Now that Obamacare's Supreme Court oral arguments are concluded, liberal journalists are already telegraphed their next talking point. Their newest claim? If Obamacare is overturned, it will help Obama's reelection campaign.
Before I start telling you WHY this claim is false, I'd like to point out that the Left is already setting up for precisely what I predicted yesterday: Obamacare will be declared Unconstitutional. They're expecting it, which is why they're now trying to preemptively spin the story. The person I saw make it most recently was liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams.
Williams is the quintisential Neighborhood Liberal, friends. He tries to talk like an Activist Liberal, but he's basically regurgitating what genuine Activist Liberals like Bob Beckel are saying. And today he's saying that Obamacare's overturn is good for Obama.
Williams is claiming that essentially if Obamacare is gone, the GOP has to go from simply being opposed to Obamacare and actually have to bring up solutions. It's a common talking point. It's also, like most liberal talking points, centered on a highly eroneous premise.
Conservatives and Republicans DO have solutions to the Health Care problems we see in our country. Here's the thing, friends: They aren't centered on government. Unfortunately, that means ignoring the liberal solution to every problem (do one or more of the following: Pass a law, form a committee, spend more money, problem solved).
The GOP solution is far more centered on removing government barriers and free market solutions. Such things has true health savings accounts, making it possible for individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and allowing smaller groups and individuals to bond together into a large group to buy insurance at a larger group rate. In other words, remove the government barriers and let people solve their own problems.
Of course, it doesn't involve big press conferences and monumental laws being passed, because common sense is rarely trumpeted by the Drive-By Media like passing a law or spending more money. But it does involve actually solving the problem.
Now as to this being good for Obama: To use an old-man word, hogwash. It requires a complete absence of logic to claim that a President seeing his signature legislation declared Unconstitutional is good for that President. Do you think Lincoln was dying to see the Emancipation Proclamation declared unconstitutional? Do you think Jefferson was dying to have the Louisiana Purchase struck down? If Reagan's 1981 Tax Cuts were struck down, how do you think that'd have looked? FDR was so afraid his New Deal would be struck down, so much so he had to stack the court and create new justices just to avoid it.
No, friends, Obamacare being declared unconstitutional isn't bad for Obama. It's just another spin job of falsehood from the Left. Don't buy it.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Obamacare in Trouble at the Supreme Court
As all people who don't live under rocks, the President's signature Obamacare legislation is before the Supreme Court this week. The Drive-By Media has spent the preceeding weeks trying to essentially convince justices like Scalia and Roberts to go against their personal judgement and history and consider this law Constitutional. So far, oral arguments and the questions posed by the justices are not backing this theory. Thank you, God.
All people living in the Real World are pretty much penciling Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts under the Unconstitutional side and similarly penciling Ginsberg, Kegan, Breyer and Sotomeyer under the Constitutional side. Anthony Kennedy is presumed the swing vote, but his questions thus far do not back that claim. The Drive-Bys have told you otherwise, but their track record of being right is pretty sad.
Yesterday, CNN claimed that the court seemed to be willing to let the law stand. This shows the level of dellusion of the Drive-By Media in a nutshell. Read the article, friends, you'll find they quote Ginsberg, Kegan, and also throw-away lines from Alito and Kennedy. They're deliberately obfuscating, friends, to try to make their case seem plausible.
But when you read quotes from Justice Kennedy, it becoems clear that he's incredibly skeptical about the authority of the government to create commerce. When you read the transcript from the Oral Arguments, you see Kennedy asking questions like:
"Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"
And here:
"The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
"And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."
The most telling statement from Chief Justice Roberts is this:
"Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.
"It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need, but when you do -- and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it.
Irregardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling you and dreaming of conservative justices floating over to support Obamacare while wearing their Happy Imagination Hats, the evidence is against them. I have about as much fear of Chief Justice Roberts supporting this bill as I have expectations of the Mets winning the World Series this year. (So basically none.)
As far as Justice Kennedy, it seems like he's falling on the side of freedom and the Constitution in this case. The left can dream, of course, but the truth is his questions do not sound like someone who believes it's okay to force people to purchase any product.
Friends, the more I read these transcripts the more confident I am that, at the very least, the Individual Mandate will be going bye-bye; and likely the entire law on the grounds that government may not force people to purchase anything and the rest on the backs of defense of the 10th Amendment and of the rights of the individual states. And by the way, the law barely matters minus the mandate and the forced expansion of Medicare. I still have a problem with legally requiring insurance companies to insure 27 year old adults, but it's small potatoes in the scheme of things.
I'll make it an official prediction. Obamacare struck down, 5-4. We'll find out this summer if I'm correct.
All people living in the Real World are pretty much penciling Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts under the Unconstitutional side and similarly penciling Ginsberg, Kegan, Breyer and Sotomeyer under the Constitutional side. Anthony Kennedy is presumed the swing vote, but his questions thus far do not back that claim. The Drive-Bys have told you otherwise, but their track record of being right is pretty sad.
Yesterday, CNN claimed that the court seemed to be willing to let the law stand. This shows the level of dellusion of the Drive-By Media in a nutshell. Read the article, friends, you'll find they quote Ginsberg, Kegan, and also throw-away lines from Alito and Kennedy. They're deliberately obfuscating, friends, to try to make their case seem plausible.
But when you read quotes from Justice Kennedy, it becoems clear that he's incredibly skeptical about the authority of the government to create commerce. When you read the transcript from the Oral Arguments, you see Kennedy asking questions like:
"Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"
And here:
"The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him, absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
"And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way."
The most telling statement from Chief Justice Roberts is this:
"Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts, our tradition, our law has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.
"It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need, but when you do -- and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it.
Irregardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling you and dreaming of conservative justices floating over to support Obamacare while wearing their Happy Imagination Hats, the evidence is against them. I have about as much fear of Chief Justice Roberts supporting this bill as I have expectations of the Mets winning the World Series this year. (So basically none.)
As far as Justice Kennedy, it seems like he's falling on the side of freedom and the Constitution in this case. The left can dream, of course, but the truth is his questions do not sound like someone who believes it's okay to force people to purchase any product.
Friends, the more I read these transcripts the more confident I am that, at the very least, the Individual Mandate will be going bye-bye; and likely the entire law on the grounds that government may not force people to purchase anything and the rest on the backs of defense of the 10th Amendment and of the rights of the individual states. And by the way, the law barely matters minus the mandate and the forced expansion of Medicare. I still have a problem with legally requiring insurance companies to insure 27 year old adults, but it's small potatoes in the scheme of things.
I'll make it an official prediction. Obamacare struck down, 5-4. We'll find out this summer if I'm correct.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
"Flexible" with Arms Negotiations, Mr. President?
It's all over the news...even the Drive-By Media is committing random acts of journalism and reporting it (albeit trying to smooth over the flub for the President)....the President said to the President of Russia that he would be able to be "more flexible after his election." To see the entire exchange click here.
Here it is in writing, by the way:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Translation: After I don't have to face angry voters, I'll have the ability to sell out my nation's defense systems and weaken my country.
Before I continue, I'd like to state for the record that I don't trust Vladmir Putin as far as I can throw him. I know history too well, including Mr. Putin's personal history as KGB Chief in the Soviet Union. He's similarly pragmatic when it comes to the west as Mikhail Gorbachov...but hardly the peacemaker he (or Gorby for that matter) is presented to be in the Drive-By Media.
It's been a Left Wing fantasy for decades to put on their Happy Imagination Hats and pretend that the best way to deal with a nuclear threat is to get rid of nukes, because if we're just nice enough then evil people in the world will also give up their power to destroy others. The reality is the only way to deal with a bully is to be the good guy who is strong enough to beat the snot out of the bully so the bully doesn't try anything. It's called Peace Through Strength.
But aside from that, I think it is both a travesty and absolutely ridiculous for a President to essentially announce to a negotiating partner that he'll wimp out after the election. Might as well stand up at a poker game after going all in and announce "hey everybody, I'm bluffing!"
This is yet another reason we must elect a new President in November, friends. We need a President who doesn't put his rigid ideology in front of the safety of our nation...and if he actually believes this baloney he's spewing that's even worse, friends...sometimes I'd rather a liar than an honest fool. We need a President who isn't going ignore our security to protect his rigid ideology.
