Were some Conservatives in Comas in the Mid-90s?

This question may sound a little weird...until I explain why I ask: Did you miss the Republican Revolution and more important forget who lead that Revolution?  Who lead welfare reform?  Who lead the way to four straight balanced budgets in the 1990s?  (It wasn't Bill Clinton, no matter how many times he claims credit.)  Who lead the The answer, of course, is Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich.

"But Chris, in 1970 while running for Dog Catcher, Newt said X!"

Look, I get it, ok?  Newt has said some less than perfect things.  That's because he doesn't give out canned answers that he rehearses in front of mirrors and sometimes says something that is just his immediate reaction and then gives a more thought out position later.  But you who start telling me that Newt is a liberal...or a Big Government guy, or whatever...WHERE YOU IN A COMA IN THE MID-90s?

One of the worst offenders in this is Ann Coulter, someone whose opinion I usually agree with, but she’s now she’s joining the anti-Newt camp and arguing that he’s not all that conservative.  Which is a funny statement from someone whose endorsed MITT ROMNEY.  You know, the guy who actually passed a statewide individual healthcare mandate?  That guy.  Now look, I’m not trashing Mittens either.  (I do however, enjoy referring to Romney as Mittens.)  I’ve been saying this since this race began…the only RINO in this race is Jon “I left my personality in Utah” Huntsman.  (And, if you’re super-duper literal, Ron Paul, but that’s because he’s a libertarian rather than a conservative.)  Romney is a Rockefeller Republican, Santorum is a Washington insider, but both have legitimate conservative credentials to some degree.

I’m sick and tired of this “everyone but my candidate/the candidate I wish would run but didn’t/some invented perfect candidate that doesn’t exist is a RINO” baloney.  And that is the exact mentality that is now calling Newt a liberal, or a RINO, or a big government guy, or whatever. Which brings me back to my title to this post:  Am I the ONLY conservative who wasn’t in a coma in the mid-90s?

In case you were, I’m going to now review Newt’s resume with you:

-          Co-Authored the Contract with America

-          Lead the passage of Welfare Reform, which cut entitlement spending significantly and ended lifetime welfare recipients.

-          Cut the capital gains tax, a move that many economists state as one of the primary causes of the 90s boom (yep, Clinton fans, it wasn’t the tax increases).

-          Balanced the Federal Budget four years in a row.

-          Although not passed, fought for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would require a 3/5 majority of both houses to spend a cent beyond what the government receives in taxes; and a Constitutional Amendment to require a 3/5 majority of both houses to raise taxes.

So, to review, Newt lead the way on Welfare Reform, balanced budgets, cut taxes, and fought to make sure tax rates were not raised without a super-majority of Congress and requiring balanced budgets as a matter of Constitutional law.  Yep, those are sure liberal policies.  Not like the conservative pillar that is Mitt Romney.  (If you’re picking up my sarcasm, it’s because I’m laying it on pretty thick.)

Now maybe you’ve bought the line that “Only Mitt Romney can beat Obama” or “Independents won’t vote for a conservative.”  Please, do us all a favor.  Please take your dominant hand, palm open and facing toward the back of your head.  Is that in place?  OK, good.  Now thrust your palm forward really hard.  Now that you’ve smacked yourself upside the head for me, please listen to me:  Mitt can beat Obama.  So can Newt.  So can Michelle Bachmann.  So can Rick Perry.  So can Rick Santorum. So can Foghorn Leghorn.  Obama is a miserable failure of a President.  He is going to lose in 2012. 

As far as the line that “Independents run from conservatives”:  Right, because Bob Dole and John McCain won right?  Oh and George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan lost, right?  Oh wait…

To those of you who keep telling me that “Newt’s not a REAL conservative,” all I have to say is “You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.”  I get it.  He’s not your perfect candidate and therefore you’ve got your boxers in a bunch because you’re a big Ron Paul fan or you’ve bought the line that only Mittens can beat Obama.  Newt’s not a RINO.  Newt’s definitely not a liberal.  He’s a dyed in the wool conservative. 
If you want someone else, fight for your candidate.  But please, listen to me:  STOP SAYING ONLY YOUR CANDIDATE CAN WIN!  Oh, and while we’re at it STOP SAYING EVERYONE BUT YOUR CANDIDATE IS A RINO OR A LIBERAL!  Especially if that candidate is Willard "Mitt(ens)" Romney.  (Looking right at you, Ann Coulter.)

What Mitt Romney Should Have Wagered

This past Saturday at the ABC Your Money, Your Vote debate, Mitt Romney made the mistake of wagering Rick Perry $10,000 to prove that his book's first print did not say that New Hampshire's individual mandate should be instituted in all 50 states.  (I'll bet you didn't remember what the offered bet was about, did you?)  Just for fun, I threw this question out on Twitter and Facebook.  Here's what we came up with:

- "If I'm wrong, I'll go by "Glove Romney" for the rest of the race."

- "I'll bet you a case of Spray Tan."

- "If I'm wrong, I'll wear a Bugs Bunny tie to the next debate."

- "Loser wears a Nixon Mask in the next debate."

- "If I'm wrong, you can call me Mittens for the rest of the race."

- "If I'm wrong, I will sing "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" as my opening statement at the next debate."

- "I'll bet you three days and two nights in Palmyra, NY." (Might want to google that one.)

- "I'll bet you a box of winter handwear...the sort without fingers."

- "If I am wrong I will legally change my name to Newt Romney."

