Chris Christie is not the Only Winner for the GOP

Earlier this week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced that he would not seek the Presidency in 2012.  Certain members of the Republican Party and other conservative mainstays like Ann Coulter are now disappointed.  Perhaps the most outspoken is Republican Strategist Bill Kristol who stated, and I quote:

"If any of them honestly thinks he could win the nomination and the presidency, and would be a better candidate and a better president than the rest of the Republican field—and if there are no show-stopping medical or family issues—doesn’t that public official have some obligation to step up to the plate?

"You don’t have to “feel deeply in [your] heart” that you’re called to run for president. You have to think you’re the right man for the job. And, if that’s the case, you have a duty to your country to step forward." (1)

Look, I think Christie would be a great candidate.  I like his frankness and I like his politics.  I think he would mop the proverbial floor with Obama in the general election.  However, I think other people would also mop the floor with Obama, including Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin.  There is no one person we need to beat Obama.

The question may be asked "who is that one person who can really baet Obama?"  The answer is, quite simply, a dyed in the wool conservative.  It doesn't have to be Christie. It could be Cain or Bachmann or Palin.  Obama is in a free fall and he is headed for a big loss in 2012.  As I said in May of this year, I Hope They Run Obama.  It's our chance to get a real conservative elected. 

Christie would qualify, by the way.  He's not as conservative as I'd like, for the record, he's in that Rockefeller Republican category with a conservative tilt.   That said, he has the huevos to do what needs done and the frankness to convince people to follow him. 

The reality, by the way, is that Christie would be the best thing that ever happened to Rick Perry.  He's not going to take Perry's voters, he'll take Romney's voters...the moderate Rockefeller Republican types, not Rick Perry's voters.  Perry is fighting for the conservative vote.

I like Christie.  I would be happy to support him, and if he changes his mind, he'll join Bachmann and Perry (and possibly Palin if she runs) in the battle for my vote.  He isn't the only guy who can beat Obama.  So many people could beat Obama it's staggering.  We could bring George H.W. Bush out of retirement and run him and HE could beat Obama.  I've said over and over again, Foghorn Leghorn could beat Obama.  Christie not entering isn't devastating to conservatives (at least one's not named Ann Coulter).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) It’s Not About You

No, Governor Perdue, We Should NOT Suspend Elections

In case you've missed the latest liberal Democrat's lousy suggestion, Governor Beverly Perdue of North Carolina has suggested that we suspend Congressional elections for two years so that congress can just "get things done" without consequences.


The speech, which you can hear at the Daily Caller in it's entirety, was claimed to be "a joke."  Listen to the quote...it's absolutely not a joke. It's a serious recommendation from a Democrat governor which would cause our Founding Fathers to turn over in their graves. We have never suspended elections in case of war, or depression, so why would we suspend elections because of an economic downturn?

The answer is, of course, we absolutely should not ever cancel and election, and should only postpone under the most extreme circumstances...which we have yet to see.  To give you a stark example: Mayor Rudy Guliani's term ended three months after the September 11, 2001 after he did not run for a third term in November of 2001, feeling his serving of two terms was his personal limit.  They did not postpone that election or postpone his replacement's inauguration.  Anyone who would claim that our current circumstances are worse than 9/11 is nothing but a sophist.

The truth is the Democrat party and Governor Perdue are aware that the 2012 Congressional elections could make the 2010 Shelacking seem like a small loss.  Nothing at the ballot box has suggested otherwise, from the 2009 elections of Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia to the thumping in 2010 to the loss of Anthony Weiner's seat in Queens, NY, we see that the Left is on the run. 

This fact is the real shade of this comment.  "We're going to get shellacked again...you know what...let's not have elections...that is...to get things done and stuff...for the American people.  Yeah, that's it.  Get stuff done for the American people."

Bottom line: Our founders intended elected officials to be constantly under accountability via regular elections.  Especially the People's House, the House of Representatives.  Governor Perdue, we will not suspend elections.  You and your party better prepare yourselves for another electoral shelacking at the ballot box in 2012.

"Racist" Tea Party Helps Herman Cain to FL Straw Poll Victory

The Tea Party is so racist, especially in the south, that they just helped a black man win the Florida Straw Poll...wait...what?  How could the "racist" Tea Party support a black man, if it's all about race?

While you ponder that statement, explain why the same "racist" conservatives (who would eventually form the Tea Party) do their best to defeat John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson, especially because all but Kerry were/are southern white men?

Of course, the Tea Party was never racist, and conservatives never opposed Obama because he was black.  Frankly, the people who expect others to support Obama and never criticize him BECAUSE he's black are the racist ones.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party and conservatives in general want candidates who support small government and original Constitutional values.  We will happily support a black man or woman, or a white man or woman, or an Asian man or woman, or a purple man or woman or a polka-dotted man or woman (provided he or she is meets the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency) if they have a) experiences that make them qualified to be President (public or private sector experience are both acceptable) and b) good ideas/values for governing.

Herman Cain fits those criteria.  He has executive experience running Burger King Corporation and Godfather's Pizza and he has good ideas/values for governing like his 9/9/9 plan. 

You know who didn't have experiences who qualified him to be President?  Mr. Community Organizer and Vote Present in the Illinois State Senate and U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama.  You know who didn't have good ideas/values for governing?  Mr. Obamacare, Keynsian Redistributionist, Government Spending can grow the economy Barrack Obama.

Congratulations to Mr. Cain, and thank you.  It shows once again how ad homonym and false the "racist" claims against us in the Tea Party continue to be.  Also, I may have to change my stock picks on Mr. Cain in my next debate response, as he's apparently now rising to the top. 

I'd love to see Mr. Cain run against Obama, if only because it would fly in the face of the "racist Tea Party" claims the Left seems loathe to retract.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd love to see Cain on the 2012 GOP ticket.  Meanwhile, liberals, drop the "racist" claims.  At this point, you just sound like darn fools.

Ron Paul is Good for the Conservative Movement

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is running for President again, and you can pretty much guarantee he hasn't a snowball's chance in July of being the Republican nominee. It's an exercise we've been through once before in 2008.  We're going to see the same result in 2012.  That said, I'm glad Ron Paul is around, because he's great for conservatism.

I know, Ron Paul isn't a conservative, he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and conservatism are kind of cousin philosophies. In terms of fiscal policy, there is a lot of the same type of policies advocated (although often for different reasons).  In terms of size of government, libertarians also support small, unintrusive government, just like conservatism.  The place conservatism and libertarianism differ is either on social issues and sometimes defense.

I've said for some time now that I agree with Paul on about 80% of issues.  It's the other 20% where we start to differ...often greatly.  So how, pray tell, could Paul be so very good for conservatism?  I'll tell you the answer:  young people.

Ron Paul is getting college students and high school students and people in their 20s excited about small government!  They are getting excited about personal responsibility and government staying the heck out of their lives!  They're becoming enthralled with doing it themselves and not needing government!

It's a wonderful trend.  When I went to college, there were College Republicans, but finding true dyed in the wool conservatives was a much rarer occurrence.  Now we've got small government becoming cool, and we've got Ron Paul to thank for that.