Here it is in writing, by the way:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Translation: After I don't have to face angry voters, I'll have the ability to sell out my nation's defense systems and weaken my country.
Before I continue, I'd like to state for the record that I don't trust Vladmir Putin as far as I can throw him. I know history too well, including Mr. Putin's personal history as KGB Chief in the Soviet Union. He's similarly pragmatic when it comes to the west as Mikhail Gorbachov...but hardly the peacemaker he (or Gorby for that matter) is presented to be in the Drive-By Media.
It's been a Left Wing fantasy for decades to put on their Happy Imagination Hats and pretend that the best way to deal with a nuclear threat is to get rid of nukes, because if we're just nice enough then evil people in the world will also give up their power to destroy others. The reality is the only way to deal with a bully is to be the good guy who is strong enough to beat the snot out of the bully so the bully doesn't try anything. It's called Peace Through Strength.
But aside from that, I think it is both a travesty and absolutely ridiculous for a President to essentially announce to a negotiating partner that he'll wimp out after the election. Might as well stand up at a poker game after going all in and announce "hey everybody, I'm bluffing!"
This is yet another reason we must elect a new President in November, friends. We need a President who doesn't put his rigid ideology in front of the safety of our nation...and if he actually believes this baloney he's spewing that's even worse, friends...sometimes I'd rather a liar than an honest fool. We need a President who isn't going ignore our security to protect his rigid ideology.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Mitt's Not Inevitable, But He's Getting There
The Romney campaign has spent most of the Republican Primary campaign telling us Mittens is inevitably going to be the nominee. He's not inevitable, yet...but he's getting there.
Some Tea Partiers have flown into a state of complete panic, others have actually come around to the idea and are accepting the idea of a Romney candidacy. Those who are in complete panic need to step back and breath for a moment. They need to stop with the claims that Romney is worse than Obama. It's a ridiculous point. Mittens may not be as conservatives as we hoped, but he's not a radical socialist, either.
Then there are those who believe Mittens is the only candidate who can beat Obama. There's also those who believe Mittens couldn't beat Obama. I've stated more times than I can enumerate that Mittens would beat Obama, as would Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and a radish.
But Mittens isn't yet the inevitable nominee. I know he's saying that Senator Santorum can't mathematically beat him, same for Gingrich. This isn't QUITE true, but it is unlikely. It's also rather possible that Mittens can't get the magic number of 1,140 delegates. With the large number of conservative delegates that will be in Tampa, it's very possible Newt or Santorum to be the choice of a brokered convention.
Ultimately the game isn't over. It might not be over until the convention. Either way, let the fur fly now, but friends, we must back the GOP nominee once all is said and done. Even if it's a stopgap candidate like Mittens. Especially because Mittens is going to need to take a dyed in the wool conservative for his running mate. So even if Mittens is a stopgap, his VP would be next in line. It's better to stop Obama, even if we can't fully implement the level of conservative policies we need. So let's back up the GOP nominee, even if it's Mittens. Either way, remember, the Democrats are going to run Obama.
Some Tea Partiers have flown into a state of complete panic, others have actually come around to the idea and are accepting the idea of a Romney candidacy. Those who are in complete panic need to step back and breath for a moment. They need to stop with the claims that Romney is worse than Obama. It's a ridiculous point. Mittens may not be as conservatives as we hoped, but he's not a radical socialist, either.
Then there are those who believe Mittens is the only candidate who can beat Obama. There's also those who believe Mittens couldn't beat Obama. I've stated more times than I can enumerate that Mittens would beat Obama, as would Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and a radish.
But Mittens isn't yet the inevitable nominee. I know he's saying that Senator Santorum can't mathematically beat him, same for Gingrich. This isn't QUITE true, but it is unlikely. It's also rather possible that Mittens can't get the magic number of 1,140 delegates. With the large number of conservative delegates that will be in Tampa, it's very possible Newt or Santorum to be the choice of a brokered convention.
Ultimately the game isn't over. It might not be over until the convention. Either way, let the fur fly now, but friends, we must back the GOP nominee once all is said and done. Even if it's a stopgap candidate like Mittens. Especially because Mittens is going to need to take a dyed in the wool conservative for his running mate. So even if Mittens is a stopgap, his VP would be next in line. It's better to stop Obama, even if we can't fully implement the level of conservative policies we need. So let's back up the GOP nominee, even if it's Mittens. Either way, remember, the Democrats are going to run Obama.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Reactions to the Louisiana Primary
Saturday night, Rick Santorum handily won the Louisiana Primary. It was a nice win for the Senator. Further, it showed the weakness of Mitt Romney as a Republican nominee. Once again, Mittens has failed to win a Southern state. Finally, it showed that Newt is pretty much out of lives in this game. The only way Newt is the nominee from where I sit is if he somehow ends up as the choice of a brokered convention. (Which isn’t a likely scenario in my opinion.)
It’s not surprising the South is consolidating behind the conservatives. So far, Speaker Gingrich has won Georgia and South Carolina. Senator Santorum has won Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, and now Louisiana. Mittens has only taken Florida, which, given that half of the state is New Yorkers, hardly qualifies as Southern; and Virginia, which he can’t really claim victory because both Gingrich and Santorum weren’t on the ballot.
Now I do want to correct a major misconception amongst many conservatives whose zeal outweighs their logic sometimes. If Romney is the nominee I flat out guarantee he will win Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Louisiana in the general election. A liberal Democrat has about as much chance to win those states as a trout has living in a pond in a grizzly bear’s cave. (And no, before somebody trying to sound smart brings it up, it’s because Obama’s a liberal. His skin tone doesn’t have anything to do with it. John Kerry and Al Gore lost in those states…must be because Kerry and Gore are black men, right?)
However, our chances to have a candidate more conservative than Romney are shrinking by the day. I know some of you are big Newt fans…I am too, remember…but I also would rather my second choice than Mittens. Senator Santorum has shown he can win this thing if we consolidate behind him. If we don’t, our only chance of better than Romney is a brokered convention…and that brokered convention also comes with the potential to do worse than Romney. The choice is ours.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Obama is Still Playing Politics on Keystone Pipeline
Earlier this week, President Obama promised to accelerate the Keystone Pipeline review. The reality is Obama never should have delayed it and is now trying to claim credit for it. It's just more politics from this President, doing his best to ride two horses with one rear end, to mollify his hardcore environmentalist base (that ignores the fact that all the other pipelines they threw fits about haven't done an ounce of the harm they predicted) and not tick off the rest of us (the majority) because a ticked off somebody won't vote for you.
Now Obama wants credit. The Drive-By Media, of course, is happy to give it to him. They're also happy to parrot Obama's preposterous statement that drilling won't help prices go down on oil. Because increased supply with steady demand doesn't cause prices to go down. (Then again, the President also believes, despite it's complete lack of success, that Keynsian Economics work).
Is expediting Keystone the right thing to do? Sure. If it happens. I also remember when Obama promised to increase deep water drilling permits a year after the BP Spill and he's gone from giving them out at a snails pace to giving them out at a turtle's pace. Do I believe for one second Obama is doing it because it's best for America? Lord no.
If Obama's energy policy was focused on what's good for America, he wouldn't be pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into companies like Solyndra, not to mention ideas like using algae for fuel and other ridiculous concepts that have no basis in reality and are certainly in no way ready to replace various petroleum fuels. As I've said before, the only real "Green Energy" that is successful on a large scale is hydroelectric, but we're already maxed at our ability to use that source because, and please write this down: When a new energy source really works the Free Market will make it happen and quickly.
Obama's just playing politics again. Let me show you my surprised look. The truth is Obama's Presidency is a joke. The only reason he's not perceived that way is because the Drive-By Media is willing to publish his lies and slights of hand. Either way, this President is heading for a big loss in November and we can get beyond this kind of ridiculous Chicago style political game.
Now Obama wants credit. The Drive-By Media, of course, is happy to give it to him. They're also happy to parrot Obama's preposterous statement that drilling won't help prices go down on oil. Because increased supply with steady demand doesn't cause prices to go down. (Then again, the President also believes, despite it's complete lack of success, that Keynsian Economics work).