- "I'll bet you this coupon I hold in my hand for a free classic sundae at Dairy Queen."

- "I'll bet you 1,000,000 pennies."

- "I'll bet you a pack of Trident Layers, your choice of flavor."

- I'll bet you one of those baseball aparatuses that catchers wear on their hand to catch the ball.

- "I'll bet you three pairs of Mormon Magic Underwear." (Might want to google that one.)

- "I'll bet you five hours of free debate coaching."

- "I'll bet you my case of Wonka Bars."

A Dose of Reality on Obama's Payroll Tax Holiday

Barack Obama wants credit for "cutting taxes."  He wants to call continuing the ten year old Bush tax rates a "tax cut" (since, as we all know, liberals believe that the proper tax rates are whatever rates the last Democrat set).  He also proposed and passed a piddling little 2% Payroll Tax Holiday.  The average American family (family of 4, median income of $54,338) by the way, saw a whopping cut of $22 per person per month.  So in other words, the whole family can go out once a week for a $5 footlong at Subway. 

The Democrats want to extend this holiday and, here's the problem, pay for it with a "Millionaire's Surtax."  Senate Republicans thankfully blocked this job-killing provision. These "evil" millionaires Obama wants to tax includes the majority of people who own businesses and create jobs.  Now giving every family $22 extra per person really isn't going to create jobs.  Raising taxes on job creators, however, is likely going to cost jobs.  Despite what the Left and their favorite budgeting technique, static budgeting, will predict, these job creators will not just bend over, grab the ankles and take it, these millionaires will not spend their money the same way.  They will instead adjust their businesses to ensure that their profits aren't harmed, by either raising prices, cutting production, and/or cutting employees.

As if that wasn't a good enough reason to oppose this plan, there is a moral issue as well.  Do you know what the Payroll Tax does?  It is the mechanism for paying for Social Security.  You pay into Social Security now and when you retire you receive your benefits.  Now the Obama Administration wants to tax the wealthy to pay for a Payroll Tax Holiday. Translation:  Millionaires are now forced to pay for YOUR retirement. That's right folks, Liberals now believe you are owed a Social Security check paid for by those who have dared to succeed!

The entire concept is reprehensible, friends. Absolutely nobody owes you a retirement. Social Security exists to be a self-financed retirement plan (self-financed by YOU for YOU) and now Obama wants one of the few self-sustaining parts of government to become a new taxpayer funded entitlement where government robs from the rich and gives to the poor.

What is Obama's reason?  He claims it will create jobs.  I've said this before and I'll say it again: Payroll tax holidays aren't going to create jobs.  Only set tax rates will, and that would need to be cuts to the taxes that go to the general fund, not through cutting the funding mechanism of Social Security.  Now not only does Obama want to extend this joke of a tax cut, he now wants to harm job creation in the process!  It's foolhardy.

Obama will blame the Republicans for blocking this bill, as he already has, and the Media will carry the water for Obama, but friends, this is a tremendous lie.  Obama wants credit for cutting taxes to "create jobs" but he wants to pay for it by taking venture capital out of the pockets of job creators.  It makes about as much sense as stealing all the food from one family's cupboard to feed another, then claiming you're solving the hunger problem.

Reactions to the ABC Your Money, Your Vote Debate

Saturday night, the Republican candidates met in Iowa for yet another debate.  The group was smaller, thanks to Herman Cain ending his campaign a week ago and Jon Huntsman stayed home, eliminating the vast majority of my built in bathroom breaks in the debate.  ABC hosted the debate, and did pretty much exactly what I expected.  Diane Sawyer asked a lot of liberally premised questions which was bothersome (she also has the personality of wet plywood) and Mr. Snuffleupagus…ERRR…George Stephanapolus…wasn’t too bad. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite post-debate analysis game: Buy, Hold, Sell, or Sell All.

Michelle Bachmann – Sell (Sell):

Again, Congresswoman Bachmann had some great moments.  She had a great exchange with Governor Rick Perry on the subject of Pakistan.  Her debate performances keep going up…but her poll numbers don’t.  I think Congresswoman Bachmann might be a good Vice Presidential nominee, I also think if, as expected, Speaker of the House John Boehner faces a Tea Party primary challenge, and if he loses, Bachmann would make a fine Speaker of the House.  But right now I do not see her rebounding.

Congresswoman Bachmann really explained the problem with continuing the Payroll Tax holiday…the payroll tax pays for Social Security and cutting that tax is the equivalent of cutting 1/3 of your personal food budget while still needing to spend the same amount on food.  Social Security is self-sustaining through the Payroll Tax, but now the Obama solution is to use money from the general fund to pay Social Security, which means you pay for someone else’s retirement…that is Socialism.

Bachmann would make a great Vice Presidential nominee.  Like Sarah Palin, she’s an excellent attack dog.  That’s what you want in the #2 spot, especially if the nominee isn’t Newt Gingrich, who would be his own attack dog (his perfect VP would be someone like Herman Cain).  I just don’t see her rebounding, but I’ve been wrong twice before in this race so don’t trust my predictions in this race!

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Buy):  Gingrich again showed that he is, in my opinion, the single most knowledgeable candidate on pretty much every issue in these debates.  He understands reality and understands how to solve problems.  (Yes, I’m becoming a Newt man, if you didn’t pick that up.)  He understands that developing our domestic energy supplies, namely oil, will solve a whole lot of problems in our national security by removing our dependence on many foreign nations for those supplies.  And yes, Newt is right, if we are serious, we can change the face of the oil market by drilling for our own oil in a serious manner. 