I don't want Ron Paul as my President, but I am very happy to have him in my party.  Anyone who preaches small government and personal responsibility is good for America, and good for the conservative movement.  So thank you, Congressman Paul, for fighting for small government and personal responsibility.  We can keep disagreeing on 20% of issues, but as for the 80%, I'm glad to have you on our side.

Letter Bag: Christianity is not Liberal Faith

Time for another installation response to a commentator on Biblical Conservatism!  Today, we have an anonymous comment from the post Republicans Should Block This Jobs Bill! Block it Immediately!.  In keeping with Biblical Conservatism tradition as it pertains to anonymous comments, I will be referring to our nameless friend as Chewbacca for the sake of this post. Now, to the comment:

"There is no such thing as a compassionate conservative. True Christians are liberals." - Anonymous

Wow, Chewbacca, just wow.  There's some great liberal civility on display, now isn't there? 

But seriously, Chewie, it seems to me that you define compassion as intention, and only applicable when doled out by government. This is where we differ. Conservatives are incredibly compassionate people.  For the record, I believe the typical Neighborhood Liberal is also very compassionate. The difference, however, is that conservatives expect results from our compassion, not just good intentions.

Government is notoriously bad at taking care of the needy. The statistic has been prominent for decades now that government spends only about $.35 for every $1 on care for the needy.  Private charities like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the like are able to give $.85 of every $1 on care for the needy.  Some private charities are able to give as much as $.95 on the $1 to the needy.  That's a staggering difference! 

The reason for this, Chewbacca, is twofold.  One, private charities operate largely with volunteers and that cuts their overhead.  Two, and more importantly, private charities can allow themselves to be taken advantage of, because they are giving charity, not welfare.  Private charities spend donations, not compulsory taken taxes.  Government cannot allow itself to be taken advantage of because they are spending other people's money, thus they have to put up red tape to prevent fraud (they fail miserably at it too).  Hence government is quite inefficient at caring for the needy!

Also, and this is even more important for you to understand, Chewie, compassion is not making poverty comfortable.  The problem with our system is it makes poverty a comfortable state, one that people are willing to kick back into poverty and just stay there.  Charity is about providing needs to those in poverty.  Compassion is not keeping people comfortable in poverty but giving them the means to meet their needs until they can lift themselves out of poverty. 

As far as "all true Christians" being liberal, I'm afraid you need to go read your Bible again.  Liberalism teaches that the government should care for the needy, and calls that compassion.  The Bible never says "give your money to the government, let the government care for the needy."  Ever.  The Bible tells people "you care for the poor."  It tells farmers not to glean the edge of their fields so that the needy can just walk up and help themselves to food.  It tells people to give alms to the poor as they are able.  Directly, Chewbacca, not via government.  YOU give to the poor. Then of course there's the part in the Bible that has a progressive tithing system, right?  Wait...the tithe is 10% across the board?  That sounds like a flat tax to me, doesn't it sound like that to you, Chewie, and isn't that a conservative principle?

I wrote an extensive treatment on this subject which I called Treatise on Biblical Conservatism.  I'd ask you to read it, as it contains direct scripture quotes to back my argument.

In short, Chewbacca, I do not doubt your legitimate compassion.  However I think your faith in government to care for the government is poorly placed.  Your heart is in the right place, my friend, I truly believe that, but your desires do not achieve compassionate results.  It only creates compassionate intentions.

Chewie, I would tell you that it is possible to be a liberal or a conservative and be a Christian, because God is not political.  However, His government for Israel was a localized, Federalist, conservative government.  I stand on the same premise I began this blog:  God is a conservative, and if God is a conservative, it's hard to say that Christians cannot be one.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Legal Tax Deductions Aren't "Loopholes"

Recently, President Obama has begun talking up his plan for reducing the deficit (hint: raise taxes as much as he can get away with, say words like "fair share" a lot).  Included in this is saying "closing tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires."  Inherent in the statement is the assumption that "tax loophole" equals "cheating."

The truth, however, is far less insidious (actually, it isn't insidious at all).  What Obama is calling a "loophole" is really a legal tax deduction that is written into the Internal Revenue Code that reduces a person's total taxes paid.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, I can't dumb that one down enough for you, I'm sorry, just click here for some alternate amusement.  I'll try to write on a simpler topic tomorrow.) 

Some of these so-called loopholes include deducting the interest paid on your house, writing off student loan interest, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds.  Another very popular deduction is a person can deduct any charitible donations on their taxes.  Others still include the ability to have certain payroll deductions taken before tax is assessed from each paycheck, such as employee contributions to medical and their 401k plans.  Wow, these are some horrible, evil loopholes, aren't they?

Here is my point:  Every single one of these deductions are 100% legal.  Their use is legal.  They are written into the Internal Revenue Code to encourage certain activities (like buying municipal bonds) and to make certain purchases affordable (like home ownership).  When Obama calls them "loopholes" he wants you to think it's cheating the government out of money owed.  By that logic, buying peanut butter with a coupon and paying less is cheating the store.

Now you're not cheating the store by buying your jar of Skippy with a coupon, nor are you doing anything wrong by using your save $1 on two jars coupon.  Wealthy individuals aren't doing anything wrong by taking deductions specifically allowed in the tax code either nor are they doing anything wrong by accepting tax credits that are also included in the tax code.  That's not a loophole.  As a matter of fact, I would personally call someone who chooses not to take whatever tax deductions that are legally allowed in the tax code an absolute fool.

Obama's playing the class warfare game with his lines about "loopholes."  He wants you to think these legal deductions are cheating, and that is a false suggestion.  Truth is these "loopholes" are better labeled as legal tax deductions and tax credits, and anyone who calls them anything else is just playing political games.  (See: Barrack Obama.)

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Warren Buffett is the Exception, Not the Rule

In Monday's Deficit Reduction speech, Obama proposed a "Buffett Rule" based on Warren Buffett's paying less taxes than his secretary. There are so many issues with that claim, and I'm pleased that the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found the falseness in the claim. 

First and foremost, there are the facts:  Individuals who make $1,000,000 will pay approximately 29.1% in taxes after deductions, while those making $50,000-75,000 will pay 15%.  These are the IRS numbers friends.   According to an AP article on this subject:

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government. (1)

So the wealthy actually pay significantly more taxes, both in a percentage and in net dollars. And again, before the Left starts gumming about "fair share" the wealthiest 10% pay 50% of the taxes. The only people who don't pay their fair share are the people who pay 0% in taxes and receive the majority of the benefits that are coming out of taxes from the rest of us who do pay taxes, but I digress.

The entirety of this argument is based upon a misunderstanding of taxes and tax rates. Perhaps Warren Buffett doesn't pay his full tax rate, but that's because he's pretty good at using the legal system (note: they aren't "loopholes" they are legal deductions and tax shelters) to reduce his tax payments. For the record, nothing is stopping Buffett from sending more tax money. I know I said it about a month ago, but Mr. Buffett if you want to send more money to the government, the address is:

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

 This entire argument is centered around a fundamental misunderstanding of taxation. First off, Buffet's annual salary is currently $100,000 (2), well below Obama's $250,000 per year "millionaire." (Apparently the President has STILL not figured out how much money is $1,000,000 and whether or not $250,000 = $1,000,000. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $250,000 doesn't equal $1,000,000.) Secondly, there is a major difference between income taxes and capital gains taxes. 

