Monday, February 28, 2011

Rule of Law Applies to Liberals Too: That Means You, Mr. Obama

It's happening everywhere.  Wisconsin Democrats are choosing to leave the State Senate rather than vote on an issue which the voters have already spoken on.  The President of the United States is ignoring a court ruling against his signature healthcare law because he doesn't like what it says.  The President also deciding NOT to enforce a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, because he does not approve of it.  Judicial activism has failed, so now it's apparently time to ignore the law altogether!

I for one am sick and tired of this. Law abiding citizens everywhere are tired of it too. My friends, this is what it looks like when liberals are out of power. Liberals believe that power and enactment of their agenda is their sole right and privelege.  Guess what, IT'S NOT!  (Note, I am talking about liberals in elected office, not the well meaning individuals you we all encounter daily.  Those people have good intentions and good hearts.) 
The Constitution of the United States is the law of the land.  The requirements of law listed within apply to ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. Got it? 

I've dealt with the issues of Obama's ignoring the ruling of Obamacare (1) and of Wisconsin Democrats (2).  So let's talk about Obama's latest act of lawlessness: Declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and then stating that the Justice Department would not defend it.  On February 15th, I asked if President Obama believed that he was ABOVE the Judicial Branch (which he is not).  Today, I'm becoming convinced it's far, far worse.  Obama seems to believe HE IS the Judicial Branch!

Lets make one thing very clear.  The President of the United States DOES NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional!  That right belongs to the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch.  The President's job, above all else, is to enforce all laws of the United States.  Every single darn one of them.  Listed in Article II of the Constitution of the United States (3) is the Presidential Oath of Office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President of the United States is required to fulfill the laws of the Constitution of the United States.  Article I Section 7 (4) states that if the House of Representatives and the Senate both pass a law and it is presented to the President of the United States and that President signs that bill into law, that law is now the law of the land until it is repealed or altered.

For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means that President Obama is required by law to enforce all laws of the United States.  Period.  Regardless of his feelings, regardless of the polls, regardless of anything else, the President MUST enforce this law.  As President, he has the right to send a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and, due to longstanding legal precedent (that's "things that have been done for years and years" for those of you from Palm Beach County), Congress will, in fact, send that bill through the legislative process. (5)

Let me borrow an analogy from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (6) to explain this in another way.  Imagine that Sarah Palin is elected President of the United States in 2012 and takes office on January 20, 2013 (for the record, I devotely hope this happens). Let's say that at some point during her presidency, President Palin states that she believes that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and therefore it will not be defended by the Federal Government in any court of law.

What do you think the Drive-By Media would do?  You don't have to be a prophet to figure out that they would cry for President Palin to be impeached and removed from office.  As well they should, because the President does not have the right to declare a law void.  I don't care where that President is conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.  It does not matter.  The President is not the arbitor of the constitutionality of laws!

I suspect this will not be the last time I make this statement, but Mr. President, who do you think you are?  Enforce the laws.  Regardless of whether or not you like them or even think they are constitutional.  THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB!



(1) The Arrogance of Obama: Who Do You Think You Are, Mr. President?

(2) Dear Wisconsin Unions: We had a Discussion - It Was Called an Election

(3) United States Constitution, Article II (the Executive Branch)

(4) United States Constitution, Article I (the Legislative Branch)

(5) For the record, any citizen of the United States can technically send a bill to Congress. If a member of the House of Representatives in the case of fiscal bills, or a member of either the House of Representatives or the Senate in the case of all other bills, is willing to sponsor said bill in their chamber, that bill can legally be considered by that house of Congress. For those of you from Palm Beach County, I'm sorry, I don't know how to word that more simply.

(6) "Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment" - Newsmax

Friday, February 25, 2011

Dear Wisconsin Unions: We had a Discussion - It Was Called an Election

As Wisconsin Teachers Union members continue to defy the will of the people, one of their claims has continued to be "we just want to have a real discussion about this issue."  I have news for these union thugs: We had a discussion.  It was called a pre-election race!  We had arbitrators decide this issue. They are called voters!  Those arbitrators decided, and it was called an election!  The problem these unions have is not that there was no discussion, their problem is they LOST the discussion. 

Both the United States of America and the state of Wisconsin (and all states in the nation) have representative governments.  Every two, four, or six years (depending on the office), the people of each state and of the country have the ability to vote in representatives to varying offices. Along with those elections, certain groups of varying interests have the ability to convince the taxpayers that their interests should be supported and/or protected.  Clearly, the unions did not convince the voters in Wisconsin of their goals.

So now the Wisconsin Teachers Union wants to ignore the results of the election and call for compromise.  I don't believe I'm alone in the world in believing that, if the chosen representatives of the Unions won the governor's mansion and the Wisconsin state houses (that would be "Democrats" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL), there would be no talk of compromise.  Rather, I believe we would be hearing something similar to, "Elections have consequences, and we won." (Palm Beach Countiers - that's a quote from Barrack Obama). 

It's the oldest story in the book.  When Democrats win, they want to implement their agenda 100%.  When Republicans win, Democrats expect to be compromised with (and receive 50% of what they want). I wrote an entire post on this a few weeks back. (1) Feel free to go back and read it. The fact is these unions lost the discussion before the voters, and NOW they want compromise.  I say they can't have what they desire because THE MONEY ISN'T THERE!

Herein lies the crux of the issue, one that far too many well meaning liberals miss. In frequent debates with liberals here, on my twitter account, on facebook, etc, it seems every single entitlement is seen as "this is the one you can't touch, it's too important." I'm sorry, but it's time to take a ride to reality.  Rush Limbaugh calls it, "Literalville."  I call it The Real World.

We who live in The Real World don't see the world in ideal situations.  We don't get to pretend the money exists if we can convince ourselves that the issue is really, really, super duper important.  Liberals seem to honestly believe that if something is important enough you can find the money, usually by taxing the "rich" more. It does not matter to them that the average person in the top tax bracket pays over 50% of their income between federal, state, and local taxes...they should be paying more, because the government "needs" it.

Of course, this plan to simply tax more doesn't usually work the way liberals predict it to in their rosy scenarios.  These corporations...employers really (that's people who hire others for jobs, for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL)...have a choice.  They do not NEED to continue to do business in the state where they're being taxed to death.  They can leave New York, California, Illinois etc and do business in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, for example, where the climate for business is far better.  Heck, they can do business in Mexico and not pay much in taxes at all!  It stands to note that most of these businesses would RATHER be producing here in America...but not if they are going to lose money doing it.  Businesses are owned by free individuals. Free individuals who do not have to keep their business in the place where the climate causes them to lose money.  And they won't.

See, that's what liberals forget.  People don't start a business to be nice, to give you a paycheck, to give you medical insurance or other benefits. People start a business because they believe that the product or service they can provide can be sold for more money that it costs to produce, generating a profit.  You liberals, please read this next sentence carefully, ok?  THIS GOAL OF TURNING A PROFIT IS NOT EVIL!

So here's what happens when these businesses are taxed into oblivion, they leave those states for another state or another country, and they pay $0 in taxes instead of whatever amount they were paying to that state. And if they leave the country entirely, now not only have we lost all the tax revenue they were paying, but the jobs that go with their company, and the tax revenue from every employee of their company! How does that help?

Okay, Chris, what does this have to do with Wisconsin?  Here's what.  The solution of taxing the "rich" more because they can afford it is not only immoral, because, as I've stated before, it's not the government's money to begin with, (2) it's also counter-intuitive if your goal is to close a budget gap (as I just explained in the last paragraph)!  Besides, has any government ever received more money without finding someplace else to spend it?  Look at what happened when Reagan doubled net tax revenues during the '80s.  The Democrat controlled legislature proceeded to spend $1.80 for every $1 brought in.  The real problem, as Reagan once said, "is not that we tax to little, the problem is we spend too much."

So here we are in Wisconsin.  The Teacher's Union doesn't like the fact that they are being asked to pay for a mere 7% of their TOTAL pension (for the record, the rest of us are lucky if our company MATCHES up to 10% of our 401k contributions) and 12% of their medical insurance (the rest of us pay 20% on average).  They also are pitching a fit because Governor Walker wants to eliminate their right to collective bargaining on all issues EXCEPT wages.  What does this last bit mean?  It means Walker does not want the Unions to have the power to negotiate such things as:

- Penalties for disciplinary action:  In other words, the Unions can no longer decide that the proper penalty for snorting cocaine in the teacher's lounge should be a written warning after 3 offenses. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's what is known as an "exaggeration.")

- Automatic Tenure: In many states, teachers are AUTOMATICALLY given tenure after 3 years of service.  In other words, can't be fired unless they blow up the school WHILE snorting cocaine, having sex with a student AND punching a different student in the face ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

- Free Viagara Included in Medical Coverage: THIS ONE IS NOT AN EXAGERRATION.  THIS IS REAL!

