Thursday, June 30, 2011

I am a Conservative, not a Republican

It probably wouldn't surprise you at all to know that I spend a lot of time debating with people online about politics.  One thing that inevitably comes up when I espouse Conservatism is the recent failures of Republicans.  Unfortunately for the country, those failures were perpetrated by Republicans who weren't governing as Conservatives, which is something I often point out. 

Regardless of how he ran in 2000, in many instances, George W. Bush did not govern as a Conservative.  He created a new prescription drug entitlement, increased the government's role in education, and added a new cabinet position.  The rest of his party signed off on it.  In short, in the 2000s, the Republican spent like Democrats, and did not govern as Conservatives.  They governed as "moderates" and in many cases as Liberals. 

For the record, that's why I think the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008.  The way the Republicans have acted in the last decade remind me a lot of the phenomenon of New Coke.  For those who do not familiar, New Coke was a reformulation of the classic Coca-Cola formula in 1985 that was sweeter and, quite frankly, tasted more like Pepsi.  Consumers widely rejected it, deciding "rather than drink a Pepsi knockoff, I might as well drink a Pepsi."  After a few years, Coke bagged the new formula and brought back the old, repackaging it as Coca-Cola Classic.  Coke has lead the cola wars since the return of the classic formula. 

Republicans have done similarly in being similar to Democrats rather than being the Conservatives that won them elections to begin with.  Voters decided, "the heck with it, might as well get a full blown Democrat."  But in 2010, when the Republicans ran as Conservatives, abracadabra, we won!  We went to being Coca-Cola Classic, if you will, and that won.

So why am I a Conservative?  I'm a Conservative because I believe in freedom.  I believe that government exists to stop other people from taking away my life, liberty, and property...that's about it.  I can accept some other things being done my local and state governments, like roads and even schools. 

I believe that the government that governs least governs best.  I believe there are only a few things government can do better than the private sector (even then it's the least worst option) like roads, fire departments, ambulances, police departments, and the military.  In other situations, I believe private companies can do a better job, whether that be as a non-profit charity taking care of the needy or private companies competing to offer the best possible health care options at better prices. 

I am a Conservative because I believe that, no matter how much money you have, it's your property.  While the Constitution grants government the right to levy taxes, if you read the writings of the founders it becomes clear that they did not intend the taxation of incomes at rates of 40%, 50%, or even 70% in mind!  Remember, the founders served in Congress, the Presidential cabinet, as our first five Presidents, and as governors of the individual states after the Constitution was ratified.  Do you know what sort of taxes they levied?  Tariffs on imports and consumption taxes on certain goods like tobacco and alcohol.

I'm a Conservative because I believe that the Republican party gained what it set out to achieve when the GOP (not Democrats) passed the Civil Rights Amendment and reformed the tax code in the 80s, so now we stand on what we've achieved and said "we've achieved the best possible legislative climate that government can create, let's leave things here."

Why I say I'm a Conservative and not a Republican is because the GOP has spent the last twenty years or so failing Conservatism.  The failures of the Republican party recently are not indicative of Conservatism.  They are indicative of Liberalism being legislated from the right. It's not about being a Republican (it never was) it's about being a Conservative, because Conservatism works.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Why Is Obama Releasing Strategic Oil Reserves Now?

It's a question I've wanted to tackle for a week or so now, but other topics have overshadowed until now.  President Obama has decided to release some of the strategic petroleum reserves at a time when a) there is no actual threat to oil supply (note: high costs aren't a threat to supply) and b) when the price per barrel has been dropping.  As a matter of fact, the Financial Forecast Center predicts crude will drop by more than 30% in the next six months. (1)

No, releasing 30 million barrels is NOT going to cause that drop.  It's not enough to make a difference for more than a few weeks.  What is causing the drop is a couple of things:  One, the economy is tanking.  The stock market has begun to trail off, and oil is traded on the stock market.  Two, over the past few months, between the House voting to repeal Obama's moratorium on deep water drilling and the mere promise of issuing more permits has caused the "evil" oil speculators to speculate the price down rather than up.  It's basic supply and demand. 

When supply is expected to be lower, businesses go into protective mode and begin to prepare to pay higher prices, selling their product at a higher rate to compensate for expected future costs of doing business.  When supply is expected to be higher, businesses start trying to undercut their competition and price wars begin which leads to reduced prices.  Businesses get off defense (finding ways to maintain their current market share) and go on offense (finding ways to provide their products at a lower price than their competitor to gain market share by either taking customers from their competitors or growing the market). 

So why is Obama choosing right now to release the oil reserves?  It's not needed...the benefit sought (prices dropping) has already started to happen without the release.  Besides, since our country consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day, it's only releasing enough supply to cover our needs for a day and a half. Why is Obama doing this?

The answer is I believe he is playing politics and preying on the fact that the average American doesn't have a clue about how economics work to say "Look what I did, I released strategic oil reserves and the price dropped.  Vote for me."  Mark my words, this will happen.  Obama will try to claim credit for what market forces are doing through the expectations of higher supply in the future thanks to increased deep water drilling and by the fact that the entire stock market is dropping, oil included.

This is Obama's modus operandi.  He enacts something that has no effect on anything (see releasing oil reserves) or makes a super easy decision and somebody else does all the work (see killing Bin Laden) and then he trumpets his own success.  Mark my words on two things: 1) Obama's releasing 1 1/2 days worth of oil will have zero effect on prices and 2) Obama and the Drive-By Media will claim Obama deserves credit for falling prices.


(1) Crude Oil Price Forecast

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Reaction to NY Gay Marriage Law

This past weekend, New York State officially passed a gay marriage law. Those of you who have read this blog since it's inception know that I was opposed to it and will continue to oppose it as this law comes up for review and most likely will go up to the voters as it did in California, and will likely be struck down.  Once again, just to repeat my previous stance, I believe that the union of marriage has a very specific meaning and that a union of two individuals of the same gender does not meet that definition. 

That being said, I find myself torn on this issue.  As a Christian, I do not believe a homosexual union is the same type of union as a heterosexual union (marriage), and a law will not change that.  While we're at it, I also believe there is a difference between heterosexual marriage in the legal sense and heterosexual marriage in the Church.  The latter is a covenant created by God when He created Eve to be Adam's wife, the former is a series of rights being given by government.  I've suggested for many years that I would favor a legal separation of these two things, perhaps continuing to call the state version a "civil union" or "civil marriage" (for couples of any sexual orientation) while maintaining the simple "marriage" for the Church based union. 

I've suggested that a simple solution for be for homosexual couples to create their own union, similar to marriage, under a different name; in essence saying "instead of redefining our existing institution, create your own."  I've also said for many years that I would not stand in the way of legal rights and privileges being extended to homosexual couples by government, just like legal rights and privileges are extended to heterosexual couples who are married.  This idea comes from the exact same mentality I listed above: that there is a difference between a legal marriage license and ceremony performed by a government official and the marriage covenant that takes place in the Church.  As far as the government end of things is concerned, offering certain rights and privileges to any pairings of individuals is separate entirely from a Church based covenant (again, regardless of the genders of the individuals). 

Theoretically, this law does nothing to affect the faith-based covenant of marriage because it exempts religious organizations from being required to perform same-sex ceremonies.  So if what the law does is simply offering legal rights to homosexual couples and doesn't infringe upon the religious institution of marriage, why do I even care?  Here's why:  As I've said before, marriage means something very important to me.  God created it.  He instituted it with Adam and Eve.  It is a holy covenant to me.  The fact that it is and has been treated as cheap by mankind does not change it's holiness. 

That's why I suggest homosexual couples create their own institution rather than trying to shoehorn their relationships into our existing institution.  Equal rights are fine, but marriage has a distinct meaning which is being lost by this law.  I'm asking for that to be retained.

By the way please don't bother with the segregation argument, ok?  We're talking about recognizing legitimate differences in the makeup of a heterosexual union (one man and one woman) and a homosexual union (two men or two women).  This isn't different restrooms for men of different races, this is different restrooms for men and women. 

