Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Reactions to the AZ and MI Primaries

Yesterday, Arizona and Michigan held their Republican Primaries.  One was hotly contested, the other was not.  Before we analyze the two states, lets note for the record that neither Newt Gingrich nor Ron Paul put any real effort into these two states.  Both states were essentially contests between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (although all four were on the ballot).  So, given this lack of effort by Newt and Ron Paul,

Let’s take them one at a time, shall we?
Arizona was ultimately a layup for Mittens.  Polls closed at 9 pm Eastern, the state was called at 9:01 pm.  It’s a nice win for Mitt, since Arizona’s delegates are winner-take-all.  So Mitt picked up 29 more delegates toward the nomination.  Not a whole lot more to say.  Mitt did nicely for himself in Arizona. It was the kind of win Mitt needed to regain his air of inevitability.
And then Michigan happened to Mittens.  It couldn’t be called for quite some time. Mitt won a squeaker at the end of the day, but even that win is very hard to call it a win.  Winning by 3% is a pathetic turnout considering that Mitt was born and raised in Michigan and that George Romney, Mitt’s father, was the incredibly popular 3-term governor of Michigan.  The Romney name is as golden in Michigan as the name Kennedy is in Massachusetts, yet Mitt could only ride that to a small victory.  If I was Mittens, I’d be nervous.
Rick Santorum on the other hand ought to be very pleased with his showing.  To come so close to beating Mitt in his home state and to pick up close to half of the 30 delegates at stake is huge.  Furthermore, if the conservative vote was to be consolidated (this time theoretically behind Santorum), the Senator would’ve beaten Mitt.   A very strong showing for Rick Santorum.
Two more primaries, two wins for Mitt.  Arizona was a nice win.  Michigan, however, was disappointing.  If I was Mitt Romney, I’d feel nervous.  If I was Rick Santorum, I’d feel confident.  Even though the Senator lost both contests, again, coming so close to beating Mittens in Michigan is a great victory for him. 

Next week is going to be very telling.  Next Tuesday is Super Tuesday.  Mittens is lost his inevitability.  Rick Santorum is rising as the conservative choice. Next week is the last chance for Newt Gingrich to make a comeback.  If he doesn’t, it’s time to conservatives to coalesce behind Rick Santorum. 
Either way, Mittens is not doing well.  He wanted to have this race wrapped up by now.  Instead, he’s in a dogfight.  This nation is pushing further to the right, conservatism is taking over the GOP, returning it to its.   The Tea Party, no matter how much we’re called fringe, is actually the mainstream of America.  Those of us who have been conservatives for years are joining forces with those who just came to the conservative table and we are taking this country back.  At the end of the day, I believe whomever we nominate is going to beat Barack Obama.  So let’s get the best we can get.  Game on.

The truth is if we give our businesses a good environment, they will do the investing.  Let's get government out of the "investment" game.  Let's elect Somebody Else in 2012.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Why Rick Santorum Would Make a Better President than Obama

Recently, Biblical Conservatism has been presenting our Somebody Else in 2012 Campaign.  The goal is, above all else, to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.  So, in the coming days, we're going to discuss why each of the remaining four candidates, even if they may be less than your ideal candidate.  Today we're going to talk about Rick Santorum. Here are some of his platforms:

- Repeal Obamacare.

- Reform our immigration system to make it harder to enter illegally and easier to enter legally.

- Stand up for the rights of every human being, born and unborn, to be alive.

- Repeal ALL major Obama Era new regulations that squash business growth.

- Cut $5 Trillion in spending over 5 years.

- Reduce Federal Non-Defense Spending to 2008 Levels.

- Reform Medicare and Social Security to make it a sustainable program for generations to come.

Is Rick Santorum a perfect candidate?  No.  But he's got a solid conservative record and is one of two candidates that I am 100% certain would govern according to conservative principles if elected.  He believes in freedom and the American family.  And most importantly, Rick Santorum would be a better President than the one we have now.

Socialism and Communism has never failed to fail. 

Barack Obama's Presidency has been no exception.

In 2012, let's elect a President who believes in America as it was founded.  Let's elect someone else.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Why Ron Paul Would Make a Better President than Obama

Recently, Biblical Conservatism has been presenting our Somebody Else in 2012 Campaign.  The goal is, above all else, to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.  So, in the coming days, we're going to discuss why each of the remaining four candidates, even if they may be less than your ideal candidate.  Today we're going to talk about Ron Paul.  Here are some of his platforms:

- Cut $1 Trillion from the budget in year one.

- Eliminate five cabinet level Executive Branch departments.

- Cut Federal Workforce by 10%.

- Return Spending to 2006 Levels (putting the deficit at less than 10% of today's deficit).

- Lower corporate taxes.

- Repeal the 16th Amendment (Which allows Federal income tax).

- Return the bulk of governmental power to the States where it belongs.

Is Ron Paul a perfect candidate? Absolutely not.  He's actually my fourth choice of four from the remaining field, and to be honest, some of his foreign policy scares me.  But he'd be a far better President than the one we have now.

This ad was not paid for by any political organization. It has been posted by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is not subject to equal time requirements.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Third Party Isn't the Answer

"Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
- Ronald Reagan

It continues to baffle me that so many conservatives are actually talking about voting Third Party in 2012 to "make a statement."  I honestly want to shake these people.  My response is: well zippity doo da you and your "statement" are going to get this country stuck with four more years of Obama and more "change" that is going to remake this nation into something our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. 

For the record, I'm talking to conservatives here.  You libertarians who might decide to go to Gary Johnson, well, that's your perogative and I guess I can respect it.  Conservatives, however, you're shooting this nation in the foot with that kind of vote.  Honestly, friends, I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, but do you remember what happened the last time people gave "statement votes" to a third party candidate because the Republican nominee was less than conservative.  Do you remember?