Newt did a good job, although I do think he was hurt by CNN spreading out the questions evenly because, by other debates have given the frontrunner more questions, and that frontrunner, friends, is Newt Gingrich. 

Newt did a pretty good job of explaining his support of an individual mandate in the Hillarycare battle and explained that it was an attempt to deal with the real problem of people failing to pay for themselves when they could afford to…he also admitted flat out that he was wrong. You see, I don’t expect people to never make a mistake in their political past.  (I’ve been convinced to change my mind on certain issues too…I’ve done so in this year that I’ve been writing this blog through debates I’ve had with others.)  The reality is sometimes you consider a pragmatic solution that you decide after it’s failed to be implemented (or succeeded) you change your mind.  Newt has done this on other issues too, like sitting on the famous couch with Nancy Pelosi.  He was also very candid and, I felt, genuinely contrite of his marital failures and spoke of going to God for forgiveness.  This is why I feel his past sins are not a problem, because I believe he has genuinely repented.

Aside from that, Newt was straight forward and honest.  He reminded me of Ronald Reagan saying “there you go again.”  I would like to see Newt have more of a grandfatherly tone than a professorial tone…in other words, I’d prefer that he’d say “there you go again” instead of blinking with a tone that says “are you stupid?” but I do know that Newt would trounce Obama in a debate, and that, I believe, will do wonders to take away Obama’s pretty words.

I am becoming confident that Newt is going to be the Republican nominee, and that frankly excites me, because he can effectively communicate conservatism, and real conservatism wins every time it’s effectively communicated.  I also think the digging for skeletons in the closet with Newt is going to fail, because his skeletons are in his front yard, and they’ve been there so long that people have stopped noticing them.

Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):

Well, a pig flew by tonight because I agreed with Huntsman on one statement: We do need term limits for Congress.  Then he proceeded to drive me so crazy through the debate that I felt I couldn’t just make a fun joke about Governor Huntsman.  I’ve seen pieces of wet one-ply toilet paper with more tensile strength than John Huntsman’s spine.  He’s a wimp, and we’ve already got a wimp in the White House.

Huntsman’s absence left me without opportunities to use the bathroom or get myself a beverage.  Of course, it did mean there was more real debate happening. 

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

When Paul talked about our spending problems, I stood up and cheered.  Yes, I agree that our spending problem is one of our biggest national security issues.  That being said, in a few places, Paul also showed a whole lot of the reasons why I can’t support him…on the subject of National Security, Congressman Paul sleeps with his Happy Imagination Hat on.  I, on the other hand, live in the Real World.  Honestly, I do not believe that we can just play the isolationist game in this modern world…we just can’t.  I’m sorry, but that’s the reality.  To paraphrase a favorite television show, there’s a time and a place for everything, including idealism and it’s called college.  It’s not called the White House.

Overall, however, Paul focused on the 85% of issues I agree with, and stayed away from a lot of the issues where I do agree with Cain, starting with really dealing with our real problem, which again is not revenue, it’s spending.  Congressman Paul really fascinates me, because he has a condo up the street from me in the Real World that he lives in 11 months a year, but then decides to take out his Happy Imagination Hat and live at his time share in Happy Imagination Land when it comes to foreign policy.  I just don’t get it.  How can one man be so realistic when it comes to the economy and so unrealistic when it comes to foreign policy?

Ron Paul danced around with his Happy Imagination Hat on again, talking about his unrealistic non-interventionist policies as if they were practically possible in the modern world.  Those policies only barely worked in the early 19^th Century and they absolutely don’t work now.  Look, the reasons that the Islamic Fascists (note: does not include all Muslims) hate us does not have to do with bases in any location or interventionist policies.  They hate us because they believe their god commanded them to kill all infidels, which is defined as all non-Muslims, in an effort to spread their religion.  (As a Christian, I understand proselytizing, I was commanded by Christ as all Christians were to go into the world and preach the Gospel and make disciples…but we do it through love and through service, not through killing unbelievers.) This debate showed why Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee.  He is out of line with the vast majority of the Republican Party, with the conservative base, and yes, with the Tea Party…on the subject of defense at least. 

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):                                                                                                 

Perry maintained his gains from the last debate.  He’s begun to pick up a few points in the polls.  I really like his plans, I like his Flat Tax, I like his Balanced Budget Amendment, I especially like the idea of making Congress part-time.  That being said, I don’t really think he’s going to rebound THIS ELECTION.  I do think you could see Perry be a very strong candidate in eight years as a second time Presidential candidate.  So many candidates are better the second time around.  Look at Mitt Romney.  Also, look at Ronald Reagan.  I’m not writing Perry off yet, because his numbers are climbing, but I don’t know if there’s enough time to climb back to the top.

I also want to give a quick reality check to Governor Perry:  Just because you were able to work with Democrats in Texas, doesn’t mean you can work together in the same manner with Democrats in the United States Congress.  The man Governor Perry served under as Lieutenant Governor of Texas, former President George W. Bush had the same expectation and it didn’t pan out…and that’s because a Democrat in Texas is often more conservative by a fair margin than a Republican in say, Connecticut or New York.

I think Perry did well tonight, just based on debate performance.  I think he stood strong and did pretty well.                       