Income taxes are paid on salary. Salary is guaranteed to an employee from their employer as payment for services rendered. The employee contracts with the employer to provide labor in exchange for those wages. The employer then fulfills their end of the contract with wages. Unless you work on pure commission, your salary is guaranteed. There is no risk. If you are in the top tax bracket, your tax rate on income is 35%.

Now we come to Capital Gains taxes. Now there are huge differences between Capital Gains taxes and Income Taxes. One, there is no guarantee of a Capital Gains situation (that's making money on an investment, for those of you from Palm Beach.) There is also a huge chance that you lose that money. With income there is no chance of losing your money, because a) you didn't invest your money and b) you are guaranteed your paycheck, or else your employer is in breach of contract. Two, and more importantly, that money was already taxed once! It was either taxed as income at up to 35%, or it was taxed as inheritance at either 50%, or at 35%, unless it was inherited in the brief period of time when the rate was 0%, and even if it was, that money was taxed as the deceased's income or capital gains! So any money in a capital gains situation was taxed previously, and then it's taxed again at an additional 15% for being successfully invested.

In conclusion: First of all, very few CEOs are not paying less taxes than their secretary, unless their secretary's salary is more than their own (which is highly possible, since many executive assistants of Fortune 500 CEOs make more than $100,000 per year). Secondly, Capital Gains taxes are different than Income Taxes. Please write this down. Thirdly, even if Buffet does pay less than his secretary, he is the exception, not the rule. And finally, once again, if Mr. Buffet feels he isn't taxed enough that address to send the amount he feels he has under paid is:

Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) FACT CHECK: Are Rich Taxed Less Than Secretaries?

(2) Wikipedia: Warren Buffett






 

Reactions to Obama’s “Deficit Reduction” Tax Hikes

Yesterday, the President gave a speech outlining his plan to reduce the Federal Deficit. In a move that was as surprising as bad jokes from Fozzie Bear, it involved raising taxes on the very people who own businesses and create jobs. I've outlined many times why this is a bad idea, namely the number of sole proprietorships whose business revenue is all considered personal income. It's a $1.5 Trillion tax hike, and it's bad for America, especially in this economy.

The plan, overall, is billed as $3 Trillion in deficit reduction. It claims $1 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Of course, it does involve liberal economic math, aka raises taxes now, cut spending someday in the future, "over ten years," but it's not actually required of future Congresses to do that. It's a bad bill, but who's surprised at this point, from Obama. It's the same liberal policies that have failed in the past and will fail again.

Also, the $1.5 Trillion in predicted revenue won't automatically mean $1.5 Trillion in new revenue. You see, unlike the expectations of liberals everywhere, when you raise taxes $1.5 Trillion; those who are now paying more taxes don't just absorb the increases while including employing the same number of people, and spending precisely the same amount of money. Of course, this never happens. Every action has an effect. Business owners invest their money with a profit margin that makes their financial risk worth the potential loss. By raising taxes, you're cutting into that profit margin, and that business owner is going to do something to recuperate that loss, likely by reducing their workforce and output, which means less income tax revenue from their employees and less corporate tax revenue from that business because of the reduced output.

Obama also repeated his request for the "wealthiest and most fortunate among us to pay their fair share." It's preposterous, of course, as I've displayed countless times, the wealthiest 10% pay 50% of the tax burden in this country. It's baloney from Obama. His real premise is "they can afford it so it's ok to confiscate their money." It's a crock, and its class warfare meant to divide Americans. Now, there are some people who will buy into that line from Obama, because they honestly believe that if the government takes money from other people their lives will be better. Except they don't ever become wealthier, the only entity that becomes wealthier is government.

Furthermore, we cannot trust government to spend that money wisely. Nothing in the modern history of the United States government lends us to believe government will be fiscally responsible with this money. The fact is the government spends too much. Raising revenue won't cause them to stop spending 140% of the money they have. History suggests they will spend 140% of the new revenues just like they're spending 140% of the current revenue. The real problem is that every cent of tax revenue the government takes in is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These three entitlements need reforming and now. Obama is ignoring this reality in favor of more class warfare that will not solve the problem.

We need two things to fix this deficit problem: Less spending and more revenue, but not in the form of raised tax rates, but if the form of new taxpayers. To cut spending we need to start at the source of the problem. We need to make serious reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security so that they don't take up every cent of revenue in our budget. Remember, it takes up 2/3 of the revenue, while all the other things that Obama and the liberals blame for the deficit, like the wars, the military in general, and anything else they can find, those items make up only 1/3 of the budget, along with every department of the government that's not Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We have a spending problem, my friends.

The tax rates are already too high. With the top Federal rate at 35% currently, plus paying as much as 15% state taxes and as 8% sales taxes, putting that individuals rates at well over 50% of their income. Plus if a person has the audacity to get married, they pay a higher rate, plus if they die, after a lifetime of government taxing their money, they get taxed again, because they didn't pay enough in life. No, our tax rates are too high already. Obama wants to tax more, but if we cut those rates we'd see more jobs. It's happened time and again. We'd see more money in the pockets of business owners and in the pockets of consumers. That means consumers having more money to spend. When they spend that money, then businesses will find they can't keep up with the customers. Oh, and since they have more revenue, they'll be able to hire more people to keep up with the increased business. It just makes sense, doesn't it?

Of course, this doesn't fit into Obama's playbook. Obama is a rigid ideologue who only cares about advancing his leftist agenda. Actually, I don't think he even wants this bill to pass. Just like his Jobs Bill, I don't think the President expects this bill to pass at all. I believe he knows it's Dead on Arrival in the House of Representatives. I think he's presenting it fully expecting the GOP to block it, so he can say "I've tried to do things to solve the problem, but the Republicans keep obstructing me." As I said last week, they're stopping the President from doing damage, so while they're stopping him from "getting things done" they should be obstructed. Stopping a bank robbery is stopping the robber from getting something done too.

It's not going to work though. Nothing in the last three years has lead us to believe that the American people want this policy. In 2009, two states that Obama won in 2008 elected Republican governors, in 2010, Obama and the Democrats were "thumped" and two weeks ago Democrats lost Anthony Weiner's old seat in Queens, NY for the first time in decades. No matter how many cooked polls that the Drive-By Media puts out that claim that voters blame the GOP for the country's current problems, the voters aren't supporting that claim with their votes.

Obama's plan is bad, as usual, and it's nothing new. It's DOA in the House of Representatives and it ought to be, because it will cost jobs and, by the way, will ultimately not raise the same amount of revenue as predicted because less money in people's pockets do have consequences. It's a bad plan, and it won't fly. Thankfully, the American people have stopped buying what Obama is selling. Obama is already a lame duck President. I believe he is landslideable in 2012, and bad plans like this are the reason why.