Those are just two examples.  My point?  These unions have been receiving benefits far beyond what is reasonable for years.  They've had a good run.  Now that it's time to give up the levels of benefits they have, which they probably shouldn't have had to begin with; the unions throw a tantrum, all the while pretending they are actually upset about Walker "not having a discussion with them on it."

Furthermore, the people who were not convinced were the employers of the Union, the people of Wisconsin! These are the people who pay your salary. These same people who, as your employers, make less money than you and receive less lucrative benefits than you. This isn't about "collective bargaining." This is about the right of the taxpayers to say no to public sector unions! Because the unions AREN'T bargaining with their employers! They're bargaining with the elected officials of the employers.

Those employers (again, that's "the taxpayers in Wisconsin" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) are then REQUIRED BY LAW to pay whatever those elected officials agree to pay you. It's not the same thing as private sector unions! Time to accept that this is NOT the same thing as the Teamsters Union bargaining with Mott's Applesauce.

I don't believe I'm alone in the world for not believing the Union when they claim there issue is "they weren't asked."  I repeat what I said in the beginning of this post: We had a discussion.  It was called an election!  We had arbitrators decide this issue. They are called voters!  We had arbitrators.  They are called voters!  It was required of the Union, and every other special interest in the world, to convince voters to support the candidate that they felt would protect their interests.  They failed.  You lost, Teacher's Union.  Now accept the will of the people!


(1) Civility & Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power...

(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

RINOs? Or Conservatives Giving Their Best?

I had the fortune of attending a meeting recently lead by We Surround Rochester (1), the Rochester branch of the 912 Project (of which I am a member). One of the speakers was Assemblyman Bob Oaks (R) from Macedon, NY. (2) I noticed something about Assemblyman Oaks, something that it did not seem the rest of the room saw.
To set the stage, questions were being asked about the redistricting process within New York State and across the nation. One question which was posed was about what budget cutting measures new Governor Andrew Cuomo was really willing to employ. The answer was that something akin to a commission being formed to help look into the over presence of commissions in New York State. To me, and to many in the group, this sounded like much more of the same...more bureaucracy in a state with too much already. One person told the Assemblyman that we in the 912 Project, the Tea Party, etc. were not about being Republican anymore, but about being conservative.

There was a look on the Assemblyman's face which I will never forget. He looked sad...sad that he didn't think he COULD push harder for real conservatism. His eyes said "I agree with you, and I wish I could genuinely push for such reforms...but I'm afraid that if I do my constituents will get stuck with some uber-liberal who will cause far greater problems." His eyes said that he felt it was better for him to be as conservative as possible, so that he can stay here and do the best he can, rather than to fight the good fight and lose. He looked like a man who wanted to do better but wanted to protect his home and his constituents from worse.

It made me stop and think about some of the others whom we refer to as "RINOs" (that's "Republican in Name Only" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). Some of them most definitely are people who are more concerned with being committee chairs, with holding majorities, with getting along. The Olympia Snowes of the world are not getting a pass here. I'm not talking about that type. I'm talking more about someone like our former President George H. W. Bush. I truly believe the elder President Bush was, in fact, a man of true conservative tendencies, largely because he saw them work under his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, while Bush served as Vice President. I also think Bush felt he was doing the best he could with what he had to work with (in his case, Democrat control of the House and Senate).

I wonder how many of the people who we in the Tea Party consider "RINOs" are, in their heart of hearts, genuine conservatives? Think about it. You're a genuine conservative and your goal is to present the most conservative policies you can in whatever elected office you are given. Thanks to the Drive-By Media, you are convinced that if you vote too far to the right, you will lose, and you will lose to someone who is FAR more liberal than you. You don't want to leave your constituents with THAT type of candidate, so you compromise a little so that you aren't replaced by someone who will compromise a lot. You figure it's better to let it be you deciding where to compromise so that the really important things get protected instead of letting a Liberal take your seat.

I believe Assemblyman Oaks is one of these people.  I think there are far too many Republicans in this situation.  We, the real conservatives, have allowed ourselves to be sucked in to calling these individuals RINOs.  Now there are, most definitely, real RINOs out there.  (See Olympia Snowe and John McCain.)  But there is another side of this issue...we need to SUPPORT the people who are in Assemblyman Oaks' situation.  These elected officials need to know that those of us in the Tea Party, the 9.12 Project, the Heritage Foundation (3) need to get behind these people!  We need to fight FOR them!  I am convinced that in the right climate, these genuine conservatives who vote moderate will not only vote conservative, but they will do so happily and with great relief that they can vote their conscience!

I would go so far as to say that at least 2/3 of Republicans in elected office are legit social conservatives and at least 3/4 of Republicans in elected office are legit fiscal conservatives! It's that 1/4 to 1/3, along with liberals aplenty and the Drive-By Media who go to make these individuals believe they NEED to vote as "moderates" to keep getting elected, rather than leaving their constituents with damaging liberal policies.

So what's the answer?  Simple! Conservatives need to get in the ears of these people, but with support!  They need to understand that we have their backs, that they WILL NOT be voted out because they vote for real conservatism.  I believe that only two or three election cycles are needed where these conservative Republicans win when they vote conservative for the political for conscience over compromise becomes the war cry of conservatives in the GOP.

We need to get behind these people who have NOT made it clear they are RINOs.  Olympia Snowe is on her own.  But the rest, the ones who are elected on conservative principles, need to be bombarded with the support to show that we have their back.  They need to know that they can get re-elected on a Conservative record, that they don't have to compromise to ensure that their constituents do not get stuck with a liberal.  If we make this our focus, we can KEEP conservatives in power.  And isn't that the goal?

(1) We Surround Rochester Homepage

(2) Assemblyman Bob Oakes (R) Bio Page

(3) The Heritage Foundation Homepage

Friday, February 18, 2011

The Arrogance of Obama: Who Do You Think You Are, Mr. President?

I'm going to do my best here to be respectful of the office of President, because that is the proper Christian thing to do...but I am just livid right now as a conscientious American!

It has now been over two weeks since U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled that President Obama's Health Care Bill (aka Obamacare) was unconstitutional.  Yesterday, in accordance with this ruling, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell stated that he would not implement that law, given it's unconstitutionality.  I, for one, applaud Governor Parnell for standing up for the Constitution.  This is not what has me furious this morning.  It is the U.S. Justice Department's response to this story which has me absolutely furious.

Yesterday, late in the day (and hopefully off the news cycle radar, I'm guessing the Obama Administration thought), Fox News reported that the Justice Department had asked Judge Vinson to clarify his ruling, and to essentially ask states to continue implementation while the appeals process carried out. (1)  Judge Vinson's ruling did state:

Injunctive relief is an “extraordi­­nary” and “drastic” remedy. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government­­, for there is a long-stand­­ing presumptio­­n “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declarator­­y judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction­­. (2)

You hear that, Mr. President?  The "judgement is the functional equivalent of an injunction."  Now, I know your current plan has been to pretend you didn't hear that, pretend that this ruling is not binding, or perhaps to pretend that the Executive Branch outranks the Judicial Branch.  Unfortunately for you, the Constitution of the United States, that document you seem to dislike so much, makes the Judicial Branch EQUAL to the Presidency.  Further, our system of checks and balances is in place to STOP Presidents or the Legislature from enacting laws which are unconstitutional!

And yet, Mr. Obama, you actions suggest you want to ignore this ruling, pretend it didn't happen, and proceed with the law as though it had not been ruled unconstitutional.  It has been!  For all intents and purposes, the Health Care Law is ILLEGAL!  The online news source Hot Air put it this way:

Essentially, the Obama administration wants Vinson to tell the states to obey an unconstitutional law. (3)

I agree completely with the Hot Air article.  Governor Parnell was absolutely right in stating that Alaska would not implement this law.  Nor should it! It is an unconstitutional illegal law!  The President is absolutely out of line asking Judge Vinson to "clarify his ruling"...essentially asking the judge to instruct states to implement an unconstitutional law.

In my opinion, this is more than just political posturing by the Obama Administration.  I believe this is a direct assault on the Constitution of the United States and the system of checks and balances.  I said in a blog post earlier this week that Obama seems to think that the President outranks the Judicial Branch. (4)  With all due respect, Mr. President, how dare you!  You are not above the law and you are not above the Constitution of the United States!

Honestly, who do you think you are, Mr. President?


(1) Justice Dept. Asks Judge to Clarify Health Care Ruling After Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact Law

(2) Florida Judge Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional - Huffington Post

(3) Obama WH to Vinson: Please tell states to obey law you just struck down

(4) Obama in Contempt of Court: Constitutional Crisis Looming

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Obama in Contempt of Court: Constitutional Crisis Looming

The story broke about two weeks ago now: a U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman (1) has held the Executive Branch of the United States (that's the President for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL) in contempt of court for failure to comply with his ruling striking down a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. (2) Officially, it's the "Department of Interior," but let's face it; it's the President who issued the Executive Order.

