Thursday, October 25, 2012

Obama's "New Economic Patriotism" Equals the Failed Keynesian Economic Thought


I want to give Governor Mitt Romney credit for forcing President Barack Obama to develop his own plan for a second term, instead of focusing only on attacking Governor Romney.  However, President Obama’s “New Economic Patriotism” looks very similar to the last four years.  The President’s plan involves more government spending, more taxes, and more green energy crony capitalism.

President Obama’s plan for jobs and the economy is focused on two primary policies: more government spending and temporary government tax favors (tax credits).  The President likes to say his Administration has “invested,” or wants to “invest.”  Well, government doesn’t “invest,” private enterprise invests.  Government spends taxpayer money on pet projects and increases our debt to unsustainable and unaffordable levels.

The President wants to increase our debt $2 billion for community colleges supposedly to train 2 million new workers.  He also wants to spend money on “manufacturing innovation institutes” as a way to increase American made manufacturing products.  Free business from government shackles and they will have more of their own money to invest in the future of their own company, which will lead to the production of American-made products.  President Obama’s plan is focused primarily on creating manufacturing and green energy jobs.  Look for the President to increase spending on green energy companies like Solyndra and A123, and then watch those types of companies fail.  America cannot afford this unsustainable level of government spending and regulations, or we will see America become the next Greece.

Tax credits and spending taxpayer money on infrastructure, education, research, and technology make up President Obama’s tax and budget plan.  There is a huge difference in the way that Conservatives and Progressives view taxes.  Conservatives view taxes as your money.  Progressives view taxes as the government’s money; therefore, government has a right to tax it and take it from you.

Progressives view real tax cuts as liabilities, which is why they think tax cuts are the policy that increased the deficit in the first place.  Conservatives believe tax cuts lets you keep your money, which explains why we believe tax cuts are not a liability and that it is excessive government spending that increases the debt and deficit.  Tax cuts and tax reform is a real economic stimulus plan because it generates real economic and job growth in the private sector.

President Obama says he is for an “all of the above” energy policy.  However, the last four years shows he is focusing entirely on spending money on green energy infrastructure, and giving tax favors to failed green energy companies.  Using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate and strangle the American economy to force us to use green energy is most important aspect of Obama’s green energy strategy.  In the President’s new plan, he gives lip service to all sources of American energy, but the specifics show that he is committed to green energy government spending and regulations.

President Obama keeps saying that he ended the war in Iraq responsibly, but the war really ended by the end of the George W. Bush Administration.  Mr. Obama was just the President who was able to bring our troops home.  However, I wouldn’t say it was a responsible end to the war in Iraq considering that the Obama Administration failed to complete a status of forces agreement with Iraq, and Al-Qaeda seems to be coming back.  The Obama Administration, in its first term, has also put an end to our missile defense systems in the former Soviet states, but you wouldn’t know that fact by reading Obama’s “new economic patriotism.”

Governor Romney’s plan on the other hand will expand North American energy by opening up North American energy markets to all sources of energy, rather than stifle American energy with crippling regulations.  He will also expand free trade around the world for American goods and services to compete and win in the global marketplace.  The Romney-Ryan vision will also cut the deficit and reduce the size and scope of government, not by raising taxes, but by reducing government spending.

Governor Romney understands that tax dollars are your dollars, and he has a plan that will broaden the tax base while letting you keep more of your hard-earned money.  Governor Romney also understands that small business generates job creation in America.  Therefore, his plan will roll back the excessive and burdensome regulations that President Obama has implemented that are stifling job creation in this country.  Governor Romney will cut waste in our defense and military, while strengthening our military and our national defense systems.

America needs leaders who understand that economic freedom is the real stimulus that America needs to get our economy working again.  Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan are those leaders who understand that Keynesian economics has failed to “prime the pump” and jump-start the American economy regardless of how much money government spends and prints.  They are also the leaders that understand that a free and strong economy puts America in a position of strength to promote the principles of peace and freedom around the world.  Come this November 6, let us go to the polls and vote for real change because we cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Who Is More Presidential On Foreign Policy Issues?