Comments are always welcome, provided you follow the "Rules for Commenting."

Actually, Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme

Texas Governor Rick Perry has taken a lot of flack recently for saying that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme in his book "Fed Up!" a few years ago. I'm here to shed some light on that statement: Social Security is very similar to a Ponzi Scheme.

To explain it layman's terms, if a Ponzi Scheme began in January with its first round of investors, it would require new investors in March to pay the January investors, new investors in May to pay off the March investors, and new investors in July to pay off May investors, because there is no actual securities or other stocks being purchased that can gain or lose. The schemer must pay off the previous investors (after taking his cut) or else the scheme will fall down on him faster.

 Social Security operates on this premise, albeit not maliciously. While the original intention may have been that we pay into our own accounts and then draw on them once we reach retirement age, which has not materialized. This is not what happened. This is for a couple of reasons. One, Social Security was never intended to be a widespread retirement plan. The reason the age of receipt of Social Security benefits was set at 65 years old was because life expectancy at its outset was 64 years old. It was, like all unemployment insurance and Medicaid, designed to be a safety net. Now, with life expectancy at ten years older, now significantly more people are receiving benefits. Originally there was an expectation that there be more people paying in than actually receiving benefits.

 At one point there was a trust fund. There was an account of money that was used to pay out benefits. It was raided on more than one occasion to pay for other things, and now that account is empty. Now current benefits are being paid with yours and my payroll tax money. They are taking our investment and using it to pay the previous investors who were expecting to receive their investment back at retirement. That my friends, is a classic example of a Ponzi Scheme.

 Now, we have a problem. The money required to pay out benefits is about to exceed new investors (that is, wage earners) as the Baby Boomers hit retirement age. There will not be enough current investors (taxpayers) to pay the previous investors (retirees). In short, not only is social security a Ponzi Scheme, it's one that is about to collapse.

 Rick Perry was absolutely accurate in portraying Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. It is funded the same as a Ponzi Scheme, and it requires new investors to pay off the previous investors, just like a Ponzi Scheme. It's about to collapse due to inability to pay off investors, like a Ponzi Scheme.

 On second thought, Social Security isn't a Ponzi Scheme. Participation in a Ponzi Scheme is voluntary.

Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Republicans Should Block This Jobs Bill! Block it Immediately!

The President's same old regurgitated Jobs Bill has officially been sent to Congress. I'm happy to tell you that the bill is likely dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. It ought to be too, because it's a bad bill that will cost billions and do nothing to help create jobs. The Republicans are going to block this bill, and they should block it. To paraphrase the President, the Republican Party should block this bill immediately.

Reason #1 why the Republican Party needs to block the Jobs Bill: It's not really paid for, like the President claims. There's an IOU in the bill that instructs the Congressional Super Committee to find another $400 billion and change in cuts. That's not paying for the bill. That's like me buying a vehicle that I can't afford and then telling the dealer that it's ok, I'll ask my boss for a raise in the morning. For this bill to be paid for it would have required specific cuts included in the bill. This does not do that. It just promises imaginary cuts someday in the future. It's a lie. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason # 2 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It calls for raising taxes. The President calls it "asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share," and of course, he defines "fair share" as "whatever liberals demand." It of course ignores that the wealthiest 10% already pay 50% of the taxes (that's five times their share, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). It also ignores the fact that $250,000 per year in salary is not a "millionaire." If you flunked math, $250,000 is ¼ of a million dollars. It takes four of those people put together to make Obama's millionaire. Finally, it ignores the fact that raising taxes on these people involves raising taxes on small business owners who file as sole proprietorships, thus taking investment capital out of the pockets of business owners. That will likely cost jobs. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #3 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: The tax credits contained for hiring and giving raises to employees aren't going to do anything to encourage hiring. The President has shown, once again, how little he understands the decision of businesses. You see, business owners don't hire employees to get a tax credit and they don't hire because they have spare money. They also don't hire to be nice or to give a person medical benefits. See, what the President does not understand is that hiring an employee is an investment. A business owner performs a Cost-Benefit Analysis to decide if hiring that new employee will yield a sufficient profit. This may be because they believe that if they have more product to sell they can lower prices and undercut their competition and steal market share. However, the most likely reason for a business owner to hire is because they have so many orders that they can't keep up, and they need more employees to fill those orders. In short, businesses don't need tax credits to hire…they need customers.

There are instances, however, when government is intruding upon a business financially, say with tax rates that are too high (see Reason # 2) and businesses end up making due with less employees than they need. This usually means the business owner works more hours to not fall behind. However, tax credits don't make up for these government intrusions. Set tax rates will make a difference. Yet Obama failed to make the current tax rates permanent, which would have eliminated this barrier. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #4 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It squanders more taxpayer money on liberal pie in the sky "green energy" that is not sufficient to meet our needs. It's also not financially sound. Don't believe me? Solyndra, an American solar energy company, filed last week for bankruptcy. This company was given government money from the last Stimulus package. Even with government funding it's bankrupt. "Green Energy" is not sufficient to make a difference in our lives. The only type "green energy" that works sufficiently is hydroelectric, and we're already using every available source to its potential. If Obama was offering subsidies to promote further oil exploration that would be a solution, but continuing to peddle green energy subsidies is a joke and a waste. It's flushing money down the toilet, and it will not create jobs. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #5 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: It won't create jobs. I believe I've outlined this above pretty well, but I'll give you one more reason; in 2009, Obama successfully passed into law over $1 Trillion in Stimulus spending. Do you know how many jobs we got? Answer: -1.9 Million Jobs. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means we lost 1.9 million jobs after Obama passed the Stimulus.) Unemployment went up by as much as 3% above pre-Stimulus levels. Remember, we were told that if we passed the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. It went above 10%.

Liberal have told us that the Stimulus failed because it wasn't big enough. Now let's set aside the erroneous logic of that statement for a moment, and ask our friends on the left to explain that if they needed more to succeed, how is half as much going to work? Answer: It won't work. If we're lucky, it'll only lose half as many jobs. Its predecessor, the Stimulus bill, cost $1 Trillion and lost jobs. Obama proved that this sort of Keyensian Stimulus could not create jobs. (I'm not just saying that as a devoted member of the Supply-Side Economics School.) History proved this doesn't work, and it's not going to work this time. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reason #6 why the Republicans need to block the Jobs Bill: We've already proposed many bills that will help the economy. Cut, Cap and Balance, for example, which 66% of Americans wanted to see passed into law. We have passed the repeal of Obamacare, which would remove the huge barrier of its requirements of that law that cost so much that it cuts into the profitability expectations of a business owner's Cost-Benefit Analysis for hiring. The Democrats in the Senate have stopped the Republicans from passing these helpful bills. I am not saying don't pass the bill out of spite. I'm saying don't pass this bill because there are better plans to be put into practice than this lousy bill. The Republicans should block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Ultimately, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Obama tried this once and it failed so miserably it belongs in a museum next to the Titanic, the Hindenberg, and the 2007 New York Mets in the huge embarrassing failure display. The Republican Party owes it to America to not let this bad policy see the light of day. We put the GOP back in power to stop Obama from doing further damage. Now they need to make it happen. The Republicans need to block this bill. Block this bill immediately.