Or, if you prefer to use the license argument (since marriage requires a license), this is the difference between an automobile license and a motorcycle license.  The state of New York considers me qualified to drive a standard automobile, I have fulfilled the requirements to do so and have a NYS Driver's License.  The same state of New York does not consider me qualified to drive a motorcycle, because I have not fulfilled the requirement to drive a motorcycle and thus do not have a NYS Motorcycle License. 

This remains my point.  If homosexual couples want to create their own institution, go right ahead and do it.  If New York wants to offer rights and privileges to that union as they do with marriage, they can do that to...I won't do a thing to stop it.  Given my personal libertarian bent, I would possibly even vote for it and most certainly wouldn't fight against it.  I really just want to preserve the meaning of the word marriage.  I think you'll find few Christians and Conservatives fighting against my proposal, either.  It's a simple compromise that I think would offer precisely the same benefits to homosexual couples while satisfying those who want to preserve marriage by it's original intention.  Besides, if it's all about rights, why does the name matter?

Monday, June 27, 2011

NYT Accusing GOP of Sabotage on Debt Limit: Are you KIDDING me???

Sometimes even the New York Times finds a way to shock me with their blatant partisan lies.  The latest narrative from the Democrat party and the Drive-By Media has begun: "Republicans are deliberately sabotaging American job growth so that they can win in 2012."  It's so incredulous a claim I'm irritated that I have to even discuss it, especially to make a defense against the party who has so desperately attempted to hang on to policies that are damaging to the country and financially not feasible.  The article in question is dripping with bias and loaded questions.  Let's go to the article in question:

The Democrats, at least, acknowledged that reality at the bargaining table by saying that along with the cuts the Republicans cherish, there would have to be increases in revenue — an end to unnecessary tax loopholes for corporations or the rich. ]

First off, this presentation makes it sound like both cuts in government spending and "revenue increases" are both relatively good things for the country.  They aren't.  The business climate in America is already strained and business owners are taking their businesses elsewhere, costing workers badly needed jobs.  The reason, despite the Drive-By Media's attempts to paint business owners as "greedy," is actually because taxes cut into the legitimate and reasonable profit requirements of business owners to make the risk of business ownership worth it.

Increases in revenue, by the way, is simply a code word for raising taxes.  As I have demonstrated on multiple occasions here, additional revenue is not the problem.  Again, we go to the history of the Reagan years.  Prior to Reagan, the Democrat congress was spending 180% of the tax dollars received.  Reagan doubled tax revenues by reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  Simple math shows that if you need 80% more revenue to reach a balanced budget and you receive 100% more revenue, you ought to have a 20% surplus, right?  Yet even with 100% more revenue, the Democratic Congress (which controlled the purse strings, remember) continued to spend 180% of that new, twice as large amount!

In short, friends, we do not have a revenue problem. If we had a revenue problem, the solution would be to CUT taxes to spur economic growth, leading to more people paying taxes as a result of businesses growing and hiring new people (works every time it's tried).  No, like in the 80s, we have a SPENDING problem.  As Ronald Reagan once said "We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”  We are not going to fix our problem by raising more revenue.  When you try to raise more revenue, it never works because business owners don't just sit there and accept those higher taxes cutting into their profits.  They often move to another country because they aren't serfs!  They don't belong to the land.  Government can't force business owners to continue to employ the same number of people when tax rates confiscate large portions of their profits, or to not move their business to another country to avoid those confiscatory rates.

Those demands were modest — too modest — and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is leading the talks, said they were making progress. But any compromise at all proved too much for the Republicans.

Again more spin, calling the Democratic demands "modest."  They aren't modest, they are poison to an already ill economy!  Why should the GOP compromise and allow the Democratic party to damage the country further?  We know that raising taxes on businesses causes those businesses to leave the country and costs American jobs.  Why should we compromise on that?  It's poison for the economy!  How do you compromise with poison, exactly?  Do you compromise and say "you may not put enough poison in my food to kill me, but I'll compromise and accept enough poison to make me violently sick?"  OF COURSE NOT!  The Democrat policies proposed will hurt the country, so the Republicans, in good conscience, must not compromise with this poison!

But at least 11 hard-line Senate Republicans have already said they will oppose any deal that does not include a balanced-budget amendment — a nonstarter for Democrats — and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said this week that all revenue increases are the same as raising taxes and are unacceptable.

And here we have the inevitable explanation of the real problem:  Democrats consider a balanced budget amendment a nonstarter.  In other words, legally requiring the government to spend only what money they actually have, a horrible and inconceivable budgetary policy that basically every American family has to deal with, is a nonstarter.

Let's get serious for a moment:  The Republican party is not being obstructionist here.  They are tackling a person who is about to eat a poisonous morsel of food in order to stop them from taking a bite.  Might you give that person who you've tackled a bruise in the process?  Maybe, but I'd rather a bruise than suffering from a major case of deadness thanks to ingesting poison.  People need jobs.  By allowing the Democrat party to take more money out of the business budgets of business owners is going to cause more layoffs and less hiring, which is more bad news for the economy. 

The Times, true to it's usual modus operandi (that'd be "regular way of doing things," for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) is playing political games, doing it's best to present the Democrats as nice people asking for reasonable compromises and the Republican party as blow-hard jerks insisting on their own way. (How DARE you tackle that poor person!  You gave them a bruise!)  The truth, of course, is that the GOP is trying to block damaging policies from passing.

Democrats and the Media will claim that Clinton was able to balance the budget with tax increases, ignoring the truth of history.  First of all, credit for the 90s balanced budgets belongs far more to the Contract with America and the Republican Party than Clinton, and secondly the balanced budget was created not by raising taxes but by CUTTING SPENDING (see: "The Era of Big Government is over").  Liberals won't tell you that because they want you to believe that a) it is possible to raise enough revenue to pay for their overspending and b) even if "a" was true, that it is moral to tax and tax and tax to pay for their overspending and c) even if "a" and "b" were true, that tax increases would result in static spending (which it NEVER does) by the wealthy.

Democrats don't want to let go of their ability to buy votes.  They want to keep taxing and borrowing so they can spend on social programs to reward the people who vote for them.  They are offering the country poison at a time when the economy is violently ill.  The Republican Party should absolutely not compromise with this poison, but instead should stop that poison from being ingested at all costs. Period.


Overall Source - New York Times:  Republican's Temper Tantrum

Friday, June 24, 2011

Obama's Afghan Troop Withdrawl is Pure Politics

On Wednesday night, President Obama announced that troop withdrawl from Afghanistan would begin shortly with 10,000 coming home by years end and about 33,000 troops would be withdrawn by next summer.  This move, while not the least bit shocking from Obama, has nothing to do with military strategy.  This is about Obama trying to shore up his base, pure and simple.  Even Obama's usual ally, the Washington Post, has smacked this decision in the face.

PRESIDENT OBAMA failed to offer a convincing military or strategic rationale for the troop withdrawals from Afghanistan that he announced Wednesday night. In several ways, they are at odds with the strategy adopted by NATO, which aims to turn over the war to the Afghan army by the end of 2014. (1)

When the WaPo is slamming a move by a Liberal Democrat, you know the President is in trouble.  Obama is ignoring the recommendations of the military commanders, you know, the ones who have actually SERVED in the military, and are on the ground in Afghanistan?  Once again, Obama's belief that stuff he and his academic colleagues came up with in teachers lounges at colleges would work in reality is rearing it's ugly head.  This is a failing proposition according to every military person who I have seen quoted on the subject.  But hey, Obama has to kinda sorta fulfill a campaign promise to the detriment of what's best.

To call Wednesday night's speech a campaign speech would be a misnomer, however.  It sounded far more like an inauguration speech.  Go back and listen to it:  Obama is talking about how much the war cost, about how he's going to start focusing on jobs in America (third year in a row), then went into more baloney about new industries and green jobs.  Obama is trying to fool us into believing he is just now arriving on the scene, doing his best to create, in our minds, the idea that everything that has been done in the last two and a half years was done by Republicans and Bush, not by Obama.

Obama is talking about $1 Trillion spent on the war in 10 years, but hasn't mentioned $1 Trillion spent in two and a half years on stimulus?  How about the over $1 Trillion in spending on Obamacare?  What was that, exactly, Monopoly money?  Does it not count as spending?  The answer, of course, is it most certainly DOES count as spending.  While we're at it, spending on defense is specifically named in the Constitution.  Healthcare and stimulus most certainly are not.

