as profit. If I take the time to learn more about the best types of wood to use in making tables, and make the effort to learn how to shape and finish the wood to make a more attractive and functional table, chances are that I can find more people who want to buy my tables, and charge more money for them as well.

Perhaps I could get by on what I earn by making and selling rickety tables, but is that the best I can do? If so, then perhaps I am producing my fair share, but if I can make better tables and produce more wealth, do I not have a responsibility to society to do so?

How did they not see this one coming?

2011-12-08T20:47:00.000-05:00

When a politician suddenly adopts a position that is contrary to everything he believes, common sense would make you question his motivation. When President Obama first championed a payroll tax holiday, GOP leaders in Congress should have instantly been wary of his intentions even if they didn’t see the obvious folly in such a plan. Sadly, many of our own took the bait.

It is easy to see how this one works. Good Republicans would naturally be attracted to the idea of a tax cut. President Obama suddenly bought into the idea that tax cuts, even for the wealthy, are good for the economy, and pushed for a cut in the payroll tax. These good Republicans ignored the sudden contradiction from the President, and failed to remember the lessons learned about temporary tax cuts. They took the bait, and the trap has been sprung.

Here we are now a year later, and the Democrats have managed to put themselves in the position of fighting to extend a tax cut against Republican opposition. Quite the role reversal, isn’t it?

The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. This was an obvious setup from the start, and they walked right into it. Now the GOP has to find a way to protect the Social Security system from the Democrats’ political games without being seen as wanting to raise taxes on the poor during a recession. I suspect they will take the easy way out and go along with the extension, delaying the political pain of ending the tax holiday until after the 2012 elections assuming, of course, that the Democrats show no interest in raising the issue in the weeks prior to the election. Since they crafted this whole issue for that very purpose, the GOP would be walking into stage two of their trap.

It will take some skillful political maneuvering for the GOP to come out of this without suffering some serious political damage, and skillful political maneuvering is something for which they have not shown an ability to carry out.

Frankly, I don’t have a lot of advice to give them about getting out of this mess. I suspect they will get into another head butting session with the Democrats, making everyone in Washington look bad. Probably, that will be the most we can hope for. I can however, give them some sound advice on how to avoid this type of situation in the future – read my first sentence.

Newt Walks a Fine Line on Immigration

2011-11-25T07:19:00.002-05:00

In his recent debate appearance in Iowa Newt Gingrich made the risky move of laying out a proposal for immigration reform that tries to walk a fine line between strict enforcement and amnesty for illegal aliens. Naturally, this proposal has generated a great deal of heated discussion on the issue.

First, let me begin by saying that I am a firm believer in securing our borders and enforcing the law when it comes to illegal immigration. Before anyone accuses me of being anti-immigrant however, they should know that my wife and two oldest children are immigrants who went through the legal process to come here. We went through a long, difficult and expensive process to abide by our nation’s immigration laws. While I am in favor of changing those laws to make the process less burdensome, I believe everyone who comes here should abide by the laws that are on the books. I am not anti-immigrant, I am anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference.

We conservatives have long held the position that the illegal immigration can be controlled through tightening border security and by taking away the economic incentives that act as magnets to draw illegals into the country, and our current economic crisis has gone a long way to prove our point. With

Mexico

’s unemployment at a lower rate than our own, the flow of illegals coming across our southern border has all but dried up and traffic heading south has reduced the number of illegals estimated to live in the country significantly.

Those who are opposed to enforcing our immigration laws have been very effective in hammering us with the “cruel and heartless” label, accusing conservatives of wanting to tear families apart. They often point to examples of illegal immigrants who are living here for years as productive members of local communities who would be forced to uproot their families and leave the country. The truth is that while none of us are interested in creating undue hardships for these families, we see the necessity of controlling our borders and the importance of the rule of law. The conservative position is logically correct, but those who are driven more by emotion than logic will never be persuaded by our arguments.

What Newt has managed to do is to present a plan which epitomizes the spirit of genuine compromise, resolving the important issues without sacrificing the principles of either side. While I can see some points that are still lacking, I believe his plan is one that is worth considering.

If you take the time to actually read the specifics of his proposal, you will see that the first item on his agenda will be to secure the border. I firmly believe that until the border is secure, no other movement should be made to deal with those who are already in the country, and Newt’s plan reflects that same belief. He makes the point that controlling the border is not an impossible task and that we have the manpower and resources to accomplish that goal. All we are lacking now is the will to do so.

Once the border is secure, Newt proposes that we create a path to legality for those who have been here for a long period of time and who have put down roots in a community. I like this approach for a number of reasons.

One, it addresses the emotional issues that I discussed earlier without providing those who came here illegally with a path to citizenship. This is important because it is not a reward for bad behavior, it does not put illegals at the head of the line in front of those who came here the right way, nor does it instantly provide the Democrats with millions of new voters.

Second, it allows us to humanely deal with these families without creating a magnet that will draw new illegal immigrants across the border. Since only long term residents are eligible for the program, there is simply no new incentive to come. Those who have recently entered the country will be deported, which will be an improvement over the current “catch and release” program currently in place.

The third aspect of this plan that appeals to me is that local communities will be in charge of determining which applicants will be allowed to stay, rather than giving that power to a faceless Washington bureaucracy. Obviously, there will be appropriate federal guidelines to be followed, but each case will be reviewed on a local level and the ultimate determination will be made by those who are most affected by the decision.