Reaction to the CNN Tea Party Debate

Last night for the second time in less than a week, the Republican nominees met for a debate. This time it was the Tea Party Nation debate on CNN. This time, CNN didn’t insult our intelligence with “Coke or Pepsi” and “Scope or Listerine” questions. I also have to give them some credit…the debate wasn’t filled with gotcha questions. I was surprised. Wolf Blitzer did a pretty good job of being a legitimate moderator. They also did a pretty good job of spreading out the questions to give more equal time than the MSNBC Debate did last week.

Just like last Thursday’s debate on MSNBC, let’s talk about whose stock I’d recommend buying, selling, holding, and in a new addition, sold (already sold out and not buying back in).

Michelle Bachmann (Buy):
I still like Bachmann and I expected more out of her in this debate, especially because it was the Tea Party debate. Partially because the Media is pushing her out in favor of Perry and Romney, her star seemed to be on the downturn.

Last night, however, she turned it back around and stood on some strong conservative policies, like “The Federal Reserve needs to be shrunk down to such a tight leash that they’re going to squeak.” She really took a step forward going head to head with Perry on the HPV Vaccine issue and other issues. Bachmann remains in the hunt and I think she moved herself back into the top of the debate last night.

As of now, Bachmann is one of two choices for me right now in the field, when it comes time for me to cast my vote in the Republican primary.

Herman Cain (Hold):

Once again, I like Cain very much and I think he’s a very qualified candidate. However, I do not think he could win the nomination based on his poll numbers. He would make a great Vice President, and he’d also make an excellent Secretary of Commerce. He’s got a great chance to be in the Executive Branch in 2013, just not as the President.

Newt Gingrich (Hold):

Gingrich again is strong and does well in debates. He’d kick Obama’s butt in a debate, but he’s not going to get the nomination. He scores well in debates, but he doesn’t do well in polls. I’m leaving him as a hold for now, because there’s a small chance he turns it around, but for now I don’t expect him to go far. He is, however, another person who could find a place in a new Republican administration in the cabinet.

Jon Huntsman (Sold):

Seriously. Huntsman is a joke. He spent tonight quoting Nirvana songs and waxing intellectual as a biased moderate. I’m not even bothering making a joke about how much of a non-issue Huntsman is at this point.

Ron Paul (Sold):

It occurred to me since the last debate that, in the strictest sense of the term, Paul is a RINO. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that’s “Republican In Name Only.”) Now, Paul isn’t the moderate, wimpy, half liberal sort of RINO. Not in the slightest. But Paul is a Republican by default, because the political term that most applies to him is Libertarian. Now that’s not a bad thing, my friends. As I’ve said before, I agree with Paul on about 75% of issues. However, he’s not in line with the mainstream conservative Republican party, and that’s why he won’t get the nomination.

Rick Perry (Buy):

Perry beat up on Romney last night, but got beat up on by the rest of the field. I think he kicked Romney’s butt on the “Social Security is a Ponsi Scheme” statement…because he’s right. He showed himself to be a legitimate conservative so far.

He did have a tough moment with the discussion of his HPV Vaccine executive order. I respect the fact that he admitted he was wrong. He let Bachmann back into the debate in a strong way last night, making it back into a three person race.

However, he was overall quite strong. The biggest thing I think Perry did was he pushed Romney out of the debate spot lead. Perry was debating with Bachmann as much as anyone tonight, and not as much with Romney. He really is establishing himself as the frontrunner. I, for one, am seriously considering giving Perry my vote when New York’s Primary comes, and I think I’m a very typical conservative.

Mitt Romney (Stock – Sell):

Romney is losing ground. With a candidate like Perry who has the ability to raise money on par with Romney (and for that matter Obama), who has Tea Party credentials and an honest, straight talk style that I think overshadows Romney’s overly polished style. He’s still the GOP Establishment candidate, and in a year where the Tea Party is going to choose the Republican nominee, it’s not going to be Romney’s year.

Rick Santorum (Sold):

Santorum is done. I’ve said it before. He’s just not strong enough. He’s a Washington insider and he’s just not standing out. Sorry, Rick. I like you as a person, and I’d gladly watch a football game with you. But I don’t want you as my President.


So far, I’d have to say the winners were Bachmann and Perry. I’m glad to see that, although it makes my decision harder, because, barring Sarah Palin joining the campaign, my decision is down to two people. (Palin enters my decision becomes a choice between three people.) To those who read Biblical Conservatism regularly, you read several months ago that the GOP field was not weak. Last night, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann proved it. We’ve got two serious, conservative candidates in Bachmann and Perry vying for the nomination and a third blue blood Republican in Romney. All three of them would be a better President than Obama.

Right now, all I can say is game on. It’s going to be a fun campaign, and in the end we’re going to have the best possible candidate.

GOP are Stopping Obama from "Getting Things Done" is a Good Thing!

It's President Obama's latest talking point, and he used it in last week's big "Jobs Speech": The Republicans won't put politics aside for the American people. The translation is: The GOP won't let Obama destroy the country further...but it's just in the name of politics. It's one of the most ridiculous statements on the planet. It's like saying that a guy is putting aside friendship over a woman if he punches his best friend in the face...because that friend was physically attacking his sister.

Right now, the politically expedient thing for the GOP to do is also the right thing to do for America: Stop Obama. Yes, the GOP is politically inclined to go the opposite way of Obama anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that stopping Obama also the best thing for the country.

The narrative repeated by those whom I call "moderate by default" (aka "I look at every issue and make my mind up on each one" and yet somehow finding a way to land in the center EVERY TIME) and encouraged by the Left is: the American people want government to "get things done." Sure sounds great, right? Getting things done is always good, isn't it?

Maybe not. Let me give you an example. I set out to accomplish five tasks in a day...and let's say I accomplish all five. Great, right? I got five things done! What an accomplishment. Five things were got done! There's just one problem; the five things I did were this: Kick the neighbors dog, break a store window with a rock, beat up an old lady, rob a bank, and steal a car.

Come on...I got things done! It took a lot of work, and I got things done...right? Wrong, you say...I got BAD things done. As a matter of fact, if I had simply done absolutely nothing I would have done the neighbor's dog, the store, the old lady, the bank and the owner of that car all a favor. If someone had stopped me before I got out the door, they would've obstructed me from "getting things done" right...but it sure would've been better if they had stopped me.

The Republican Party is doing the right thing for America by blocking Obama. The President proved it by his "plan." It was the same plan. More stimulus spending (although this time he didn't call it that), more "green jobs," and more spending on "green energy, more government, more spending on infrastructure. More of the same failed and/or damaging solutions. Oh, and don't forget more demonizing the Republicans for daring to stop Obama from, to extend the metaphor, kicking dogs, breaking store windows, and robbing banks. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, kicking dogs, breaking windows and robbing banks = raising taxes, accruing more debt, spending more on stimulus packages that failed.)