I know at least one of you out there is thinking, "We should pull out of Afghanistan anyway, because it's a waste of money and there isn't a national security concern there anymore." (Actually, I'd bet a considerable amount of money who that guaranteed one person is, too.)  Even if you could demonstrate that point is the case, it doesn't validate the President making a military decision that puts our remaining troops in harms way for the sake of his own political gain (or lack of loss). 

That is what Obama is doing, considering that even with 33,000 leaving by years end, that would leave a total of about 67,000 American soldiers still in Afghanistan during the most difficult part of the year for fighting with more than a 1/3 less of their previous strength, but basically at the same strength as when Obama took office.  Can you say "symbolic at best"?

I for one am tired of these games from Obama.  Mr. President, if we are strategically ready to bring home troops, no problem, but for crying out loud don't put the soldiers who are remaining in greater danger because your poll numbers are in a free fall!  Your ego is writing checks with the lives of American soldiers, and that is flat out unacceptable.


(1) The President may be Sabotaging his own Afghanistan Strategy

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Dear Media: You May Not Pick Our Candiates

On Tuesday, Jon Huntsman officially declared his candidacy for the Presidency in 2012. The Drive-By Media is in dancing around Maypoles and declaring the "seriousness" of Huntsman and how Obama truly fears him. Translation: Huntsman is a wimpy, middle of the road RINO who will play the civility and compromise game, and probably lose to Obama. Huntsman wasn't a good candidate when he was named McCain, he wasn't a good candidate when he was named Dole, and he wasn't a good candidate when he was named Ford, so why would he be a good candidate now? The answer is, of course, he wouldn't be.

The political elite on both sides of the aisle firmly believe that independents/moderates decide elections. It's a falacy, by the way, but they firmly believe it. We live in a country where, at last check, 42% of Americans call themselves Conservative, while a mere 20% call themselves Liberal. (1) Furthermore, the last time a Conservative lost on the national ticket, it was Barry Goldwater in 1964. Meanwhile, we've seen eight Presidents elected/re-elected by running on genuine Conservatism since that time (Nixon twice, Reagan twice, Bush 41 once, Bush 43 twice. (Notice I said running on genuine Conservatism, not necessarily governing on it, in the case of the two Bush presidencies.)

Listen up Republicans, because you need to hear this: Real Conservatism wins. It won in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. Moderate, wishy-washy, wimpy Republicans lose. They lost in 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008.

By the math, we only need to win over nine percent of the self-described moderates to win. Liberals would need to win basically all of the self-described moderates to win. When you consider the fact that 42% of Americans are Conservative, right-leaning ends up being more "moderate" than Liberalism anyway. The math bears that out: If you assume a proportional distribution of moderates going Conservative or Liberal, you will see 23% (of the 35% of Americans who call themselves Moderate) heading toward the Conservative side and only 12% going to the Liberal side. Considering that the Democratic party is planning to run one of the most Liberal politicians in history in 2012, I don't see why we should fear running a Conservative!

Just as importantly, if you've read this blog over the past few months, you know that I have stated that when the Drive-By Media calls a candidate "serious" they mean "wimpy," and when they say "Obama would be really concerned about this candidate" they mean "this candidate is bland enough for Obama to beat." Simple logic bears that out: Why would the Democratic Party (and their willing accomplices in the Media) tell us to run the person who they feel would best beat Obama? Is there goal to lose? Of course not!

The people the Lamestreamers and Democrats fear are the ones they attempt to tarnish! (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, to a lesser degree Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty) They want to keep those people OUT of a head to head campaign with Obama, because they know what I know: Only 20% of Americans are Liberal, 42% are Conservative. They know that a Conservative would only need to win less than 10% of the Moderates to win the White House while a Liberal would need to win pretty much all of them.

Dear Republicans: We don’t need to listen to the Lamestreamers! We SHOULDN’T listen to the Lamestreamers! They do not have our best interest at heart; they have their own best interests at heart, and the interests of the Democratic Party. I know you in the party establishment think a Conservative can’t win thanks to the 1964 loss by Goldwater, but I have to ask you; WHAT ROCK WERE YOU UNDER FOR THE 80s? Reagan was a genuine Conservative and he won big! While we’re at it, let’s not forget the elections of Nixon in ’68 and ‘72, and both Bushes in ’88, ’00, and ‘04 (they may not have governed as Conservatives but they were elected under those auspices!

Dear Drive-By Media: You may not choose our candidates.


(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

(Belated) Tribute to my Dad

This past Sunday was Father’s Day. I spent it, as many as you did, with my Dad. We went to the church that I grew up in, where my parents still attend. In his sermon, the pastor mentioned a song that always makes me think of my dad: “Cats in the Cradle” by Harry Chapin. For those of you who have never heard the song, it’s a story about a father and son. When the son is a child, the father is always too busy to spend time with him. When the son becomes an adult and the father has more time, the son is too busy to spend time with his dad. Here’s the irony of this story: That song reminds me of many wonderful father-son times spent with my dad.

The reason “Cats in the Cradle” makes me think about Dad is because he and I enjoyed Harry Chapin’s music. There was a particular album he kept in his car (first a cassette, then later a CD). It was a live performance of one of Chapin’s concert, and it contained several of his songs, including a particularly fun one about a truck crashing with 30,000 lbs of bananas, making quite a mess. (Actually, all the songs on the album make me think of Dad; however “Cat’s in the Cradle” is the song that makes it on the radio periodically.) My story with my Dad was very different, though, than the father and son in the song. You see, we’d play that album in the car as we were spending time together.

Dad always made time for me. In the second verse of the song, the son asks his father to teach him to throw a ball. My Dad did show me how to throw a baseball and a football, how to shoot a basketball, how to ride a bike and how to hit a golf ball. Dad and I studied karate together. We went to Syracuse Chiefs baseball games (AAA team in the International League) and Syracuse Orangemen (NCAA) basketball and football games. We played Sega basketball and football, catch and H.O.R.S.E. More importantly, while we did these things, we’d talk. We’d talk about what was going on in my life, about school, about my friends. We’d talk about college and my dreams for the future.

Since Dad’s job took him on the road during the week, a couple weeks each summer once I was old enough, Dad would take me on the road with him. I got to see Dad at work and how he’d interact with his customers in the mornings, then in the afternoon we’d do fun things like ride go-carts. (In one now famous story in our family, the first time I drove a go-cart, I got turned sideways making a turn too quickly, and Dad, unable to stop in time, t-boned me with his cart. My cart did a flip. It was AWESOME.) The first two rounds of golf I ever played were with Dad on those trips. Also, on those trips, I was introduced to two of my favorite movies: Major League and Lethal Weapon.

More importantly, on those trips, I learned my Dad’s work ethic. I saw how he would take great care of his customers. (Dad sells pool products to pool stores across the country.) What struck me was how he carefully took the time to sell those stores quality products that would meet their customers’ needs. He also carefully took care to back up those products with quality service and personal attention. Years later, when I went into sales myself, I remembered the things I saw Dad doing and it made me a better salesman.

The most important thing Dad taught me was how to be a man. Dad taught me how to treat a woman by the way he has always treats my Mom. Dad taught me to work hard by the way he works. When I was 14, Dad gave me a part time job at his company doing data entry a few hours each week, giving me a chance to earn some extra money (rather than just handing me money) all the while expecting me to do my best. When I was 16, he taught me responsibility by buying me a car. Unlike other parents, who handed their child the keys to a nice, new car and paid the insurance and gas, Dad and Mom bought me an ’86 Ford Escort, handed me the keys, and told me it was up to me to pay for that car’s insurance and gas and repairs. I had to get a part-time job at 20-30 hours per week (instead of the 5 hours per week I worked for Dad’s company) to keep that car in repair. It was one of the finest lessons Dad taught me: That freedom meant responsibility.