I loved Perry’s statement that his marriage vow was not just a vow to his wife but a vow to God.  Perry was on the attack, and honestly I wasn’t a fan of it in many cases.  I think Governor Perry is throwing haymakers.  He’s been kind of the Rocky Balboa of this race, in that he’s taken a terrific beating largely by blocking punches with his face and won’t go down.  He’s losing on points by a whole lot, and he’ll lose the decision if he lasts to the end of the final round.  But, like Rocky, there’s the possibility he’ll last that big knockout blow in the final round and win in a knockout, which is why I continue to hold Perry’s stock. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  I love Perry on paper.  I just don’t think he’s ready, yet.  Remember how many Presidents ran previously and did not win the first time:  from Thomas Jefferson (1796) to more modern examples like Richard Nixon (1960), Ronald Reagan (1976), and George H.W. Bush (1980) all ran for President before they were ultimately elected.  I think Rick Perry might be one of these.  I’d look for Governor Perry to be a much stronger candidate in the election of 2020. 

One final note on Perry:  He made Romney look like a fool with his response to Mitt’s “I’ll bet you $10,000” remark by simply smiling and stating “I don’t gamble.”

Mitt Romney – Hold (Buy):

 “What you have is a President who has a priority of spending us into bankruptcy, but he’s not just spending us into bankruptcy, he’s spending the money foolishly.”  Amen, Mitt, amen.  Once again, foreign policy is a good place for Mitt.  I genuinely would trust him to keep ups safe if he became President, just like I trusted George W. Bush to keep us safe.  That’s the big reason why I could live with Mitt as President.  I still want better, though.

Mitt is what he is…not a RINO, but a Rockefeller Republican.  He’d be better than Obama and I will get behind Mittens, yep, that’s his real name (no it’s really not…it’s Willard), if he does win the nomination.  I’m glad he’s not on track to put me in that position.  He got roughed up by Gingrich…he was lost when he was asked to name where he differed from Speaker Gingrich…his first response was opposition to a plan I bet none of us had heard of regarding mining resources on the Moon.  (If anyone was actually aware of that proposal before it was brought up in the debate, I will let you guest post on Biblical Conservatism on a topic of your choosing within reason.)  I’d also like to note that he looks orange.  Like Benjamin Grimm orange. 

I did enjoy Mitt’s response to the “Newt Romney” line from Michelle Bachmann with his parody of Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and more importantly he’s steady.  He knows who he is and what policies he’s supporting.  What I do believe is going to hurt him still is his refusal to back down on Romneycare.  Mitt’s other big problem is the fact that it’s not 2008 anymore.  Something has changed in the Republican Party since 2008.  We conservatives have stood up and said absolutely no to the GOP trying to choose our nominee based on whose “turn” it is…so sorry, Mitt, I don’t think this nomination is going to be yours. 

Mitt also really shot himself in the foot with his “I’ll bet you $10,000.”  It sounded tremendously out of touch…not many Americans just up and wager ten grand like they were waging five dollars.  The response itself wasn’t completely foolhardy, just the wager he offered.  If he had rather said “I’ll wager you dinner after the next debate” or “I’ll make you a bet, if I’m wrong I will wear a Bugs Bunny tie on the next debate, but if you’re wrong you do the same,” he would’ve been fine.  But offering a wager that is approximately 20% of the median household income of a family of four…well, just shows that Mitt is out of touch.  It’s been said of some of the most well spoken politicians that they have a “rapier wit.”  In this gaffe, Governor Romney showed that his wit was more like a fencing foil.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

Honestly, I’m getting annoyed with Santorum.  He’s so busy showing he can play the same lame compromise game (I promise I wasn’t trying to do a Dr. Seuss impression) that has caused the problems we have in Washington.  Democrats want Republicans to compromise when the GOP is in power, and then tells us “elections have consequences, and we won” when Democrats are in power.  We do not need to compromise with Democrats.  We need to defeat them.  Santorum wants to play the same Washington insider game, and we don’t have time for that game. 

My concerns remain with Santorum.  He’s a Washington insider.  His greatest qualifications seem to be playing the Washington game, and that is not a qualification in this race.  This election is about anything but Washington Insiders. 

Debate Winner(s):  Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry

Please note:  My perceived debate winners have zero to do with chances to win the Republican Nomination.

As it sits now, the race for my personal vote looks like this:

1.       Newt Gingrich

2.       Rick Perry

3.       Michelle Bachmann

How about you?  Let me know in the comment section, on Twitter (@UpstateMetFan) or on the Biblical Conservatism Fan Page on Facebook!

It’s Merry Christmas…Get Over It

Earlier this week, I attended my company’s nondescript “Holiday Party” where we had a nondescript “Holiday Tree.”  I’m officially done with it.  I’m tired of the political correctness, and I don’t just mean the fact that I enjoy getting shocked looks when someone says someone is Indian and I respond “dots or feathers?”  Yes, I do enjoy poking the liberal politically correct machine.  I also enjoy calling homeless people “hobos” but that’s really just because “hobo” is a fun word.  All that aside, there is something I’ve got to say to the liberal politically correct machine, and please, listen carefully:  It’s Merry Christmas.  Get over it.

That’s right, Merry Christmas.  You see, it used to be that “Happy Holidays” was a short way of saying “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”  Now it’s become this way to not dare to offend someone.  It used to be that you said Merry Christmas to basically everybody, and then if you had Jewish friends you wished them Happy Chanukah.  I’ve got news for you liberals:  95% of Americans celebrate Christmas, according to Gallup.  You got that?  95%...and the other 5% is not being injured in any way by being wished a Merry Christmas. 