This plan does not however, bestow amnesty. Instead there is acknowledgement that the person’s presence in this country is due to an illegal act by virtue of the fact that they are not afforded the path to citizenship that is available to those who followed the rules in coming here. Additionally, the plan imposes a fine of at least five-thousand dollars per person.

There are, as I said earlier, a couple of things that are lacking that I would like to see addressed. First, no mention is made of how we would deal with the fact that many of these people are almost certainly guilty of identity theft and tax evasion. Obviously we cannot simply ignore such issues and Newt will have to address this if he hopes to move forward with this idea.

Another thing that is not addressed is the “anchor baby” issue. As long as potential illegal immigrants know they can secure citizenship for their children simply by crossing the border prior to their birth, there will continue to be a strong incentive for them to come here.

From a political standpoint, Newt has taken a big risk but it may well pay off for him. Although he isn’t taking the hard line that most of us have long advocated, he has taken a position that will achieve our goals and still appeal to those who simply look at the humanitarian aspects. Additionally, I think this plan will appeal to the Hispanic community because it provides their best hope for coming out of the shadows in which they have been living.

All things being considered, I think Newt’s plan is one that will work to resolve an issue that should have been put to rest years ago.

The Gingrich / Cain Debate

2011-11-05T23:12:00.002-04:00

I want to begin by saying that I am no stranger to political debate. I have hosted and moderated formal debates, and on more than a few thousand occasions engaged in not so formal political debates; and tonight I have watched the most intelligent and most informative political debate I have ever witnessed. The debate, hosted by the Texas Tea Party Patriots was designed to value substance over sound bytes, and was very successful in attaining it’s goal..

My congratulations go out to both Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain for their performances. Not only did they do an outstanding job of presenting their ideas, they managed to do so without even once attacking each other. In fact, both candidates made a point of complimenting each other on several occasions. What a welcome relief from the media sponsored events we have been subjected to over the past several weeks!

As I expected, Newt Gingrich did an outstanding job of addressing the issues and presenting rational ideas that actually stand a chance of solving the problems our nation faces. What was most impressive was that he did so by sticking to the facts rather than pandering to the sensibilities of the Republican establishment or of the left wing press.

It was the performance by Herman Cain that I found most surprising. Don’t get me wrong, I have always liked him, to the point that I campaigned for him when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. While I like Herman and believe he would be an enormous improvement over our current President, I was doubtful of his ability to hold his own against Newt Gingrich (and therefore Barak Obama). Although I think Newt gave the most impressive performance of the two candidates, Cain did a very good job of expressing his ideas.

If we are to ever do a better job as citizens of choosing our elected officials, I firmly believe that we need to pay more attention to substance rather than style. Certainly, this most recent debate sets the standard for the future. The discussion was informative, substantial, and thought provoking. Rather than engaging in mud slinging and personal attacks, the candidates had the time to make the case for their own points of view. Although the media outlets are already panning the debates because they were devoid of the usual personal attacks, I believe this style debate does a much better job of focusing on the important issues that our nation faces.

Let’s examine this for a moment. The Associate Press began a story by criticizing the debate because it allowed the candidates to focus on Social Security and Medicare reform rather than the “biggest political story of the week, the decade-old sexual harassment allegations that have dogged Cain's campaign” Tell me, which of the two topics will have the greatest impact on your life? This is why we simply cannot allow the media to shape the content of the debate leading up to the 2012 election.

In the end, I believe Newt Gingrich did the best job in the debate, much as I had expected. The pleasant surprise however, was the fact that Cain managed to not only hold his own in the program, but to add substantively to the discussion. Not to diminish Cain’s abilities, but I have harbored doubts about his depth of knowledge on some issues. Obviously, there are other issues to be discussed, but frankly I am satisfied that his level of knowledge in the areas discussed is sufficient.

All through this program, I found myself wishing for a Gingrich / Cain ticket for the 2012 election. The level of respect shared between the two candidates is something that is sorely missing in our current political landscape. Both candidates bring something to the table, and I have no doubt they could work as a team to bring about the kind of changes that are needed in Washington.

The overall lesson to be learned from tonight’s debate however is the recognition that an intellectual and substantive debate on the significant issues that we currently face need not entail an all out assault on the character of any of the debate participants. It would seem that it is possible to debate the issues without resorting to name calling and mud slinging. To put it bluntly, a rational discussion of the important issues of the day is entirely possible in the absence of members of the “main stream” media. I wonder, what lessons can we learn from that?

If not now, when?

2011-10-15T10:56:00.001-04:00

Why do so many people buy into the idea promoted by the liberal media that a conservative Republican can’t be elected President? I understand why the left likes to make us believe that; after all, it is a win-win for them. If we run a moderate it makes it easier for their liberal candidate to win, and if the moderate does happen to defeat their candidate, the damage done to their cause will be minimized.

What I don’t understand is why we are gullible enough to accept this notion as fact when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance, let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan. In the 1980 election, Reagan ran as a conservative in the face of conventional wisdom that it would take a moderate to defeat Carter. Reagan won over Carter in a landslide. In the 1988 election, Reagan’s more moderate Vice-President George H.W. Bush ran as a conservative, winning decisively over his opponent Michael Dukakis. During his first term in office however, Bush gave into his more liberal side and caved on his famous “Read my lips” promise to not raise taxes. The damage done to his credibility with his conservative base was exacerbated by the fact that he again gave in to the Democrats’ demands to increase spending. It was Bush’s lack of conservative credibility that resulted in his defeat by Bill Clinton.