I don’t want you to think Dad’s and my relationship is sunshine and roses. We’ve had some arguments that would frighten Tommy DeVito from Goodfellas, largely because we’re so much alike (especially in stubbornness). Yet when Dad and I finish our arguments and make up, we always give each other a big hug and tell each other that we love each other. When I was a kid, I got in trouble (deservingly so) and Dad would have to yell at me. There was something Dad did, however, that I will always remember. I won’t remember the yelling or being in trouble. What I remember was what Dad said after the yelling was over and my punishment was named, Dad would give me a big hug and he would tell me, “Son, no matter what you do, I love you.” I always knew that Dad was angry with the thing I had done, but that he loved me and that I was still a good person to him.

We live in a world where fatherhood is under attack. Liberals are trying to tell people that fathers aren’t necessary by replacing the father with government as a provider. It’s time we stand up and say something for the father’s that do what God intended them to do! I’ve been blessed with a great dad. Someday, I hope I’ll be a dad, and if God chooses to bless me in that way, I’ll have a great example to take my cues from. Dad, I want to say thank you for all you’ve taught me and for all you continue to teach me. Thanks for being my Dad.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

MLB Realignment Will Destroy League Identity

Every now and again, I like to take a break from the political and faith based articles and comment on my third great love: sports.  I love sports.  Those of you who follow me on Twitter know that by my handle, UpstateMetFan.  Baseball is by far my favorite.  It's America's pasttime.  It's also been, to quote James Earl Jones, the "one constant through all the years" in my life. 

Specifically, I love the National League (NL) brand of baseball.  There are a lot of other die hard baseball fans who prefer the American League (AL) brand of baseball.  I also know that so many casual baseball fans prefer the AL, and I know that's largely because many casual fans prefer the Designated Hitter (DH) over seeing pitchers bat.  Personally, I love the NL brand of baseball BECAUSE it doesn't use the DH.  Specifically because there is inherently greater strategy required without the DH. 

First and foremost, the DH allows teams to have a player in their lineup who couldn't play solid defense on a church league softball team just because they can hit (see: David Ortiz).  Secondly, the moment to moment strategy of late-inning baseball is completely different without the DH.  Consider this: it's the seventh inning, no score, bases loaded, two outs.  Your starting pitcher is going strong and has kept the other team off the board for 7 innings with a pitch count at about 80.  Unfortunately, so is the other team's pitcher, and this may be your best chance to win this game.  Do you pinch hit, take out this pitcher who is doing so well, for a better chance to score a run or runs?  With the DH, this strategy is nonexistant.  You just keep batting with whatever player is in the 9 spot (most likely not the DH). 

Secondly, the NL is more exciting than the AL.  The AL tends to rely on the long ball (that's the homerun for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL).  Yes, the game tying, lating inning dinger is quite exciting, but the 2nd inning solo shot in a scoreless game is not.  It was exciting to me when I was eight, yes.  Now it's just a guy trotting in a circle.  The triple to the corner?  Now that's exciting!  Especially when I've got a guy like Jose Reyes on my team who is quite possibly the fastest runner in baseball. The suicide squeeze bunt?  Now that's action!  Give me that over people trotting!

So when I hear that Major League Baseball (MLB) Commissioner Bud Selig is considering a realignment of baseball which would move one team from the NL to the AL.  (For those of you who are unaware, in 1997 when MLB added two expansion teams, Tampa Bay and Arizona, one team, the Milwalkee Brewers, left the AL and switched to the NL, leaving the NL with 16 teams and the AL with 14, rather than having to have an interleague game played every day).   The proposed realignment would move one team from the NL to the AL, and require there to be interleague games played each day.

Here's the problem with this move: when two teams from different leagues play, they play by the home team's league rules.  That means AL pitchers have to bat in an NL park, and the NL teams would have to use a bench player as their DH in the AL parks.  Under the current format, where you play 15-18 interleague games in a season, it's simply a nuisance.  But if you go to a format where you're now playing something akin to 45-50 interleague games per year (one 3 or 4 game series with each team in the other league), now National League teams are forced to carry a bench player that can serve as a DH, essentially eliminating the most important thing that separates the two brands of baseball. 

Major league baseball currently has two different brands of baseball which can cater to the tastes of fans like me who enjoy the strategic, defensive oriented, quick paced NL style, and the more powerful and offense oriented AL style.  This realignment would push those distinctions out.  Want the DH?  Want a power filled, big-ball style of baseball?  Root for an AL team.  Want a small-ball, quick paced style of baseball?  Root for an NL team.  Don't mess with what has given fans a choice!

Friday, June 17, 2011

Faith is Inseparable from Politics

Yes. You read that right, faith is inseparable from politics. I've recently spent a lot of time in debates with agnostics and atheists who are telling me that I can't include my faith in the political discussion because other people don't share my views.  My response is of course I can!

Here's why: America is not made up of groups.  America is made up of individuals who form groups.  Each individual's personal beliefs effect their personal opinions on any given issue.  Those beliefs are based on life experiences and their religious beliefs.  (Those who are atheists, their lack of belief is also part of their opinions.)  To tell an individual to simply ignore their faith when making decisions is, in a word, preposterous.

Let me give you an example.  It's a hot button issue, but it's also one of the best examples in this case: abortion.  Deep down in my heart, I am staunchly opposed to abortion. I'm opposed to it because I believe the most fundamental right of a human being is the right to life.  I believe that life ought to be protected at all stages, including in the womb. This is something that scientific evidence, the Bible, and basic logic (by that I mean that I know life begins at some point after conception, it is safe to consider life beginning at conception in an effort to not destroy human life) has convinced me is true.

Given that I believe that unborn child is a human being and that I also believe that the arbitrary destruction of a human being is the most basic definition of murder, I therefore believe that abortion is murder and ought to be illegal (except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and the doctor chooses to save the most viable life), regardless of how that child was conceived.  (In short, I see the abortion issue, first and foremost, from the perspective of the unborn child and his right to live, and secondly from the perspective of the mother.)

How could I, in good conscience, not stand up and fight against abortion in the arena of ideas and support candidates who do the same?  How could I reasonably ignore the beliefs I hold so dearly when I go to cast my ballot, just because those values are not shared by all?  The answer is I cannot, and I will not.  Nor should I be asked to ignore those beliefs.

Now I am by no means recommending terrorist tactics like blowing up abortion clinics or murdering the doctors who perform the procedure (regardless of the immorality of that doctor's practice, right to life extends to that doctor as well).  What I am saying is that it is incumbent upon me to engage this issue in the arena of ideas in an effort to convince other Americans that I am right and to convince them to also vote that way.  Those who disagree with me have the same right to so work to change hearts and minds of those around them.

In a society where people decide who to vote for base on how pretty they give speeches or, in the famous case of David Brooks, by the crease in his pants, don't tell people of faith that the Bible is an impermissible way to arrive at your political values.  Quit trying to silence us, and just let the debate happen.  What are you afraid of, exactly?

Herein lies the real issue:  Liberals have been taught to silence their opponents as a rhetorical tactic, mainly because actual head to head debates between Conservative and Liberal perspectives have never ended well for the Left. Sure, there are certain front statements made, like attempts to take an intellectual high ground with the idea that opinions reached without a faith based perspective are somehow more scientific, but I say baloney. Let's have a debate, a public one, with the judges being voters.  Stop saying that certain paths to an opinion are invalid. 

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Right to Work Laws Shouldn't Even Be Necessary

Right to work: It’s a hot button issue in modern politics. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, several states have passed or are fighting to pass legislation to end mandatory union membership to work at a particular business. Those of you who were unaware that such union requirements exist are likely wondering why this practice is even legal. Think about it for a moment; what would Liberals say if Conservative organizations required a person to be a Christian to work a job, or a Republican, or a member of the Unofficial Star Wars In-Depth Analysis Club (1) to be employed at a job. They’d have a conniption (and probably claim the discussion of Jedi violates the nonexistent Separation of Church and State). Yet Liberals are also having a conniption because lawmakers are saying you can no longer require a person to be a member of a union to work a job if the employer is willing to hire that person.