The Election was Decision 1992.  Ross Perot was running against the growing deficits (the like of which we'd now give our right arm for today) and other fiscally conservative messages.  At the end of the day, Clinton beat Bush (41) by about 5.5% nationally.  Perot, remember, received 18% of the vote.  Even if Clinton and Bush split Perot's vote, Bush would've won handily. Instead we got Clinton, and a big push for liberalism for two years, until Newt Gingrich and the GOP were elected in a landslide and forced Clinton to move to the right.

Friends, sometimes it's better to elect a George H.W. Bush than to deal with a Clinton.  Only one difference: Obama is far worse than Clinton.  President Clinton did not care about ideology.  If he needed to govern to the right of Warren Harding to be popular he would've done it.  The man was a weather vane.  Obama on the other hand is a rigid ideologue.

If that means voting for Romney, fine.  It's better to halt the Obama-Liberalism advance. I expect taht Romney will be, at worst, George H.W. Bush as President.  (Actually I think he'll be more like Dwight Eisenhower personally.)  Or if you can't have your first choice of the two conservatives, trust me, when you research their plans you'll find that the other guy is a pretty nice consolation prize. (I've endorsed Gingrich, but I would be happy to throw my support behind Santorum.)  If you're a Ron Paul supporter, let me ask you this: Even if it means halting the spending in it's tracks, isn't that better than Obama continuing to add to his spending?

Friends, we must not allow ourselves the personal toy of a third party "statement vote." I believe America as founded is at stake.  Perhaps we won't be able to reverse the flow of the river this election, perhaps we will.  but if we can't reverse the flow, at least let's put up a dam. 

In 2008, President Obama ran a great campaign.  Since 2009, he's run the country poorly. 

It's time for a new President.  In 2012, let's put substance over style, and elect someone else.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Reactions to the CNN-AZ Debate

Last night, the four remaining Republican candidates met for their first debate in a long time in Arizona.  It’s been so long that you’re not going to remember the notes from the last debate.  As a matter of fact, I’m going to refrain from putting in my notes from the last debate, since it was nearly a month to go. 
However, since we last saw the candidates debate, much has happened, so let’s quickly review that:  After winning South Carolina, Newt Gingrich has essentially tanked.  He needed a really great debate last night.  Meanwhile, Rick Santorum has surged.  Senator Santorum has surged for the precise same reason that Gingrich had previously rocketed up: he’s effectively communicating conservatism.  Real conservatism wins.  Period.  Ron Paul has…well…kept being Ron Paul.  Finally there’s Mitt.  Mittens has stayed where he’s been…an acceptable but not preferable choice.  A lot of conservatives are still screaming that Mitt’s a liberal or a moderate…the later is sort of true, although what a “moderate” is has moved right since the GOP nominated John McCain. 
So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite debate game, Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All:
Newt Gingrich Hold (Buy): Newt had the opportunity to do two the best things that he does.  One, he got to slam dunk CNN for continuing to bring up the baloney about birth control.  Two, he got the chance to be the above the fray wise sage in the debate. His best moment was talking about how the same media that is harrumphing about birth control ignored the fact that Obama voted against a law to say that an unborn child who survived abortion procedures, including partial birth abortion procedures.  Once again, it’s another media double standard.  However, I don’t think Newt got the type of screen time he needed to rebound.  I hope I’m wrong.  I think Super Tuesday is going to be Newt's last stand if he doesn't win a few states.  We shall see.
Ron Paul Sold (Sold):  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  He did make a good point on the contraceptive issue.  He’s right, the problem in and of itself isn’t birth control birth control is a reasonable medical tool) but the way people use it to live a consequence free life.  (I’m paraphrasing.)  It’s a good point.  That’s why I don’t have a problem with true contraception (while saying again and again that abortion isn’t contraception, it’s a simple difference between).  I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, I agree with Ron Paul on about 85% of issues.  Tonight Paul highlighted that 85%.
Mitt Romney Buy (Buy):  First and foremost, I want to say that it definitely sounded like Mittens had stacked the room.  It was almost comical how the audience cheered at Romney getting his tail kicked for making terrible points.  It was so out of line and cheering bad points.  Often it was two people cheering at completely inopportune times.  Not only do I think the Romney camp stacked the audience, they absolutely sucked at it.
Now to Mitt.  He got his butt kicked early on.  It was like watching Socrates debating a vacuum cleaner.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, Socrates was, at least in the writings of Plato, one of the finest debaters in the history of ever.) 
Rick Santorum Buy (Buy):  Santorum went back and forth between debating well and debating like a vacuum cleaner.  He spent a lot of time giving Romney the same look that Newt was previously known for (you know that look…the one that says “What are you, stupid?”  Then Senator Santorum found his swing and started hitting the ball hard.  He also absolutely hit it out of the park on his previous statements about birth control and the sexual licentiousness that birth control does make possible, but yet stating that “just because he’s talking about it doesn’t mean he wants a government program to fix it.  That’s not what (conservatives) do that’s what (liberals) do!”
Senator Santorum also took Mittens to the woodshed on his Obamacare attack.  It was beautiful.  Once again, Senator Santorum showed why he’s a very good second choice for me and for conservatives.  I believe he will govern as a conservative, he will take the fight to Obama if he’s our nominee.  Right now Santorum is my second choice…but it’s not by much. 
Debate Winner: Rick Santorum
This race has heated up.  It’s starting to look like a two man race, but that can change on a dime in this campaign.  Either way, we must defeat Obama.  So let’s allow this race to decide the best available candidate, but at the end of the day each of these candidates has one major thing in common: Every one of them will be a better President than the one we have now.

This ad was not paid for by any political organization.  It has been posted by the editor of this blog as part of his personal endorsement of Newt Gingrich and is not subject to equal time requirements.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Mr. Obama, Your Values aren't "American Values"

It's one of President Obama's newest catchphrases: "American Values."  He tends to bring up in the same sentence as phrases like "pay their fair share" as it pertains to the wealthiest Americans.  This of course displays the real problem with Obama talking about American Values.  The President apparently believes that his values ARE American values. He's very, very wrong.