This "get things done" rhetoric is problematic because it assumes two things:  One, both sides are offering positive solutions and two, that the solution is automatically in the center of the two sides.  To answer the first, both sides are not offering positive solutions.  Despite the liberal belief that money grows on trees if the item to be spent on is really super-duper important, we don't have the money for more spending.  We spend too much now.  (And while Obama is going to claim that the cost is "paid for" I'll bet you that it'll be paid for with cuts in ten years.  I for one am tired of "I will gladly pay you in 2021 for a stimulus today," from Obama.)  Obama is asking the GOP to compromise good ideas with bad ones.

Two, the solution is not always in the middle.  When one side offers a bad idea and the other good, the good idea should not compromise.  I know I'm committing a rhetorical no-no here, but should German Jews have compromised with Hitler?  Of course not.  It's an exaggerated comparision, Democrats aren't trying to kill anyone here, but they are offering damaging solutions which failed.

In short, the GOP SHOULD block Obama from "getting things done" because he wants to get bad things done. 

We Will Never Forget

Today marks the 10th Anniversary of the September 11th Attacks.  I remember that day vividly.  I was in college.  I was eating lunch at the student union when the guy who ran the Music Department library in the same building grabbed me and asked my help, told me not to ask questions.  I helped him bring a TV into the dining area just in time to see the second plane hit the towers.

I remember thinking about how I may be called to defend our country...after all I was 18 years old and healthy. I remember feeling anger. I remember a friend I'd known for years who was a committed Democrat admitting to me...think about it...that he was glad in light of this attack that George W. Bush was elected over Al Gore.

We look back, and I think we have forgotten what it was like on September 12, 2001. On THAT particular day we didn't care about political barriers, we cared about Americans. We were united. We were ready to defend our country. We were ready to defend each other. We've lost that.

Right now, it doesn't matter how you feel about the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now I just want to say thank you to the soldiers who stand for our country and protect us and to the first responders, the firefighters, the police officers, the EMTs. Thank you to you all, and God bless you.

Reactions to the Obama "Jobs Speech"

The President's speech was highly predictable.  He said nothing new, and anyone who is paying attention could have predicted Obama's plan.

Obama's new plan was just more "stimulus spending."  It was the same plan that failed miserably once before when they spent MORE.  More stimulus spending (although this time he didn't call it that), more "green jobs," and more spending on "green energy,"  more spending on infrastructure.  How's he going to pay for it?  "Raise revenue" and "ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."  In other words, he wants to raise taxes on the very people who create jobs:  people who own businesses, including small businesses who file as sole proprietorships.

More of the same failed and/or damaging solutions. Why should we believe these solutions would work now? They haven't ever worked in history and they didn't work the first time Obama passed them into law.  For that matter, why haven't there been these new green jobs for 3 years and more spending on infrastructure? That's right...shovel ready wasn't so shovel ready, and Americans need JOBS period, not just a certain kind of liberal approved job. I for one am sick of the same tired, failed "solutions" from Obama that have yet to solve a single problem. In short, I'm tired of Obama efforting on the economy while doubling down on the same liberal socialist policies.

Friends, government can't stimulate an economy by inserting the money the government spends.  Here's why:  Government has no money.  They spend your money and my money.  Let me give you an example.  Let's say I have a bucket half full with water and I want to fill it all the way up.  Can I fill the bucket by taking a glass, scooping two glasses full of that water out of the bucket and setting it aside, then adding the same water back to the bucket?  No.  I'm just taking water out and then putting that water back in...except when the money gets funnelled through government  has some of it spent on bureaucracy so some of the money that was already in the economy falls into the government black hole!

That's what government spending is...taking money out of the economy in the form of taxes then putting it back in and calling it "stimulus."  You're not stimulating the economy by taxing money out of the economy then redistributing it into the economy any more than me taking my existing groceries out of the cupboard then putting them back equals grocery shopping.  It's just moving money.  That won't help the economy.

The President proved it by his "plan." Here's the point:  Barrack Obama is showing what Benjamin Franklin called "the definition of insanity" in that he's "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."  Obama has no new plan.  He has the same failed plan that he'd like you to pretend didn't fail previously so he can try it again. He's asking for billions of dollars to spend that we don't have, again. We've had stimulus, we've had son of stimulus, we don't need a grandson of stimulus!  The Republican Party is doing America a favor by blocking this attempted insanity!

If the President actually wanted to help the economy, he'd make the current tax rates permanent (they are entering their eleventh year, they are no longer a cut folks) and give business owners the ability to do a legitimate cost-benefit analysis, reduce regulations, and generally get out of the private sector's way.  But Obama won't do that, because it doesn't advance his liberal socialist agenda. 

The President's speech was highly predictable. He said nothing new, and anyone who is paying attention could have predicted Obama's plan. Don't believe me? I'll prove it to you: I wrote my reactions to what Obama said in this speech on Tuesday, September 6th, two full days before the speech occured or the talking points leaked out. How'd I do? You saw the speech.

Reactions to the MSNBC Debate

Last night, the Republican Presidential Candidates met for a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Before we even delve into particular candidates, I’d like to say once again, any one of these candidates could do a better job than Barrack Obama. Even Ron Paul* or John Huntsman would do a far better job than the Obama.  So could Foghorn Leghorn.

However, this debate was about figuring out who to support as Republican voters. So let’s talk about the particular candidates, in alphabetical order so nobody can accuse me of bias.** I will also note whether or not I’d buy, sell, or hold their stock, and in a few cases, sell all (given up on them as ever legitimately being the 2012 Republican Nominee).

Michelle Bachmann (Stock – Hold):

Bachmann started the night as my current favorite. She didn’t exactly stand out. She seems to have fallen off as the 2nd person in the debate. She didn’t say anything wrong…but she didn’t really say anything memorable either. She did continue her statements of $2 per gallon gas, and for the record I think it’s very do-able. Increased supply would do that easily. (Heck, when Bush just started to allow deep water drilling permits after Hurricane Katrina, gas dropped below $1.50 per gallon.) In short, Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t do anything wrong, but she didn’t really hit anything out of the park. In this debate, she seems to have fallen back to the ranks of Vice Presidential candidate…of course a win in the Iowa Caucuses can do a big difference, and last month’s Ames Straw Poll did suggest she could do just that.

Herman Cain (Stock – Hold):

Cain was similar to Bachmann in this debate. I think Cain has great solutions, and I don’t think he can get elected President right now. It’s unfortunate, but the American people are likely going to consider his lack of political experience as a minus. I, for one, see it as a plus, but unfortunately most Americans aren’t as informed as I am. However, I think Cain would be a top notch Vice Presidential candidate.

Newt Gingrich (Stock – Hold):

Gingrich once again had some of the best lines of the night. He really hit a few out of the park, including telling MSNBC to shut it with the gotcha questions and the stirring of the pot between candidates. I still think he’s great in debates but not going to get nominated. However, I’d like to suggest that, if he’d accept it, Gingrich would make a great Vice Presidential nominee because he can take the attack dog role very well.