By the way, this forced association wouldn’t be quite so bad if it wasn’t for the fact that there are mandatory dues required for membership. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, dues are fees charged to be a member of an organization). So individuals are required to join an organization and then pay for the right to be a part of an organization that they don’t necessarily want to be a part of in the first place.
Unions and their Liberal cronies in the Democrat Party are doing a good deal of whining about these laws, claiming that removing the mandatory membership requirements would take away their power base. My answer is too darn bad! If your organization needs to force people to be members to maintain your power base, you shouldn’t have that level of power in the first place! You have your power by forcing people to pay you without their consent. In a Democracy, power is not a right. It’s a privilege earned by having voluntary support from many people.

If you dust off a history book, you’ll discover that the original unions didn’t have mandatory membership or dues being deducted from payroll checks. I will grant that they served an important purpose in the 19th Century and early 20th Century (one that has ceased to be, by the way). Those unions happened organically. People chose to form unions and join them. They chose to pay dues to receive the benefits of union membership.

And no, requiring union membership is not the same as requiring certain levels of experience or education to obtain a job. Requiring a doctor to be board certified is done not to maintain the Medical Board’s influence but to ensure that those who are charged with our medical care are in fact trained professionals. Also, requiring a person to have a bachelor’s degree in accounting to work as an accountant is requiring a certain level of education. Being in a union is not an achieved standard. It’s an arbitrary requirement meant to maintain the power of that group.

Here’s the real crux of the issue: private organizations do not have a right to take money from people and force them to be members of a particular organization to obtain a job. These requirements by right ought to be illegal. This is an attempt to maintain an illegitimate power base. Right to work should not even need a discussion. We shouldn’t need a law to tell an organization they cannot force a person to join its ranks or pay dues. Period.

(1) The Unofficial Star Wars In-Depth Analysis Club meets at my apartment Monday evenings for about fifteen minutes and periodically at barbecues and game nights. Current membership is three. We then are joined by a few more people and become a small group Bible study on Mondays and the same few more people on the other occasions for enjoyable evenings. The group remains unofficial, although I doubt Kenny and Dustin would mind (names changed to protect the dorkily innocent).

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Palin E-Mail Search Yields Nothing But Good

Last week, the Drive-By Media continued their witch hunt into Sarah Palin's email files while she was Governor of Alaska. Not surprisingly to those of us who have actually seen an unedited interview with Palin, free of the "gotcha" tactics of the Lamestreamers, they found NOTHING damaging.  As CNN's Drew Griffin put it:

Yep, we found out that Governor Palin was, "A hard-working Governor, devoted to the State of Alaska. Devoted to her staff, and devoted to her family. And extremely hard-working."  Wow.  Boy was THAT incriminating!  The last thing we want in our next President is a hard working individual who is devoted to their family.  THAT would certainly be awful, especially if we could instead have a President who plays golf constantly and takes ten vacations a year!

The Drive-By Media's absolute obsession with tearing down Palin has become disgusting.  It's replaced their hatred of George W. Bush and become even worse. It's directed from fear, as I have said dozens of times before, because they don't want Obama to have to face off with genuine Conservatism in 2012, and Palin most definitely qualifies.

Yes, I know Liberals are telling you they think Palin would be imminently beatable by Obama, but it's all smoke and mirrors.  I know some Republicans are concerned because of Palin's negative ratings with people currently.  That being said, those negative opinions will change when Americans are given the opportunity to interact with her without a media filter.  The same thing that has happened regarding Michelle Bachmann after Monday's debate will happen as it pertains to Palin. 

So many people who watched the farce of a CNN debate on Monday went in with negative views of Bachmann, thanks to the Lamestreamers, and walked away saying "Wow...she didn't breathe fire or sound radical at all! She sounded very reasonable and intelligent." The same thing will happen with Palin, should she get into the Presidential race.  People believe their own eyes and ears far more than Lamestream Media spin.

So the Drive-Bys have tried to dig up dirt, and they couldn't find anything on Palin except positives.  It's just not working to tear down Palin.  Ain't it grand!  Liberal smear is failing.  Welcome to the world of the new Media.  Should Sarah Palin join the 2011 fray, she will be not only in a great position to get the nomination but also in a great position to beat Obama.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Dear Liberals - THESE Are the People you Think Should Run our Lives?

The recent Anthony Weiner scandal has dominated the nation news scene, and it got me thinking. No, I’m not going to delve into that scandal, because it’s just not worth discussing here. However, the Rep. Weiner scandal does point out a major issue with Liberalism that I have previously mentioned in passing: THESE are the supposedly brilliant people to whom we are supposed to submit our life’s decisions?

Think about it. We are told quite constantly how smart Liberals are, that they are the best and brightest and that they understand the best things for us to do with our lives. We should let them decide for us what to eat, what cars to drive, what sort of home we should buy. Yet I say that my decisions are infinitely better for myself than somebody who doesn’t know that it’s a bad idea to send pictures of his own private parts on the internet.

This mistake of Weiner’s is one of the most “duh” things on the planet! First and foremost, there are laws preventing individuals from displaying certain parts of their bodies in public. That’s one. Two, as somebody who has been relatively successful in my days of being single at attracting worthwhile companions of the female half of the species, I can tell you such things like “charm” and “kindness” and “having a good job” are far better ways to attract women. I innately knew that when I was thirteen and started to date (although while in high school I got away with not having a good job). It was something that my mother taught me, that my father taught me, that my tutor in the ways of treating women, my late Uncle Scott, taught me, that my grandfather taught me. Only scumbag men would resort to exposing themselves to a woman, and only a tramp would be seduced by that exposure.

I got that at 13 years old. Yet I’m supposed to believe a man who DOESN’T understand this fact is smarter than me and better to tell me how to live my life? While you’re contemplating that, let me give you a few more examples that aren’t so offensive in nature but still aren’t qualified to make decisions on my life (1):

- Former Vice President Al Gore, who lectures all of us to live “green” lives, but his home uses $30,000 annually in electricity. According to the Liberal, the average family uses $2150 in annual electricity. So Gore uses just under 15 times as much energy as the average family, yet lectures us about our consumption! He also flies everywhere in a private jet while telling us to buy fuel efficient, lawnmower sized cars.

- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi bashes businesses for not using union labor, but does not use union labor in the vineyard, restaurants and hotel chain that she owns.

- President Barrack Obama presumes to tell business owners to “step up and hire,” but he has never run a business and never had to make a payroll or keep a business profitable.

These are the people who we should listen to, hypocrites and those with no experience? While you ask yourself that question, let me give you another thought. Who DO you listen to in your day to day life? I’ll tell you whose opinions I respect:

- Jesus Christ: It is Biblical Conservatism, after all. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who created me and you, came to Earth, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead. The only perfect person who ever lived, and is alive and well today. He created me, so I trust who He told me to be in His Word, the Bible.

- My parents: Whether it be advice about how to have a successful relationship/marriage (they celebrated 30 years of marriage this past October) or how to have a successful career (my mother is an MSW in Social Work with 30 years of great experience in counseling, my father has achieved an executive level position with a pool products company despite having never gone to college) or, if the Lord chooses to so bless me in the future, how to be a parent (they have raised two of their own children who are functioning adults with college degrees and good jobs and also a third adopted child who starts college in the fall), they have real experience that I trust to help me make life decisions. They have also owned a home (still do), paid their taxes, voted, purchased automobiles, and maintained a family budget, not to mention both parents have run a business (they managed a pizza place when they met, plus Dad is now President of a company as I mentioned before).

- My late grandfather: Like my parents, Papap was married to my grandmother for over 40 years until he died of Leukemia in 1999. Although he was the son of a poor farmer, he was able to work his way through Pittsburg University to get a degree in Engineering and became a supervising engineer for General Electric’s radar department during the Cold War. He and my grandmother have also owned a home (Gram still does), paid their taxes, voted, purchased automobiles, and maintained a family budget.

- My Pastor: My spiritual advisor and a mentor. He and his wife have He have also owned a home (they still do), paid their taxes, voted, purchased automobiles, maintained a family budget, and are currently raising two boys (they are currently teenagers, and fine young men, I might add).