Between this and U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson (3) ruling Obamacare Unconstitutional (4) in January, President Obama's legislation (I use this term loosely, the moratorium was via executive order) is dropping like flies. Such is our Constitutional system of checks and balances, right? This sort of thing is supposed to happen so that our freedom might be protected, right? That would be true if Mr. Obama showed any signs of intending to abide by these rulings! Shortly after Judge Feldman struck down the moratorium, the President immediately issued a new executive order with a new moratorium. Further, he's shown zero sign of abiding by the striking down of Obamacare.

To be clear, Obamacare is, legally, no longer the law of the land. The law was ruled void by a U.S. District Court judge. That ruling can be overturned, but until that happens, it is not a law. It is nothing. States are not required to implement or enforce it. In fact, they would be legally in contempt of court if they DID implement and enforce it! Obama's plan? Apparently ignore this ruling completely! It's as if he hasn't heard that the law was voided. He keeps pushing it forward.

This begs the question: Does President Obama think the Constitution does not apply to him? Does he believe that he is above the law? Perhaps he thinks that the Executive Branch is a higher authority than the Judicial Branch? Do I sound absolutely furious about the President's actions? That's because, as a Conservative, as a Constitutionalist, AS A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, I am most definitely extremely furious! (Yes, I know the definition of "furious" is "extremely angry." I chose that phrase intentionally.) Mr. Obama, YOU ARE NOT ABOVE THE JUDICIAL BRANCH!

The truth is that President Obama is breaking the law by ignoring these rulings and trying to continue with his agenda. It is no different than if the President attempted to block a law from being instituted if Congress were to override his veto of a bill to enact said law. There is only two legal ways that a ruling of the Judicial Branch can be overruled. The first is if a higher court within the Judicial Branch overturns that ruling. This has not happened with either of these rulings, thus both these rulings stand. Secondly, the Constitution can be amended. This can be done via a Constitutional Convention wherein the registered voters of the United States elect delegates to said Convention, or the United States Congress and the legislative branches of the individual states can enact the law through those bodies voting. If via the Legislative Branch route, such amendments must be passed by a 2/3 majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then be ratified by a 3/4 majority of the states. Or, if via Constitutional Convention, 3/4 of each state must have their delegates ratify the amendment. Sound difficult? It’s supposed to be! The Constitution is designed to be amended only by way of a super-majority!

This whole situation has been swept under the rug by Obama's willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media and has been pushed aside by some in the New Media because of the unrest in Egypt. This issue needs to be pushed and pushed hard. The reason I say this is because President Obama is flat-out BREAKING THE LAW. He may believe he is above the Judicial Branch but he is not. So now I must break out a word that gets overused by far too many on both sides of the aisle who don't understand the legitimate Constitutional implications: impeachment. There, I said it. The word "impeachment" is thrown around any time someone on one side of the aisle dislikes a President's policies. Let me be clear: impeachment IS NOT a national recall of a President! President's serve their term, unless they commit "high crimes and misdemeanors."

If Obama does not comply with these rulings of the Judicial Branch and continues to implement these two unconstitutional laws, I believe Obama truly ought to be impeached and removed from office. I do not say this lightly, but disobeying a direct injunction or court order is a felony. The Obama Administration is currently in contempt of court for the President's actions ignoring Judge Feldman's ruling in Louisiana. And if the President continues to try to implement Obamacare, he can expect that Judge Vinson will also hold him in contempt of court.
This issue spans far beyond politics. This isn't about a Liberal President disobeying a ruling from a Conservative Judge. This is about rule of law. As a card-carrying member of the 912 Project, I'd like to quote #5 of the 9 Principles of that organization:

"If you break the law, you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it." (6)

By committing the crime of contempt of court, President Obama is in fact committing a felony. The Constitution of the United States is clear that the President of the United States should be impeached if there is just accusation of "high crimes and misdemeanors." (For those of you in Palm Beach County, Florida, "high crimes" = "felonies".) The Constitution further states that if the President is convicted of said high crimes and misdemeanors, he should be removed from office. No one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United States. I take no pleasure in this call for Obama to comply or be impeached, but I do believe it is right. The President is not above the rule of law!

I grant you, the Obamacare ruling will eventually end with the Supreme Court of the United States. I also believe that the Court will strike down Obamacare, likely by a 5-4 decision (Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are, in my opinion, locks to vote down this law. I believe Justice Kennedy will join his fellow Republican Appointees in striking down this law). I also grant you that even a President as arrogant and narcissistic as Barrack Obama is not arrogant and narcissistic enough to try to ignore a Supreme Court ruling. (Andrew Jackson, you get to remain the sole member of THAT club.)

Since the Drive-By Media has absolutely ignored this fact, and the national New Media has been (understandably) distracted by the news in Egypt, we here in the blogosphere, on Twitter, on Facebook, in our lives, need to start this conversation and continue it loudly. We have a President of the United States who believes that he outranks the Judiciary, who believes he is above the Constitution. This must not stand!

Mr. President, you must comply with the rulings of these courts, or you should be impeached.


(1) Judge Martin Feldman - Wikipedia Article

(2) "Judge holds Interior in Contempt of Court" - Denver Post

(3) Judge Roger Vinson - Wikipedia Article

(4) "Judge Rules Health Care Law Unconstitutional" - Fox News

(5) We Surround Rochester

(6) "What is the 912 Project?"

Why the Left FEARS Sarah Palin (Politically Speaking) (Originally Posted 1/24/11)

After the absolutely media slander and libel which has been perpetrated toward Sarah Palin in the wake of the Arizona shootings a week and a half ago, the Left has once again shown us who it is they truly fear (politically). Historically, the American Left only attacks the people they don't want to see in power. As Mrs. Palin recorded in her book "Going Rogue," Liberals do their best to tear someone down from power if it becomes obvious they are going to lead the Conservative movement for the foreseeable future. Sarah Palin has clearly become the next target.

Is it because she is a potential Presidential Candidate in 2012? Perhaps. Is it because Mrs. Palin was one of the people who lead to the electoral shellacking that the Democrat party experienced in 2010? Perhaps. I believe, however, the Left fears Mrs. Palin more than they feared other Conservative leaders to rise to power in the past generation, like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or former President George W. Bush. The following are the reasons I believe the Left is absolutely *politically* terrified of Sarah Louise Palin:

1. Sarah Palin has morals that don't change with polls:

Perhaps the greatest problem that has plagued the Conservative Movement is the Republican Party...specifically the fact that the GOP still believes, for reasons passing all understanding, that they can be liked and treated fairly by the Drive-By Media. We cannot. (As my one of my political heroes, Rush Limbaugh, is fond of saying, the Mainstream Media is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.) Governor Palin simply does not care about how the media sees her.

In her recent hit-show "Sarah Palin's Alaska," Mrs. Palin repeatedly stated on a host of issues, "They have their opinions, but we have ours," speaking with her and her family. It does not matter to Sarah Palin if the media attacks her values, it doesn't matter to her. Because she has REAL VALUES!

As I detailed in my article "The Myth of Moderates," (1) too many people are swayed by the wind and polls or sit in the middle of the fence. These people can be persuaded to abandon their stated principles with relative ease with a doctored poll or by not inviting them to the right cocktail party. These people want to be respected and liked by Liberals so they compromise the values that A) got them elected and B) work.

The Left LOVES this sort of person! They can be persuaded to govern like Liberals. This serves two purposes:

1 - People see Republicans compared to Democrats the way people viewed New Coke compared to Pepsi (this New Coke tastes like a Pepsi...I'll just have a Pepsi).

2 - Whenever real Conservatism is tried, it succeeds! Every time real Conservatism is effectively communicated in an election, it wins! Therefore, if Liberals can stop true Conservatism from being communicated thus getting elected thus succeeding, they can stay in power.

Sarah Palin has governed and will govern as a Constitutional Conservative. As President, she would not submit a judge who legislates from the bench (not even if said legislation is favorable to her values). She believes in the free market and would cut taxes to EVERYONE, which leads to a booming economy (hasn't failed yet), more jobs, and by the way, more revenue to the federal government because more people are working and paying taxes! When a true Conservative like Mrs. Palin is in the White House, it proves that the Liberal principles of tax (punish) the wealthy are damaging to the country!

She also believes the government that governs least governs best. That means many of the pet government programs which liberals adore so much would go bye-bye...lessening people's dependence on Government and reducing their power. And she won't be shifted in the wind to changing these beliefs!

2. Sarah Palin has no real skeletons in her closet:

In Governor Palin's book "Going Rogue," she noted that she once joked that she once got a D on paper in college. That was her big skeleton. Other such skeletons including terminating the government employment of a man (who happened to be her former brother-in-law) from a position in law enforcement, but it was due to legitimate abuse of power by that individual (which included illegally hunting an animal and tasering is teenage stepson). In other words, the guy was a scumbag who deserved to be fired. Oh yeah, and she took five years to complete a four year college degree. Ignoring the fact that this is finishing early by the standards of most college students today, the reason this happened was so she could work and save money to PAY FOR HER EDUCATION!