In the 1996 race the GOP establishment decided it was Bob Dole’s turn to be the nominee. Predictably, Dole’s moderate views failed to excite the conservative base of the GOP, and Bill Clinton was quite capable of holding his own with moderates. In the general election, Dole suffered a humiliating defeat. The GOP’s next attempt to elect a moderate was a bit more successful, but just barely. George W. Bush did manage to win the 2000 election, but only by a margin of 537 votes. Most recently the GOP hitched its wagon to the moderate John McCain, and again lost decisively.

In the upcoming election the eventual GOP nominee will face Barak Obama who has achieved the distinction of replacing Jimmy Carter as the worst president in modern history. Still we are told by the liberal media, as well as the GOP establishment, that a conservative candidate cannot win. They continue to act as though it is a foregone conclusion that only a moderate candidate can defeat Obama.

How bad a job would Barak Obama have to do before they will concede that a conservative candidate can win? If massive deficits, staggering unemployment, a crumbling economy, widespread corruption, and intense voter dissatisfaction aren’t enough, what will it take?

Any savvy political observer will tell you that winning an election is all about contrasts. A successful candidate must define him or herself, and then highlight the areas that contrast with their opponent. Why then, should we accept the notion that our candidate must be more like the one he is running against?

Admittedly, a conservative candidate will have a tougher time with the liberal media than will a moderate candidate, at least in the primary. During the 2008 GOP primary, the media was enamored with the “maverick” John McCain, giving him an edge over his more conservative opponents. Once McCain had secured the nomination however, that love affair soured and McCain found himself under the media bus at his campaign events.

Once again, we hear the constant drone of those who think we conservatives should abandon our principles and support the more moderate candidates because they are the only ones that can defeat Obama. We have to forget about ideology and support Romney (or Perry) if we want a Republican to be President.

I was born on Friday, but it wasn’t last Friday. I can learn from history, and I can see where settling for the moderate gets us. For conservatives, it is a lose-lose situation. If we go with the moderate and he loses, we won’t have a conservative President. If he does manage to win (take Bush for example), we still won’t have a conservative President.

America is in grave danger from the policies of Barak Obama and the ultra-left wing of the Democrat Party, and half measures won’t save us. We need a candidate who is not only a strong conservative, but who is capable of defending conservative principles in a way that will overcome media bias and convince the American people that we are right.

My Choice in the GOP Presidential Primary

2011-09-24T10:02:00.001-04:00

Since the beginning of the GOP primary race, I have kept an open mind about the various candidates. As I have stated in the past, while I like some of the candidates it is up to them to convince me that they are ready to be our party’s nominee. It is still early in the process, but I have seen enough in the debates to begin forming an opinion. As I present my thoughts however, I will reserve the right to change that opinion as the process continues.

First, let me say that almost any of the candidates would be a better choice than the man who currently holds the office. The problems this country faces are serious, and they are being compounded by President Obama’s radical ideology, his disregard for the Constitution, and his stunning lack of leadership. What we must do then, is to elect a leader who understands and respects the Constitution, and one who has enough leadership ability to perform the duties as President.

Now that America has had the opportunity to see where liberalism leaves them, we have the best opportunity we have ever had to elect a leader who can champion the conservative message. To do that, the candidate must be someone who is conservative to the core, not just someone who wears the T-shirt. Additionally, that candidate must be able to clearly articulate the conservative message.

From the beginning, I had high hopes that Michelle Bachman would be that person. She is clearly a true conservative, and she had been fighting for conservative issues for some time. Unfortunately, she has not been able to defend her positions well enough to convince people that she is the best choice. She still has time to do that, but that time is quickly running out.

The two “front runners” are obviously Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Mitt was one of the few that I knew enough about to reject from the start, but I had hopes for Rick Perry. What the two have managed to do during the debates is to convince me that neither of them are worthy of my vote. It has been clear from the beginning that Romney is only as conservative as he needs to be in order to win the primary, and Rick Perry is cut from the same cloth. I could vote for either of them in the General election, but I can’t see any compelling reason to give either my primary vote.

Herman Cain has done very well for himself. I have long been a fan of Mr. Cain, even campaigning for him when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. My concern however, is that everyone is giving him a pass on the tough questions, so he has not had enough experience standing up to the type of withering attacks he will face in the race against Obama. Another concern I have is that he has abandoned the Fair Tax to push his 9-9-9 plan. His plan sounds good on paper, but I can’t support any plan that creates a national sales tax without first abolishing the income tax. Without a constitutional amendment, there will be no guarantees that this won’t be a path to higher taxes on all of us.

Rick Santorum is right on most issues, and does a great job of articulating the conservative message. The problem is, however, that he does not inspire with his delivery. Ronald Reagan was the kind of man who was instantly a presence in any room he walked into, and was able to express his ideas in a way that inspired people and gave them the desire to follow him. Although it is true that few people can ever be a Ronald Reagan, Santorum doesn’t even come close. Rather than being a presence in the room, he can easily be lost in a crowd. I like the man, and would happily vote for him in the primary, but I don’t believe he will be able to win the primary.

Ron Paul sounds really good as long as he stays out of the Twilight Zone. During the last debate he managed to not go there, but in the back of my mind was always the thought that he still has a key to the door and would gladly go there once he is elected President. Even at his worst however, he stands head and shoulders above our current President, and I would be one of Ron Paul’s biggest supporters if he were the nominee. The reality is though, this will never be an issue.