See, these five people whose opinions do matter to me don’t just talk the talk, they walk the walk. They’ve proven their trustworthiness to me. In the case of my parents and grandfather, they proved themselves to me from the day I was born as people worthy of my ear. My Pastor proved himself to me as worthy of listening to in the four years since I’ve been in his congregation. For the record, I am someone who doesn’t just assume clergy as a valid person worth listening to, I wait to see the fruit of their life. Seeing that fruit in my pastor’s life is the reason I respect and trust his opinions. Jesus I met at age eight and have walked with Him for the rest of my life, (save for a two year period where I walked away from my faith). He has proven Himself faithful to me day by day, more than anyone else I have mentioned.

Here’s the important thing, however (with the exception of Christ, who is absolutely in charge of my life) I trust the above individuals as counselors and advisors in my life. I also believe there is one more person who is far better to direct my life: me. I was raised by good parents and Godly parents with other Godly influences in my life like my grandparents and my church. I have the Bible as my daily bread to guide me. With those things at my side, I know that I can make wise decisions for my own life, without a politician to tell me how to live. I don’t want a Conservative politician to tell me how to live, either, although Conservatism by its very nature avoids telling people how to live their lives.

Dear Liberals: These people you put in front of us are often unable to figure out how to live their own lives. So they aren’t going to run mine. Got it?


(1)    10 Cases of Liberal Hypocrisy

Monday, June 13, 2011

Coloquialisms Change: "Retarded" Shouldn't Still Be Offensive

Last week, Lebron James used the word "retarded" to essentially mean "foolish" directed at a reporter who was asking him a question in a post-game press conference.  With all the usual logic of the politically correct Liberal press, they slammed him for being "offensive" and trashed Lebron for his insensitivity.  Many people will agree that this word is in fact insulting and unnecessary.  Yet I take a different stance.

I have said for years that the only reason the word retarded is still connected with those with metal handicaps is because of well meaning but oversensitive Neighborhood Liberals who continue to remind us what that word used to mean.  Don’t believe me?  Let me ask you this: Do you find me calling somebody an “idiot” offensive?  No?  How about saying “you’re crazy”?  Does that offend you?  I’m guessing it doesn’t. 

What most of you know is that the word “crazy” used to be a medical term for those who were indeed legally insane.  (1)  What most of you may not know is that the word “idiot” was once also a medical term, specifically directed at the people we now call mentally disabled or mentally retarded. (2)  As language does, the colloquial meaning of those two words have changed.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a colloquialism is a common usage for a word in everyday language.  An excellent example, which you should recognize, is “chad” which, in 2000, stopped only meaning “male name” and was expanded to include “bit of paper Palm Beach Countiers were not smart enough to punch through.”)  Saying someone is crazy now means that they are doing something illogical, irrational, or foolish.  Idiot now means a person who is doing something that is unwise or unintelligent. 

Nobody calls the PC Police or acts offended when someone refers to a person or an action as an idiot or crazy, now do they?  There is a very good reason for this fact:  Those words no longer mean a person with a legitimate mental illness (in the case of “crazy”) or legitimate mental disability (in the case of “idiot”), but have in fact become synonymous with the word “foolish.”

The word “retarded” in the colloquial language now means “foolish” or “nonsensical.”  If I say “that plan is retarded” I mean that it’s a nonsensical plan.  I do not mean “that plan has a mental disability.”  If I tell a friend to “stop being retarded” I mean “stop acting like a fool,” not “stop acting like a person with a mental disability.”

I have said for years that if the word “retarded” had simply been allowed to take the natural course that “idiot” took, it would now have passed out of being a medical term and into a general comment on the wisdom/intelligence of an action.  As a matter of fact, I believe the only reason most people realize the previous meaning of “retarded” is the PC Police continually reminding us when we use the word in its modern colloquial context.

Look, certain important words don’t change meanings, and I understand that.  I personally made the statement that the word “marriage” has a specific meaning and that the word meaning doesn’t change due to societal desires, so I understand that this may seem a little hypocritical on my behalf.  But I have an answer:  marriage is an institution created by God Almighty at the beginning of creation. It is a highly important institution that is a major function of society and of the family.  It is a legal institution as well.  It is not a colloquialism.  The meaning of other such institutional words haven't changed, like "government" or "school." 

Insults, however, are different.  Insults, by their very nature, are colloquialisms.  They frequently stop meaning what they originally meant.  If you don’t believe me, look up the origin of the word geek.  Hint: it didn’t originally mean “nerdy guy who likes computers.”

Look, I know you Neighborhood Liberals mean well in your attempts to stop people from using the word retarded as an insult.  That said, what you’re doing is not helping at all.  The word retarded will absolutely join crazy and idiot in the graveyard of former medical terms that have now become insults.  You just have to let it.  That word’s meaning has now changed.  Please let it become official.


Friday, June 10, 2011

Voting is not a "Right" it is a Solemn Responsibility

Recently, I had an intriguing debate with a friend over a previous post on Biblical Conservatism over the recently passed and proposed Voter Identification laws in several states and of Democrats outcry and claims of racism that have come up. My friend raised an excellent point that bears repeating: "Believe it or not, there is no right to vote in the US Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have a right to vote."

He is right. The right to vote is never listed in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in the other 17 Amendments. The only statement of the right to vote in the Constitution at all is in the 26th Amendment, where it is stated that neither the Federal government nor the state governments may infringe upon a person's right to vote due to their age, provided they are at least 18 years old. (For the record, it doesn't say that a person's right to vote cannot be taken away for other reasons, like committing certain felonies.)
There is an important point in that statement, one which I have mentioned in passing but not directly: Voting should not be a thoughtless process. We treat voting as something you're just supposed to do, so show up and do it. The typical "let’s get out and vote" attitude never stresses the necessity of taking that vote seriously. People vote for someone because they sound nice, or are handsome, or because they are a woman or a minority and "it's time we have a female/minority President." As a matter of fact, too many people vote without having a clue, and that is a problem.
Let's compare that to our Founding Fathers and other American Statesmen:
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own. - Daniel Webster, 1840 (1)
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. - Samuel Adams, 1781 (2)
Compare that attitude to "just get out and vote because it's really, super-duper important." Too many people vote on style over substance, or because voting is something they are "supposed to do" or even because it's a rite of passage. Democrats, of course, LOVE IT, because their policies are centered around the "at least we're trying" lines that Neighborhood Liberals love so dearly. (Democrats also love that the same Neighborhood Liberals don't pay attention to whether or not these expensive policies work in the slightest, they "tried." I once "tried" to knock over a brick wall by pushing on it. It didn't work either.)

The truth is, the modern Democratic Party thrives on the backs of people who vote because they're supposed to and then vote Democrat on the backs of platitudes like "Democrats are the party of the little guy." For the record, the Democratic Party is actually the party of "Big Union" and "Big Liberal Activist Organization." They don't give a toss about the "little guy" any further than the fact that the "little guy" is willing to give them power over and over again. I've said that constantly here, so I won't reassess why (you're just going to have to go back and read)!

For the record, I don’t want people to vote Republican for similar bad reasons. If Sarah Palin does become the GOP nominee as I have predicted, for example, I don’t want people to vote for her because “it’s time for a woman President.” It’s lame when it supports my side too.

Here’s the reality folks: If you’re going to vote, take the time to make an informed decision. Find out the historical implications of both candidates’ policies. If you want to know the history of Conservatism, look at the 1980s. You will see that genuine Conservatism means low taxes but significantly higher tax receipts (once again, that’s total dollars received from taxation, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). You will see a robust economy with low unemployment and booming economic growth. Be sure to look into the REAL history of the Reagan years. Don’t buy into the Liberal revisionist history that “Reagan increased deficits” when the truth is Democrats were spending 180% of tax receipts before Reagan, and when Reagan doubled tax receipts, the Democrat Congress spent 180% of that mount as well!
If you want to see the historical results of Liberalism, first of all, look around. But if you want something from history, look at the latter half of the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was President. You’ll see a top marginal tax rate of 70% (you read that right, the top bracket kept only $.30 of every dollar they earned thanks to Liberal tax policy) and yet they still had deficits of 180% of tax receipts (so apparently higher taxes doesn’t solve a spending problem). You’ll see unemployment at 12% (sound familiar?) and a massive recession (sound familiar?). You’ll see gas prices at ridiculous levels (sound familiar?) and the only solutions being offered being pie in the sky green energy solutions like solar and wind (sound familiar?).