The only other thing that can be said to be a "skeleton" is the fact that her daughter Bristol had a baby out of wedlock at 17 years old. However, this isn't a skeleton in Mrs. Palin's closet...nor is it a misstep by her. It was a mistake Bristol made, took responsibility for, and now she (Bristol) is taking responsibility for raising her son Tripp. For those who say Governor Palin should've had better control over her daughter or some other such thing, do me a favor. Raise your hand if you honestly can say you NEVER did anything your parents clearly disapproved of...something big. I know I sure did! Things I have since repented of in my Christian walk and turned from as an adult. If I ever have children, you better believe I will teach them not to make my mistakes. However, my future children will eventually have to choose to do the right thing on their own, and deal with the consequences if they make the wrong one! Like Bristol Palin has done, and I respect the heck out of her for it.

3. Sarah Palin has a history of fighting corruption:
From her time on Wasilla, AK City Council to being mayor of Wasilla to running the Alaskan Oil Commission to being Governor of the 49th state, Sarah Palin has tackled the corruption that pervades politics. She doesn't care what the Media and the Left throws at her...she does what's right! That means no more payoffs in the name of "Stimulus." No appointing her buddies to government jobs. No inserting un-elected, unconfirmed "Czars" left and right to increase the power of the Executive Branch. When one fights corruption like this, you better believe the Chicago politics that pervade the Obama Administration would stop under a Palin Administration.

There have been a lot of outright lies and stories out of context spoken by the Lamestream Media about Mrs. Palin. But when you hear her side of most of these stories (read "Going Rogue") it becomes apparent that her decisions were reasonable and right.

4. The Left can't seem to "get" Sarah Palin (politically):

The Left has tried harder to play "gotcha" with Sarah Palin since 2008. While she was a Vice Presidential candidate they succeeded some, but that is largely due to the McCain Campaign allowing it out of a misplaced desire to get along with people who are bent on the destruction of Conservatism. Once Mrs. Palin was speaking on behalf of SarahPAC (Sarah Palin's official Political Action Committee (2) ) without GOP campaign organizers filtering her every word, Mrs. Palin has made as big of a difference in the political landscape as pretty much anyone. She was one of main leaders in the GOP and Tea Party victories in 2010.

The Left has tried recently to link Mrs. Palin's use of a long used political metaphor (putting a bull’s-eye on a map over the general vicinity of the district of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) in an effort to defeat Congresswoman Giffords AT THE BALLOT BOX. It failed miserably. The media keeps trying, they keep trying to present her as corrupt (see #3) but THE TRUTH KEEPS GETTING OUT! They try to portray her as stupid, but besides the Left Wing ideologues, nobody seems to buy it.

The best the Left has been able to do is to hit Governor Palin with the same amount of scrutiny they will attack pretty much any decent GOP candidate. (Sure, they won't go to the wall against a John McCain/Bob Dole/Gerald Ford type candidate because hey, these moderate Republicans usually lose anyway.) And it's not working regarding Sarah Palin!

5. Sarah Palin is a regular American (like you and me!):

What has Sarah Palin done? She's put herself through college, has either raised or is in the process of raising five children with her husband by her side, worked hard as an elected official and fulfilled her promises. She and Todd have made payrolls in the Palin family fishing business. They have paid their taxes. She is a loving mother and wife. She takes her children camping. She hunts for the meat to fill her freezer. She goes to church. Sound like anyone you know? Sounds a lot like a REAL PERSON. Sure, she does a few things living in Alaska that I don't do (I buy my meat in the grocery store, for example). But she is a real person, and a real American! She's us!

Compare that to President Community Organizer, who basically spent his career in a non-profit business which never had to make a payroll, working as a lawyer for three years as an associate before spending seven with the title "of counsel." For those who aren't familiar with that role in a law firm, it's similar to "executive producer" in a have no real responsibilities while maintaining a business card. He then proceeded to do be "on the board" for a couple more non-profits. (3)

6. Sarah Palin is a political Rock Star:

The opening episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska" on TLC (The Learning Channel for those of you in Palm Beach County, Florida) scored a 5.0 rating share (about 5 million viewers) aka RIDICULOUS FOR CABLE. She's packed at all speaking engagements. She helped direct the Election of 2010 in the GOP's favor. Like the analogy or not, she has the same type of political following on the Right as Barrack Obama did in '08 did on the Left.

The difference? Palin has this level of love from the right without the Lamestream Media covering every single question about her qualifications (as they do with Obama) but instead covering every single evidence of her qualifications for high office! With the Media trying desperately to discredit Mrs. Palin, she remains perhaps the best person to put on Ronald Reagan's mantle for the Conservative movement due to the voice of the people!

So here we are, just over two weeks after the Arizona Shooting which the Lamestream Media tried so desperately to blame on Sarah Palin. They failed. No reasonable person believed that she had anything to do with the actions of an evil madman (nor should they have believed it). It is the latest attempt of many to tear down a woman who very well could be America's best hope to undo the damage of the Obama Administration.

The Left is *politically* terrified of Governor Palin. They know exactly what I've stated above. They know that, no matter how hard they try, they can't tear her down. Given the top of the ticket exposure and her own people running the show, Mrs. Palin has the ability to communicate the message of true Conservatism to the American people the right way. As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, "Real Conservatism wins every time it is effectively communicated, and works every time it's tried." Sarah Palin can communicate genuine Conservatism.

She CAN WIN. If she's nominated by the GOP, I firmly believe she WILL WIN. As a matter of fact, to quote Rush again, I believe she will "mop the floor with Obama." Two years of Obama's failures (which will almost certainly be followed by two more) will make "yes we can" generic rhetoric becomes nothing but empty platitudes. Obama's rhetoric fails when there's a track record behind it. Sarah Palin can tell the truth, govern by morals, and take the rhetorical shots without falling down. I believe that she is the best Conservative on the horizon. I personally endorse her for President in 2012. I hope, with a little luck, that Governor Palin READS this article (it's a longshot, but there's always Twitter to make it possible). On the off chance, I have this to say to her:
Mrs. Palin, America needs a genuine Conservative, someone with Christian values and a history of fighting corruption. We need you. So I'm asking you as a citizen, as a Tea Party Patriot, please run for President. We need you, because you can take the attacks, because you can withstand the scrutiny, and because you can communicate true Conservatism. Please pray on it (I'm sure you already are) and pray with your family.

I will tell you this next part because I know you are also a Pentecostal Christian in the Assemblies of God and thus I know you will believe this when I say it. After the Election of 2008, I received a prophetic word from God. Two words, actually: "President Palin." Please pray on this!
If you do run, you will have one loud voice in me both online and in my personal life. God bless you and your family!

- Christopher C. Bastedo


(1) "The Myth of Moderates" by Christopher C. Bastedo -

(2) SarahPAC Homepage

(3) "Barrack Obama" - Wikipedia Page

Egyptian Unrest: Sign of Democracy in Middle East? (Originally Published 2/2/11)

As the unrest in Egypt continues, two possibilities seem to have emerged as to what the potential outcomes of this situation could become. I for one have ZERO clue what is going to happen, and I'm not going to pretend to be a prognosticator of future world events. Further, I've noticed that these two theories have spanned both ends of the political spectrum (albeit each side seems to lean somewhat in one direction or another).

I will get this out of the way: I completely disapprove of the wishy-washy, timid way that President Obama is handling this situation. Once again, when the poop hits the fan on a world scale, I miss former President George W. Bush. (I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can argue whatever you want domestically on Bush, but while he was President, Iran and North Korea sat in their corners and played quietly.) I firmly believe that Bush would have come out strongly in favor of a Democracy movement in Egypt, with no such timid statements about "whatever form of government people choose is best." I'm sorry, but Sharia Law is not a choice we should support because the people choose it in an election. I will get into the reasons for this opinion shortly.

As George W. Bush once stated that when people are given freedom to choose their government, they won't vote themselves into torture chambers and rape rooms. Similarly, when free people (specifically women) are given a choice, they are not going to vote themselves into being beaten for dating a non-Muslim, being stoned for any accusation of infidelity, being required to provide the witness of at least four men to prove an accusation of rape, or being subjected to bodily mutilation in the name of Islam. (For the record, as a Christian, I do not approve of marital infidelity or sex out of wedlock. However, there is disapproval of an act and there is disapproval of the penalty. I disapprove of the penalty.)

The real issue here is that while free people have the right to choose their government, and that is most certainly a right of free people, it does not mean that a majority can vote someone else into relative slavery or vote someone else into fewer rights than natures God entitled them to have (and created them to possess). Among these fundamental human rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I have recently had a lengthy discussion on this blog about these whether these fundamental rights are within the Constitution or the laws of the United States. I have noted that they are in the Declaration of Independence, which is in fact a legal document in the United States. But beyond that, the Constitution is intended to protect civil rights. You see, the framers simply ASSUMED the fundamental human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING has those rights. They were given to them by nature's God. People do not have the right to abridge other individual’s rights, EVEN IN A FREE ELECTION!