In the foreign policy debates, coming across as Presidential and knowing enough about the international issues facing America to be a plausible Commander-in-Chief is the primary goal for Presidential candidates.  Presidential incumbents should win the foreign policy debate because they have so much more information on their side.  The pundits wanted Governor Mitt Romney to be specific, and to lay into President Barack Obama’s mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attacks.  President Obama did exactly what people thought he would do: attack Governor Romney and try to get him agitated.  President Obama’s strategy didn’t work.

All Governor Romney had to do was be calm, and deliver a big picture vision of an American foreign policy.  He also needed to show that he had a solid grasp of foreign issues and crises, and would be a plausible Commander-in-Chief.  Foreign policy isn’t the place to necessarily distinguish himself from an incumbent President, unless there is a clear difference without attacking the sitting Commander-in-Chief’s decisions.

President Obama needed to try to make it a clear difference where he was portrayed as Presidential, and Governor Romney is portrayed as someone who doesn’t understand foreign policy issues.  Mr. Obama wanted to be seen as the adult at the table, while Mr. Romney would be seen as an inept politician.  In my opinion, it didn’t work.  Governor Romney was the one who appeared Presidential with a real vision for American leadership.

Everyone is saying that President Obama won that final debate, with Governor Romney doing better on the economy.  Maybe I’m just knew to the political scene, but I don’t get how they could think President Obama won.  He didn’t offer any vision, or answers to the Libya debacle.  All he did was attack Governor Romney with his usual lies and pettiness.

President Obama also did not come across as Presidential.  He came across as his arrogant and childish self.  He wore the contempt he has for Governor Romney right on his sleeves for all to see.  The President got agitated at Governor Romney, while Governor Romney stayed calm.  Long-term, Governor Romney won that third and final debate.  Governor Romney will improve his lead over President Obama and go onto win on November 6.

Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans don’t always agree on every single issue.  However, we do agree that we must do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Obama and take back the White House.  We can’t just defeat President Obama though.  We have to also take back the United States Senate and retain control of the United States House of Representatives.  If we are going to move America in the right direction towards eventually restoring the principles of her founding documents, we must unite and reclaim the Senate too.

Once Republicans regain control of both houses of the Congress along with the White House, then we Conservatives and Libertarians can put the necessary grassroots heat to force the Republicans to implement our agendas.  The first 100 days of a Romney-Ryan Administration and a Republican Congress will be critical in forcing them to cut spending, cap spending, balance the budget, and get the economy growing again with real fundamental tax code replacement.  Conservatives and Libertarians should come together to develop a 100 day unity agenda with cutting, capping, balancing, and replacing as our four policy goals.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

American Leadership and Peace through Strength and Clarity


The economy throughout this entire election has been the number one issue on Americans minds that was going to decide the election.  It probably still is the number one issue.  However, the failure to secure our embassies in Libya and Egypt, and elsewhere throughout the Middle East, which caused the deaths of four Americans in Libya, has put foreign policy and national security close behind the economy as the number two issue.  Over the past four years, America has seen a drastic decline in American leadership on international issues and crises thanks to President Barack Obama’s apology doctrine that seems to put third world Marxist nations above his own country.

President Obama seems committed to diminishing America’s role and leadership in the world.  His apology doctrine was on full display back in 2009 when he gave his Cairo speech.  The fact that he is slow to fight Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, who were America’s biggest enemies during President Bush’s Administration (Russia did fool the Bush Administration too), verifiably shows where President Obama focuses his foreign policy priorities.  However, he will vehemently oppose the foreign leaders that were actually helping President Bush and America fight terrorism in their countries, as well as the larger international community.

The Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America needs to be the leader of America, not of the world.  He needs to be able to put America and her interests first.  If it is in American interests to ensure that freedom and liberty is defended in other countries, then the President is to do whatever it takes to defend freedom.  America is the only country that is big enough militarily and economically to lead the world in defense of freedom.  The best way to ensure that America is in a position to ensure the torch of liberty remains lit around the world is remain in a position of strength, and to clearly define who our friends and enemies are in this fight for freedom.  The leader of the free world should also have a policy of clarity in America’s intention to do whatever it takes to defend freedom and liberty.