It’s not at all difficult to ascertain what the results of particular political policies will be when they are presented in a campaign. If you do just a little bit of legwork, you’ll find out that Liberal policies have never failed to fail and Conservative policies have lead to economic growth and prosperity. It’s not hard to do your research. Watch three debates then read up on the historical implications of those polices.

You only have to do it once, as economic reactions to political policies are relatively constant because human nature is also relatively constant. It’s not hard to see that if you take money (aka business capital) out of the pockets of business owners you are taking away resources that can be invested into their business, leading to new innovations in product and production which means a need for a larger workforce with then means more people paying taxes as well as contributing to the economy. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means when business owners have more money they invest it in their companies, create new products and hire more workers who then pay taxes and buy stuff).

Here’s the point, and there’s no two ways about it: If you’re going to vote, for crying out loud vote intelligently. Do your research, and make an informed decision. Don’t vote for somebody because they give pretty speeches or because of the color of their skin. Also, don’t vote against somebody who has good policies and experience because they don’t give pretty speeches. Also, for the tiny handful of people who would actually vote against somebody because of their gender or skin tone, please follow these instructions. Open your hand. Place your hand behind your head, palm facing out. Ready? Thrust your hand forward very quickly. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means smack yourself upside the head.) As I’ve said before, the whole “you don’t like Obama because he’s black” is a baloney ad homonym argument as it pertains to 99% of people. The remaining 1% of you, please do me a favor and smack yourself upside the head again, for you are a moron.

Now I do recognize that there are those who have genuinely considered the facts and still have concluded they should vote Democrat because they are convinced of Liberalism. I do encourage you to do more research (keep reading Biblical Conservatism, for one) about the historical implications of Liberalism. However, if you have done your research and arrived at a different conclusion than me, fine. You’ve done your homework and you’ve been convinced in the other direction. I don’t agree with you, but I do respect your right to an opinion. See, I do respect other opinions, as long as they have been formed intelligently!

Those of you, who vote without doing research, I’m begging you to vote with your feet on Election Day: Put them up on a coffee table and stay home. Voting is a solemn responsibility, so if you’re not going to take it seriously, please just don’t vote at all. I’m not kidding. Please take that responsibility seriously or stay home.


(1) Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840, (Found at

(2) Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV, p. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781 (Found at

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Democrats Cry Racism on Voter ID (Where'd you hear that predicted?)

On Friday, May 27th I published a reaction here on Biblical Conservatism to the voter identification law that was passed in Wisconsin and are being supported in Texas and other states.  In that article, I said the following:

(Democrats) will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect (the fact that this law will harm their ability to steal elections via fraud). (1)

A reasonable prediction, to say the least. Since the Liberal playbook contains less plays that Coach Herman Boone's playbook in "Remember the Titans," it was easy to predict.  (PS - if you understood that reference, you're now cool in my eyes.)  So here goes the reaction from a high ranking Liberal Democrat to voter ID laws:

Did I call that or what?  For the record, I'm not bringing this up so I can take a victory lap.  The reason I'm bringing this up is to show how truly predictable Liberal Democrats are, and how much they are indeed showing their hand with claims like these.

More importantly, the claims themselves are absolutely ridiculous.  25% of African-Americans don't have a valid photo ID?  Are you kidding me?  As I mentioned in the original post, the only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification.

I've jokingly said for years that 67.294% of all statistics are made up on the spot.  This particular invented statistic is even more ridiculous:  1/4 of adult African-Americans don't have a photo ID?  So you're saying that one of every four African Americans above 18 years old don't drive, don't ever leave the country, never want to purchase any age required product, (whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills), don't have a bank account, or don't have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment?  That's so ridiculous I find it sad that I have to explain how ridiculous it truly is.  Oh, and by the way (this is really important folks) according to my research, you need photo ID to REGISTER TO VOTE!

Furthermore, trying to claim that voter fraud isn't a real issue?  Are you KIDDING ME?  I mean, it's not a huge issue to DEMOCRATS, considering that, regardless of their wild accusations of "disenfranchising Democrat voters" leading up to every election, the only reports are of Liberal operatives harrassing Republican voters.  For example, the New Black Panthers intimidating white voters in Republican districts in 2008. (2) It's a blantant lie. 

I stand by my original statement, friends. It is nearly impossible to surive in the adult world without legal photo identification. That's a fact. The rest of this is just smoke-filled coffee house baloney. There is only one reason to object to requiring identification to prove you are who you say you are: if your voters AREN'T who they say they claim to be. Claiming this as racism is just another ad homonym argument in an attempt to cover up their real fear.  Democrats don't want to lose voter intimidation and fraud as a way to steal elections.  Period.

(1) How Telling: Liberals Claim Voter ID Laws Will "Disenfranchise" Their Voters

(2) Black Panthers Attack Voters in Philly Voting Place

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Carville Says 2012 Could Be Rough for Obama

The recent news regarding 2012 is now showing my predictions about Obama to be accurate. Drive-By Media rats are starting to leave the SS Obama. Monday, James Carville stood up and said precisely what I’ve been saying (in different words, of course).

“If 54,000 new jobs is the new standard, it’s going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama.” – James Carville in the Daily Caller (1)

Carville, Mr. “It’s the economy, stupid,” is saying what national Conservative voices like Limbaugh and Hannity as well as lowly bloggers like yours truly have been saying for months. Obama is in a heap of political trouble.

Why wouldn’t he be? As I’ve said over and over again, 9.1% unemployment should be Obama’s middle name to whomever the GOP ultimately nominates. Gas prices have recently dipped a bit, but that’s on the back of the rest of the commodities market, scratch that, the rest of the stock market, crashing. (Also, the GOP voting to end Obama’s moratorium on deep water drilling caused the speculators to speculate down.)

It’s not just Carville, by the way. Remember a few weeks ago I trashed a bad CNN poll? Another frequent perpetrator of such poll fixing, ABC/Washington Post, has shown Obama’s fortune dropping. In a new ABC/Washington Post poll, has issued a new with Obama at 47% approval and 49% disapproval, a drop of 9%. With “adults,” by the way, Democrats tend to gain points. Polls of “likely voters” generally correct to the right, as the typical right wing voter is more likely to show up to vote than the typical left wing voter. (2)

Also, as dealt with last week, Obama’s approval ratings on the important issues like the Economy are in the tank. He’s currently at 40% approval and 59% disapproval in the aforementioned ABC/Washington Post Poll on the question of his handling of the economy. Only 32% say the country is on the right track with 66% saying the country is on the wrong track. only 42% say the recovery has begun from the recession that is supposedly over, 57% say it has not begun. Of the 42% who inexplicably say that the economy has begun its recovery, 81% say it is a weak recovery.

Carville is dead right. Obama is in deep trouble in 2012. I predict that Carville is the first of many rats to leave this sinking ship. Oh, one more number from that poll: 45% of those polled say they will definitely not vote for Obama. Only 24% said they will definitely vote for him. 29% said they would consider it. Think about that for a moment. If say, 1/3 of those people who say they will consider voting for Obama don’t, that would equal 54% of people voting against him, and Obama is electorally toast. (Don’t forget, once we drop those who are not likely to vote, Obama’s numbers will probably get worse.)

I’m beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of a primary challenge to Obama. Maybe Hillary Clinton…after all, Carville is a big Clintonista. The Drive-By Media, while publicly maintaining the Obama-mania, also have a far bigger goal of pushing Liberalism on the American public, and that’s just not going to happen if the most Liberal President in history goes down in flames in 2012. This narrative may be the first sign that the Media is dropping Obama.

At any rate, if I can borrow a line from Rush Limbaugh (as if this was the first time), see, I told you so. Obama’s in trouble. Now even the Democrats and Liberal Media are getting the message. Time to ramp up for a great 2012 opportunity, and that opportunity is a real Conservative President who can knock the Democratic Party back to 1984 in national electoral politics. Game on.