The options within variations of free, democratic government are available to the people of Egypt to choose. The reason I insist upon freedom is because every single man, woman and child in Egypt is entitled to their fundamental human rights. Period. Other forms of government, including Sharia-compliant Islamic theocracy, dictatorship, absolute monarchy, etc, fail to protect the human rights of all people and therefore are illegitimate options. Period.

Phew. You know where I stand on what OUGHT to happen. I can't wait to hear the earful that I'm sure at least one liberal will give me on that.

Now for the discussion...for the part I do not have an answer for: What WILL happen in Egypt? Liberals want us to believe that this is absolutely, without a doubt, a Democracy movement. I hope they're right. But hoping and expecting are two different things. I know my history far too well to assume that this will go in the correct direction (see Iran). As I've said above, I do recognize that Egypt is not required to use an American-style Representative Republic.

HOWEVER, the fundamental Human Rights of all individuals must be respected. Therefore, even free people do not have the right to vote other people's rights away. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks in slavery. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks segregated. That's why the Constitution can be and has been amended and the Judicial Branch has the ability to strike down laws which take away other people's fundamental rights. (For example, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson – a ruling which legalized segregation).

Whatever form of government the people of Egypt chooses, it is up to the United States and to our allies to do everything in our power to ensure that whatever they choose does not take away any person's fundamental human rights. Period.

Civility & Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power...(Originally Published 2/1/11)

Being civil. Getting along. Working together. These are the new catchphrases on the American horizon, pushed along by the Democrat Party and their willing accomplices in the Lamestream Media. Yet these terms did not exist when Democrats were in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

As usual, once Democrats aren't in power, it's time to get along and compromise, it's time to be civil. But when they are in power, we're told that "elections have consequences, and I won." Or how about this lack of civility, directed at Sarah Palin, "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." Or how about, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." All three of these quotes are from Barrack Obama before or shortly after his election to the White House. (1)

I don't believe I'm alone in noticing that when the Republicans are in power, Democrats want to "compromise" and "get along," but when Democrats are in power they say "we won and we're instituting our policies." The reality of this situation is that Democrats want to get their way no matter what happens. They want to either get half of what they want or all of what they want at all times. Even when Republicans control both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, they want Republicans to give them something. I for one am sick and tired of it.

I'm far from the first person to make the comparison between these situations and the old Peanuts cartoons (2):

Boy, this one really NAILS what the Democrats (Lucy) keeps doing to the Republicans (Charlie Brown). I'm not making a statement on a cartoon's politics, just extending the analogy. But the GOP keeps thinking that if they just compromise enough with Democrats when we're in power, they will extend the same to us when they are in power. (Pssst: Ain't gonna happen.) See, for all my discrepancies with Liberals, they do understand one thing about politics: IT'S A COMPETITON. A competition of ideas! Now it is the same Liberals who lie to us and tell us they want to "get along" while stabbing us in the front whenever they need to do so to win an election. They will slander Republicans by trying to blame a Conservative for a shooting performed by a non-political madman, compare Republicans to Hitler and the Nazis, then cry foul when Republicans legitimately call Obama a Socialist.

Why, oh why do Conservatives and Republicans continue to play this game? I think it often has far more to do with what well-meaning Liberals who we know in our own lives think than anything. I have several Liberal friends and at least one person who I considered to be one of my mentors growing up (my childhood pastor) who fit this bill. These individuals do not compare Republicans to Nazis. They actually behave civilly. But since they get their news from CNN or MSNBC, they get the edited version of rhetoric where they don't hear Democrats slandering Republicans while hearing edited quotes from Republicans which are cut down to seem as bad as possible and Democrats are edited to sound as good as possible.

So to these well-meaning Liberals, Democrats seem soft and cuddly while Republicans are made to seem as cuddly as a porcupine in a snow bank. These individuals often are blissfully unaware of the results of Liberal policies, preferring to instead look at the good intentions. When a Conservative friend tries to tell them what's really going on, they claim incivility, quote a bumper sticker slogan (they likely keep 6-12 on the back of their Prius for easy access), and blast Republicans as evil. It's not hard to know why...they are sheltered in a Liberal cocoon of imaginary niceness and rainbows. Meanwhile, you as a Conservative, armed with facts and logic, are left frustrated and concerned that this friend will think less of you. So you agree with the "we need to work together and compromise" rhetoric and back off on your values.

The dirty little secret is that this compromise stuff is a bunch of baloney. Democrats only want Republicans to compromise when the GOP is in power, while wanting to ram through their agenda when Democrats are in power. The result is that Democrats get 50-100% of their agenda passed and Republicans get 0-50% of their agenda passed. The best the GOP gets is equal to the worst Democrats get. Liberal college professors like using phrases like "chill effect on free speech" directed at Conservatives, but it seems to me that the only chill effect I've ever noticed is CHILLING CONSERVATIVES! Whether it is through political correctness or "getting along," our values are silenced while Liberals maintain their right to say and do whatever the heck they want with zero restrictions.

Rush Limbaugh (3) has often blamed this issue on elected Conservatives wanting to be accepted within the Beltway. While I agree with Maha Rushie to a degree on this, I believe the issue is even more insidious than Beltway politics. It is extended to us, the regular Joe Six-Pack Conservative, through well-meaning, gentle and friendly Liberals who we count amongst our friends. (Once again, these average Liberals are usually unaware that they are being manipulated by the media. They are good people with good hearts.) It's the puppet masters in Washington who are manipulating the good intentions of these Liberals to help defeat Conservatism.

The time has come for Conservatives to tell these "civility and compromise" types to go pound sand. Politics is a competition...a competition of ideas! I'm fine with respect, and quite frankly I believe that Conservatives HAVE FULFILLED THIS EXPECTATION. We fight for ideas. We do not need to apologize or change our tone. To say that Conservatives attacking Liberal ideals is uncivil is akin to saying "The Steelers have a stronger running game than the Packers" in regards to Sunday's Super Bowl is uncivil. It's not. It's an honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses.

So where is the line? Here it is: Conservatives calling Obama "a socialist," which is accurate based upon Obama's policies is reasonable. According to Obama's books, one of his primary goals is to redistribute the wealth. That is what socialism is. Calling George W. Bush "Hitler" is baseless name calling. The difference? Obama's policies are legitimately in line with Socialism. Modern, European Socialism to be exact. (Not to be confused with 30's and 40's National Socialism. More on that shortly.)

Liberals calling George W. Bush a Nazi is unreasonable. George W. Bush's policies were not in line with the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and most certainly did not include such policies as social purity. Bush did not take over massive parts of the private sector like Hitler did. Bush did not invade nations to expand his country's territory. (Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, yes, but rule of those nations has been handed over to the people of those nations. They are not territories of the United States. HUGE DIFFERENCE.) For the record, even though Obama IS legitimately a socialist and the official name of the Nazi Party is "National Socialist," Barrack Obama's policies are also not in line with Hitler's Nazi Socialism. In other words, Barrack Obama IS NOT a Nazi either.

I challenge you to come up with even a tithe of the uncivil rhetoric which is perpetrated by Democrats coming out of the mouths of MAINSTREAM Republicans. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's 10 %.) David Duke does not count. People in elected office. Oh, and put it in context please. You won't be able to. Radio host Sean Hannity (4) has continued to ask Liberals who call him to name EVEN ONE example and they have yet to be able to give such an example. (I won't claim you can't find one or two examples, but can you find 10% as many as you can find from Democrats? Doubtful.) Conservatives are not uncivil. Elected Liberals are uncivil (note...ELECTED).

Compromise? Liberal policies damage America economically and morally. How do you compromise with poison in your dinner? If someone wants you to put one gram of arsenic into your dinner, do you say "I'll compromise and put half a gram into my dinner?" NO! You fight consuming poison! History has proven that Liberal economic policy is poisonous to the economy. If you believe that abortion is murdering an unborn child, how can you "compromise" and say it's ok to murder that unborn child if it is in the first trimester? Reason and morality would say that if that unborn child is human, its life must be protected. Period. No compromise on protecting life.

So what the heck is the answer? Simple. Politics needs to follow the example of sports. COMPETE. Let our ideas and your ideas stand on their merits between the judges of this competiton: the American people. The point system? Votes.

It does require that the Liberals play fair. You Liberals will have to actually present your REAL goals and policies. I'm sure it will work well...ask Walter Mondale how well promising to raise taxes does in front of the electorate. But hey, if you ACTUALLY get elected on your ideals, Democrats, you could govern on those policies and NOT lose 70 seats in an election between the House and Senate.

Or are you afraid of a fair (political) fight?