Gary Johnson was the newest face on the stage and he managed to do two things. First, he got the most laughs with a great line borrowed from Rush Limbaugh; and second, he replaced John Huntsman as the least likely candidate to get my vote. I’m still not sure why Huntsman is running for President.

As surprised as I am to find myself saying this, Newt Gingrich has emerged as the candidate that I can support. Obviously I have issues with Newt’s previous infidelity, but frankly the problems we face today are far too serious to allow it to be a defining issue. Newt clearly has the experience to understand how government works, and no one can question his depth of knowledge on the important issues. While he and I have some disagreements on a few points, I have no doubt that he is a conservative to the bone. His ability to present his ideas and to explain them in a convincing way far surpasses that of anyone else in the race. Newt is a teacher at heart, and he understands how important it is to convince people that conservatism works rather than simply convincing them that liberalism doesn’t.

The question remains, could Newt win the general election? My answer is, of course he can. Frankly, I feel confident that I could beat Obama in the general election, so I have no doubt a man with the depth of knowledge and experience that Newt possesses would be able to win in a landslide. Pitting Newt against Obama in a debate would be akin to a cage match between Hulk Hogan and … well, Obama.

Special Report for Gun Owners - From Chuck Holton

2011-09-04T23:36:00.000-04:00

Since I suspect many of my readers are people who might be affected by this, I wanted to bring it to your attention. I could spell it out, but my friend Chuck Holton has done a better job than I could. Check out his latest blog post: http://blogs.cbn.com/bootsontheground/archive/2011/09/04/e-trace---a-scandal-waiting-to-happen.aspx.

No Time To Be Timid

2011-08-28T08:04:00.001-04:00

Rick Perry’s entrance into the 2012 Presidential race has certainly stirred things up, and by all accounts he is now the man to beat. Although I have not decided which candidate I will ultimately support, I am pleased to see that Mitt Romney is no longer the front runner.

Despite the results of the 2008 election, there are still those who insist that we have to find a moderate candidate if we want to defeat Obama in 2012. Although I completely understand their reasoning, I disagree with their conclusion. If a moderate Republican was what the country wanted, John McCain would in the White House now and Michelle Obama would be vacationing on her own dime. It is time to put this “we need a moderate” mentality to rest. As a conservative, I want a conservative President, and I can’t get a conservative President by voting for a moderate.

We cannot escape the fact that our nation is now being run and ruined by a radical leftist, and those same leftists are in control of the Senate. The damage being done by these is not irreparable, but it will be if we don’t make the effort to set things right. The very first step in that process is to elect conservatives who fully understand the danger our country is in, and who are willing to turn it around.

The shining “achievement” of the Obama administration is Obamacare, and repealing it is job one for our next President. Do we give that job to a moderate who will only fix what he sees wrong with the existing bill, or do we elect someone who will rip it out by the roots? We are being driven to bankruptcy by Obama’s “stimulus” spending that has yet to stimulate anything but the federal debt. Shall we elect a moderate who will find more effective ways to spend money we don’t have, or shall we elect a conservative who will cut spending and balance the budget?

If there has ever been a time in our history that we needed a solid conservative in the White House, this is it. Obama has eclipsed Jimmy Carter as the worst President in modern history, and is undoubtedly in a very weak position to be re-elected. Unemployment is projected to decline to around 8.5% by late 2012, but even that bleak assessment is optimistic considering the fact that nothing has changed to improve the economy and no one in the Obama administration seems to be capable of changing that. If there is ever going to be a time when we can elect a solid conservative, this will be that time.

Conservatives can no longer be timid in our approach to elections. We need a candidate who will boldly carry the mantle of conservatism. Ronald Reagan felt no need to apologize for his conservative views, and he defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide. If we allow the left to continue to advise us on the best way to defeat their candidates, we might as well recycle John McCain in 2012 because the results will be the same. I would argue that a conservative candidate in 2012 will have a better chance of winning than did Reagan. The three network news organizations in Reagan’s era no longer have a stranglehold on information. Talk radio, the internet, and the abundance of conservatives in the blogosphere all add strength to a conservative candidate’s position.

Rather than look for a bland moderate candidate who can appeal to the independent voters while the base is forced once again to hold their noses, we need to stand our ground and choose a candidate that has the fire and the ability to clearly articulate the conservative message and lead those independent voters over to our way of thinking.

The idea that we must have a moderate candidate has been around a long time, and it has been wrong for just as long. While it can sometimes be effective to try to build a coalition between conservatives and independents, the results are only temporary at best. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, and those independent voters will be drawn back to the left.

The Tea Party has effectively mobilized a large number of these independent voters and they have begun the process of becoming informed citizens and voters. By clearly and effectively articulating why conservatism works and why it is right for our nation, we can convert many of those independent voters and expand the conservative base. This is a better long term strategy and one that we cannot afford to neglect.

Recession, Depression, and Plain English

2011-08-21T07:26:00.000-04:00

I recently wrote about the differences between what some words mean to politicians and what they mean to the rest of us. At the time, I focused on the budgetary terms that were in play during the debt ceiling negotiations. The differences in the use of the English language however, don’t stop there.

For most of us, it seems rather surreal to listen to the folks in Washington talk about the slow pace of the ‘recovery’ and the possibility of another recession. From where I stand, there has been no ‘recovery’ and the recession is going strong, edging ever closer to a genuine depression. Frankly, if a depression is any worse than what we’re going through right now, I’d say let’s opt out of it.

The problem is that when politicians and economists use terms like “recession” and “recovery”, they have very precise definitions in their heads that were drilled into them when they were learning whatever it is that they know. The rest of us however, have a different frame of reference. Let’s go over the technical definitions first, and then get back to discussing the real world.