America is in desperate need for a leader who will reassert American leadership at home and abroad.  We must let our friends and allies know that we stand with them.  We must do what it takes to stop our adversaries and enemies.  The United Nations is a joke.  It doesn’t promote peace and human rights.  It gives the enemies of freedom and violators of human rights seats at a human rights table.  It gives America’s enemies a voice to spew out their hatred for America and for freedom.  If Governor Mitt Romney is elected this November, he should re-think the United States’ role in the United Nations and consider withdrawing from the international body of nitwits.  The United States military should be strengthened by eliminating waste and implementing new defense systems.

Governor Romney, if elected, should restore our global competitiveness as a way to maintain our strength around the world.  The number one way to strengthen our global competitiveness is to completely replace our current tax code with either the 9-9-9 Plan or the FairTax Plan to grow the American economy and make America more attractive for businesses to move to America.  The other step to making America more competitive in the world is to expand free trade and ensure that participating nations abide by the no-barrier trade rules.  The next President also needs to implement an energy independence plan that will make the United States and North America energy independent from oil-rich countries that hate us.  These policies will allow America to outgrow our competitors and enemies, which will put America in a position of strength to promote peace and freedom.

There are urgent threats that America needs to address that being in a position of strength will help us address those threats.  America cannot allow Iran to achieve the capability of developing nuclear weapons.  Islamist-fascist leaders cannot be allowed to control the Middle East region, or any region.  We have porous borders that allow people to skirt our laws, which allow terrorists to take advantage of our system to carry out their plans to kill Americans.  We should be an open and welcoming society of those who want to come here and seek better opportunities for themselves and their families.  However, we are also an independent and sovereign nation that has laws, so we must also demand that people abide by our laws.  America also has a more urgent threat than nuclear weapons being launch at us, which are Cyber and Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks.  A Romney Administration must develop a national strategy that will shield America against Cyber and EMP attacks.  Strength and clarity is the best and only policy to ensure that peace and freedom are defended and protected at home and around the world.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The President Is A Chronic Pathological Liar


Last night’s debate was a hard debate to watch.  Let’s face it, the President is a hard person to watch speak.  On a performance basis, the President did a lot better than he did in the first debate.  He was animated, aggressive, and on the attack.  All of the establishment pundits were surprised he was as aggressive as he was in a townhall-style debate.  It’s not all that surprising when you realize all he has is to be aggressive, and to attack Governor Mitt Romney.  What made it hard to watch was the flat out lies and misrepresentations that President Barack Obama used for his talking points.  How he can lie with such a straight face, and so often, proves to me that he has a medical condition of chronic pathological lying.  He can’t help himself.

President Obama didn’t stop at lying and misrepresenting Gov. Romney’s plans for America.  In his more aggressive and spirited debate performance, President Obama still never answered the questions and offered his own plans.  He still doesn’t have an agenda for the next four years.  The President also makes promises that were never intended to be the responsibility of the federal government.  He promises to hire 100,000 more teachers, but never explains how’s going to grow the economy so that we’ll have the money to be able to hire more teachers.

Governor Romney has the harder job than President Obama in this campaign.  President Obama can make lofty promises because in his Keynesian economic philosophy he can just spend and borrow more money to pay for his promises.  Governor Romney knows economics and money.  He knows that spending and borrowing to pay for things is not sustainable.  Therefore, Governor Romney has to get into the boring policy weeds of explaining policy, and hope the people don’t fall asleep.

President Obama’s solution to fixing the economy is to “invest” in solar and wind and other alternative energy sources.  Insert failed and bankrupted companies like Solyndra and A123, and then multiple those “investments” and multiple our debt and deficits by trillions.  What President Obama refuses, or just doesn’t care, to acknowledge is that the government does not make “investments.”  It spends and borrows money, and puts America deeper and deeper into debt.

He didn’t hit anything out of the park, but Governor Romney did maintain his momentum after last night’s debate.  His best moment and argument was when he recited President Obama’s economic failings of the last four years, listing fact after fact.  Governor Romney’s weakest moments were when he didn’t really explain why his plans would work better than President Obama’s, and on foreign policy questions regarding Libya.  It’s clear Governor Romney is at his best when he talks economics.