Is expediting Keystone the right thing to do? Sure. If it happens. I also remember when Obama promised to increase deep water drilling permits a year after the BP Spill and he's gone from giving them out at a snails pace to giving them out at a turtle's pace. Do I believe for one second Obama is doing it because it's best for America? Lord no.
If Obama's energy policy was focused on what's good for America, he wouldn't be pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into companies like Solyndra, not to mention ideas like using algae for fuel and other ridiculous concepts that have no basis in reality and are certainly in no way ready to replace various petroleum fuels. As I've said before, the only real "Green Energy" that is successful on a large scale is hydroelectric, but we're already maxed at our ability to use that source because, and please write this down: When a new energy source really works the Free Market will make it happen and quickly.
Obama's just playing politics again. Let me show you my surprised look. The truth is Obama's Presidency is a joke. The only reason he's not perceived that way is because the Drive-By Media is willing to publish his lies and slights of hand. Either way, this President is heading for a big loss in November and we can get beyond this kind of ridiculous Chicago style political game.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Reactions to the Illinois Primary
Tuesday, the state of Illinois held their 2012 Republican primary. As expected, Mitt Romney was the big winner, taking 46% of the vote, with Rick Santorum coming in second with 35%, Ron Paul in third with 9% and Newt Gingrich in last with 8%.
First off, I'd like to note that Mittens winning Illinois is not a surprise. It's a deep blue state. It's also the home of the city (Chicago) that the corrupt politics that the Democrat party is famous for going back to the Cermak-Daley political machine, rivaling only Tammany Hall in New York City (also Democrat).
What does this win mean for the field? Well, Romney would like this to be a sign of his inevitability. It may well be. Right now it looks like Santorum needs to win something like 70% of the vote going forward to win enough delegates to defeat Romney. Yet Mittens has his own problem. Even with this win, he's still not near the magic number of 1,144 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot and avoid a brokered convention.
This time, Rick Santorum would've still lost if Newt had dropped out and conservatives had coalesced, but Mittens' win would've been a good bit smaller (3% instead of 11%). Also, as we've chronicled numerous times, the delegate race would look much different without Newt.
Newt's performance was disappointing, especially from a man who wants to show he's still a legitimate contender. Losing to Ron Paul is not a good way to show you can still come back. I said on Friday that it's time for Newt to bow out, and Illinois further backed that sentiment in my mind.
With every contest of three candidates, we head closer to the aforementioned brokered convention. For those of you who are a fan of it, start dancing. For those of you who join me in the Real World, well, you know why a brokered convention can be a problem.
First off, I'd like to note that Mittens winning Illinois is not a surprise. It's a deep blue state. It's also the home of the city (Chicago) that the corrupt politics that the Democrat party is famous for going back to the Cermak-Daley political machine, rivaling only Tammany Hall in New York City (also Democrat).
What does this win mean for the field? Well, Romney would like this to be a sign of his inevitability. It may well be. Right now it looks like Santorum needs to win something like 70% of the vote going forward to win enough delegates to defeat Romney. Yet Mittens has his own problem. Even with this win, he's still not near the magic number of 1,144 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot and avoid a brokered convention.
This time, Rick Santorum would've still lost if Newt had dropped out and conservatives had coalesced, but Mittens' win would've been a good bit smaller (3% instead of 11%). Also, as we've chronicled numerous times, the delegate race would look much different without Newt.
Newt's performance was disappointing, especially from a man who wants to show he's still a legitimate contender. Losing to Ron Paul is not a good way to show you can still come back. I said on Friday that it's time for Newt to bow out, and Illinois further backed that sentiment in my mind.
With every contest of three candidates, we head closer to the aforementioned brokered convention. For those of you who are a fan of it, start dancing. For those of you who join me in the Real World, well, you know why a brokered convention can be a problem.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
A Brokered GOP Convention?
It’s been almost a rallying cry amongst some conservatives, who believe that the Republican Field hasn’t had any “true” conservatives. (For the record, I disagree…I think there are two solid conservatives and a libertarian who is far closer to conservative than most moderate Republicans.) Yet as long as we have both Gingrich and Santorum in this race splitting the conservative vote, the possibility of a brokered convention exists.
So what exactly is a “brokered convention?” To win the Republican nomination, a candidate needs to receive at least 1,144 delegates. If no candidate receives that magic number of delegates, it then falls to the total field of delegates to nominate a candidate. There are a series of ballots cast. The first ballot is the vote of the pledged delegates are released from their obligation to vote for the candidate who they were pledged to support. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that means Mitt Romney delegates no longer need to vote for Romney, Ron Paul delegates no longer need to vote for Paul, etc).
Here’s the thing: A brokered convention isn’t limited to those who are currently in the field. The reality is any Republican of legal age and of natural born citizenship is eligible to be nominated once the convention becomes brokered. So go ahead and put on your Happy Imagination Hat for a minute and let your minds fantasize about who could be drafted as the Republican nominee in a brokered convention. Paul Ryan? Sarah Palin? Chris Christie? Bobby Jindal? (Legitimate shiver of excitement) Marco Rubio? Sure, these are all possibilities.
Of course, those who are screaming for a brokered convention as a route to a more conservative candidate are missing the other possibility: that the GOP establishment picks a wimpier, more moderate establishment candidate and nominates someone like a Jeb Bush (talk about a gift to Obama…he’s already going to run against Bush anyway, so if the opponent’s name is genuinely Bush, I can only imagine).
More importantly, friends, and here’s the reality of history: Brokered Conventions in the past have tended to choose from the existing field of candidates. Chances are good that we’re going to be looking at Mittens, Santorum, or Gingrich either way. Usually you end up with a “compromise candidate,” but I have no idea who that compromise would be. Clearly the first ballot vote will almost certainly be between Romney and Santorum. Gingrich is hardly a compromise between the two, and Ron Paul isn’t going to be nominated by the Republican Party.
As we sit now, a brokered convention remains unlikely, but it could be less unlikely than any time since 1976 in the Republican Party. As a history buff I consider it a fascinating possibility. As a conservative, I would love to see a Sarah Palin or a Paul Ryan or (insert conservative here) win over Mittens. I’d also like to see Santorum or Gingrich win over Mittens. Most importantly I want to see ANY REPUBLICAN defeat Obama. A brokered convention? Good idea in a perfect world. But I don’t live in a perfect world. I live in the Real World.
Monday, March 19, 2012
It's Time for the Public Sector Unions to Stop Being Selfish
It’s happening in Wisconsin, where the Democratic Party and the Public Unions* are doing their darndest to recall Governor Scott Walker. It doesn’t matter, of course, that the state of Wisconsin; by asking the unions to pay a small portion of their own pensions (an amount similar to what most private citizen’s 401k plans are matched by their company), asking them to pay a $10 copay for doctor visits (the rest of us pay upwards of $20) and some other modest reforms; has closed a massive budget gap and put Wisconsin on the right track.
Now those same unions want to recall Walker rather than (to borrow a favorite catch-phrase from the Left) “paying their fair share.” (By the way, I define “fair share” very differently. I define it as paying YOUR OWN SHARE that is for yourself.) Except those Unions aren’t even paying what the rest of us have to pay. That’s not good enough though. They’re just too selfish.
And now, friends, I’m going do something I swore I’d never do: I’m going to defend a Cuomo. Governor Andrew the Cuomo is trying to do something similar in my own state, New York. New York, like Wisconsin, is in an awful lot of trouble. Andrew the Cuomo is, unlike his father before him, a pragmatic man. He understands, like so few of his fellow liberal Democrats, that money doesn’t grow on trees, even if one convinces themselves it is really super-duper important. So he’s gone and passed a series of measures to cut $80 Billion from the New York state budget.
For about a month, the same unions have run commercials talking about how unfair it is, how unions have to stand up for their “rights.” (Because free pensions and making more than your employers, the people of New York State, is one’s right, apparently. Since we’re making up rights, I declare my right to baseball.) They’re telling tales about how 401k plans “failed” a few years ago. Actually, the only people who 401k plans failed were those who were foolish enough to be both close to retirement and yet still keep their money in high growth funds. For the rest of us, like those of us in our late twenties and early thirties, are buying into our 401k plans for pennies on the dollar and we’re going to see a phenomenal return in the future for our investments.