A “recession”, according to the economists, is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth according to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A “depression” has no firm definition, but is seen as a more severe and prolonged period of negative economic growth than a recession. Perhaps the best way to differentiate between the two is this: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, and a depression is when you lose yours. The third applicable term here is a “recovery”, which is basically defined as a period of economic growth signaling the end of a recession.

Perhaps these technical definitions are to blame for some of the confusion many of us feel when we hear the Washingtonians talk about the ‘recovery’ as though it were something actually happening. For most of the world, these technical terms have a somewhat different meaning. For us, a ‘recession’ means ‘hard times’, and a ‘depression’ means ‘sho-nuff hard times’. A ‘recovery’ means ‘things are lookin’ up’.

Now that we’re past the word games, we can begin to discuss the economy in a way that actually makes sense to those of us who are most affected by it. For the past couple of years, we’ve been living in hard times. People have lost their jobs, their homes, and quite often their futures. People who were supposed to be entering retirement are clinging to their jobs wondering how they are going to survive old age. Students are working their way through college wondering if they will be able to even land a minimum wage job after graduation. Far too many families are wondering where their next meal will come from. While it is true that the GDP has shown slight positive growth, it has just been enough that it doesn’t qualify as negative, but certainly not enough that normal people would call it a “recovery”. I doubt many of us would honestly say “things are lookin’ up”.

While all of this is going on, the ruling class in Washington is debating issues that only matter to the two political parties, and have little to do with actually fixing what ails us. As they play their little games, the rest of us are rushing head long into ‘sho-nuff hard times’. Is it any wonder Congress now has an approval rating as low as 10%?

Congress wants to cover their collective backsides for re-election, and Obama wants to appease his base by raising taxes on the “rich”, while the rest of us simply want to feed our families and send the kids to college. Somewhere along the line, somebody needs to actually address the problems that our country faces and do something to fix it.

The Left is promoting an “American Day of Rage” on September 17 as a way of furthering its own anti-capitalist agenda. They just might be surprised to learn however, that capitalism is not what is generating the rage that most Americans are feeling. Our rage is a result of politicians who call us “terrorists” because we demand they stop their wasteful spending of our hard earned money, and because we have a President who can’t seem to take a break from his busy vacation schedule to actually do his job. The main differences between the Left’s Day of Rage and our own Day of Rage will be a matter of location and timing. The Left will hold theirs on September 17, 2011 on Wall Street, and the rest of us will hold ours on November 6, 2012 at

Ending Washington Speak

2011-08-02T22:07:00.000-04:00

Finally, the debt ceiling debate is over! Or is it? Don’t look now, but our Congressional “leaders” (and I use the term loosely) have negotiated a deal that guarantees to keep this issue alive and well for the foreseeable future. If this weren’t such an important issue, the race by both sides to declare victory would be amusing.

The official word from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was that this was a good bill because no one was totally happy with it. After hearing the details of the bill that finally emerged, I haven’t found anything about it that I do like. There were no spending cuts in the bill, and the only thing that was accomplished was the establishment of yet another special commission designed to relieve the rest of the Congress of having to make a responsible decision.

There is some good news to be found in all of this. During the 2008 election, the Left constantly proclaimed the Tea Party to be “astro turf”. We were told that they were nothing but a fringe group and should be ignored. I think we can safely put that theory to rest at this point. Out of all the players in this three ring circus, the only ones that made a positive impression were the Tea Party affiliated members who held their ground and completely changed the way all of us look at federal spending.

Despite the less than stunning outcome of this debate, we can at least feel good that the discussion in Washington is now focused on spending cuts rather than massive new spending initiatives and “stimulus” programs. That conversation however, is hampered by the fact that most of the players are conversing in Washington Speak rather than the Standard English the rest of

America

speaks.

If we are to have an honest and effective discussion about anything, we must be sure that the words being used mean the same things to everyone involved. Currently, that simply isn’t the case. For instance, when President Obama uses the phrase “balanced approach”, he means tax increases. That is also what he means when he says “revenue” with regards to this debate. It’s fine with me if he wants to enter the 2012 election season promising tax increase, but he should at least be honest enough to actually use the words “tax increase”.

With all the attention this debate has gotten over the past few weeks, it is very likely that the American public is now more aware of the spending issues and of the problems our nation faces. This growing awareness can be to our advantage as long as we are careful to not allow Washington Speak to confuse the issue. Since the focus of our debate will be on spending cuts, we need to be sure that everyone understands exactly what the term means.

In formal Washington Speak, the term “spending cut” almost always means “not growing as fast”. If you translate the common English form of “spending cut” into Washington Speak, it comes out as “killing old people and crippled children”. As you can imagine, this tends to make it very difficult to carry on a rational discussion with people in Washington.

The problem in this case is the way in which our federal budget is set up. For each year, the baseline of the budget is automatically increased by about 5 percent over the previous year’s budget. This is done with no analysis of need or effectiveness for anything being funded. When politicians discuss “spending cuts” they simply mean they won’t increase spending as much as they had intended.

When we engage in this discussion in the future, we need to be very sure that our elected representatives understand that when we say “cut the budget”, we mean that spending should be lower next year than it was this year, and we mean next year rather than next decade. When we hear our Congressmen using the term “spending cut”, we need to call them out on it and make them publicly define what they mean. When they lapse into Washington Speak, we need to call them on it.