Last week I outlined that, once again conservatives are still the political center in this country. Conservatism is the largest group ideologically in America, followed by moderatism and then way back in third place is liberalism.  Can anyone argue that Obama is anything BUT a liberal?  Only if one is arguing that the President is too far left to qualify as a liberal.

Redistribution of wealth via high taxes and welfare spending is not a conservative value, now is it?  No.  It's a liberal value.

Massive Healthcare laws that require people to purchase a certain product on penalty of law is not a conservative value or a moderate value, now is it?  No.  It's a liberal value. 

Saying that the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who already pay 40% of the income taxes in this nation, aren't paying "their fair share" is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  (It's also not mathematically logical.) It's a liberal value. 

Requiring faith-based institutions and individuals of faith to perform abortions and other proceedures that they consider personally reprehensible is not a conservative value or a moderate value.  It's a liberal value.

This is a small sample, of course, but it's also very descriptive of the logical failing of this catch-phrase by the President.  Mr. Obama, you are not pushing American values, because 75% of Americans are conservative or moderate.  You are pushing LIBERAL values. You are pushing your own values.  And your values are not American values.
The Republican field isn't nominating field ever has been or will be.  But each one of them will repeal Obamacare, keep us safer than Obama, cut taxes and cut spending. 

In 2012, let's elect a new President, one who isn't bent
on taking America the way of Europe.

Biblical Conservatism Blog is responsible for the content of this message.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Biblical Conservatism Launches Somebody Else in 2012 Campaign

As some of you may have noticed, at the end of last week, this blog has started posting reasons why we must defeat Obama in 2012.  I am referring to this campaign as "Somebody Else in 2012."  The reason for this campaign is, above all else and all candidate preferences, we MUST defeat Barack Obama in 2012. 

He has already done much to try to change our nation into an entitlement society and to make more people dependent on government for life.  He's played class warfare as well as borrowing and spending trillions to bring about economic recovery and it has failed. 

Some of you may be asking: Haven't you endorsed Newt Gingrich?  Yes, I have, and my endorsement stands.  I do believe out of the four candidates remaining that Newt is the best and most conservative choice.  However, the Someone Else 2012 Campaign is focused on the general election.  Specifically, I am pledging, and I am asking you to do the same, to agree to support whomever the 2012 Republican nominee is, even if it isn't your candidate.  We must not allow Obama to be re-elected, because without the check of another election, Obama will be more brazen with his liberalism and will push his socialist agenda harder and farther. 

I'm asking you to get on board.  Help spread the word for our Someone Else 2012 Campaign.  You can be kept abreast of all Someone Else 2012 posts by either following me on Twitter or liking Biblical Conservatism on Facebook to ensure you know of every new post. Help please by retweeting and sharing the links to the Someone Else 2012 posts. 

You can also help by talking to your friends, family, and coworkers and demonstrate why Obama is a failure.
We can do that by reminding them of all Obama's broken promises (since the Drive-By Media isn't going to do it).  Remind them of Obama's own words, like when he promised that if we passed his stimulus unemployment would not go above 8%. It then went above 8%, up to 11%, and hasn't gotten below 8% yet.  (It's back on the rise, by the way, up to 9% again.)

We must defeat Obama in 2012, even if it's with a stop-gap President. So let's pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, even if he isn't perfect, because he's going to be a better choice than Obama.

Obama Says: Pay no attention to the lack of bridge...
let's spend more on alternative energy!

In 2012, we have a choice.  Keep making the same bad decisions, or turn around and find a path that isn't destined for a fall.

Biblical Conservatism Blog is responsible for the content of this message, except where specifically noted.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Obama Has to Lie to Win, We Must Not Let Him

Over the last few days, we've been turning our attention to President Obama's 2012 Campaign and talking about the falsehoods he is peddling to keep his job. So many to give, no idea where to start. 

It's all Bush's fault...except he's had 3 years of his fixes and none of them work. 

It's all because of the Republicans in Congress blocking him...except for those two full years when Obama had a philibuster proof majority in the Senate and a strong lead in the House on his side and passed everything he wanted.

How about the claim that unemployment has dropped...except it really hasn't, the Department of Labor just up and decided that the workforce was 1.2 million people smaller and therefore the percentage went down while the real number of people unemployed went up.  Further, the "seasonally adjusted" numbers given most places are lower than the real number, given by Gallup, where unemployment remains 9%.

Or maybe we could talk about Obamacare, which remains very unpopular and a majority of Americans want it repealed. Let's not forget how Obamacare was going to cut our costs for insurance...except it hasn't, it's raised our premiums, so the "freebies" aren't free, just shifted to another place, your premiums.

My friends, there is only one way the President can get re-elected: Lie.  He has to lie to Americans.  He has to label his straw man "Republicans," tell us it is real and then defeat it.  He has to use doctored numbers to have unemployment as low as the 8.5% he claims (really 9% without "seasonal adjustments") and with REAL unemployment (including underemployment - people working part time instead of full time) that has ticked back up to 19%.  So he's got to distract and make us look away.

There is a solution, my friends, a very simple one: We must not let him.  We must not let those lies stand. We must talk to our friends, family, and co-workers who buy into these misconceptions.  We must fight the good fight, because the truth is worth fighting for!  (Feel free to start by sending those friends to Biblical Conservatism.)  We must shout it from the rooftops: Obama is a failure!  Somebody Else in 2012!

Obama has had 3 years to turn this economy around, including 2 with a philibuster-proof Senate and huge House majority...
yet it's still Bush's fault?

In 2012, let's elect an accountable President, one who won't double down on bad ideas after they continue to fail.

Biblical Conservatism Blog is responsible for the content of this message, except where specifically noted.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Obama and the Left want to make the issue in 2012 the religious faith of the Republican Candidates...


Yet we are not supposed to ask about Obama's?

In 2012, let's remember who our President is...

and Elect Someone Else.

Biblical Conservatism Blog is responsible for the content of this message.