(1) Barrack Obama Quotes -

(2) "Peanuts" by Charles Schulz

(3) The Rush H. Limbaugh Show Homepage

(4) Sean Hannity - The Sean Hannity Show Homepage

You're Entitled to Your Opinion...But That Doesn't Make You Right! (Originally Published 1/19/11

As schools continue to indoctrinate children with Liberal nonsense, one of the most frustrating results of this indoctrination is the idea that a person is entitled to their opinion, and that they are thus entitled to ignore all facts in an effort to retain said opinion. I'm guessing you've been here:

You're debating an important issue. Let's say for the sake of argument that you're discussing what tax rates ought to be. If you're Conservative like me, you're arguing the proven fact that low taxes not only encourage business growth but also increase revenues to government because when more people work, more people pay taxes, thus adding new taxpayers and increasing revenues. You're debating with a Liberal who, if they are like nearly every Liberal I've ever met, starts giving you tired clichés devoid of facts like "the rich can afford to pay higher taxes" or "the rich should pay their fair share" (which is always defined as whatever Government wants these people to pay). You present your facts. The Liberal continues to blow smoke and quote bumper sticker slogans (they likely have 6-12 such stickers on the back of their Prius for easy access). Eventually, once you as a Conservative have debunked every cliché with those pesky facts that we Conservatives keep using, your Liberal friend says "well...that's my opinion, you can't change it. I'm entitled to my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree."

Liberal Academia has taken great steps to convince people that there are no facts, that there are essentially no realities, only abstract ideas which don't have consequences. The reality is every action has a consequence. Liberal Academia has gone out of their way to teach people that there is no morality, no truth. Just whatever a single person believes. It sounds nice and it leads to people "getting along."

(In my post a couple weeks ago, "The Myth of Moderates" I argued that the individuals who do try to sit on the fence are essentially full of baloney anyway. (2) Feel free to go back and read that post, it's linked on the bottom.)

What really happens from such a mindset is people are asked to put aside all morality, all logic, and all success in order to "get along." For example, as a Christian I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God Almighty, that we were "formed from the womb" by God. (1) For this reason, I believe all abortion, with the exception of a situation where only one of mother and child will live and the mother's life is the more viable life, is murder. I believe this because I am convinced through scripture, through logic, and through science that life begins at conception. I am not going to tell someone "It's okay for YOU to murder the unborn child in your womb, because you don't think its murder." I don't really care if you think its murder or not...I BELIEVE THAT IT IS MURDER! As a conscientious, moral human being I cannot simply pretend I don't find abortion reprehensible! I cannot pretend that I don't believe abortion is murder, just to "get along." I won't do it! I can't do it!

Morality does in fact exist. I am not going to compromise on morality so that people can think of me as "reasonable." My morality is based upon the Bible, the infallible Word of the Living God! If a person makes their decisions based upon morality, they are therefore going to make concrete, high quality decisions because (write this down): THEY ARE BASED ON SOMETHING HIGHER THAN MY FEELINGS! God came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ and told us EXACTLY what He thinks...and since He created us He gets to tell us precisely what we ought to do! (I know this statement does bother some people because they want to be free to make whatever damaging, stupid decisions they want. And by the way you DO have that right. What you don't have is the right to choose your own consequences!)

Logic also exists. Certain simple, logical principles such as "if you want businesses to keep producing their products in the United States, it is probably not a good idea to levy high taxes on those businesses because they do have the option to produce their product in Mexico for far less." No matter how much you scold and punish a business, they do still legally have the right to move their production out of the United States. Therefore, if the business climate in the United States ends up being a bad business climate, those business owners will almost certainly move their business to a better business climate! It's not hard to figure out. History also exists. Historically we have seen evidence that proves exactly what I have said above about the practices of businesses, not just here in America but all over the free world.

Someone is certainly entitled, in this situation, to hold the opinion that it is fair, reasonable and wise to continue to tax a business to death because "they can afford it" or "it's their fair share." That does not change the fact that this opinion is foolish based on its historical results, especially if one wants the American economy to have manufacturing jobs for blue collar Americans (who, by the way, also will pay taxes on the paychecks they receive from working for these businesses). These opinions, if enacted into law, damage the American economy. It's a historically demonstrated principle. The individual's good intentions or kind desires in enacting these policies will not stop the damage they will cause. The means do not justify the ends.

Years ago, there was this thing called "The Arena of Ideas." Within the boundaries of this mental arena, opinions competed. People presented their facts and listened to other peoples facts. Both people were willing to be convinced to change their opinions...if presented with sufficient data and evidence. The goal was to find truth. We have lost this in our society. About a year ago when debating the validity of the "science" (see also: hoax) that is Global Warming. This person actually said to me "Scientists are entitled to their opinions too." NO THEY ARE NOT (at least not professionally)! Science, by its very nature, should be bereft of opinions! Science is centered on a search for facts which can be backed by evidence! (Science requires a tremendous amount of evidence before something can be even titled as a "theory." It then requires years more of evidence, nearly all proving the theory, to be considered a scientific law.)

The idea my friend tried to use to silence my speech is so pervasive in our society that people genuinely believe that everyone should just happily sit there with their own opinion not ever challenging anyone else's opinion. There are a couple problems with this ideal. First and foremost, it will not work in politics. For all the claims of "wanting the government to get things done" (lovely term, by the way, which assumes accomplishing negatives is better than standing still), if our politicians sat there and simply stated their opinions and did not allow their ideas to compete, NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. Healthy debate is required for a republic to survive! Secondly, if your opinion is well established and fact-based, it should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of debate!

The latter enters into the real problem. People don't WANT to have to change their opinions. Perhaps someone desperately wants to hang on to their pro-choice stance because they in fact had an abortion or know someone who did. If they were convinced by my arguments against it, they would have to accept that a murder was committed in that procedure (albeit in ignorance). I know many Christians who want to deny that the act of homosexuality is a sin because they know and care about people who are caught in homosexuality and do not want to have to tell those people that A) they are indeed sinning and B) they should stop. Even though the Bible clearly states "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (3) (For the record, all sex outside the boundaries of marriage is a sin. The only sex the Bible states is permissible is between a husband and wife...and within the boundaries of marriage IT IS ENCOURAGED!)

So we accept relative morality so we don't have to be uncomfortable. Sad, isn't it? Anyone else think that denying morality so that we don't have to stand up for morality is awful? Good. I'm glad it's not just me. So what's the solution? Here it is: Be willing to make people uncomfortable (in a respectful way)! The Bible does tell in Ephesians that:

"...we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ." - Ephesians 5:14-15 (4)

God has told us in His Word to not be carried about by the latest public opinion or what makes people comfortable. We should speak the truth. We should also speak the truth IN LOVE so we can reach people! The answer is staring us in the face: Stand up for truth, but separate the individual from the actions/beliefs. Also it is important for us to separate ourselves from our opinions. If someone debates your opinion, THEY ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU! They are attacking your opinion!

Finally, to those of you who live your lives being "entitled to your opinion": Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But I hope you can be wise enough to recognize that neither you nor any other human being who has ever lived or is alive now, save for Jesus Christ (who by the way is very much alive now, hallelujah!), EVER knew everything! So you should be willing to change your opinions when provided with new facts. And if you aren't willing to accept other facts which may change your opinion, you do remain entitled to your opinion. But it does not mean you are right!

(1) Isaiah 42:2 - Holy Bible: New King James Version

(2) "The Myth of Moderates" by Christopher C. Bastedo

(3) Leviticus 18:22 - Holy Bible: New King James Version

(4) Ephesians 4:14-15 - Holy Bible: New King James Version

Failing Dr. King: How Liberalism Ignores the Dream (Originally Published 1/18/11)

This past Monday, America celebrated the 25th Martin Luther King Day. As it has in the past, this day brought to mind a panel discussion I was priveleged to join back in 2001 (my senior year of high school) sponsored by Umoja (student lead-group at my school). I was known in my high school as one of the best Conservatives (a small pool of talent in a New York state high school I must admit). A Liberal friend, with whom I had enjoyed many great debates with through our honors History and English classes over the past years, was a member of the group Umoja’s branch at my school. The goal of this panel was to discuss race relations 33 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I will never forget this event. It was the day I truly understood how the American Left has failed Dr. King's dream.

The panel consisted of some black students and some white students. I recall most vividly the stories of "racism" that some of these students claimed to have experienced at our school. Included among the most prominent "offenses" as being asked questions about their hair and how difficult it was to manage! I have always believed that the greatest problem that caused racism in America was ignorance. If this is the case, how is it racist to ask questions in an effort to understand? Further, aren't questions like this a demonstration that our generation does in fact recognize that race differences are purely skin deep...that black people are simply PEOPLE...people who have different physical traits but otherwise 100% the same!