For the last few years, I’ve been intentional to wish people Merry Christmas.  Do you know what they say?  They thank me!  They thank me for saying Merry Christmas…they’re tired of “Happy Holidays” too.  That beautifully decorated tree in your living room?  It’s a Christmas tree.  It’s an old German Christian tradition that goes back about five centuries.  Santa Claus?  That tradition comes from Saint Nicholas, a Christian saint who would leave gifts in people’s shoes quietly and without being noticed. 

Most importantly, and this cannot be minimized: Christmas is about Jesus.  Christmas is the day we celebrate God sending His son to Earth to walk amongst us, to live the human condition for 33 years, then to go to the cross and suffer the worst execution man ever devised…for you and me…and then rise from the grave the victorious King!  Christmas is the beginning of the greatest story ever told!  Please hear me when I say this:  Jesus is the reason for the season, and I’m not ashamed to say it!  My savior was made incarnate man, and that’s why we celebrate Christmas. 

I’m tired of hearing Happy Holidays.  It’s Merry Christmas! (To my Jewish friends, Happy Chanukah!) Beyond that, this season is about Jesus!  Jesus is the reason for the season!  Now join me in saying it:  MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Dear GOP & Fellow Conservatives: Enough with the Cannibalism!

Political cannibalism, that is...and I'm looking right at you, Karl Rove (and Dana Perino, and Bret Baier, and Al D'Amato, and George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, and Brit Hume and...) STOP PLAYING THIS GAME!  Even certain people whose opinions I generally respect, like Laura Ingraham, are joining into this game.  I'm sick and tired of it.

I'm sick and tired of the Republican Establishment types like Rove who are trying to jam Mitt Romney down our throats the same way they jammed John McCain down our throats four years ago.  We don't give a darn whose "turn" it is...we want a real conservative. You will not pick our candidate this time.

I'm sick and tired of conservatives like Ingraham or "AP" over at Hot Air, who are pretending that there's such a thing as a perfect candidate...and then are arguing that Newt isn't really a conservative. What the heck is your definition of a conservative if it isn't Balanced Budgets, a Flat Tax, and Peace through Strength?  And these things are not only policies of convienence, they are longstanding policies supported by Speaker Gingrich.  He's the guy who lead to four straight balanced budgets...or did you forget about that?

I'm sick and tired of people who pile on to the Left Wing attacks on whoever is the new conservative frontrunner in the race.  First it was attacks on Michelle Bachmann for daring to say that an unborn child's right to life outranked a mother's right to pursue happiness as it pertained to abortion, regardless of how that child was conceived, then it was Rick Perry for an unfortunate piece of graffiti on a rock at a camp that the Perry family painted over and then flipped over to make sure the slur wasn't available, then it was (still) unproven claims against Herman Cain that (still) have not been substantiated with an ounce of hard evidence. Now the attack machine is going after Newt.  If your candidate is the nominee (looking at you Romney Fan) your guy will be next...just in the general election.  The Drive-By Media will not support you, no matter how wishy washy you are...they want Obama re-elected.

I have one very serious question to ask all of you:  Would you honestly rather four more years of Obama?  I personally think this country can't survive another four years of Obama, at least as founded.  This is a serious time and we need to be serious with each other.  I'm not saying don't pull for your candidate and do it with all your heart...please do!  But we all need to agree with each other that, whoever the Republican nominee ends up being, whether it be Newt or Mitt or someone else...whoever really...that we will get behind that person.

Stop throwing around the word "RINO" for everyone who doesn't perfectly agree with your perfect policies.  I have news for you:  THERE IS NO PERFECT CANDIDATE.  Period.  There is no candidate whose past is so squeaky clean that the Drive-By Media won't attack them as unfit to be President...remember truth does not matter to these people...it's all about winning and seeing Obama re-elected.  Don't believe me?  The accusations at Herman Cain STILL have not been proven...haven't even backed with a shred of credible evidence.  And by the way, according to the Media, who was Trigg Palin's mother? (It really is Sarah Palin, by the way, regardless of what heresay and inuendo is passed around, and Todd Palin is really his father.)  Your candidate will be subject to the same game (again, looking right at you, Romney Fan).

So for crying out loud, people, stop the cannibalism. Do you think your person is better?  No problem.  Back it with policies and discussion of your candidate's experience.  Let's talk about whose policies are best.  Forget about "who can beat Obama."  The answer, my friends, is absolutely anyone with an (R) next to their name.  If Foghorn Leghorn registered as a Republican then ran for President and was nominated, he'd beat Obama.  Obama is an abject failure as President.  He has done nothing of what he promised except for ramming Obamacare down our throat, a law we did not want...that was Obama's one fulfilled promise. 

We can beat him, we WILL beat him, so let's get the best, most conservative candidate available.  The three real conservatives that are left are Bachmann, Gingrich and Perry.  I have come to believe Gingrich is the one who can best effectively communicate it.  If you disagree, fine.  Let's have a debate on issues, but stop stabbing each other in the back!  Let's stop jumping on the attack bandwagon of these false accusations and other nonesense.  Let's not play the Media game, period.

Gallup: Obama in Trouble with Independents

Political elites on both sides of the aisle will tell you that a candidate in a national election needs to reach those "independents," the great unwashed middle who "makes their decisions on each issue at each election" to win.  The conventional wisdom is, of course, that 40% of Americans will automatically vote Democrat at 40% will automatically vote Republican, so the election tips on that 20%. 