Both Governor Walker and Governor the Cuomo realize the truth. They’re different men. Governor Walker is a Tea Party Republican, Governor the Cuomo is a fairly reasonable liberal Democrat (in fairness, the Cuomo’s liberalism stands mostly on social issues). But both of them understand the reality and necessity of asking the REAL people who aren’t “paying their fair share,” the Unions. Both of these men realize that their states are going to continue to lose jobs to outsourcing if they don’t stop trying to take more and more money that still isn’t theirs from businesses. Not the kind of outsourcing you’re thinking about, friends, not to China and India and Mexico, but rather outsourcing to South Carolina, and Tennessee and Florida and other states that don’t think the purpose of those who have succeeded and started businesses is to buy votes for liberals.
It’s time for Public Sector Unions to stop being so selfish and demanding that their employers, the people of their states and of the nation, pay them exorbitant salaries beyond the employers ability to pay and beyond what similar private sector employees earn for similar work. I get it, Union members, it means you have to give up some of your current benefits. I understand. I went four years without a raise, by the way, thanks to this economy, meanwhile you’ve gotten four plus better benefits than I could dream of receiving. It’s time for Public Sector Unions to pay their legitimate fair share. It’s time for public sector unions to stop being selfish.
*Private Sector Unions, for now at least, you get a pass. In this blog my beef is with your public sector counterparts.
Friday, March 16, 2012
It's Time for Newt to Bow Out
Before Super Tuesday, I said it would likely be Newt's last hurrah. I then submitted that IF and ONLY IF he could win BOTH Mississippi and Alabama would he have a legitimate argument to be the conservative alternative. He'd then have four top notch Southern states to his name. But that did not happen. He came in second place in both states, beating Mittens by 1% or less in both. He also came in third in Kansas.
There comes a time when one needs to be pragmatic. Do I still believe that Newt is the best candidate to face Obama? Absolutely. Do I still believe Newt's platform is the most conservative? Yes I do. But what I no longer believe is that he can win this thing. More importantly, the longer Newt stays in, the more likely we are to see Romney as our nominee. He's not even coming in second place.
When he was in second place, there was a strong argument to say Santorum should drop out and allow the conservative vote to coalesce behind Newt. I'm no hypocrite...the door swings both ways. Newt is stopping Santorum from beating Romney in many places, and stopping Santorum from squashing Romney in others.
Just to give you some comparison of states, giving the combination percentages of the two conservatives vs. Mittens:
KS - Conservatives 65%, Mittens 20%; AL Conservatives 69%, Mittens 29%; MS - Conservatives 63%, Mittens 30%; GA - Conservatives 66%, Mittens 25%; ND - Conservatives 47%, Mittens 23%; OH* - Conservatives 51%, Mittens 29%; AK* Conservatives 43%, Mittens 32%
There's far more, but again, Mittens is in trouble when the conservatives consolidate. Furthermore, it's clear that Santorum has the edge over Gingrich. Also, Newt is hurting Santorum in the delegate count.
If Gingrich tells his delegates to vote for Santorum, again, this is a big game change. Currently, Mittens leads Santorum 495 delegates to 252 delegates. That's a about 50% lead by Romney. Now if Gingrich's delegates go to Santorum, now Mittens' lead drops to 495 to 383, only a 33% advantage. In raw numbers, Santorum is only a little more than one hundred votes shy of Mitt.
Most of us want better than Romney. Most of us Newt fans also agree that Santorum would be a pretty decent second choice. It's time to do the math, friends. You can have a candidate who is 100% perfect for you (Newt) but doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of winning the nomination, a candidate who is 85% perfect for you but can beat Mittens (Santorum) or you can have a candidate who is 50% perfect for you by default. The choice is yours, my friends.
As for me, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I am hereby withdrawing my endorsement of Newt Gingrich. I am not going to publicly endorse anyone else at this time, because I believe it is far more important to focus on why we must defeat Obama, and so I will focus on the Somebody Else 2012 campaign.
*Denotes State Romney won in a 3 way race
There comes a time when one needs to be pragmatic. Do I still believe that Newt is the best candidate to face Obama? Absolutely. Do I still believe Newt's platform is the most conservative? Yes I do. But what I no longer believe is that he can win this thing. More importantly, the longer Newt stays in, the more likely we are to see Romney as our nominee. He's not even coming in second place.
When he was in second place, there was a strong argument to say Santorum should drop out and allow the conservative vote to coalesce behind Newt. I'm no hypocrite...the door swings both ways. Newt is stopping Santorum from beating Romney in many places, and stopping Santorum from squashing Romney in others.
Just to give you some comparison of states, giving the combination percentages of the two conservatives vs. Mittens:
KS - Conservatives 65%, Mittens 20%; AL Conservatives 69%, Mittens 29%; MS - Conservatives 63%, Mittens 30%; GA - Conservatives 66%, Mittens 25%; ND - Conservatives 47%, Mittens 23%; OH* - Conservatives 51%, Mittens 29%; AK* Conservatives 43%, Mittens 32%
There's far more, but again, Mittens is in trouble when the conservatives consolidate. Furthermore, it's clear that Santorum has the edge over Gingrich. Also, Newt is hurting Santorum in the delegate count.
If Gingrich tells his delegates to vote for Santorum, again, this is a big game change. Currently, Mittens leads Santorum 495 delegates to 252 delegates. That's a about 50% lead by Romney. Now if Gingrich's delegates go to Santorum, now Mittens' lead drops to 495 to 383, only a 33% advantage. In raw numbers, Santorum is only a little more than one hundred votes shy of Mitt.
Most of us want better than Romney. Most of us Newt fans also agree that Santorum would be a pretty decent second choice. It's time to do the math, friends. You can have a candidate who is 100% perfect for you (Newt) but doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of winning the nomination, a candidate who is 85% perfect for you but can beat Mittens (Santorum) or you can have a candidate who is 50% perfect for you by default. The choice is yours, my friends.
As for me, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I am hereby withdrawing my endorsement of Newt Gingrich. I am not going to publicly endorse anyone else at this time, because I believe it is far more important to focus on why we must defeat Obama, and so I will focus on the Somebody Else 2012 campaign.
*Denotes State Romney won in a 3 way race
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Reactions to KS, HI, MS and AL Primaries
Over the last seven days we've seen four states contests occur. Three were won by Rick Santorum. Only deep blue Hawaii went to Mitt Romney. So let's look at it state by state:
Kansas (Caucuses)
Senator Santorum won 51% of the vote. Mittens came in second 20% and Newt had only 14% (a very disappointing finish) and Ron Paul with 12%. Kansas was just the beginning of of some huge victories for Santorum. Important to note is that 65% of the vote in Kansas went to the conservative candidates.
Hawaii (Caucus)
Mittens won his only contest of the week with 45% of the vote. Senator Santorum won 25%, Ron Paul won 18% for a 3rd place finish, and Newt had an again disappointing 11%. Hawaii was a large margin for Mitt, but ultimately is not helpful for 2012. Not only is Hawaii as deep blue as California and New York, but it's also Obama's native state. It also has only 20 delegates that are proportionally distributed.
Alabama (Primary)
Senator Santorum won the state with 34% of the vote. It was a nice win. Senator Santorum has clearly made himself the conservative alternative in this race, drawing the Tea Party vote nicely while, despite the Left's best efforts, continuing to win women. Newt came in second with 29% of the vote followed by Mittens who also had 29% of the vote (Newt actually received .3% more of the vote, by the way) and Ron Paul received 5% of the vote. It was another big win for Santorum, who again solidifies himself as the conservative who can indeed mathematically beat Romney. Important to note is that 69% of the vote went to the two conservatives.
Mississippi (Primary)
Senator Santorum won 32% of the vote in Mississippi, with Gingrich winning 31% and Romney 30%. Ron Paul was a distant third with only 4%. Again, Santorum is showing his strength as the conservative choice. Also again important to note is that 63% of the vote went to the conservative candidate.
So what does it all mean? It means, quite frankly, it's time for Newt to get out of Santorum's way. We as conservatives all want better than Mittens. At this point, we're not going to get that with two conservatives splitting the vote. If the two consolidated their support, believe me, Mittens would be in a lot of trouble.