If I may step away from the point of this article for one moment, I'd like to take time to explain the real purpose of race. The physical traits of different races on Earth were caused due to the process of physical adaptation as people moved into different parts of the World. For example, the physical traits of people from eastern African descent. People in Africa generally have long and lanky frames. Their skin has a high amount of melanin in their bodies because melanin is essentially sun block built in to the human body. The more melanin a person has in their skin, the more they can be in the sun without the sun's rays damaging their body. The lanky frame and high amount of melanin in black person's body is the ideal combination of traits to dissipate heat and to withstand the longest possible time in the sun.

People of northern Asian decent are generally shorter and squatter. They have thicker, darker hair and almond shaped eyes which reduce the glare of snow and ice. They tend to have flatter noses because that shape nose is less exposed to cold. People of Asian descent often have minimal facial hair because a man's breath often condensates on the beard, making the face colder. These traits make a person of northern Asian decent best able to withstand the cold temperatures of northern Asia. Both these examples show that the human body adapted to its surroundings!

Back to the original story. The one question that I recall as if it was yesterday from that panel discussion from ten years ago was "How do you see yourself as a minority or majority in America today?" I remember I was quite bothered by this question because it ignored the point of Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Dr. King said famously:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."(1)

Yet these students wanted to talk about people in categories based upon the color of their skin! I spoke about my personal beliefs on race: That skin color is exactly the same as eye color...a physical trait. I do not consider people to be different than me if they have blue or brown eyes (I have green eyes, for the record). I do not consider a person different from me if they have blonde hair or black hair or red hair (I have brown hair, for the record). I also do not consider people to be different because they are of Asian descent or African decent or American Indian decent (I am of European Decent, for the record). These are only physical traits. They DO NOT MATTER to me!

Another statement made was "Everyone is at least a little racist." I stand living proof that this is not true! My response to this was: "I look at you and I see a person. You look at me and you see a white person. Who do you think is REALLY racist here?" I said then, and I still say now, that the person who sees a fellow human being through the lens of their race is the racist, regardless of what that racist person's skin color happens to be!

The truth is the Left has failed Dr. King's dream. They have spent a generation telling minorities that they can't succeed on their own. They have spent a generation telling minorities they need the Democrat party to fight for them because they can't fight for themselves. The Left has spent a generation crying racism every time someone argues against a policy of a minority. Look at Barrack Obama. The Left should be thrilled that the Right debates President Obama's policies on merit alone if they were living up to Dr. King's beliefs. But the Left instead cries racism because we criticism Obama. The reality is we ARE judging Obama by the content of his character...and we don't like that content! I despise President Obama's policies with my eyes closed...his race does not matter. I am the same person who liked the idea of Condoleezza Rice running for President at one point because I liked the content of her character. I oppose Obama's policies because he is a Socialist, not because he is black! Something tells me that you, my readers, oppose Obama's policies for the same reason.

The Left has failed Dr. King's Dream, and done so intentionally. They fail the Dream because it means they can't use race to convince minorities to vote for them. The Right, on the other hand, has succeeded. We as Conservatives do judge people by the content of their character. We happily support Conservative minorities like Condoleezza Rice, Judge Clarence Thomas, Governor Bobby Jindall of Louisiana, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and others. Because it's about the ideas, not the skin tone. We argue against minorities who are on the Left, like President Barrack Obama, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. It is for their policies we oppose these men. If they were white, we'd fight them just the same.

So I ask you what I asked ten years ago: If the Left looks at a man and sees a white man or a black man or an Asian man and the Right looks at a man and sees a man, who is the racist? It is the side that sees simply a man that has fulfilled the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.


1) "I Have a Dream" speech by Dr. Martin Luther King

It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER (Originally Published 1/5/11)

Just raise taxes on the rich...they can afford it! That way government can continue to spend and spend, those of us who aren't rich can have more services, it's a win-win right? Liberals have been using this Robin Hood's actions with Prince John's tactics style economic policy since the Sixteenth Amendment made a federal tax on income legal.

The thing that saddens me is that far, far too many Americans have decided that these policies are acceptable, even moral. .. Herein lays a fundamental issue which must be addressed in America. Such polices serve to convince Americans that the government is entitled to whatever percentage of a citizens money...of their property, really...they "need" in order to provide whatever programs they deem necessary.

Conservatives have generally argued against this idea from the point of sound economic principle. It is absolutely true that high, confiscatory tax rates do in fact provide a disincentive for people to open businesses, create jobs, and contribute to the economy. They do punish hard work, and, in many cases, reward laziness. But there is a much more important, much more basic principle that these "soak the rich" policies breaks. Are you ready? We're going back to kindergarten here:


It does not belong to the government. Nor does it belong to the general population of the United States. It's not yours. It's not the Government's. However much a person has, that money is his personal property. It does not matter if that person has $300 in the bank or if they have $30,000 in the bank or they have $30 billion in the bank. Whatever they own, they own it. The Government doesn't have the right to take it just because they want to provide someone else with something!

Let me give another example. If I as a single adult, choose to purchase two cars, and can only drive one at a time, does this mean that another person who has no car can simply take my second car away from me? I don't NEED two cars...I really only NEED one. So therefore, according to Liberal logic, a person can simply take it from me right? WRONG! Both of those cars belong to me. They are my property. No one has the right to take it away from me.

The same principle applies to taxation. No matter how much a person has, the money they OWN (yes, money is property), they have a right to do with it what they want to do with it, within the boundaries of the law. Period. It doesn't belong to the Government! But this logic has been used to pay for such government programs as the Endowment for the Arts and to give billions in grants every year for people to write a novel (just ask that idiot wearing the multi-colored Riddler outfit whose commercials run during the Price is Right).

Does this mean I am rejecting the morality of paying taxes? No. There are certain services that are most efficiently and equitably handled by government. For example, provision of a common defense. This includes not only the military to protect our nation, but also police departments. Government is also the most logical entity to provide for such things as fire departments (albeit in the majority of places in America, a volunteer fire department is plenty sufficient) as well as ambulances, etc. What I am objecting to is the idea that a person who receives these services in equal amounts to any other person should be charged MORE for them because they can afford it!

Does it make sense to charge someone $5 for a $1.49 loaf of basic, store brand white bread because they can afford it? Of course not! A product or a service in the private sector costs what it costs, no matter how much the consumer has in the bank. Yet the Government doesn't see things that way. Government decides what they want to provide, regardless of necessity (see the Endowment for the Arts) and then decide to tax people based upon their ability to pay. They take money "from each according to their abilities" and spend it on other people "according to their needs. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that last bit in quotes were directly taken from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.) And because it's for the common good, and because it's not OUR money being confiscated, we in the middle class, working class, and poor class decide that this practice is just dandy. In fact, some of us (albeit probably not the majority of my readers) love the idea that we can simply cast votes for candidates who will spend other citizens money on us!

The fact that you may be receiving something you like due to this theft from another person in the form of taxes is immaterial! The fact that these rich people may or may not be able to afford it is immaterial! Not one bit of this matters. It is about the personal property of the individual. Our second President John Adams put it this way:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."(1)

Now I personally believe that "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were both indeed commandments from God, recorded in His infallible Word, the Bible. (So did Adams, for the record.) Compounding this fact is the knowledge that as free people, we do wish our own property rights protected; we must extend that same protection to others. The fact of the matter is the moment we allow other individual’s property rights to be abridged; it will only be a matter of time until our own property rights will be challenged in the name of the greater good.

I am calling for all patriotic Americans to change the conversation. It's not about "they can afford it." It's not even about whether or not confiscatory taxes do in fact harm the economy (which history proves it does). It is about the rights of a free people to their property. Please join me in this cry: President Obama, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY! United States House of Representatives, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY! United States Senate, IT’SNOT YOUR MONEY! State governments of the United States, IT’SNOT YOUR MONEY! Liberals aplenty, IT’SNOT YOUR MONEY! Taxes are a necessary evil, but by God IT’SNOT YOUR MONEY! Period.

1 - John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)

The Myth of Moderates (Originally Published 12/22/10)

"Moderate." One of the most beloved descriptions of oneself in American politics today. (See also independent).  People love calling themselves a moderate. Why?  Because it defines you as a peacemaker.  As someone who is willing to compromise. Someone who rationally considers every issue on its merits rather than based on hardnosed political beliefs.

Sure sounds good to be a moderate right?  We all want to be seen as a peacemaker, willing to compromise, and not as a hardnosed ideologue. If nothing else, these values make you a great spouse.  But politically speaking, is being moderate a good thing?

Before I tackle that question, let's first decide if there really is such a thing as a Moderate.  There seem to be three types of people who consider themselves to be Moderates.  Let's tackle the first two together:

RINOs and DINOs (n):        
RINO: Republican in Name Only                  
DINO: Democrat in Name Only

Let’s consider two of the most famous.  Unfortunately, DINOs are becoming extinct fast, so I have to use a retroactive example, Senator Joe Lieberman (I - Connecticut).  As for RINOs, let's go with Senator Olympia Snowe (R - Maine).