We can continue to move Washington in the direction we want it to go, but only if we seize the moment and take control of the dialogue. As we do so, let’s make sure this is done on our terms. It is time to throw out the baseline budgeting process and let all future budgeting be done using the zero-based budget model that maintains spending at the previous year’s level unless increases are justified by need and cost effectiveness.

Raising Revenue in a Recession

2011-07-25T09:45:00.000-04:00

The phrase ‘debt ceiling’ has probably been used more often on the airwaves and in print over the past two weeks than it has been in the past two decades. The public seems to be more in tune with the political wrangling over this issue than it has ever been in the past, which is making it pretty difficult for our elected officials to simply pass something for the sake of doing business-as-usual.

As observers to the strange dance that is going on in Washington, it surely seems that everyone there has lost their senses and that nothing will ever be accomplished. In order to fully appreciate what is going on however, there are a few things we must keep in mind.

Few of us can remember a time that Congress has debated and argued as much as they have in the past couple of years. Understandably, people get exasperated by watching this process and the news media continues to seek ‘compromise’. Don’t fall into that trap. What you are actually seeing is a rarity, elected officials making a stand on principle and keeping their campaign promises.

As is usually the case, the news media tends to report that Republicans are unwilling to compromise with the President to reach a deal and threatening default rather than reporting that the President is holding out for tax increases and threatening default if he doesn’t get his way. Fortunately, an increasingly aware public sector is less likely to fall for such rhetoric. This increased awareness is making a real difference in Washington, giving newly elected members enough support to allow them to make principled stands that we are not used to seeing.

A case in point would be the recent vote in the House on Cut, Cap and Balance. While the bill did pass, there were some Republicans who voted against the measure. Rep. Morgan Griffith was one of those who opposed the measure. In response to my questions regarding the issue, Rep. Griffith responded: “It’s clear that Washington has a serious spending problem. I support a Balanced Budget Amendment, but if we want to make America better for our children and grandchildren, that must be coupled with significant spending cuts now. The reason I voted against Cut, Cap, and Balance was because, in my judgment, the year one cuts did not go far enough.”

While I certainly agree with Rep. Griffith that the currently proposed cuts do not go far enough, I will have to agree with President Obama that we need to bring in additional tax revenues. Where the President and I part company however, is in the right way to generate those additional revenues. The best plan the President can come up with seems to be higher tax rates, despite his assertion less than two years ago that “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”. I prefer Sen. Marco Rubio’s position that the best way to raise tax revenue is to increase the number of tax payers.

We currently have a vast untapped source of tax revenue in this country, and the President is doing his dead level best to make sure those revenues remain out of reach. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 25.3 million people are either out of work or underemployed. By moving the majority of these people from the ranks of the unemployed to the workforce, we will create new taxpayers and allow them to contribute to the economic recovery. The problem with this solution will be to find a way to create this shift in employment status.

As was recently reported at Business Insider Steve Wynne, CEO of Wynne Resorts spoke out in a conference call about the reasons for the weak economy:

“And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.”

The answer is pretty simple. We know that the government does not create jobs that will help the economy, but it is intuitively obvious that government policies can have a profound effect on the private sector’s ability to create jobs. It is also abundantly clear that the policies of the Obama administration are having a major negative effect on job creation. How hard is it to understand that we need to change those policies in a way that will reduce the burden from the job creating machine that our nation depends on?

A Balanced Solution for the Debt Crisis?

2011-07-21T22:42:00.000-04:00

These are historic times for our country. We are standing on the edge of a cliff and a sizable portion of our elected officials want us to continue walking in the same direction. Thank goodness we elected those right wing cult fringe Tea Party Republicans who are standing firm in their resolve to turn our country back in the right direction. One of those Republicans is my Congressman, Rep. Morgan Griffith who represents the 9^th district of Virginia. Rep. Griffith is serving his first term in Washington, and he is proving to be a genuine conservative among many who only pretend.

It is a sad truth that there are many in Washington who try to convince us that they are conservative when in fact they are not. Fortunately, it is as easy to recognize a fake conservative as it is to recognize a New Yorker faking a Southern accent. All you have to do is listen to them talk.

A few days ago, it was reported that a bill was being voted on to repeal the silly ban on incandescent light bulbs. As I was preoccupied with other issues, I didn’t pay much attention to it, assuming it would be a no-brainer and the ban would be tossed out. Imagine my surprise when the bill failed, and to make matters worse I discovered that my Congressman was one of those voting against the measure. Knowing his political leanings as I do, I knew there had to be a reason, and in a press release, Rep. Griffith explained that his no vote was because the bill contained provisions that would have violated the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution. Frankly, I had to read the press release twice before I could believe that a member of Congress is actually aware of and concerned about violating the 10^th Amendment!

A classic example of a fake conservative can be found in the ranks of the Senate’s famous “Gang of Six”. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia has long been considered a conservative by the media and the pundits. Those of us who know him however, are not surprised by his willingness to sell the country down the river. When the TV cameras are on him, and when he’s standing in a room full of Republicans, he knows all the key words and tricky phrases needed to pass himself off as a right-winger, but behind the scenes it has always been apparent that he was a Democrat at heart. He has done an admirable job of hiding it all these years but his defection to the Progressive side comes as no real surprise to me. It is disappointing however, that he chose this crucial time to come out of the closet.