Tomorrow, I'll get into that more. But for now, I leave you with this: Santorum has solidified himself, and he can beat Mittens. Or we can demand Newt, and settle for Romney. Either way, this last week was a big winner for Santorum.
Kansas (Caucuses)
Senator Santorum won 51% of the vote. Mittens came in second 20% and Newt had only 14% (a very disappointing finish) and Ron Paul with 12%. Kansas was just the beginning of of some huge victories for Santorum. Important to note is that 65% of the vote in Kansas went to the conservative candidates.
Hawaii (Caucus)
Mittens won his only contest of the week with 45% of the vote. Senator Santorum won 25%, Ron Paul won 18% for a 3rd place finish, and Newt had an again disappointing 11%. Hawaii was a large margin for Mitt, but ultimately is not helpful for 2012. Not only is Hawaii as deep blue as California and New York, but it's also Obama's native state. It also has only 20 delegates that are proportionally distributed.
Alabama (Primary)
Senator Santorum won the state with 34% of the vote. It was a nice win. Senator Santorum has clearly made himself the conservative alternative in this race, drawing the Tea Party vote nicely while, despite the Left's best efforts, continuing to win women. Newt came in second with 29% of the vote followed by Mittens who also had 29% of the vote (Newt actually received .3% more of the vote, by the way) and Ron Paul received 5% of the vote. It was another big win for Santorum, who again solidifies himself as the conservative who can indeed mathematically beat Romney. Important to note is that 69% of the vote went to the two conservatives.
Mississippi (Primary)
Senator Santorum won 32% of the vote in Mississippi, with Gingrich winning 31% and Romney 30%. Ron Paul was a distant third with only 4%. Again, Santorum is showing his strength as the conservative choice. Also again important to note is that 63% of the vote went to the conservative candidate.
So what does it all mean? It means, quite frankly, it's time for Newt to get out of Santorum's way. We as conservatives all want better than Mittens. At this point, we're not going to get that with two conservatives splitting the vote. If the two consolidated their support, believe me, Mittens would be in a lot of trouble.
Tomorrow, I'll get into that more. But for now, I leave you with this: Santorum has solidified himself, and he can beat Mittens. Or we can demand Newt, and settle for Romney. Either way, this last week was a big winner for Santorum.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Explaining the Conservative Abortion Stance
Abortion is, of course, one of the biggest hot-buttons in the world. The Left has done a really good job of presenting their side of the issue in such a way that I regularly speak to people who tell me they absolutely never would have an abortion themselves but still consider themselves pro-choice. The reason given by these individuals almost universally is either "I can't tell some other woman what to do with her body" or more generally "I can't tell other people what to do."
Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.
Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected. The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human. One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception. That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception. (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.)
If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything. To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder. Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion. Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own. Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.
Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different. Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.
The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby. However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy. I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.
So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life. There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder. Yes, I know that's a harsh point. But a human being does have a right to be alive.
Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder. It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious. I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.
Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from? We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother. Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly. (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)
My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked. We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.* And that is something we cannot morally fathom.
*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.
Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.
Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected. The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human. One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception. That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception. (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.)
If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything. To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder. Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion. Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own. Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.
Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different. Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.
The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby. However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy. I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.
So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life. There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder. Yes, I know that's a harsh point. But a human being does have a right to be alive.
Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder. It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious. I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.
Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from? We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother. Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly. (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)
My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked. We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.* And that is something we cannot morally fathom.
*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Stop Discussing the Left's Misdirection Narrative
For the last few months, the Left has been trying to change the conversation. They want to talk about social issues. They want to convince women to hold their nose and vote for Obama again due to a falsely created fear that some horrible, evil Republican wants to take away their birth control. They want to make this election about something...anything really...besides the economy.
Do you know WHY they don't want to talk about the economy? BECAUSE IT'S LOUSY! Oh sure, the Drive-By Media is doing their darndest to convince you that it's actually improving...even though we've sat above 8% unemployment for years now...even though the number has only dropped as low as it has because there are 2 million fewer jobs to be had, and not because more people are working. Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate has gone back above 9% again, to 9.1% in Gallup's February report. We went up .5% in a month, friends.
The Left doesn't want to talk about gas prices, either. Obama once called prices of $2.50 a gallon unacceptable when Bush was president. Now we're heading back for $4 a gallon. Does Obama have a solution? I mean a real solution, and not more phantom "green energy?" Like, oh, I don't know, getting the oil we have out of the darn ground and refining it? Or reducing the ridiculous regulations that stop new refineries from being built? Or how about a pipeline from a nice, friendly nation like Canada to pump their oil to refineries in Texas making it easier for us to purchase their oil (instead of OPEC nation oil) and raising huge revenues? Nah...let's just pump millions into making algae into fuel.
Friends, here's a dose of truth that you won't get from the Drive-By Media: The Obama Administration has failed. He's spent and spent and spent and we've got nothing. Sure, Activist and Neighborhood Liberals alike are telling you that "it would've been worse." Yeah, that's a logical argument. If I guy punches me in the face, it's like telling me that I shouldn't be upset, because he could've punched me in the groin. No, Obama has failed, by his own measure. So let's not let the Left change the conversation and talk about the real issue of this campaign. It's the economy, stupid, and it's terrible.
Do you know WHY they don't want to talk about the economy? BECAUSE IT'S LOUSY! Oh sure, the Drive-By Media is doing their darndest to convince you that it's actually improving...even though we've sat above 8% unemployment for years now...even though the number has only dropped as low as it has because there are 2 million fewer jobs to be had, and not because more people are working. Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate has gone back above 9% again, to 9.1% in Gallup's February report. We went up .5% in a month, friends.
The Left doesn't want to talk about gas prices, either. Obama once called prices of $2.50 a gallon unacceptable when Bush was president. Now we're heading back for $4 a gallon. Does Obama have a solution? I mean a real solution, and not more phantom "green energy?" Like, oh, I don't know, getting the oil we have out of the darn ground and refining it? Or reducing the ridiculous regulations that stop new refineries from being built? Or how about a pipeline from a nice, friendly nation like Canada to pump their oil to refineries in Texas making it easier for us to purchase their oil (instead of OPEC nation oil) and raising huge revenues? Nah...let's just pump millions into making algae into fuel.
Friends, here's a dose of truth that you won't get from the Drive-By Media: The Obama Administration has failed. He's spent and spent and spent and we've got nothing. Sure, Activist and Neighborhood Liberals alike are telling you that "it would've been worse." Yeah, that's a logical argument. If I guy punches me in the face, it's like telling me that I shouldn't be upset, because he could've punched me in the groin. No, Obama has failed, by his own measure. So let's not let the Left change the conversation and talk about the real issue of this campaign. It's the economy, stupid, and it's terrible.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Roads, Schools Don't Rationalize Liberal Spending
It's the latest talking point from both Activist and Neighborhood Liberals: Every time a conservative points out something like "Apple created the iPod 3 without government help" they respond, "Oh yeah? It's shipped on public roads...and most of their employees went to public schools! Couldn't do it without government!"
The reality is that the American public is waking up and realizing (finally!) that government is not the solution to our problem and that, in fact, it is the source of many of our problems. So now liberals are once again trying to change the conversation by bringing up schools and roads and other such things that government is the...shall we say, least worst...entity to handle. It's also a rationalization for saying that "the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes!" (Which they have to rationalize since fact is the "evil" top 1% pay 36% of the tax burden and the top 10% pay more than 70% of the tax burden.) They try to rationalize it by saying that those businesses use public infrastructure to ship their products ergo they somehow benefit more than other citizens from the public roads (of course, those same people use the same roads to get to their jobs etc).
It's time for a reality check on this talking point, which I'm pleased to be able to provide. First and foremost, this entire argument is a Straw Man argument. Conservatives don't argue with government handling infrastructure (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that'd be roads and bridges). We do think the best place to handle this kind of project is local governments or, at most, state governments and not the Federal government. The most efficient (relatively speaking...government efficiency is an oxymoron as always) way to handle these jobs is the public sector. Conservatives also don't argue with public schools. Yet we again believe the best way to handle schools is the local level or at the most the state level, and never at the national level.