Jon Huntsman (Stock – Sell all***):

Seriously…I’m a busy man with stuff to do. I’m not wasting my time with Hunstman when I could be defrosting my freezer or scrubbing my cat’s litter box. He’s a waste of time in this campaign. Jon Huntsman was a bad candidate when he was named John McCain, and he was a bad candidate when he was named Bob Dole. We don’t need a moderate wimp.
On the issue of man-caused Global Warming, Huntsman shot himself in the foot, twice, and managed to leave only one bullet hole. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means he shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he hit the first hole a second time.)

Ron Paul (Stock – Sell all):

Paul isn’t a bad guy or a bad politican. He’s got a whole lot of good ideas. I like his policies on about 75% of the issues. Unfortunately, it’s the other 25% where he loses the mainstream conservatives who are needed to get nominated.

Rick Perry (Stock – Buy):
This was my first real experience with Perry. I was impressed with him in this brief hour and 45 minutes. He did in fact work his way into my list of legitimate options that I would consider giving my vote when New York’s primary comes around this winter. What I like about Perry is he’s got the ability to knock Romney off, because Romney is just not conservative enough. Judging by his debate performance, he’s a valid conservative. That said I haven’t had time to do my personal vetting process on him. On first sight, however, Perry is a valid option for me as a conservative.
I think he nailed it on Global Warming: Consensus isn’t science and the jury legitimately should be out.

Mitt Romney (Stock – Hold):

Romney is who he’s always been. He’s more conservative than Obama, more conservative than Jon Huntsman, but he’s a New England blue blood Republican. (Note: Not the same thing as a RINO.) He’s old guard, and he’s not a legitimate Tea Party option because he’s not conservative enough.

Rick Santorum (Stock – Sell all):
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Santorum has it right on a lot of policy issues, actually, more than Romney, obviously more than Huntsman, but not more than anyone else. He’s a Washington insider who will likely play the Washington insider game. That was the one thing I saw in the debate that made me concerned on Santorum; he said that he’d create policies that “could get passed in Washington.” I’ll be honest…I cringed at that statement. After the last debate, I had Santorum listed as a Vice Presidential option. Now, I’d have to drop him out of that category, because he’s an insider.


In conclusion, there are no conclusions yet. There are several good candidates, five really good conservatives (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Paul), two of whom I see as top tier candidates (Bachmann and Perry) and two others who can be great VP options (Cain, Gingrich). Paul would be a good VP option, but I don’t think he’d accept the job, and I respect him for it. Ultimately there’s time to make decisions, and I may well change my mind. But for now, that’s the way I see it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Somewhere in Georgia, a high school friend of mine is taking exception to that remark. Put that in there just to give you grief, man.
**( Like I care…)
***Actually, I wouldn’t take this stock for free

WSJ Says 2012 Comes Down to 7 States...Where Obama is Below 50% Approval

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal noted that they believe the 2012 election will come down to 7 swing states.  It's a predictable scenario, one that we've seen play out especially in the last three Presidential elections. There's one conclusion that the Journal did not note:  According to a year long study by Gallup, President Obama is below 50% approval in all 7 of those states.

Notes the Journal:

Barring a Carter-like collapse, President Obama is assured of 175 electoral votes from 12 deep-blue states and the District of Columbia: California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3). Three more states are not quite as certain, but still likely Democratic: Maine (4), Minnesota (10) and Oregon (7). Even though Minnesota is competitive enough to vote Republican under the right set of conditions, it is the state with the longest Democratic presidential streak, dating to 1976.

The Republicans have their own firewall. Almost any sentient GOP nominee will carry Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3). These 18 states have 105 electoral votes.

The Obama forces have bravely boasted that they can turn Arizona (11), Georgia (16) and Texas (38), mainly because of growing Latino voting power. But with the economy in the tank, electoral claims on these big three will likely go the way of John McCain's early declaration in '08 that California was within his grasp. Count another 65 red votes here.


Four years ago, even optimistic Democrats didn't think they would pick up Indiana (11), North Carolina (15), or an electoral vote in Nebraska (which like Maine awards one vote per congressional district), yet all three went for Mr. Obama by small margins. In 2012, Indiana is likely to desert him, as is the one Cornhusker district. To keep North Carolina, the Democrats chose Charlotte for their national convention and will make a big play statewide. As of now, it looks tough for them. Thus Republicans are in the lead to win 26 more electors. Missouri was the sole squeaker that went for McCain; few believe it will be tight next year, so the GOP will likely have those 10 votes, too.

Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes. That's why seven super-swing states with 85 electors will determine which party gets to the magic number of 270 electoral votes: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).  (1 - Emphasis Added)

Very interesting.  As usual, a handful of states will choose the President.  Well, theoretically.  Regardless of how it's presented in the Media, it takes 50 states to elect a President, it's just that 43 of them are predictable.  Here's the big thing:  According to a year long Gallup survey published in August, Obama is below 50% approval in all seven states (2)

Here are the President's Approval numbers in all seven states with their electoral votes noted:

Colorado (9): 44% Approval
Florida (29): 47% Approval
Iowa (6): 49% Approval
New Hampshire (4): Below 40% Approval
Nevada (6):   44% ApprovalOhio (18): 45% ApprovalVirginia (13): 46% Approval

Note that the only The only states that are within the 3% margin of error for Obama are Florida and Iowa.  Iowa won't make a difference.  Florida plus one other state from the list could win re-election for Obama, right?  Well, not according to a new Magellan Strategies survey. (3) In that survey it was found that only 37% of Floridians think Obama deserves to be re-elected. So, according to the Magellan survey, we can pencil Florida in for the Republican nominee. 

Take Florida and add in the electoral votes of the states where the President is below 45% approval, you find the Republican nominee with at least 272 electoral votes...and the White House. If the GOP nominee sweeps these seven states (where again, Obama is below 50% approval) they now have 291 Electoral Votes to Obama's 247.  It's a nice Electoral victory, one that's not a landslide but is solid.

For the record, I think there are a few previously blue states that are up for grabs.  Wisconsin, and it's 10 electoral votes could turn red.  After all, it's the state that repudiated the Democrat entitlement state in 2010 and held those gains in the 2011 recall elections.  Obama's approval was at 50% in the aforementioned Gallup Poll and continued failure for Obama could tip the scale. .  I, for one, believe New Jersey could turn as well.  Obama is at 54% approval in that state, but if a straight talker like Chris Christie runs, it can be won.  If Mitt Romney ends up as the nominee (I hope not, but for the sake of discussion) I think you can easily see Massachusetts' 10 electoral votes going to him.

Bottom line, I see a clear path to victory for the Republican nominee in 2012.  The seven swing states predicted all disapprove of Obama by margins ranging from 1-10%.  Florida is not looking good for Obama, neither is Ohio.  You know what else isn't looking good for Obama?  Reelection.  And that's good for America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wall Street Journal: The 2012 Election Will Come Down to Seven States

(2) Obama Job Approval 50% or Higher in 16 States and D.C.