I've never bought this, or the so-called moderate/independent self definition of wisdom beyond compare to decide their positions issue by issue, in the least. Most of these people somehow find a way to land with one leg on either side of the fence on every single issue then call themselves wise beyond compare.  The truth is they are a) not willing to take time to consider issues b) want to be perceived as smart and c) are persuaded not by substance but by style.  But I digress.

Gallup, recently, brought out some more very bad news for President Obama, in a new poll breakdown released on November 29th. According to the poll, of the 14% who self identify as "pure independents" (that is, neither lean Democrat or Republican), only 30% approve of the job President Obama is doing.  This is compared to 43% that the President is receiving across all party lines.   Once we add in those who lean slightly to the Democrat or Republican side, the President's approval rises only to 35%.  Again, that's not good for Obama (but great for America).

I've been saying this for quite some time, my friends, Obama is in trouble. He's going to be defeated in 2012.  I can hear you who buy into the whole moderate/independent baloney now telling me that we must nominate Mitt Romney or...gaaaaa...Jon Huntsman...to get those independents.  Look, it does not matter. These proud independents/moderates are convinced not by ideas but by personalities.  That's the reason they voted for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.  They will be convinced by a conservative with great ideas just as easily as they bought into Hopey Change.

The President is headed for a big defeat in the 2012 Election.  So let's make sure he loses to a real conservative.  This is our time, friends.  Let's go!

Understanding Newt Gingrich’s 21st Century Contract with America (Pt 5)

Last week, we spent most of our time here at Biblical Conservatism dissecting Newt Gingrich’s 21^st Century Contract with America.  Today, we conclude this series with Part 5:

Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and emphasizing research spending toward urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, mental health and other conditions that knowledge of the brain will help solve.

I have to admit this isn’t in my wheelhouse as an issue.  I can tell you that I’ve heard of many issues where potential miracle drugs are being held up for political reasons, like Avastin, which was held up because it was “too expensive.”  Excuse me?  We can’t treat some people with miracle drugs because everyone can’t afford it?  Are you kidding me?

A key first step is to transform the Food and Drug Administration to allow these breakthroughs to proceed rapidly.

Americans deserve a fair and competent regulatory regime that emphasizes both consumer safety and ensures that life-saving breakthrough products get from our labs to our pharmacies and homes as efficiently as possible.

                                                               

Unfortunately, the current FDA falls well short of this expectation, and its stagnant,

bureaucratic and byzantine regulatory guidelines are scaring off new investment and driving innovators overseas. This is bad news for American jobs and competitiveness, and downright awful news for anyone who wants to ensure that life-saving medicines and devices can get to patients as quickly as possible.

I agree.  Do we need the FDA?  Yes, we do, but like most government bureaucracies, it’s inefficient and expensive.  Reform to fast track more important medicines rather than put them at the back of the line because a new yogurt that supposedly aids in digestion arrived first is silly.

Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.

In the last half-century, a political and activist judiciary has stepped far beyond its proper boundaries.

Click here to hear my response.  Seriously though, Newt hits the nail on the head.  Left Wing activist judges have spent the past few decades warping the Constitution to say whatever they want it to say because they can’t pass their laws through state legislatures and Congress.  So they make up laws and create precedents in the courts.

Article I of the Constitution covers the legislative branch, because the Founding Fathers thought it would be closest to the people and therefore the strongest branch.

Article II concerns the Executive Branch because the Founding Fathers had lived through an eight-year war with the British Empire and knew there were times when there would have to be a strong executive and a competent Commander-in-Chief implementing the law and defending the nation.

The Judicial Branch did not come until Article III because the Founders wanted it to be the weakest of the three branches. The Federalist Papers explicitly recognized that the Judicial Branch would be weaker than the Legislative and Executive Branches. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote reassuringly that the Judicial Branch would lose any confrontation with the two elected branches:

“The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”

The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had dealt with tyrannical and dictatorial British judges. In fact, reforming the judiciary was second only to “no taxation without representation” in the American colonists’ complaints about the British Empire prior to the revolution. A number of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence relate to judges dictatorial and illegal behavior.

Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary began to act on the premise of “judicial supremacy,” where courts not only review laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new law from the bench. The result is that courts have become more politicized, intervening in areas of American life never before imaginable.

I look forward to having a national conversation about a bill that will establish a constitutional framework for reigning in lawless judges, reestablishing a Constitutional balance among the three branches, and bringing the Courts back under the Constitution.

This discussion has to happen.  We do need to reign in judges.  Whether it be through ending lifetime appointments or through making it possible to remove judges for moving beyond their Constitutional authority (and, quite possibly, overturning said decisions because of that justice’s removal) we need to reign in this problem.  Judges at any level were not designed to make laws…our elected officials do that job.  It’s time for us to hold these activist judges accountable.

Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and  responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home.

The 10^th Amendment to the Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  There is a reason for this provision: Local governments are infinitely more accountable that state governments and state governments are infinitely more accountable than the Federal government because it becomes increasingly more difficult to directly redress grievances to larger governments that handle larger territories.

I’ve said before that I can visit my local government if needed on my lunch hour, visit my state government in a half a day, but to redress an issue in Washington requires planning.  It’s also reasonable to expect that I can speak to someone who is capable of helping me in my local town office or even county office just walking in.  State and Federal it becomes harder.  Finally, our fifty states are very different entities.  I mean, do you honestly believe the problems of California are the same as the problems of Virginia?  Do you think maybe Minnesota and Texas have different issues?  This is why our nation was set up with a Federalist system. I believe one of the primary reasons our country is in such massive debt is our Federal government is trying to do far more than it should, like healthcare, welfare, etc. Local governments are more efficient because they handle smaller areas.  It’s time to get back to our true Federalist roots.