Yes, President Obama had a better night last night because he was more spirited and more aggressive in attacking Governor Romney.  However, he was still the vague-arrogant-pathological-liar that Americans have come to know.

20/20 hindsight is everything, but Governor Romney missed some big opportunities to put President Obama on the hot seat.  He should’ve brought up President Obama’s failed energy “investments.”  He also should’ve brought up the recent Libya hearings that showed that the Obama Administration failed to provide the necessary security in Benghazi when State Department testimony revealed that they denied requests for more security.  Governor Romney should’ve also focused on asking the President why it took his Administration over two weeks to get the Libya story correct if the President wasn’t hiding anything.

If we’re talking about content and substance.  Governor Romney clearing won last night’s debate because he talked about his real plans, and had the truth and facts on his side.  However, if we’re talking about performance, then it was a tie.  Governor Romney’s performance was about as well as he did in the first debate, so he didn’t hurt his momentum.  President Obama’s greatly improved performance helped him keep Governor Romney from expanding his lead.

Governor Romney will have a chance to sharpen his foreign policy plans and talking points for the third and final debate.  His foreign policy team should be giving him daily briefings on foreign policy and national security issues, as well as work with is speech writing team to sharpen and focus his foreign policy message to be more coherent and clear.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Taking Responsibility for the Failures at Benghazi


Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the failures in Benghazi.  Why now?  For weeks, the Administration and the State Department hammered at the story that the anti-Islamic video was the cause of attacks and the murders.  When it was obvious that the attack was a pre-planned terrorist attack, they were forced to admit it.  Their new narrative then became that it was the intelligence community and the State Department’s fault.  Barack Obama is just the President and Commander-in-Chief; therefore, he’s obviously is too busy to be responsible for failures of his own Administration.  It’s someone else’s fault or failure.

Mrs. Clinton has taken the responsibility for the failures from Peru.  Even while she was in a foreign land taking the blame, the Administration still played the blame game by blaming the failures on “confusion” on what was the actual cause of the terrorist attack.  Who cares who’s to blame.  Figure out what happened and if someone was in the wrong, then punish him or her if necessary, but fix the problems so that it doesn’t happen again.  Real leaders don’t try to change the story by blaming others, they figure out what happened and make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Why didn’t Mrs. Clinton call up President Obama the morning of September 12, 2012 to brief the President of the United States of America on the situation at the US Consulate in Benghazi?  That would have cleared up any confusion.  Regardless of what caused the attack, there was an attack that killed four Americans including our Ambassador.  The President needs to immediately be briefed on the situation telling him everything the State Department knows.  President Obama should then stay in constant communication with the State Department and the military regarding the situation in Benghazi.  That big failure caused a multitude of failures by the Obama Administration in Libya.

What did President Obama do though?  He went to the United Nations and rambled on about how a dumb video caused the terrorist attack in Benghazi.  The Obama Administration doesn’t seem to have really thought through the story his Administration had decided to push.  Do they think the American people are stupid?

Now that we know that the Obama Administration did know the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack connected to an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group.  I think the attack shot a hole in the Obama Administration’s narrative that President Obama killed the leader of Al-Qaeda, Usama bin Laden, and by extension put an end to Al-Qaeda’s reign of terror.

In short, President Obama was supposedly the savior.  President Bush got us into two wars and couldn’t stop Al-Qaeda, but President Obama was able to kill Usama and stop Al-Qaeda in his first term.  Therefore, the Obama Administration decided to cover-up what they knew about Al-Qaeda in the Benghazi attack, so that they could hopefully maintain the narrative that President Obama did more to stop the 9/11 terrorist masterminds than did his predecessor.

President Obama is a very shrewd and calculating Marxist.  He will do everything in his power to be able to continue his Marxist agenda.  If there is anything that could jeopardize his mission, then I believe he will throw anyone under the bus just to achieve his Marxist agenda of destroying America’s leadership in the world.  I wonder how Mrs. Clinton feels about being President Obama latest person to be thrown under the bus.