Obama Wants You to Ignore His Record

President Obama is now in 100% campaign mode.  He’s trying a little misdirection play.  He’s telling you it’s everyone else’s fault, that he inherited everything, even the policies that he put into place.  Three years in, the President keeps telling us that it’s all Bush’s fault.  (Even though the President as a Senator voted for the same policies under the Bush administration…at least when he wasn’t voting “present.”)  Here’s the reality that President Obama is trying very hard to make you look away from:  He has had plenty of time to genuinely turn this economy around (not a pathetic “recovery” with 8.5% unemployment two years after the recession supposedly ended) and he has failed. 
The President wants you to pretend he didn’t spend over $1 Trillion in various “stimulus” packages and subsidies that have not resulted in jobs.  President Obama promised Americans if we passed his Stimulus package, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%.  The unemployment proceeded to go above 8% and still has not fallen below it.  The President has then called for more and more spending every chance he’s gotten.  None of it has worked.  The President has spent billions on subsidies for “Green Energy” that absolutely is not ready to even be a medium sized player in the energy market.  (The truth is government cannot force the market to develop new energy solutions.  Once a need is on the horizon, believe me, the Free Market will come up with an answer toot sweet.  We simply don’t have that need yet.) This was also supposed to create jobs.  Nothing like promised. 
Then of course there is the President’s signature piece of legislation: Obamacare.  What was the last time the President actually talked about this accomplishment?  Oh that’s right, he can’t talk about it…a solid majority of Americans still want it repealed nearly three years later.  The law is incredibly unpopular, just like when the President and the Democrats crammed it down our throats.
Here’s some cold, hard facts, friends: President Obama inherited unemployment lower than today, and by the way the unemployment rate is being propped up by some fudged accounting.  According to economist John R. Lott, there are 1.2 million FEWER people in the workforce than when Obama took office, so basically the unemployment numbers have dropped because the Labor Department decided to shrink the workforce, not because more are employed.  As I just noted, nearly 60% of Americans want Obamacare repealed, so he can’t claim it as a success.  He’s borrowed and spent $5 Trillion that we do not have.  He just now proposed a budget that spends most of the projected revenue of the 2014 budget as well, because he hasn’t failed enough yet.  There is absolutely nothing Obama can say to America to say “give me four more years, I’ll give you more of what I’ve given you thus far.”
This is the very record Obama is trying to get us to ignore.  He knows that his record is going to be the end of his Presidency.  So now he’s asking us to pretend that he hasn’t been President three years.  He wants to run the same campaign as he ran in 2008…you know, where he could be a blank slate that people can project their own perfect ideal President onto.  We conservatives, we in the Tea Party, and (I hope) the eventual Republican nominee cannot allow him to perpetuate that lie. 
Friends, President Obama wants you to ignore his record.  We cannot, we will not, let Americans forget the truth.  It’s time for the truth to be shouted from the rooftops:  President Obama’s record is an abysmal failure. 

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Contraception is Another Liberal Misdirection

Over the last couple of weeks, the Left has started using their usual tactic of throwing up red herrings, this time about contraception.   This time it’s not “Republicans want old people to die” or “Republicans are going to push Grandma off a cliff” or “Republicans want women to die in back allies,” no, this time, it’s “Republicans want to take away your contraception.”  The reality, of course, is not at all sinister:  Republicans don’t believe we should be forced to pay for other people’s birth control.  Especially because, and I know this is hard for liberals to fathom, but we don’t have the money to pay for it.  (Once again, just because liberals convince themselves that something is really, super-duper important, it doesn’t mean the money grows on trees now.) 
I’ll admit that I let myself get caught up in this latest misdirection by the Left.  Yes, I do believe that these requirements do in fact infringe upon our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.  And yes, I further believe that government has no right to force any organization to pay for any service because the government says so.  But all this is a misdirection.  Absolutely nobody is trying to make contraception illegal (as I said yesterday, I do not have a problem with true contraception, and that includes vasectomy and tubal ligation procedures).  Whatsoever.  Saying taxpayers shouldn’t pay for something isn’t the same thing as wanting to make it illegal.
All of this, however is a huge distraction against something far, far bigger: President Obama has been an abject failure in the White House.  He has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and he’s still yet to manage to get unemployment below the 8% that he promised we wouldn’t see in the first place if we just passed his stimulus.  President Obama cannot run on his record for reelection because his record is horrible.  So now he has to demonize the Republicans.  The President cannot ask the question “Are you better off than you were four years ago” and expect a positive result.  We aren’t.  We are worse off, and Obama’s liberal statist policies are to blame. 

Here’s the truth:  We are not better off than we were four years ago and the President knows that his policies are to blame for it.  So he’s got to try to misdirect.  He’s got to throw a flea flicker into the mix to see if he can get the defense focused on the wrong guy and then throw a Hail Mary pass.  Let’s not let Obama play this game.  He’s the failure, and he can only win by misdirecting.  Let’s not let him. 

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Reactions to Obama’s Non-Compromise on Abortion

One of the more difficult things about writing a daily political blog is trying to discuss all pertinent issues in a timely fashion.  Sometimes, when the President tries to pull the wool over our eyes the day before a Republican Primary, something gets pushed off to the side.  For a day.
Last week, the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations went to the wall with President Obama on one of those lovely hidden rules in the Obamacare law (you know, the ones we had to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it” hidden rules), this time requiring all hospitals and other medical practices to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization (for the record, this usually means vasectomy or tubal ligation aka tube tying) services or not receive any federal funding. 
In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to quickly outline my personal views on this subject.  I have no moral objection to contraception.  Contraception means methods of preventing pregnancy through either a barrier that stops the male genetic material from fertilizing the female genetic material. (For the record, I consider vasectomy and tubal ligation as contraception, albeit permanent…they keep one or both sets of genetic material in their respective biological storehouses.)  I have huge moral objections to abortion.  Abortion is the process of destroying a fertilized human embryo.  I believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is precious because it is created in the image of God. 
To give a crude analogy, let’s consider the male genetic material a lit match and the female genetic material as a bucket of gasoline.  Contraception would be the process of keeping the match away from the gasoline.  Abortion is extinguishing the fire after the match hits the gasoline.  My belief according to my faith is that it is ok to stop the fire from happening (preventing pregnancy), but not to extinguish the fire (aka destroying the human life).
I am not alone.  The Roman Catholic Church, most traditional Protestant denominations and pretty much all Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations are opposed to abortion.  In those groups the beliefs on contraception are not so universal.  Many of those are also opposed to contraception.  I believe that human life begins at conception; not at some point after conception, but also not at some point before conception.  Simply stated, it’s not a human until the genetic material combines. 
The President, however, has decided to take for himself a power that does not belong to him: the power to force individuals of faith to fund procedures their faith says is murder.  Now the Constitution is clear, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  You know why it says “Congress shall make no law”? Because the President DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS!  Period.  The President may either sign off on laws or veto them, but he has no right to pass them on his own.  Period.  But we’ll get back to that.  Congress has no right to force any individual to go against their religion.  (The only exception is that one man’s liberty ends at another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.)