Now to the issue at hand: Does this translate into "couldn't live without government?" Absolutely not! Fact is, public schools weren't available to all individuals in America until 1870! It wasn't until 1910 when public school attendance was mandatory. Are you saying that there weren't businesses before 1910? Of course there were! As far as public highways? The first public highway wasn't commissioned until 1921! And again, every citizen has the right to use the public roads and has equal access. The disparity between the taxes paid by the business owner over the rest of the population more than covers the theoretical extra wear and tear on the road from business shipping.
More importantly, this excuse of "infrastructure and education" absolutely does not validate the level of government spending that the modern liberal desires. Government has handled both for decades. Let's take a couple of snapshot years, shall we?
In 1952, the federal deficit was $3.883 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's $31.536 Billion in modern dollars (translation - less than one day of modern deficit spending). In 1954 the deficit was $3.114 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's $24.695 Billion in modern dollars (translation - again, less than one day of modern deficit spending). Finally, in 1962, the federal budget deficit was $9.229 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's a mere $65.780 Billion in modern dollars (translation - about two days worth of modern deficit spending).
What's the point, you ask? Here's the point: In every one of those years, government was spending on infrastructure and schools. Yet the deficits were very reasonable...and I didn't even mention fiscal years 1951, 1956 or 1957, where the federal government ran a modest surplus...and yes, the government was spending for infrastructure and schools in those years as well. Clearly, the cause of our trillion dollar deficits each year aren't because of Obamanomics and government spending.
Talking about infrastructure and education, or if you prefer fire departments, police departments, or any other legitimate public service is simply a cop-out by the Left to deflect the realities: Government isn't overspending on the things it ought to be doing, nor is the problem that we don't tax enough. The problem is...the problem has always been...that we spend too much and we spend to much not on necessities but on frivolous and unnecessary things. Sometimes, those unnecessary things are veiled as compassion.
Feeding people who legitimately can't feed themselves? Fine. But doing so in a way that other people's money can be spent on candy, on potato chips, on soda? (I've managed an inner-city store...it was infuriating to see what food stamps were spent on...in greater quantities than actual nutritious food.) Advertising food stamps? Again, those who need it don't need advertisements (which I can tell you due the fact that I work in media advertising is not cheap) to tell people "you may not think you qualify for food stamps, but you might!" Think about that! "You may have enough money to buy food...but we can give you food stamps anyway!"
The truth that no liberal wants to tell you is that infrastructure, schools, etc. are a drop in the bucket of the deficit. More importantly, they won't tell you that conservatives don't argue against infrastructure or school spending. We do argue against Cowboy Poetry festivals, investing in phantom "Green Energy" and paying for people to not work for 3 years and giving food stamps to people who legitimately do not need it. We argue against waste. So let's refuse to engage in this misdirection and change the conversation.
The reality is that the American public is waking up and realizing (finally!) that government is not the solution to our problem and that, in fact, it is the source of many of our problems. So now liberals are once again trying to change the conversation by bringing up schools and roads and other such things that government is the...shall we say, least worst...entity to handle. It's also a rationalization for saying that "the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes!" (Which they have to rationalize since fact is the "evil" top 1% pay 36% of the tax burden and the top 10% pay more than 70% of the tax burden.) They try to rationalize it by saying that those businesses use public infrastructure to ship their products ergo they somehow benefit more than other citizens from the public roads (of course, those same people use the same roads to get to their jobs etc).
It's time for a reality check on this talking point, which I'm pleased to be able to provide. First and foremost, this entire argument is a Straw Man argument. Conservatives don't argue with government handling infrastructure (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that'd be roads and bridges). We do think the best place to handle this kind of project is local governments or, at most, state governments and not the Federal government. The most efficient (relatively speaking...government efficiency is an oxymoron as always) way to handle these jobs is the public sector. Conservatives also don't argue with public schools. Yet we again believe the best way to handle schools is the local level or at the most the state level, and never at the national level.
Now to the issue at hand: Does this translate into "couldn't live without government?" Absolutely not! Fact is, public schools weren't available to all individuals in America until 1870! It wasn't until 1910 when public school attendance was mandatory. Are you saying that there weren't businesses before 1910? Of course there were! As far as public highways? The first public highway wasn't commissioned until 1921! And again, every citizen has the right to use the public roads and has equal access. The disparity between the taxes paid by the business owner over the rest of the population more than covers the theoretical extra wear and tear on the road from business shipping.
More importantly, this excuse of "infrastructure and education" absolutely does not validate the level of government spending that the modern liberal desires. Government has handled both for decades. Let's take a couple of snapshot years, shall we?
In 1952, the federal deficit was $3.883 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's $31.536 Billion in modern dollars (translation - less than one day of modern deficit spending). In 1954 the deficit was $3.114 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's $24.695 Billion in modern dollars (translation - again, less than one day of modern deficit spending). Finally, in 1962, the federal budget deficit was $9.229 Billion. Adjusted for inflation that's a mere $65.780 Billion in modern dollars (translation - about two days worth of modern deficit spending).
What's the point, you ask? Here's the point: In every one of those years, government was spending on infrastructure and schools. Yet the deficits were very reasonable...and I didn't even mention fiscal years 1951, 1956 or 1957, where the federal government ran a modest surplus...and yes, the government was spending for infrastructure and schools in those years as well. Clearly, the cause of our trillion dollar deficits each year aren't because of Obamanomics and government spending.
Talking about infrastructure and education, or if you prefer fire departments, police departments, or any other legitimate public service is simply a cop-out by the Left to deflect the realities: Government isn't overspending on the things it ought to be doing, nor is the problem that we don't tax enough. The problem is...the problem has always been...that we spend too much and we spend to much not on necessities but on frivolous and unnecessary things. Sometimes, those unnecessary things are veiled as compassion.
Feeding people who legitimately can't feed themselves? Fine. But doing so in a way that other people's money can be spent on candy, on potato chips, on soda? (I've managed an inner-city store...it was infuriating to see what food stamps were spent on...in greater quantities than actual nutritious food.) Advertising food stamps? Again, those who need it don't need advertisements (which I can tell you due the fact that I work in media advertising is not cheap) to tell people "you may not think you qualify for food stamps, but you might!" Think about that! "You may have enough money to buy food...but we can give you food stamps anyway!"
The truth that no liberal wants to tell you is that infrastructure, schools, etc. are a drop in the bucket of the deficit. More importantly, they won't tell you that conservatives don't argue against infrastructure or school spending. We do argue against Cowboy Poetry festivals, investing in phantom "Green Energy" and paying for people to not work for 3 years and giving food stamps to people who legitimately do not need it. We argue against waste. So let's refuse to engage in this misdirection and change the conversation.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Why All Four GOP Candiates (and a Radish) Would Make a Better President than Obama
Over the seven days, we've analyzed how all four Republican candidates (and a radish) would make a better President than Barack Obama. Today, here's a recap of why all five would be better than Obama:
Why Ron Paul Would be Better than Obama:
- 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.
Why Rick Santorum Would Be Better Than Obama:- 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.
Why Mitt Romney Would Be A Better than Obama:
- Cut income tax rates across the board by 20%.
- Cap Federal Spending at 20% of GDP.
- Return all Non-Defense Spending to pre-2008 levels.
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.
- Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements.
- Open America’s energy reserves for development.
Why Newt Gingrich Would Be Better than Obama:
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Institute an optional 15% Flat Tax for all Americans
- Unleash American Energy Production (all of it, not just "Green Energy)
- Pass a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
- Reform Social Security to make it a sustainable program for generations to come.
- Control our border by January 1, 2014
- Enforce the 10th Amendment by affecting a transfer of power back to the states and the people.
Why A Radish Would Be Better than Obama:
Are any of these candidates perfect? No way! One of them is an emotionless vegetable for Heaven's sake...and another one is a radish! But every one of them would be a better President than the one we have now!
Why Ron Paul Would be Better than Obama:
- 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.
Why Rick Santorum Would Be Better Than Obama:- 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.
Why Mitt Romney Would Be A Better than Obama:
- Cut income tax rates across the board by 20%.
- Cap Federal Spending at 20% of GDP.