(1) Daily Caller - Carville: 2012 could be ‘very rough’ for Obama, says civil unrest ‘imminently possible’

(2) Newsweek - How to Read a Political Poll

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Requiring Drug Tests for for Welfare is COMPLETELY Constitutional

Last week, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into a law a bill that requires drug tests for welfare recipients. Unexpectedly as the bad employment report last week (so completely expected) the Democratic Party is flipping its lid over this law. They’re bringing up the issue of medical marijuana use, which is rather preposterous, actually, and if they haven’t claimed racism yet, you can bet they will (because no white people use drugs, apparently).

Their only reasonable claim is that this law is unconstitutional because it is forcing people to take a drug test without probable cause (a supposed violation of the 4th Amendment). This may sound plausible at first, until you understand the Constitution better. First and foremost, the Constitution provided against unlawful search and seizure in terms of accusing someone of a crime, not as it pertains to receipt of public money in benefits (considering the Founders never intended the government to handle those situations anyway). Secondly, many, many jobs require a person to pass a drug test as a condition of hire.

I’m guessing most of you have had to take a drug test as a condition of employment. I have, and it was not a problem, since I do not use any illegal drugs. These tests are actually quite precise. I remember my father taking one such test a few years ago upon hire for a new position as an executive with a distributor of swimming pool products. The test did come up clean for illegal drugs, as expected, because like me, my Dad doesn’t use illegal drugs. What did register, however, was a blood alcohol content of .0001, as a consequence of him having consumed one glass of beer the night before. I tell you that story because I want to make clear how completely precise these tests truly are. (For the record, that test result did not affect my father’s employment, as the lab explained the reason for the phenomenon as consumption of one drink 12 hours previous to the test.)

Here’s the point: Those who are employed are receiving other people’s money in exchange for performing some sort of physical or intellectual labor (that is the simple definition of a job) and THEY are frequently asked to take a drug test as a condition of employment. Those receiving public assistance are receiving other people’s money WITHOUT performing some sort of physical or intellectual labor (aka free money) so why shouldn’t they be required to prove that they are not using drugs?

While you consider that, consider this: The cost of the most prevalent (and most recreational) of illegal drugs, marijuana, is quite high. One must assume (since I don’t have a legitimate source to say with certainty) is significantly above that of legal drugs like nicotine and alcohol, since black market products always account for the risk of sale in the price. So let’s say somebody is spending $100 each month to maintain their habit, a relatively low number. As a single adult, I can say for a fact that I could buy food for one month on that amount. I would have to get rid of a few items in my diet like fresh ground, whole-bean coffee to achieve that, but that’s all I’d have to cut out is the little extras to reduce my food budget to $100 per month.

For the record, my personal budget for groceries monthly is $150. (For the record, that’s my own money from the paycheck I earn at my job. I don’t receive public assistance of any kind.) Also, for the record, I don’t eat Ramen Noodles and Kraft Mac and Cheese daily. I cook real, balanced, meat and potatoes meals for that amount. So a person who is receiving food stamps and spending $100 per month on marijuana could very easily receive $100 per month less of taxpayer money rather than fund their habit.

I was once given a $100 gift card to Hess at work as a gift. My immediate mental reaction was “I can now spend $100 from my budget this month on something else.” That’s the obvious reaction in such a situation. I had money to buy gas budgeted from my paycheck, I now had $100 in gas given to me, so I was able to spend that money on something else. The difference in this situation is the money I would have been spending on gas was coming from my paycheck. Also, the aforementioned gift card was given to me as a thank you for helping my company achieve a major goal. It wasn’t given to me out of taxpayer wallets as a benefit to pay for me not working.

I know what some people are going to ask: based on this logic, we should be able to restrict those receiving benefits from buying cigarettes, beer, fast food, candy bars, Twizzlers, soda, etc. For the record, I do want certain food restricted from being purchased with food stamps, like candy and soda. That being said, I do recognize that such regulations can become a slippery slope and lead to a nanny state. My response is that a line must be drawn somewhere, and a pretty reasonable line to draw is the law. Whether or not you think marijuana ought to be legal, it is currently illegal. If you want to have a separate discussion on whether or not it ought to be legalized, that’s fine, but for the moment, it is illegal to possess and to sell.

Bottom line: Nobody is forced to accept public assistance. Believe it or not, there are other options besides government, like private charities, to help with need for food or other necessities. The difference is these groups actually give those in need food, not vouchers/debit cards which can buy any edible item at the supermarket that isn’t beer. Yes, programs like food stamps are only to be used on food (hypothetically), but by giving someone vouchers etc to buy something they were already going to purchase, they now can use the money they were going to spend on food on whatever they wish. Giving people food, and the necessary stigma behind accepting charity, generally causes people to spend their money on food before accepting said charity. This law would stop individuals from using that money on purchasing an illegal product. And since it’s my money being spent, I’m all for it.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Freedom of Religion Doesn't Mean Freedom FROM Religion

Recently a high school student and his family sued a school district to restrict references to God and prayer from a high school graduation ceremony. As a Christian and as a Constitutionalist, stories like this are highly frustrating to me. Liberals have tried, with unfortunate success, to convince America that people have a right to never hear anything that ever upsets them in the slightest. This, in a nutshell, is the true definition of political correctness. I don’t know about you, but I’ve quite frankly had just about enough of this baloney.

Here’s the truth: we have Freedom OF Religion, and not Freedom FROM Religion. It’s an important distinction. As Americans, we have freedom to practice our faith. The only exception is if PHYSICAL harm is being done to another human being. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means people can’t legally sacrifice another person on an altar in the name of practicing my religion. It does not mean I can’t say “God bless you” to an atheist when they sneeze.) Furthermore, the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was never meant to keep God out of all government circles. It was designed to prevent the United States from having a declared state religion (which we do not have).

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1)
For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, here’s a quick history lesson: Before the United States was a nation, we were colonies of Great Britain. Great Britain, both then and now had an official state religion, the Anglican Church. The Founders did not want the United States to fall into that trap, hence the first part of the First Amendment, which prohibits the United States from becoming a Methodist nation, or a Lutheran nation, or a Baptist nation. That was the historical intention of that part of the First Amendment.

However, the Founders also put a second statement about religion. The Founders also made sure that there would be nothing to stop people from freely practicing their religion. Notice it does not say “private exercise thereof.” It says Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The United States government may not stop people from practicing their religion. Got it?

Yet Liberals and atheists of all political leanings have combined to demand that they never have to hear anything about other people’s religions and now what the law to protect their ears from having to hear our free speech. With all due respect to you atheists, if you don’t want to hear the free expression of my faith, don’t listen to me. Don’t read Biblical Conservatism (for crying out loud, it’s in the name of the blog). You do not have a right to stop my expression of my faith, or for that matter, anyone else’s expression of their faith. Not in private, not in public, not at all. Period.

Liberals would rather have us believe that the most disgusting pornography on the planet is protected speech under the Constitution, while saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for this meal you have provided us and for your blessings on our lives. Amen,” is not protected speech. Sorry Liberals, but you’re wrong (quite frankly, on both counts). For the record, I recognize that I legally do not have the right to stop the pornography industry, provided all involved are consenting adults. That said, the Founders intended to protect free expression of religious faith, all political speech, and assembly in protest when they ratified the First Amendment. The Constitution protects my right to pray in public, to talk about Jesus in public, to quote the Bible in public. I have that right.

You have two choices in such situations. First and foremost, you can leave. You don’t have to stay and here my free speech. You have every right to avoid hearing my speech (as I avoid viewing the aforementioned pornography because it highly offends me). No one is forcing you to stay and listen.

Secondly, you can counter my speech with speech of your own. You are more than welcome to enter into a discussion with me on our differences of faith or our differences of political opinion. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I believe in the Arena of Ideas. You present your ideas, I’ll present mine.
Unfortunately for Liberals, their ideas rarely stand up in a debate. They end up being Unconstitutional, just plain whiny, or both combined (see: demanding people of faith never speak their faith out loud). Not only do you have a legal right to stop people from expressing their faith, you also are being incredibly hypocritical. Liberals claim to be open minded but never want to be open minded about anything they don’t like. As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.”

So Liberals, and atheists of all political bents, please hear me: Get over yourselves. We have the right to express our faith. You have a right to not listen. You have a right to debate with us. You do not have a right to silence our constitutionally protected religious speech. Get over it.


(1) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Emphasis Added)