So the President’s attempt to force individuals and hospitals and organizations to provide abortion, contraception, and sterilization services is absolutely, 100% Unconstitutional.  Period.  But there is more to this problem.  The Obamacare law and the President wanted to force these organizations not only to provide these services but to PAY FOR THEM! He wants to force organizations with moral objections to not only provide these services but pay for them for their employees, free of charge.

So then, last week, the President came out with a “compromise.”  Instead of requiring the organizations to provide these services to their employees free of charge, now, out of the goodness of his heart, he’s telling the Insurance Company that THEY must pay for these services.  Oh, and by the way, do you know who is forced to provide Insurance to their employees due to the Obamacare law?  Employers!  So the same conscientious objecting employers are being forced to provide the Insurance which is forced to provide the objectionable services.  Translation:  Obama is still requiring those groups to pay for services they find morally objectionable!

One last thing:  The President calls these new services that insurance companies are required to cover “free of charge.”  Baloney.  Does the President HONESTLY believe that Insurance companies are going to just provide these services, which by the way are far more expensive than the co-pay that we shell out as consumers, letting that cut into their profit margins?  OF COURSE NOT!  You know how insurance companies will recoup that loss?  I’ll tell you how:  Raise premiums.  But Obamacare will lower costs, right?

Bottom line, this is just another liberal social program being forced on people against their will because Obama and the liberals know better than we do what’s best for us.  So let’s do our nation a favor and elect ourselves a new President.

Therein lies the problem, friends: The President wants to put all America's chips on something that doesn't exist, except for red and black (aka fossil fuels and nuclear) that WORK ALREADY!

Biblical Conservatism Blog is Responsible for the content of this post.  Thanks to Stop the Energy Freeze for the cartoon!

Monday, February 13, 2012

Reactions to the Maine Caucuses

Saturday night, a week worth of caucuses in Maine concluded with Mitt Romney winning.   Maine’s Caucuses, like so many other caucus states, does not directly elect delegates to the Republican Convention this August, but rather elects delegates to municipal conventions who will then elect delegates who will do their best to see if they can locate Waldo.
In all seriousness, chances are that Mittens will get his share of the delegates, as will Ron Paul, who came in second, as well as Rick Santorum who came in third and Newt Gingrich who came in fourth.  Considering only Paul and Romney campaigned, this is about what should have been expected.  Maine was a state that Mitt had to have.  If Mittens can’t win New England, and I mean all of New England, in this primary season, he’s got issues.  Heck, prior to 1820, Mitt would’ve been the former Governor of the people of Maine*.   Yet Governor Romney got less than 40% of the vote.  His weakness is showing.
Caucus states remain Ron Paul’s strong suit.  His type of grassroots organization works wonderfully in caucuses.  Congressman Paul’s continuing to tally up the delegates and, I hope, is going to get his small government economic policy onto the GOP platform, regardless of who is the nominee. 
Newt’s my guy, but these last few primaries have been frustrating to me.  I think the lack of debates is hurting Newt.  He needs that platform.  That’s where Newt plays the best.  I’m glad that there are two debates coming up before the next few primaries.  There’s one a few days before Arizona and Michigan, and another right before Super Tuesday in early March, so Newt’s got the chance to get back on track.
Then there’s Rick Santorum.  Senator Santorum is showing the critics wrong, myself included, again.  He won all three contests last Tuesday.  He came in third in Maine, but that’s because he didn’t really spend time in Maine.  I’m here to tell you why he’s gaining is the same reason Newt gained a little bit ago…he’s effectively communicating conservatism.  If I can’t have my preferred choice for nominee, I’d be very happy to throw my support behind Santorum as a second choice.  To me it’s like finding out that there’s no lasagna left for dinner, and that I’ll have to settle for steak.
There’s a whole lot left to be decided.  These contests are going so many ways that it’s going to be a long time before we have a nominee.  We might even end up with a brokered convention.  (And if we do, so help the GOP if they throw up another establishment candidate.)  At the end of the day, however, what needs to be remembered above all else, is that any one of these four men would be 100x better than the President we have now. 

*Google that so you can find out how clever I am.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Truth:  Obama has had three years, two of which he passed every policy his heart desired, and we still do not have a recovery. 

In 2012, let's elect an accountable President, one who can actually get America back on track.

Biblical Conservatism Blog is responsible for the content of this message, except where otherwise noted.

Friday, February 10, 2012

In 2012, Conservatives are STILL the Center

In December of 2010, I launched this blog with a post entitled Conservatives are the Center.  Earlier this year, In a new Gallup poll,  the point has once again been demonstrated, conservatives are the most populous ideological group in the nation.

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

According to polls throughout 2011, 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative, while 35% call themselves moderate at 21% admit to being liberal.  So once again, there are nearly twice as many conservatives as liberals.

Yet we as conservatives continue to try to pander to the so-called moderates.  The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of moderates are either liberals who realize they are the minority and don't want that stigma; conservatives who don't realize that we are the majority and thus claim moderateness; and finally those who simply want to be thought of as intelligent and thoughtful, and have thus adapted a default position of sitting smack dab in the middle of the fence with a leg on each side so as to maintain their desired appearance.