- Return all Non-Defense Spending to pre-2008 levels.
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.
- Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements.
- Open America’s energy reserves for development.
Why Newt Gingrich Would Be Better than Obama:
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Institute an optional 15% Flat Tax for all Americans
- Unleash American Energy Production (all of it, not just "Green Energy)
- Pass a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
- Reform Social Security to make it a sustainable program for generations to come.
- Control our border by January 1, 2014
- Enforce the 10th Amendment by affecting a transfer of power back to the states and the people.
Why A Radish Would Be Better than Obama:
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obamacare.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Dodd-Frank.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to cut taxes.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obama Era regulations.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to open our domestic oil fields.
- This radish is without question, naturally born in America. I've seen the garden it's from and it's in America.
- This radish will not take a vacation every couple months on the taxpayer's dime.
Are any of these candidates perfect? No way! One of them is an emotionless vegetable for Heaven's sake...and another one is a radish! But every one of them would be a better President than the one we have now!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Reactions to Super Tuesday
Tuesday, ten states held their Republican contests.
The final scorecard was:
Romney 7 states (198 Delegates) - Santorum 3 states (84 Delegates) - Gingrich 1 state (68 Delegates) - Paul 0 States (21 Delegates)
That puts the delegate count at:
Romney 404 - Santorum 161 - Gingrich 105 - Paul 61
So what does it all mean? Looking at things candidate by candidate:
Mittens won Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts, Idaho, Alaska and Vermont. Of those states, only the Ohio win counts as a big one. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich were on the Virginia ballot, he would've won (in this primary) Massachusetts and Vermont with his eyes closed, and Idaho isn't going to be a swing state and neither will Alaska. Ohio was an absolute squeaker...Mittens won by less than 1% of the vote.
Here's where Mitt should be worried: He still hasn't carried a genuine southern state. (Yes, I know, he won Florida, but Florida is basically South New York. There are so many transplanted New Yorkers there it's hard to call it Southern). This is where Mitt could still lose.
Rick Santorum won Tennessee, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. I think it's fair to say, however, that Santorum lost because Newt's still in the race. If (as expected) conservatives weren't split between Newt and Santorum, the Senator could have added Alaska and Ohio to his win column, strongly changing this Super Tuesday's results. More on that later.
Newt Gingrich carried his home state of Georgia and made a fair showing for himself in Tennessee. Had Santorum not been in the race, one could expect Newt to have carried Tennessee and Oklahoma. But, one cannot fairly say it's Santorum who should get out given the current polls. Newt didn't quite have his swan song on Tuesday, but he needs to win Mississippi, Alabama, and possibly Kansas in the next week to stay in this race. Otherwise, he's just guaranteeing us Romney.
I've endorsed Newt, and I still believe he's the best candidate for the job, but sometimes one needs to be strategic. I'm going to hold back from saying Newt should drop out. But if he doesn't win at least Mississsippi and Alabama this coming Tuesday, I'm going to have to say that and likely withdraw my endorsement of him for that reason. Conservatives want better than Romney. That's a fact. The reality is we cannot continue to pretend Newt's got another huge comeback in him at this late stage in the game. He needs two Hail Mary touchdowns in Mississippi and Alabama, or else the game is over.
Finally, there's Ron Paul. Congressman Paul didn't win any states, but did pick up a few delegates. To date, hes' got about 8% of the total delegates so far. His quest is to push some of his fiscal ideas into the platform. Honestly, he needs more than 8% of the delegates to do it. We'll see what happens, but I do expect Congressman Paul on the ballot for the rest of the campaign either way.
Super Tuesday is past. It's time for conservatives to face a harsh truth: We either unite behind one candidate or accept Mittens. I'm on record saying I can live with Mittens. Doesn't mean he's preferable. I prefer dogs over cats. I have a cat because I live in an apartment and can't have a dog and I want a real pet, darn it. If I could've gotten a dog back in '05 when I adopted my cat, I would've gotten a dog. Right now, we can still have a dog...or we can settle for a cat. He might even end up being a great cat...one that acts a lot like a dog (like my cat does, by the way). The time to make that decision is now. We can live with our ideals and be stuck with Mitt, or we can coalesce. The time is now to decide. I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
The final scorecard was:
Romney 7 states (198 Delegates) - Santorum 3 states (84 Delegates) - Gingrich 1 state (68 Delegates) - Paul 0 States (21 Delegates)
That puts the delegate count at:
Romney 404 - Santorum 161 - Gingrich 105 - Paul 61
So what does it all mean? Looking at things candidate by candidate:
Mittens won Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts, Idaho, Alaska and Vermont. Of those states, only the Ohio win counts as a big one. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich were on the Virginia ballot, he would've won (in this primary) Massachusetts and Vermont with his eyes closed, and Idaho isn't going to be a swing state and neither will Alaska. Ohio was an absolute squeaker...Mittens won by less than 1% of the vote.
Here's where Mitt should be worried: He still hasn't carried a genuine southern state. (Yes, I know, he won Florida, but Florida is basically South New York. There are so many transplanted New Yorkers there it's hard to call it Southern). This is where Mitt could still lose.
Rick Santorum won Tennessee, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. I think it's fair to say, however, that Santorum lost because Newt's still in the race. If (as expected) conservatives weren't split between Newt and Santorum, the Senator could have added Alaska and Ohio to his win column, strongly changing this Super Tuesday's results. More on that later.
Newt Gingrich carried his home state of Georgia and made a fair showing for himself in Tennessee. Had Santorum not been in the race, one could expect Newt to have carried Tennessee and Oklahoma. But, one cannot fairly say it's Santorum who should get out given the current polls. Newt didn't quite have his swan song on Tuesday, but he needs to win Mississippi, Alabama, and possibly Kansas in the next week to stay in this race. Otherwise, he's just guaranteeing us Romney.
I've endorsed Newt, and I still believe he's the best candidate for the job, but sometimes one needs to be strategic. I'm going to hold back from saying Newt should drop out. But if he doesn't win at least Mississsippi and Alabama this coming Tuesday, I'm going to have to say that and likely withdraw my endorsement of him for that reason. Conservatives want better than Romney. That's a fact. The reality is we cannot continue to pretend Newt's got another huge comeback in him at this late stage in the game. He needs two Hail Mary touchdowns in Mississippi and Alabama, or else the game is over.
Finally, there's Ron Paul. Congressman Paul didn't win any states, but did pick up a few delegates. To date, hes' got about 8% of the total delegates so far. His quest is to push some of his fiscal ideas into the platform. Honestly, he needs more than 8% of the delegates to do it. We'll see what happens, but I do expect Congressman Paul on the ballot for the rest of the campaign either way.
Super Tuesday is past. It's time for conservatives to face a harsh truth: We either unite behind one candidate or accept Mittens. I'm on record saying I can live with Mittens. Doesn't mean he's preferable. I prefer dogs over cats. I have a cat because I live in an apartment and can't have a dog and I want a real pet, darn it. If I could've gotten a dog back in '05 when I adopted my cat, I would've gotten a dog. Right now, we can still have a dog...or we can settle for a cat. He might even end up being a great cat...one that acts a lot like a dog (like my cat does, by the way). The time to make that decision is now. We can live with our ideals and be stuck with Mitt, or we can coalesce. The time is now to decide. I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
In 2009, President Obama told us unemployment would be at 6% by now if we passed his Stimulus. He was wrong.
He also said unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if we passed his stimulus plan. He was again wrong.
In 2012, let's elect a President who won't give rosy predictions then move the goal line when he fails.
Let's elect Somebody Else in 2012.
Let's elect Somebody Else in 2012.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Liberal Double Standards Show in Rush Limbaugh Story
For those of you waiting for Super Tuesday commentary...I'll be posting that tomorrow. As with many primaries, I want to give a full day to give a quality analysis.