Joe Lieberman's Politics in a Nutshell (1):  Senator Lieberman has received a grade of 100 from the Abortion Rights Organization. Co-Sponsored the Clean Air Act (1990).  Has received a letter grade of F from the National Rifle Association.

Olympia Snowe's Politics in a Nutshell (2):  Senator Snowe is pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.  She was the only Republican to vote for the Tax Fairness & Economic Growth Act (1992) which helped President Bill Clinton institute the largest income tax increase in history.

Both of these individuals are often characterized as "Moderates." Their political history, however, shows them to be LIBERALS! I grant you, they are less liberal than Barrack Obama, John Kerry, etc.  But they are in fact liberals. 

These two groups are in actuality one group of so-called "moderates." They are liberals who do not want to be called liberals so they therefore call themselves moderates.  This is not surprising, considering 42% of Americans consider themselves Conservative, while only 20% call themselves Liberal.  (3% presumably gave some other answer.  It is the remaining 35% we discuss now..."moderates.") (3)

These liberals who call themselves moderates are simply trying to put new packaging on themselves.  As someone who sells advertising for a living, I understand this.  As a Christian, this is a lie which bothers me.   However, the reason these liberals who call themselves moderates do so is simple.  Liberals are out of the mainstream.  As I presented in a previous blog (4), Conservatives ARE the mainstream.  (I won't restate that argument.  It's linked at the bottom.)  Thus, for these liberals to get elected BY the mainstream, they have to reinvent themselves as something palatable to the mainstream.

Now to the final group of "moderates." As much as the ones above I mentioned annoy me, it is this final group which drives me the craziest.  These are the people who consider themselves more thoughtful than those of us who are on the left or the right.  They consider every issue on its merits and therefore arrive at a more evolved conclusion.  They are generally huge jerks.
We all know these people.  They are proud of the fact that they are registered as an Independent and trumpet it at all opportunities. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a registered Republican.  While I stand by my statement that I am a Conservative not a Republican, in the great state of New York (where I live) you must be registered with a particular party in order to vote in their primary elections, and I want a say on what candidate gets the nomination!
I for one reject this premise that sitting on the fence makes someone more intellectual.  I do in fact decide my opinion on each issue based on its merit, as these "moderates" also claim to do.  Here is the difference. I make my decisions based on three things.  In social issues, I make those decisions based upon my faith.  I am a Born-Again, Pentecostal Christian.  I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of the Living God.  When a social issue comes up, I make my decisions based on the Bible.  With economic issues, I make my decisions on what works.  Period.  Does this economic policy succeed or fail.  The rare item that does not fit into one of these two categories, I make my decision based upon the Constitution of the United States. 

What does the U.S. Constitution say?

Moderates want us to believe that they are making their decisions issue by issue but are somehow landing in the center every leg on each side of the fence.  Let me give you some examples:

Abortion:  As a Christian, I believe that the unborn child is a human being.  As a human being, it is entitled to certain inalienable rights; among which (and supreme) are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However that child has come to be, it has the right to live.
One of the most prominent moderate arguments on abortion is "allow abortion only if the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape."  Here is my response:

In terms of mother's life in danger, one of the preeminent parts of the doctor's Hippocratic Oath is to save the more viable life.  If the mother is more likely to live, save the mother, if the child is more likely to live save the child.  I am fine with this is simply good medicine.
In terms of an instance of rape, I do understand and I do sympathize with the woman who has been impregnated by rape.   These circumstances are incredibly rare, at least if we include ONLY forcible rape.  (For more on the difference see reference 5).  While it absolutely stinks that this woman who has been through the trauma of rape be asked to carry this unfortunate child to term, the child does have the right to life.  In essence, I am suggesting the human rights of the unborn child (right to life) outrank the civil rights of the woman (right to pursue happiness aka right to do what she wishes with her body).

If I am correct and that unborn child is in fact human, how is it a good thing to decide that it is ok to kill a few of these children under extreme circumstances? 

Taxes:  Liberals want the taxes of the rich to be high.  Conservatives want them low.  The moderate position is to keep the rates LESS HIGH. 

However, historically, every time the top marginal tax rates have been cut, a time of economic prosperity follows.  Let us take the top marginal tax rate under Carter (70%) vs. Reagan (28%).  Setting aside from the fact that the economy boomed during the Reagan years, lets simply look at the dollars and cents brought into the federal coiffeurs. Under Carter, the federal government took in $500 billion in tax revenue annually. Under Reagan it was $1.1 trillion annually! Adjusted for total inflation over 8 years, Reagan STILL brought in 50% more revenue than Carter with low taxes! Even if the goal was to raise more revenue (which Liberals will tell you it is), you raise more revenue with lower taxes. 

The reason for this is because the "rich" are also often business owners.  Given extra capital to invest in their business, these individuals often create new or better products/services, which often increases the demand for their product/service which causes them to hire more people!  These new people who are now working (who previously were not) are paying taxes.  Perhaps each individual pays less, but with more taxpayers the total revenue goes up.
By picking a middle ground (say a 45% tax rate on the top bracket) you are logically only going to see less of these good economic results.

Gun Control:This issue is one that falls into neither social (moral) or economic categories which I have previously mentioned. However, Gun Control is a Constitutional issue. Before we go into the sides, let us look at the text of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (6)

There are Liberals who believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated because people don't require guns to hunt (completely missing the purpose of the 2nd Amendment).  The Conservative belief is that there should not be regulation on what type of gun a person can own, with exceptions ONLY for such things as nuclear missiles (if you really need me to, I can give you a reason for this). 

The moderate view, therefore, is something akin to "you can have certain types of gun, but you don't NEED to own an assault riffle, etc.)

Unfortunately, this moderate restriction IS an infringement on the Right to Bear Arms!  The reason is enclosed within the reason the for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment exists so that any person in the United States would not be left defenseless...either from another individual, or a wild animal, or from a tyrannical government.

It is this last point I want to highlight.  We have the right to bear arms in case we must overthrow a tyrannical government again, as we did in 1776.  Saying that a citizen cannot have an AK-47 is infringing upon this right, because if we must overthrow our government to stop that government's tyranny (NOTE THAT I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENT REVOLUTION HERE!!!) we are going to have a very tough time when the government is fighting with AK-47s and we are fighting with .22 rifles and 12 gauge shotguns. 

Granted, this has not been necessary since 1776, nor do I expect it to be necessary.  We have elections nationally every 2 years which are essentially a peaceful revolution each time we vote one person out and vote another in.  But, given the possibility that it may happen someday, and we may have to once again state...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  (7)

...we as free people must have the right to fight back within kind.  A moderate point of view will leave us unable to do so. 

What in heaven's name is my point, you ask?  Simply that this self described "moderate" point of view isn't well thought out at all!  It isn't taken from a moral perspective, it isn't taken from a logical perspective, and it isn't taken from a Constitutional perspective!  It is neither moral nor successful nor Constitutional (in many cases). It is simply looking at the Conservative perspective, looking at the Liberal perspective, and plopping down at the halfway mark between the two. 

Being a moderate is either akin to being a fence sitter, to being indecisive; or being a Liberal or Conservative without wanting to claim that title for yourself for fear of reaction. 

To those of you who are really Liberals, call yourself Liberals!  If you truly believe in what you espouse, you should have no problem standing on that platform.  (Sure, you have no chance of getting elected outside of New York, California, Taxachusetts, etc, but at least you'll be HONEST!)

If you are Conservative, be proud of being a Conservative! Not only are you part of the largest group of Americans, but you stand for something!  Also, real Conservatism WINS every time it runs (exceptions include liberal bastions like New York, California, and Taxachusetts, but those states the exception, not the rule).

Note to Liberals and Conservatives who call themselves moderates: If you consider each issue on its merits and land on the Conservative side you are in fact a Conservative. If you consider each issue on its merits and land on the Liberal side you are in fact a Liberal. Despite following the Moderate's cry of "I consider each issue on it's merit," Conservatism is a set of values, not a process of choosing values. The same is true for Liberalism (albeit it is a wrong set of values, in my opinion).  If you don't sit on the fence, you aren't a moderate!

Now to you people who really do sit on the fence:  STOP TELLING US HOW WISE YOU ARE! I think I speak for all of us on the Right (and probably some on the Left) when I say "get over yourself."  We also take our time to consider each issue.  We just make our decisions based on real, concrete values which cause us to land on one side. 

And in the end, I think that is better.
(1) Political Opinions of Joe Liberman - Wikipedia -

(2) Olympia Snowe - Wikipedia -
(3) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - Gallup -

(4) "Conservatives are the Center" by Christopher Bastedo -

(5) The majority of rapes reported in this country are statuatory rape.  The majority of those cases of statuatory rape it is the female who is under the legal age of consent and the male is only a few years older.  For example, a 15 year old girl who is dating an 18 year old boy while both are in high school.  Both give consent but the girl is not legally old enough to do so.  Her father then presses charges.

(6) The Constitution of the United States, 2nd Amendment -

(7) The Declaration of Independence -