There is, of course, an electoral spin on this mindset.  Liberals, because they genuinely are a minority, have to move toward the center to have a snowball's chance in July of being elected (after all, you can't win an election on your actual beliefs when only 21% of Americans share your values). To win, they need to get close to 90% of the self-identified moderates to vote for them.  That's staggering.

Conservatives, on the other hand, only need to sway just over 30% of the self-identified moderates to win, because we have a clear plurality of the population just with fellow conservatives!  Why?  Because we conservatives ARE the centrist position!  We are the pulse of most Americans!  We just need to get a relatively small piece of those moderates to join us, while the Left has to get the majority.

Need more proof of this?  Let's look at registered Independents. Now, depending on your state, registering as an Independent ranges from a complete waste of party affiliation to a logical and reasonable choice.   In some states, , Independents can vote in their choice of the Democratic or Republican primaries, which is very useful if your party has an incumbent running unopposed in that year's primary election.  It can be used to moderate your opposing party's candidate (or to just cause trouble like some did in Operation Chaos).  In states with closed primaries, however, being a registered Independent keeps you from ever voting in a primary election and having a choice as to whom you can vote for in the general election. 

Independents are not synonymous with moderates but it's a fair comparision, so let's look at the conservative, moderate and liberal numbers within that group:

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in US

Well would you look at that?  35% of registered Independents consider themselves conservatives!  So if we can get them with conservatism, it looks like conservatives can win elections with comfortable ease.  The truth remains: Conservatives don't need to pander to moderates to get elected...we're already the majority!  We're the center position!  We're the group that embodies what the nation believes! 

So, my message remains the same to conservatives, to Republicans: Be proud to be conservative.  To be a conservative means standing for traditional American values, for rugged individualism, for a "Yes YOU Can (with hard work)!" mentality and not "Yes We Can (with other people's money)!"  Let's just be conservatives, and let the chips fall where they predictably may...on our side. 

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Reactions to the CO, MN and MO Primaries

On Tuesday, February 7th, the states of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri held their nominating contests, and Senator Rick Santorum won all three. When you look at the seven contests that have been completed, you see a very interesting trend:  the two conservatives have won four of seven.  Rick Santorum won yesterday's three contests, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, won the three more moderate states, Nevada, New Hampshire and Florida. The reality is that the Republican electorate is telling the Republican establishment no on another (relative) moderate, that we want a conservative.


It was an interesting set of results, so let's look at them state by state:


Colorado was the only contest that was binding that occured on Tuesday.  Santorum won this one comfortably with 40% of the total vote.  Mittens came in second with 35%, with Newt Gingrich in third with 13% and Ron Paul in his traditional caboose spot with 12%.  It was a big boon for Senator Santorum, one that his campaign definitely needed.  It was another caucus state, like Santorum's other win, Iowa.  I am noticing that Santorum's strength may be, like Ron Paul's, in the caucus states, where grass roots campaigning has it's best results.  Mittens picked up some delegates as well, while Newt's effort was, in a word, disappointing.


And the award for most unnecessarily complicated caucus process goes to....MINNESOTA!  Seriously.  The delegates elected then elect more delegates to a convention, who elect more delegates to a convention, who elect more delegates to a convention, and those delegates then cast lots to decide who, in fact, is the reason why the boat is caught in a massive storm.*    Anyway, Senator Santorum won the vote for delegates to the first convention en route to the boat and the lot casting.  It was a handy victory for the Senator, winning with 45% of the vote.  Coming in second was Ron Paul, who picked up 27% of the vote (remember what I've said about Paul, his organization, and caucuses), with Mittens in third with 17% and Newt in a dissappointing fourth with 11%. 

MissouriMissouri's primary mattered to this contest about as much as the opening day of Steve Guttenburg's next film...(that is to say nobody cares)...because the primary was non-binding as the national GOP disciplines the state party for moving up it's primary (by taking away the vote from the citizens...really GOP, nice move).  However, there is one thing to take away from this vote:  When only one conservative is in the contest, it really is no contest.  Santorum picked up 55% of the vote, with Mittens getting only 25% and Paul in his traditional caboose position with 12%.  That's right, Senator Santorum got 55% of the vote.  The first contest with a majority winner.  You consolidate down to one conservative and Mittens loses.  That's the bottom line.


So with three more contests in the books, not much has been decided.  For those who are hoping for a brokered convention might get their wish, unless we can consolidate the conservative vote.  Except now we don't know who to consolidate behind.  One thing I will say about Santorum's wins: It's all about effective communication of conservatism  It boils down to one phrase from Santorum, "I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Romney, I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Obama."  Bingo.  We need a conservative alternative to Obama.  Period.

*Get out your Bibles and read Jonah Chapter 1 so you can see how clever I am.

Obama's Real Debt vs. Past Presidents (Graph)

Thanks to my friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak for creating this graph, using my post from
Comparing Obama's Debt to Past Presidents - Apples to Apples

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Gallup State Shows Obama Likely a One Term President

To my regular readers: In an effort to provide quality analysis on the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri contests from February 7th, I decided to wait to post my reactions until tomorrow, allowing solid numbers to be in place.  Thank you as always for reading Biblical Conservatism!

Time again for some good, hard numbers, and my friends, for those of us who want to see Obama as a one term President, the numbers are encouraging. While the Drive-By Media is muddled in national polls or head to head matchups (which don't really matter until the candidate is chosen),

Real Clear Politics has their current electoral map with ten states currently solidly in Obama's camp (worth 175 Electoral Votes) and another five leaning Obama; and twenty states currently solidly in the Republican camp (worth 159 Electoral Votes).  There are a couple erroneous predictions in my estimation, however, in the "Lean Obama" camp that I believe are worth noting as well as a couple in the "Tossup" category that I believe lean Republican.