*** Warning: This article contains off color language that Biblical Conservatism normally eschews in the form of quotations from others. Reader discration is advised. ***
*** Warning: This article contains off color language that Biblical Conservatism normally eschews in the form of quotations from others. Reader discration is advised. ***
Just in case you live under a rock, Rush Limbaugh is under fire from the Drive-By Media for rhetorically calling a woman who claimed her birth control cost her over $1000 per year and therefore expects it to be paid for by someone else, a "slut." In context, by the way, if you want to be honest and read the transcript, here's the link, it was largely a tongue in cheek rhetorical statement. I grant you, it was in poor taste. Even tongue in cheek, it's really not appropriate to call a woman a slut. On either side of the aisle. Period. (FYI - anyone who comments on me "defending Rush's words"...read this part!)
However, and this is my point today: Liberals say FAR worse things FAR more frequently, and it's ignored, brushed under the rug, or simply explained away as "comedy." (Translation - it's cute when WE do it.)
Of course, when one is honest enough to read the ENTIRE transcript* they find out that Rush was being entirely facetious and using a rhetorical device called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." More importantly, if one is completely honest, they will find that liberals have said far, far worse things about conservative women, both politicians and entertainers like Rush from the other side of the aisle, and the Drive-By Media is not at all interested in telling those stories.
Bill Maher can call Sarah Palin a "cunt" and a "twat" on more than one occasion. This is just fine with the Drive-By Media. Liberal talk show host Ed Schultz can call conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a "slut", twice, no problem. "Comedian" Kathy Griffin can insult Sarah Palin, Todd Palin, and her children, no big deal. David Letterman can make jokes of a sexual nature about then 14 year old Willow Palin (daughter of Sarah Palin), again, brushed under the rug. When Keith Olberman says that conservative pundit and author S.E. Cupp's mother should have aborted her, was she called by the President to be consoled? Of course not (although I doubt Ms. Cupp would've accepted the call anyway). Oh, and by the way, if you're like me in the Tea Party, you've been called a "Teabagger" by liberals everywhere countless times, including Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry, not to mention President Obama.
All of this is fine, according to the Left. None of the above was explained thoroughly in a 20 minute monologue with a clear and obvious tongue in cheek nature to make a rhetorical point. When you press liberals about THESE instances, we receive one of two answers. It's either a) viceral and angry statements about how the conservatives being attacked clearly deserved it for some invented reason or b) we're simply told "it's cute when we do it."
The truth is the Left has two very different standards for itself and for conservatives. The above was 10 times worse than what Rush said, in context. But the Drive-By Media is disinterested in facts. It's time to crucify a conservative. Plain and simple.
*If you haven't and you've only seen a one minute clip at most from a Drive-By Media video, please do not bother to comment on this blog because I will absolutely be forced to make fun of you and give you a funny name in a follow up post.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Before (Actually During) Super Tuesday
Today is Super Tuesday. A lot is going to be decided. It seems that every major candidate (except for Ron Paul) is picked to win a couple of states. Romney is leading the most, but Santorum is nipping at his heels. Newt needs a splash. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.
Mittens really wants a few big victories. He wants to get his air of inveitability back. He wants to push his "accept me" routine so he can start focusing on Obama. It's not going to happen after today's results, but Mittens can surely try. What Mitt needs to do is court conservatives. He needs to stop running from his supposed conservatism. Embrace it. Stop believing the Drive-By Media...conservatism does not scare away Independents. Liberalism does, which is why Liberals have to campaign as centrists. But conservatism WINS. It's like Novocaine, always works, just give it time. Every time.
Rick Santorum also wants to make a splash, this time against Mittens' inevitability claims. He needs to focus moving forward on his conservatism. Including his fiscal conservatism. The moral issues are good and important, but so is the economy. That's why Mittens is doing so well. He's an economy guy. If Senator Santorum gets on that train, he'll do well too.
Then there's my guy. Newt Gingrich is at a now or never point. He needs to win a few states, not just Georgia. We'll see what happens...but if he can't pick up probably at least 3 states, it may be time to drop out and let the conservative vote coalesce behind Santorum We'll see what happens tonight.
Of course, that leaves Ron Paul. Ron Paul is trying to gain delegates. He likely will, especially in the Idaho and North Dakota Caucuses. He's pushing to have his views on the GOP Platform. Go for it, Congressman Paul, provided it's your economic policies I'm in favor of them!
We're going to know a lot tomorrow morning. We may see the field winnowed. We may not. It's going to be interesting. On a final note, please know that my official reactions to Super Tuesday will come on Thursday, so there's time to give a good analysis of all the fallout.
As always, thanks for reading Biblical Conservatism, and, with Super Tuesday in full force, game on.
Mittens really wants a few big victories. He wants to get his air of inveitability back. He wants to push his "accept me" routine so he can start focusing on Obama. It's not going to happen after today's results, but Mittens can surely try. What Mitt needs to do is court conservatives. He needs to stop running from his supposed conservatism. Embrace it. Stop believing the Drive-By Media...conservatism does not scare away Independents. Liberalism does, which is why Liberals have to campaign as centrists. But conservatism WINS. It's like Novocaine, always works, just give it time. Every time.
Rick Santorum also wants to make a splash, this time against Mittens' inevitability claims. He needs to focus moving forward on his conservatism. Including his fiscal conservatism. The moral issues are good and important, but so is the economy. That's why Mittens is doing so well. He's an economy guy. If Senator Santorum gets on that train, he'll do well too.
Then there's my guy. Newt Gingrich is at a now or never point. He needs to win a few states, not just Georgia. We'll see what happens...but if he can't pick up probably at least 3 states, it may be time to drop out and let the conservative vote coalesce behind Santorum We'll see what happens tonight.
Of course, that leaves Ron Paul. Ron Paul is trying to gain delegates. He likely will, especially in the Idaho and North Dakota Caucuses. He's pushing to have his views on the GOP Platform. Go for it, Congressman Paul, provided it's your economic policies I'm in favor of them!
We're going to know a lot tomorrow morning. We may see the field winnowed. We may not. It's going to be interesting. On a final note, please know that my official reactions to Super Tuesday will come on Thursday, so there's time to give a good analysis of all the fallout.
As always, thanks for reading Biblical Conservatism, and, with Super Tuesday in full force, game on.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Why This Radish Would Make a Better President than Obama
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obamacare.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Dodd-Frank.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to cut taxes.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional repeal of Obama Era regulations.
- This radish would not veto a Congressional bill to open our domestic oil fields.
- This radish is without question, naturally born in America. I've seen the garden it's from and it's in America.
- This radish will not take a vacation every couple months on the taxpayer's dime.
Is this radish a perfect candidate for President? Of course not. For starters, it's only got a two week shelf life. Secondly, it's not Constitutionally eligible to be President since it hasn't attained the age of 35 years old. Also it's a radish. But still, it would be a better President than the one we have now.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Why Newt Gingrich Would Make a Better President than Obama
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Institute an optional 15% Flat Tax for all Americans
- Unleash American Energy Production (all of it, not just "Green Energy)
- Pass a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment
- Reform Social Security to make it a sustainable program for generations to come.
- Control our border by January 1, 2014
- Enforce the 10th Amendment by affecting a transfer of power back to the states and the people.
Is Newt Gingrich a perfect candidate? No. But he is one of two candidates who I believe will absolutely govern according to conservative principles if elected. He governed as a conservative in his four years as Speaker of the House and for his 22 years in the House of Representatives. He will make America strong again and he will make government less relevent in our lives. Most importantly, Newt will make a better President than the one we have now.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Why Mitt Romney 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 Mitt Romney. Here are some of his platforms:
- Cut income tax rates across the board by 20%.
- Cap Federal Spending at 20% of GDP.
- Return all Non-Defense Spending to pre-2008 levels.
- Repeal Obamacare.
- Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.
- Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements.
- Open America’s energy reserves for development.
Is Mitt Romney a perfect candidate? No way. He's actually my third choice from the current GOP field for the nomination. He's got a record of being less conservative than I'd like our nominee to be. But he has real business experience and is very good at pulling cars out of ditches. And, above all else, he'd be an infinitely better President than the one we have now.
"Jobs created or saved" makes just as much sense as this product. Liberals have said for years "it would've been worse if we hadn't done X" without proof. Truth is Obama's liberalism
has stalled the recovery.
In 2012, let's elect a President who does what works, not what's failed. Let's elect Somebody Else in 2012.
has stalled the recovery.
In 2012, let's elect a President who does what works, not what's failed. Let's elect Somebody Else in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)