Final Conclusions

In short, I love this plan. From the repeal of Obamacare to the Flat Tax to the Balanced Budget Amendment to Drill Baby Drill to privatizing Social Security to returning the Judicial Branch to its proper Constitutional authority (below the Legislative and Executive Branches) as an interpreter and not as a second legislative branch to respecting the 10^th Amendment, it’s like somebody sat down and created the perfect plan for conservatives. Soup to nuts it is just about the most conservative plan being proposed (along with Rick Perry’s Cut, Cap and Balance Plan) and unlike Perry’s plan, Gingrich has the ability to effectively communicate it. While I haven’t 100% made up my mind yet as to who I intend to vote for in my state’s primary, I’m leaning toward Gingrich so far that it’s becoming difficult to keep my balance.  It’s a tremendous plan, and I believe the 21^st Century Contract with America can do as much to restore this nation as any plan being proposed.

Reactions to Herman Cain’s Withdrawal

Saturday, Herman Cain officially announced that he was ending his campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, amid many alleged scandals.  Some in Republicans and conservatives are glad to see him out (the former group consists mainly of establishment types who want to cram Mitt Romney down our throats and the latter consists of people who are backing some other candidate).  Cain’s withdrawal was not unexpected to anyone paying attention, ever since he rose to the top of the Republican polls he’s been under attack.  The Leftwing attack machine, supported by their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media, has had their sights on Cain and they’ve finally succeeded. 

I’m on the record as saying that I believe Cain when he denies these allegations.  For starters, the way these accusations kept coming out one at a time as the previous didn’t work.  They were all unprovable, with the best available accuser being a woman had a history of claiming sexual harassment every time she didn’t get her way at work.  I believe Cain because I’ve looked in his eyes.  I can’t explain it any further, save for saying that as a Christian, I’ve learned how to discern the spirit of a man.  I believe Cain.  He has admitted to giving money to this woman who is now accusing him.  As a Pentecostal Christian, I can tell you I’ve seen that before.  It’s called caring for the needy amongst you. 

Cain is gone now.  The Media hit job has worked.  They’ve gotten Cain out of the way.  I for one do not believe this was entirely a consequence of the Media attacks.  Cain lost a lot of conservative support from people like myself who were inclined to support him because of his poor performances recently on foreign policy.  Whenever Cain got off the subject of 9-9-9, it seemed to hurt his support.  My concern now is that this may hurt the chances of Mr. Cain to serve in a cabinet post or, in the role I believe he is wonderfully suited for, the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee.  Regardless of his political future, however, I believe Mr. Cain is destined to be a player in the political arena for a long time to come.  If he does not seek some sort of elected office he will be a major power broker in the Tea Party and the larger conservative wing of the Republican Party, similar to Sarah Palin. 

Now to those of you who back other candidates and therefore jumped on the bandwagon in attacking Mr. Cain, I have a message.  I absolutely guarantee that your candidate will be next if he becomes the nominee.  If it’s Mitt Romney, don’t be assuaged by his squeaky-clean background, because truth does not matter to the Left Wing attack machine.  If it’s not “Mormonism is weird,” they will invent something.  Trust me.  If Rick Perry rebounds to the top of the race, it’ll be more of the same baloney about daring to purchase a name that had a racist name on a rock long before the Perry family bought it and that the Perry family painted over and turned to hide said slur.  If Michelle Bachmann were to rise back up, it’ll be more attempts to paint her as a fire-breathing dragon.  If pigs fly and Hell freezes over and Ron Paul becomes the nominee, his foreign policy alone will see him torn down by the Right and the Left will go after him as the single most uncaring person in the world for his reasonable desire to spend only the money we receive in taxes. 

The same type of attacks have already begun on Newt Gingrich, whether it’s rehashing the same false story about Newt supposedly divorcing his ex-wife on her deathbed back in the 80s (by the way, the same woman is still alive today, so the deathbed claim is already patently false) or misrepresenting his role with Freddie Mac, the attack machine is already started on Gingrich.  I think Newt will deal with these claims in a completely different manner.  To quote Herb Brooks, he’s not going to defend against the Drive-By Media, he is going to attack them.  Quite frankly I think it’s going to be fun to watch. 

 I wish Mr. Cain the best in his future endeavors.  As his brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, I pray for Herman Cain, and for Gloria Cain.  I close with this, and I know I will take heat from some for it:  I believe Mr. Cain when he says the accusations are false.  If one is innocent, there is nothing more you can do but proclaim your innocence.  The same gut that told me Bill Clinton was lying in the 90s tells me that Cain is telling the truth.  I close with this:  if you piled on to Cain because you support someone else, your candidate will be next if he or she rises to the top of the heap.  I guarantee it.

Understanding Newt Gingrich's 21st Century Contract w/ America (pt 4)

For the past few days, we’ve been exploring the plans enclosed in Newt Gingrich’s 21^st Century Contract with America here at Biblical Conservatism. Today we’re going to dive into it further.

Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.

The United States must control its border. It is a national security imperative.

Every nation has the right to control its border. Historically, every country that has been determined to control their border has been able to do so. Controlling the border is a matter of resources and will.

As Americans, we can accomplish unimaginable feats when we have the resources and the will. The United States won World War II in 3 years and 8 months. In the 44 months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States mobilized its resources to defeat Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan.