RCP is claiming that Oregonn (7 electoral votes) and New Mexico (5 electoral votes) lean Obama.  Based on Gallup's 2011 Job Approval - State by State, however, the President's approval rating is 44% and 46% in those two states, respectively.  Hard to say states with disapproval that is higher than approval will lean to Obama, don't you think?  So I'm considering their electoral votes as leaning Republican.  It's also hard to say that Michigan (16) and Maine (4) can legitimately be called "leaning Obama" when his approval rating is 50% there (a genuine tossup).  Finally, RCP calls Ohio (18) and Florida (29) as tossups, but in both those states again Obama's approval is several points lower than his disapproval, so I think we can call those lean Republican as well, as can Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15) who also have Obama's approval ratings well under water.

So let's give an honest comparison, shall we?

Strong Obama

California (55)
Connecticut (7)
Delaware (3)
Dist. of Columbia (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
New Jersey (14)
New York (29)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (12)

Lean Obama

Minnesota (10)

True Tossups

Wisconsin (10)
Michigan (16)
Iowa (6)
Pennsylvania (20)
Florida (29)

Lean Republican

Colorado (9) *
Nevada (6) *
New Hampshire (4) *
North Carolina (15) *
Ohio (18) *
Virginia (13) *
Arizona (11)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (10)

Strong Republican

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (16)
Idaho (4)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (9)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

* These States have been moved to the lean Republican column due to Obama's approval ratings being 46% or less with disapproval rates above his approval number.

So, with these more honest numbers, the Republican nominee is looking at 256 Electoral Votes, Obama is looking at 185 Electoral Votes, and only 81 are tossups.  A few important details: Even if the President gets a clean sweep of the five true tossup states, he's still four electoral votes shy of winning. Meanwhile, the Republican nominee is only 14 votes shy of winning.  So if the GOP nominee can win any two of the five tossup states, they will win.

At any rate, we're looking at a one-term Obama Presidency.  Thank you, God.
Mr. President, you've had your three years. We're here to collect on your promise.

This ad was not paid for by any political organization and has been posted as a statement of support from the editor of this blog in support of

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Comparing Obama's Debt to Past Presidents - Apples to Apples

Recently, Nancy Pelosi's office has released a chart comparing President Obama's debt increases to past Presidents, attempting to say that Obama has increased the debt significantly less than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  (See chart below.)

Unfortunately, Congresswoman Pelosi's office has used some severely flawed logic and showed you their argument in a very carefully constructed way to falsify the truth - Barack Obama has added more dollars of debt to our nation than our nation's first 41 Presidents COMBINED.

The Democrats fuzzy accounting starts with one of their favorite tricks: talking about percentages instead of actual dollars (adjusted for inflation), specifically, percentage increase of the national debt.  To put it simply, using this logic, if the national debt was $1, and a President borrowed an additional $5, that President's critics could lambast him for "increasing the National Debt by 500%" and then compare it to Barrack Obama, who, according to Pelosi, only raised the debt 16% and say Obama has been far more responsible.  Actually, Obama has raised the debt by 34% according to PolitiFact.  Either way, 16% or 34% sounds like a whole lot less than 500%, right?  Except our fictional President raised the debt by only $5 (that's one five dollar bill), while Obama has increased the debt by $4.6 TRILLION. 

So how is Obama's number so much lower?  Simple: His debt increase was set as a percentage of $10 Trillion, not a percentage of $1 (in the case of our fictional President), or as a percentage of $5.7 Trillion (in the case of George W. Bush) or as a percentage of $4.1 Trillion (in the case of Clinton) or as a percentage of $2.9 Trillion (in the case of George H.W. Bush) or as a percentage of $1.01 Trillion (in the case of Reagan).  

So let's talk Apples to Apples, shall we?  All data is based on adjusting the final debt total from a President based on it's value in the last year of his Presidency to 2010 levels (that is the lastest inflation calculator available). To see National Debt by Presidential term, click here.

- Ronald Reagan raised the debt by $1.656 Trillion (based on year 1988 dollars) in eight years.  Adjusted for inflation, that is $888 Billion.

- George H.W. Bush raised the debt $1.583 Trillion (based on year 1992 dollars) in four years.  Adjusted for inflation, that is $2.428 Trillion.

- Bill Clinton raised the debt $1.412 Trillion (based on year 2000 dollars). Adjusted for inflation that is $1.412 Trillion.

- George W. Bush raised the debt $4.746 Trillion (based on year 2008 dollars).  Adjusted for inflation that is $4.812 Trillion.

- Barack Obama has raised the debt $4.42 Trillion (based on current dollar value).

So, adjusted for inflation, in eight years Reagan increased the debt 22% of what Obama has raised the debt in three years; in four years George H.W. Bush increased the debt 54% of what Obama has raised the debt in three years; in eight years, and Bill Clinton raised the debt 25% of what Obama has raised the debt in three years; and in eight years.

In eight years, George W. Bush has raised the debt 107% as much as as Obama has in three years.  In other words, by the end of Obama's four year as President, he will have exceeded the new debt that George W. Bush did in eight years.

So, the harsh reality is that the only reason Obama's percentage rate is lower is because he was raising the debt as a percentage of a larger amount.  The fact remains, President Obama has raised the debt in real dollars by more than any President in recent memory.  And that, my friends, is Obama's real debt, apples to apples.