Now is the time for the real conservatives in Washington to stand up and stand tall, and for those of us who appreciate their courageous stand to let them know that we are behind them. Republicans have the upper hand in this debate, but the news media is doing its best to convince them otherwise. Have you noticed that they constantly report that Republicans are refusing to compromise because they won’t accept tax increases, but they never say that Democrats are refusing to compromise because they won’t give up their tax increases? It is clear that once again, the word ‘compromise’ means giving Democrats everything they want.

I am proud of our freshmen Republicans for standing their ground on this issue, and I can only hope they will continue to do so. If the Democrats continue to threaten the country with default if they don’t get their way on tax increases, Republicans need to up the ante. I would suggest they agree to the Democrats’ demand for a “balanced solution”, and come up with a proposal that includes spending cuts and tax cuts.

Washington vs. Main Street

2011-07-14T15:43:00.000-04:00

Have you ever tried to do anything involving a government program? If you have, you most likely discovered that the government has a knack for making things harder than they have to be. This is certainly the case now as Congress debates raising the debt ceiling. I have often heard the idea that we just as good a job of electing our Congress by selecting random names out of the phone book, and I am beginning to think that this is literally true. Sometimes, the simple answers are the best. For some reason Congress appears to be totally unable to see the simple answers and dive headlong into complicated debates that are totally unnecessary.

Part of the problem is that words don’t mean the same thing in Washington that they mean in Main Street America. For instance, when most Americans cut their spending, they spend less money; while in Washington, a spending cut results in more spending. Of course, for most Americans the word ‘limit’ refers to a line which cannot be crossed.

Let’s inject some common sense into this debate. We can begin with the notion that there is a ‘debt ceiling’. Up until this point the ‘debt ceiling’ was simply a point at which Congress was required to gather together and reaffirm their earlier decisions to spend way too much money on stupid things we don’t want or need. We are rapidly approaching that point again, but this time there are actually members of Congress who don’t understand this point and are acting as though the debt ceiling actually represents a limit on our national debt. Did they not get the memo?

My suggestion here would seem to be controversial, but I think it is entirely possible to set a limit at which Congress is not allowed to spend any more of our money. I know this might seem to be entirely unreasonable to some in Congress, but I feel sure that they can eventually come to terms with this once they get a grip on another concept known as ‘spending cuts’.

Yes, I said spending cuts, and I’m not talking about smaller increases in spending spread out over a dozen or so decades. What I’m talking about is a simple formula which begins with taking the total amount of money in the 2011 federal budget ($3.83 Trillion) and then reducing that figure by a reasonable amount such as 10%, which then results in a 2012 budget total of $3.447 Trillion. Of course, this still leaves us with a deficit, so our debt will still continue to increase. We will then project what our expected revenues will be for 2012, forecast the amount of total debt, and set the debt ceiling at that level. On a quarterly basis Congress will be required to balance the books and make sure our revenue projections are in line with reality. If, during that time our tax revenue fails to reach expected levels, Congress would be required to revisit the budget and find additional cuts to eliminate the need to borrow in excess of the debt ceiling.

If we take a look at current income to the government and divide that into current spending levels, we will arrive at a number that represents the level of our excess spending in percentages. For instance, for fiscal year 2011, total direct revenue to the federal government is projected to be $2.57 Trillion, and expenditures are set at $3.83 Trillion. Using my formula, we can see that we are spending 149% of what the government takes in. Here on

Main Street

, that is a number that is unsustainable and entirely inexcusable. Now that we know where we stand however, we can set goals to reduce that figure that will put us on a path to a balanced budget.

In order to reach those goals, it is time for America to decide what the proper role of the federal government really is, and limit our spending to only those areas that fit the description. The guide of course, would be the Constitution which clearly defines the authority given to each branch of the government. As I read the Constitution, it appears to me that Congress has the authority to spend money when the government receives goods or services. Obviously, there are those who would disagree with my assessment, and that is perfectly okay with me. We need to have the discussion however, and come to a logical agreement based on the Constitution.

When we do this, we will find several things

1. Some items are allowed by the Constitution, and if there is an identifiable need we should continue the programs while examining them to determine if they are working efficiently and effectively. If the answer is no, we need to make the effort to change the situation.

2. Some items are not allowed by the Constitution, but they are worth doing anyway. In this case we have the choice of either amending the Constitution to give Congress the authority to implement these programs, or we need to find a constitutional alternative.

3. Some items are not allowed by the Constitution, and are not worth pursuing. Naturally, these programs need to be scrapped.

Can we ever accomplish such a wide reaching plan? It will take time, but with the right people in Washington, it is possible. The key is for the American people to start demanding more of our elected representatives.

Independence Day Remembered

2011-07-02T06:57:00.000-04:00

Most of us are busy making our plans for the upcoming holiday we have all gotten into the habit of referring to as the 4^th of July. I have decided to make a concerted effort to calling the holiday by its real name, Independence Day.

It is sad to note that a recent poll revealed that 1 in 4 Americans could not name the country from which we declared our independence (Great Britain for those of you in that number). This recent poll however, isn’t the only evidence we have that Americans are forgetting our heritage. We only have to spend a little time reviewing the shift in attitudes and values over the past several decades to get a clear picture of the extent to which we have forgotten the lessons of history.

There was a time in America when it was normal to be patriotic. Where has that

America

gone? It has become common to read news articles about someone being denied the ‘privilege’ of flying the American flag, and even our President acts as though patriotism is a character flaw. Our first lady has only been proud of her country for about three years now. Perhaps this shift in attitude is a result of the fact that many Americans have lost sight of what America stands for and why.