Unfortunately, we haven’t brought any sense of urgency to controlling our border – even as a drug-fueled civil war now rages in Mexico.

It’s not hard, friends.  We need to keep those who don’t belong in our country.  We have a right to do so, just as much as I have the right to lock the doors of my house when I’m not home (or if I am home if I desire). If you are not here legally as a citizen, a guest worker, with a visa or whatever, you should not be in America.  Period.

This bill will waive every obstacle to controlling the border and would shift resources to achieve virtually 100% control by January 1, 2014. If necessary, we would move one-half of the 23,000 Washington-area Department of Homeland Security bureaucrats to the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona borders.

Gingrich is absolutely right. If we set our collective mind to it we can absolutely secure the border.  It’s not hard.  Let’s start with employing some of the same security measures that are in place in so many private institutions.  We need to apply those solutions.  Use our military and yes, for Heaven’s sake, build a fence.

At the same time we are controlling the border we should make it easier for honest people to visit America honestly.

Our current visa system is inefficient, expensive, and inhospitable and drives people away from visiting the United States. Americans and visitors deserve a system that works.

Americans will benefit from a fairer, more secure, more efficient system, which will ensure that foreign visitors, students, workers and job-creators alike provide as many positive benefits as possible to our economy and society.

It’s been said that we’re a nation of immigrants.  To one degree or another, my ancestors were immigrants.  Some came to America before the United States became an independent nation.  Others came in the 20^th Century through Ellis Island.  Either way, they were LEGAL immigrants.  We’re a nation of LEGAL immigrants. I agree that once we have a secure border, we need to then modernize our immigration system to make LEGAL immigration easier.

Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or to limit American freedom.

The current leadership of the United States is severely out of touch with the escalating dangers that threaten our security. If the people’s security cannot be assured, the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless, which is why the first responsibility of government is to defend the nation. In the preamble to the Constitution, providing “for the common defense” is identified as a primary reason for forming the new government. As American presidents have traditionally found, our nation’s peace and safety is best maintained through a robust military capacity, tireless vigilance, and a clear strategy for identifying and countering potential threats—a policy widely known as “peace through strength.” Adherents of such a policy do not seek confrontation. To the contrary, America leads the world in spending on the military and on national security precisely to ensure that our wars are as rare and as swift as possible.

This world is in danger of becoming dramatically more dangerous in the not-too-distant future, and we need to overhaul our entire strategy now if we intend to continue being the safest, freest and most prosperous country in the world. It is very dangerous for Washington to consider dismantling key parts of our national security structure during a time of war. When we convey weakness and confusion, we become most vulnerable to attack. As Ronald Reagan warned in 1980, “We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong; it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted.”

So many people want to put their Happy Imagination Hats on with this subject and talk about giving Miranda Rights to enemy combatants, etc, but unfortunately that won’t work in reality.  We can’t be nice enough to Islamic Facists (note: this group encompasses only a portion of Muslims) so that they won’t hate us.  They didn’t attack us on 9/11 because we had a base in the Middle East.  They attacked us because we’re not Islamic Facists too.  Period.  They believe the Qur’an tells them to kill Infidels if they don’t convert at gunpoint.  We cannot compromise, we can only defeat.  And we must.  Barack Obama is, in a word, a pansy, when it comes to security.  He’s let the ACLU run the CIA, and that is not helping our cause. The fact is we have not had a major attack on American Soil since 9/11.  We’ve had a few domestic terrorists go nuts but let’s be honest, and no offense to any victim’s family, but the Fort Hood Shooter is not even close to being an equivalent to 9/11.  We need a President who is willing to make the tough decisions.

The next Administration and Congress must decisively address the following realities:

1.      There are very, very different challenges emerging simultaneously and each requires a fundamentally different strategic response;

The history of war in America is replete with more bloodshed than necessary because we used outdated technology.  The Civil War, for example, used tactics developed by Napoleon for fighting with muskets, and using the new rifle and Minie Ball (which by the way wasn’t a ball, it was one of the first projectiles that was actually shaped like a bullet, not a ball).  We’re still trying to fight the War on Terrorism like it is a war with another nation, and ignoring new tactics and weapons.

2.      The bureaucracies of national and homeland security, intelligence, diplomacy and space activities are all decaying in their effective implementation capability and are wrapped up in red tape and inefficiency;

Like I said above, Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA.  We do need to get out of the way of our protective agencies and remove bureaucracy to make these programs leaner and more efficient.  You don’t do this by getting rid of field agents…you do it by getting rid of bureaucrats!

3.      Our military infrastructure has become dangerously outdated, with our arsenal and equipment in urgent need of new investment

People tell us how our infrastructure is outdated (like we need new bridges if the old bridge still works fine) but never take issue with the fact that the 35 year old F-16 Aircraft is still in use with basically the same technology as before, and the F-14 was only retired five years ago.

4.      There are new emerging technologies endangering us – for example, electromagnetic pulse weapons, cyberwar, and lawfare, which we are not prepared to deal with;

Being nice enough to new threats doesn’t work.  We have to change with the times or we are in trouble.

5.      American leaders are tired after seven decades of being the world’s preeminent power, and are very resistant to putting in the time and energy it will take to understand the emerging threats and the necessary responses.

Yes, it is hard work being the big kid on the block because there’s always someone dying to knock you off.  But it’s good to be the one who always can defeat those attacks.  We are the safest nation in the world, and it’s not because we apologize and grovel.

Next week we’ll conclude our series with the last two points.