This ad was not paid for by any political organization and has been posted as a statement of support from the editor of this blog in support of

Monday, February 6, 2012

Reactions to the Nevada Caucuses

Saturday night the voters of Nevada caucused to decide the recipients of their 28 delegates.  Governor Mitt Romney won, as expected, and by about as much as predicted, as well as by as much as he won last time around.  He won Nevada in 2008 with 51%.  In 2012 it was 50%.   
One has to wonder if Republicans have finally stopped buying into the “Romney is the most electable” when he fell prey to the Drive-By Media’s usual ability to turn molehills into mountains and then hammer that moutainized molehill as if it was actually news.  This past week, it showed precisely what I’ve been saying for months: There is no candidate that is so clean as the wind driven snow that the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media won’t attack them.  If there aren’t major attacks to be launched they will magnify something very small as if it were big.  If there isn’t anything small, they’ll invent something.  (Just ask Herman Cain.) 
Newt did just ok, with a second place finish of 21%.  This state was always Romney’s to lose but I wanted to see Newt do better.  He was polling higher than he finished, so this was a little bit disappointing.  I also believe the lack of debates isn’t helping.   Still, there’s hope for tomorrow’s primaries to do well for Newt, although he’s polling slightly behind Mittens in all of them and, in MN is actually a couple points behind Santorum as well.  He needs another comeback.   Again, if Rick Santorum would give up his lost cause campaign this would be a different story, but for now we’ve got Santorum splitting the conservative vote with Gingrich. Minnesota aside, if Santorum would get out of the way, we would be looking at a real race.  But with Senator Santorum dividing the vote we are likely to find ourselves stuck with Mittens.
Ron Paul did fairly well for himself, as expected.  I’ve said multiple times, caucus states do well for Paul and his scrappy band of very loyal followers.  In the early returns, Congressman Paul was in second place, but as returns continued to come in he fell down to third.  Given that the Congressman’s goal is most likely to garner as many delegates as possible, he made a decent showing for himself and picked up a few delegates to his name.
Finally we come to Senator Rick Santorum.  Unfortunately for Senator Santorum, he again came in fourth.  He has failed to gain the level of momentum he had in Iowa.  I maintain that it is time for the Senator to end his campaign and let the conservative vote consolidate behind Newt Gingrich, for if we are to have a nominee other than Mitt Romney it is going to be Newt.  Santorum does not have the support to mount a successful comeback at this late date.  It’s time for Santorum to hang it up and I must respectfully call for the Senator to end his campaign.
Nevada has spoken.  Three more states will speak on Tuesday.  There’s a whole lot of votes to be cast, and regardless of what the liberals and the RINOs are telling us, a long campaign is not going to make a difference in the general election.  As I’ve said before, look who the Democrats are running!  So let’s have the best candidate.  If it’s Romney, fine, make him sharpen his sword and practice his fencing against Gingrich.  Or, let us have a conservative, and his name will be Newt Gingrich.  Either way, the Democrats are running a poor candidate, a failed President who told us if he couldn’t right this economy in three years he’d be looking at a one term President, and we are here to collect.  So let the fight continue into Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota. 

This ad was not paid for by any political organization and has been posted as a statement of support from the editor of this blog in support of

Friday, February 3, 2012

Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: No, Jesus Wouldn't Support the Buffet Rule

It's campaign season, so President Obama's ridiculous rhetoric has gotten something of a pass recently from me. Then he tried to claim Jesus supports liberalism, and it was time to dust off the old "dissecting the liberal talking points" header.

On February 2nd, if you haven't heard already, President Obama claimed that Jesus would support the Buffet Rule, quoting Luke 12:48b, "To whom much is given, much is required."  Unfortunately for the President, like most of his theology, he is incorrect in this false use of scripture.

For one, this passage is about salvation and the requirements of believers to behave as believers, specifically saying that we as Christians ought to behave as followers of Christ, always ready for Jesus to return so that our Lord will find us about His business when he comes back:

And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.  Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.  - Luke 12:42-48

This passage specifically is saying that Christ expects more out of Christians because we have been blessed to know the truth and we should walk in it.  It has absolutely nothing to do with taxes, or government.

Secondly, God did have a tax system.  The Tithe.  It was a FLAT TAX not a progressive tax.  As I wrote in my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism:

 God requires the tithe of all your increase (that's money gained for those of you from Palm Beach) of all his people.  He does not require 10% from the poor, 15-20% from the middle class, and 35% from the wealthy.  Here is what God says in Deuteronomy.

"You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always."  Deuteronomy 14:21-23
There was no "millionaires surtax" in the Bible.  There was not an increased requirement for giving from the wealthiest.   The rate was the same for all.

Furthermore, there is a major issue with Obama's entire logic.  Nowhere in the Bible is there any statement that the government should take care of the poor.  Rather, it was clear that it was up to the individual to do it.  Again, from my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism:

In Deuteronomy, we are given instructions on giving to the poor:

If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.
Deuteronomy 15:7-8

The instruction here is clear.  If there is someone who is in need and you are capable of providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus gave the same requirements for providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus also made it clear that He would reward His children for caring for the poor THEMSELVES:

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;  I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?"

And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."  
Matthew 25:34-40

Nowhere in here does Jesus say "you paid taxes and your government cared for the people."  He says "YOU fed me" and "YOU clothed me."  YOU DO IT.  As a matter of fact, Jesus told us in Matthew that He sees caring for the poor as precisely the same as caring for Him!  Again, Mr. President, it's not about government caring for people.  Compassion exists in more than just government spending.  There are better, more efficient ways to take care of the needy.  Like private charities.  The conservatives that you rip as being evil and heartless have consistently out-given you supposedly compassionate liberals.  That's because conservatives are compassionate with THEIR OWN money. Let's compare Obama's charitable giving to the "evil, greedy Republican" Mitt Romney. 

According to the Obama Campaign, President Obama gave about 6% of his income in the two years before he became President to charity. Vice President Joe Binden gave a pathetic .15% of his income in 2006. 

Now according to the Romney Campaign, In 2010 and 2011, Romney gave an average of over 16% of his income to charity. 

Finally, let's take an average, middle-class conservative, hardworking single adult. Me.  Without diving into too much detail because I do believe my giving is between myself and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I will say unequvically that I also gave a larger percentage of my income to charity (primarily via my church, which uses that money to give to missionaries and Christian charitable organizations throughout the world) than candidate Obama did.

So, Mr. Obama, who is the compassionate one?  I say it is the person who gave nearly 3 times as much of his own money away as you did, not the one who wants to be generous with everyone else's money.  Then again, I personally believe that "to whom much is given, much is required," with my own money, and not other people's money.