(3) Obama at 37% approval, re-elect in Florida

Rubio's Not Ready to be President...Yet

A lot of conservatives are high on Senator Marco Rubio and I’m one of them. Let’s face it, the man has the ability to be a once in a generation type politician, the type of person who can become the next Ronald Reagan. That said we need to be patient. He’s not ready to be President, yet.

Let’s face the facts: He’s only 36 years old, only one year past the minimum to be President. He’s only been on the national scene for two years as a United States Senator. Before that, he spent ten years in the Florida State Legislature and served as the Speaker of the House for two years in that body. The reality is we have a young star who gives great speeches and doesn’t have a lot of experience. Sound familiar?

Now look…I’m not actually comparing Marco Rubio as a person to Barrack Obama. Rubio has real credentials and real experience, just not that much of it. He did more than just teach college and be a community organizer before entering politics. He has a voting record, he doesn’t just vote present. Also, his politics are better, he believes in America as founded and isn’t trying to change it…he’s trying to get America back to its founding principles.

However, I’ve got to be the voice of reason here. We’ve all spent the past few years absolutely blasting Obama for having no experience. We can’t turn around four years later and put up our own inexperienced candidate. There’s time for Rubio to make the national scene at the top of the ticket. Right now, we need him where he is…on the floor of the United States Senate.

There’s also a lot of people who are considering Rubio as a perfect Vice Presidential nominee for 2012. It’s a tempting idea, I must admit. However, I’m still concerned about this prospect for the same reason I’m concerned about Rubio as President. He’s quite young and, if we want him to be that phenomenal, history changing President that we all so desperately want him to be, we need to let him finish up his term in the Senate and perhaps serve a second one. I know, it means waiting ten years plus…twelve really, but he’d be only 48 years old and still young enough to be transformational.

Personally, I’d like to see Herman Cain as the Vice Presidential nominee in 2012 for so many reasons, not the least of which is wanting his private sector experience in the Executive Branch (also, it’d give a great answer to liberals who are claiming that we don’t like Obama because of his race). I’m excited for Rubio too…but since he doesn’t have a long history in either politics or the private sector, I don’t think the time is right. To use a baseball analogy, he needs more seasoning to be ready to be President.

Let him get that experience, then we’ll get our transformational president. Just be patient.

Boehner Does it Right on Obama Speech

Earlier this week, President Obama attempted to invite himself to speak to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 7th.  Wednesday night, Speaker of the House John Boehner respectfully said no.  It was the Speaker's right to do so, and Obama unfortunately cannot do a thing about it.

As Speaker of the House, John Boehner has the sole authority to invite a President to address Congress. The President may not demand to speak to Congress, he may only ask.  Further, a joint resolution by both houses of Congress must be adopted to issue such an invite. Since Congress comes back into session on the 7th, there isn't enough time to adopt such a resolution.

I've been a tough critic of Speaker Boehner's since Republicans took over Congress, but this time I have to say he did right by the Republican Party and by conservatism.  For the record, here is the letter:

What the Speaker did was respectfully, but firmly, tell Obama to stick it. And, as I said yesterday, Obama deserved it.  The President tried to treat Congress and the GOP with zero respect by trying to schedule this speech for the 7th, and Boehner just turned the game back around on him and did it better.

Furthermore, and I can't say for sure if this was intentional, now Obama's speech is going to be up against the NFL Season Opener, which is by the waying being carried by NBC.  So now NBC will have to rework it's schedule plans. There was only a slight chance that Obama giving the same speech for the hundredth time was going to garner better ratings than the GOP debate, but I guarantee you he doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of getting more viewers than the NFL opener. 

Obama was playing politics, and Speaker Boehner wouldn't play by Obama's ridiculous rules.  Good for you, Mr. Speaker.  This round goes to you, and this time I salute you. You've done well.

Obama Proves His Pettiness with Attempted Jobs Speech Schedule

A few months ago, I declared unequivocally that President Obama was not the “adult in the room” as it pertains to the now complete Debt Limit debate. Yesterday, with his tremendously childish move of scheduling his big “Jobs Speech” for the same night as the next Republican Presidential Debate, he proved me right.

Yes, for the record, the President did agree to move the speech’s date to the following night, and some might be inclined to give him credit for graciousness there. Not me. I know the Constitution. The President must be invited to address Congress. (Even the State of the Union address was originally sent in writing to Congress.) He cannot just show up and demand time. When Speaker Boehner responded by sending an invitation to speak to Congress on the following night, Obama could either take it or leave it.

This was the height of arrogance and pettiness by the President. He is doing his best to bogart the Republican debate and play preventative defense against the attacks he’s guaranteed to see in the Debate. Unfortunately, what he was actually doing was acting like a fool.

Look, I’ll go ahead and give you a spoiler…the speech will say the following:

- We need to focus on jobs.

- We need to work together to come up with solutions and not engage in “partisan bickering.” (Apparently scheduling his speech the same night as a GOP debate isn't partisan bickering?

- We need to invest in “infrastructure and green jobs.”

- Business owners need to step up and hire.

- We need to extend unemployment benefits past the two years they are already provided.

- We need another round of stimulus to get the economy going.

If something other than these tired old talking points from Obama in this speech, I will eat my hat with ketchup. I also predict we’ll also see Obama blame the Tea Party, the Republicans in general, Hurricane Irene, the Arab Spring, killer bees, uneven tire wear, and did I mention the Tea Party for the failure of his policies rather than considering that his policies themselves failed. (The previous statements are not included in the “eat my hat with ketchup” pledge.)

In short, the President is about to give the same speech he’s given so very many times that I could give it for him if I could get my hands on a teleprompter and was dishonest enough to try to sell the American people something they don’t want and that will make their lives worse. (You know, like people at Chevy dealerships who are trying to sell the Volt.)

There is absolutely no reason why this speech needed to be given on the same night as the GOP Debate. Its Obama getting mad that people aren’t paying attention to him so he was trying to throw a huge party on the night of his rival is also throwing a party to prove he can throw a better party and get more people to come.
While we’re at it, there’s zero reason why Obama needs to address Congress for this speech. He could easily give this speech to the Press Corps at the White House and accomplish precisely the same thing. He’s not only throwing his party at the same time as his rival’s party, he’s using his influence to force a whole bunch of people to show up at his party. It’s sad.

In addition to being utterly classless, this move would have hurt Obama politically. Think about it: This speech is happening BEFORE the Republican Debate. As conservative commentator and S.E. Cupp pointed out on Twitter yesterday,

“So the GOP Contenders basically get to deliver a 2 hour response to Obama’s jobs plan at (the) debate. Smart move, Mr. President. Real smart.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Obama is setting himself up to be blasted by the GOP, and probably justifiably so, considering he’s going to give this speech for the millionth time and do his best to blame absolutely anyone but himself (see: Tea Party, killer bees, uneven tire wear).

To the GOP and Speaker Boehner I say: Good job requiring the President to move his speech. To the GOP Presidential Candidates, I say: Blast away, Obama’s asking for it by behaving like a child. To the President I say simply: GROW UP.