This great nation was born on July 4^th 1776 when the Continental Congress voted to declare our independence from Great Britain, then under the rule of King George III. The reasons for doing so were laid out in the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. While our Constitution is the document that gives shape and form to our federal government, it is the Declaration of Independence that gives it the spirit that has made America great. Our nation would benefit greatly if each of her citizens would take the time to read this document every year on the day we celebrate its signing.

While the entire document is important and worthy of study, it is the preamble that gives us the basis for the creation of what has become the greatest nation on Earth.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This simple but powerful statement makes it clear that, in the view of our Founding Fathers, our rights as human beings come not from government, but from God. They have established that these rights are unalienable, which means they cannot be taken away by law. The second sentence establishes the only legitimate role of a government, to secure, or protect, our freedom to exercise those rights; and that no legitimate government can exist without the consent of the governed.

The men who drafted the Declaration laid out the case that Great Britain had wrongly sought to take away those rights. They believed that the British Parliament had exceeded its constitutional authority with measures such as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Acts of 1767, and for that cause, the colonists had not only a right, but a duty to dissolve the ties that bound us to the Crown

Two hundred and thirty-five years ago, our Founding Fathers were a people who loved freedom and were willing to sacrifice everything to attain it. The final sentence of the Declaration clearly illustrates the commitment these men had to the cause of freedom:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Since that time, we have created for ourselves a government that is even more oppressive than the one our Founding Fathers sought to escape. For the sake of comfort and security, we have embraced the bonds that rob us of our freedom. We now serve a government that seizes our earnings and our property to fund programs and bureaucracies that are clearly not legitimate functions of government. We tolerate a government that dictates how we are to raise our children, and which tells us what we should and should not feed them. We work and struggle to earn enough to feed our families while those who are supposed to represent our interests live like kings while they spend our tax dollars irresponsibly and then demand more of what we earn to cover the costs.

In December of 1773, the Boston Tea Party galvanized resistance to the oppressive government of Great Britain that had exceeded its constitutional authority and helped to lead our nation to freedom. Today another Tea Party is helping to galvanize resistance to the oppressive government in Washington that has exceeded its constitutional authority. The colonists had no other means of throwing off those bonds than to take up arms and engage in a shooting war with the most powerful nation on earth, yet they had the will and the courage to do so. Because of the genius of our Founding Fathers, we are not so limited. We have been given the power of the ballot box, reinforced by our freedom of speech and assembly.

It remains to be seen if the American people have the will and the courage to throw off the shackles in which we have grown so comfortable. If we do, our children will have the privilege of living in the kind of America our Founding Fathers fought and died for. If we do not, we have only ourselves to blame.

No Patience Left for Obamanomics

2011-06-12T22:05:00.000-04:00

Just days after a dismal job creation report showed that only 54,000 jobs were created in May (up to half of which were at McDonalds), President Obama said in a recent radio address that we all need to be patient with the economic recovery. While I can understand why he would want us to do so, I’m afraid I’m simply not up to the task. It would be easier of course, if I had some reason to believe his policies stood a chance of making things better, but that simply is not the case. During the 2008 presidential election, many conservatives warned that his proposals would lead to job losses, massive debt, high inflation, higher energy prices, and higher taxes. Sadly the majority of American voters failed to heed our warnings, and we are now all suffering the inevitable effects of Obamanomics.

Although this is a classic “see-I-told-you-so” moment, there is no joy in making such a pronouncement. While it is usually gratifying to see your predictions proven to be accurate, the fact is that millions of Americans are suffering because he proved us right. In this case, it would feel better if the current economic boom forced me to eat crow.

Patience on our part would certainly help Obama’s chances at re-election, but it will do nothing to help the chances of an economic recovery. The policies he has put into place were destined to create the kind of economic mess we are currently experiencing. Since he has shown absolutely no inclination to admit that his policies are wrong, nor do I expect that he ever will. That being the case, patience will do nothing more than give him time (he hopes for another four years) to drive the economy even deeper into the hole. Indeed, one has to wonder how bad things would be now if not for the 2010 election.

For many years it has been too easy to play the ‘ignorance is bliss’ game with presidential politics. It has always amazed me how so many people take pride in not paying attention to the political world. It is if they think ignoring one of their most solemn responsibilities somehow makes them better than the rest of us. Freedom comes at a very high cost, and those of us who are blessed enough to be free have a duty to protect it.

I remember hearing a lady make the statement that she was going to vote for Bill Clinton for President because he was better looking than Bush, “…and we need a good looking man in the White House”. The sad truth is that she was very serious, and those around her agreed. Such immature, shallow thinking is not uncommon.

Another think I hear people say is that they “vote for the man, not for the party”. On the surface this sounds good and noble; but in the end you get the party when you get the ‘man’. It does take some effort to understand what ‘the man’ stands for, and how that relates to the party with which he chooses to associate himself, but that effort is well worth it. It the ‘man’ has chosen to affiliate himself with a party that wants to raise taxes and take away your freedom, it is reasonable to believe the ‘man’ shares the same goals.

The 2012 election will be one of the most important in modern history. The outcome may well determine whether our country continues to exist as a free nation, or if it will slide into European style socialism. We cannot afford to ignore what is going on around us and choose the leader of the free world based on his looks, oratory skills, or other immaterial standards. We must be familiar with the issues and find out where the candidates stand. As Horace Mann said, “A different world cannot be built by indifferent people”. In order to preserve freedom, we have to care about freedom. If we do not, I am afraid we will learn that Ronald Reagan was right when he said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”.