Monday, October 15, 2012

A Vice Presidential Debate of Personalities


The Vice Presidential debate was clearly a debate between the personalities of Vice President Joe Biden, and Congressman Paul Ryan.  They both came well prepared with their campaign’s talking points, and presented their campaign arguments well.  Their talking points were substantive to a point, but their personalities overshadowed the content of the debate.  We can thank Vice President Biden for his shear arrogance and smirking for making the debate about personalities rather than ideas.

Mr. Biden was the arrogant bastard in the room.  President Bush’s 2004 debates and the 2008 debates are the only debates I’ve really watched (I was too young before 2004).  Compared to those debates, Mr. Biden was the most disrespectful of not only Mr. Ryan, but also the presidential debate process.

If you’re an ardent Obama supporter and a committed leftist, then Mr. Biden probably succeeded in energizing the Obama campaign’s base.  However, he didn’t say anything in his responses, and he continued Obama’s lies about the Romney-Ryan plans.  Mr. Biden’s shear arrogance turned independents off Mr. Obama.  In the long run, the rudeness that Mr. Biden displayed at Thursday night’s debate did the Obama campaign a disservice and might have cost Mr. Obama his re-election.

Mr. Ryan was the respected gentleman leader at the table.  I would have liked to see Mr. Ryan explain economic freedom and Conservative political philosophy better and more forcefully, but he did talk to the American people as adults in a respectful way.  Mr. Ryan did not have a knockout victory because he too didn’t say much of anything that could excite the American people to support the Romney-Ryan vision.

Paul Ryan was the winner of the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday night.  The polls that have come out afterwards seem to show a Romney-Ryan VP debate bounce.  There wasn’t much of a bounce to be a huge campaign success for Romney-Ryan, but enough of one to show that Mr. Ryan won the debate.  However, Mr. Ryan didn’t win because of anything that he said in the debate.  He won because Mr. Biden was the arrogant bastard.  The American people want to be treated like adults and be given real plans that address our nation’s real problems.  When a candidate is rude and arrogant, then the American people are going to stop listening to you and move towards your opponent.

Tomorrow is the second presidential debate.  It’s format is going to be a townhall-style format where some Americans will get to ask President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney questions directly.  Both candidates need to be able to connect with the audience and by extension the larger American audience.  Angrily attacking each other will definitely hurt their campaigns.

Based on what President Obama said in their first debate it’ll be clear that all it has is to continue to lie about the Romney-Ryan vision and hope the American people will eventually believe it to be true.  He can’t run on his failed record or he’ll most definitely lose his re-election chances.  Governor Romney needs to continue to be bold, respectful, and he needs not to let President Obama get away with lying about the Romney-Ryan vision for America.

The American people deserve presidential candidates that are bold in how they will solve America’s problems.  We don’t need politicians who will sugar coat our nation’s problems and offer up timid policies that won’t change a thing.  We are looking for serious leaders and serious problem-solvers.  The American people also want candidates and leaders to be respectful of each other even though they will disagree on policy directions.  We have seen too many politicians lie about their opponent’s positions just because they want to remain in power; therefore, Governor Romney shouldn’t allow President Obama continue to lie about the Romney-Ryan vision for America.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Big Bird, PBS, and Big Spending Keynesians


Those of us who come from the Austrian school of economic thought want to cut federal government spending and balance the budget wherever we need to cut.  We believe that there are limited Constitutional roles for the federal government that we except spending money on, but we believe in cutting and eliminating spending on programs that were never the federal government’s responsibility.  The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is one of those programs where the federal government should not be involved in.

Last night, LeVar Burton was on Bill O’Reilly’s “O’Reilly Factor” making the case that those of us who want to cut funding to PBS don’t get the broader problem, which is the education of the next generation.  Let me be very clearly, I like Mr. Burton.  I grew up watching Reading Rainbow, and reruns of Star Trek.  He seems like one of the nicest people, but he’s the one who doesn’t get it.

Let me try to put it as plainly as possible so that Mr. Burton might be able to understand the real problem.  WE’RE BROKE!  We don’t have the money to spend on programs like PBS.  We don’t even have 10 dollars to spend on PBS.  We’re borrowing money to spend money.  How is that sustainable?

All you Keynesians who say the federal funding that PBS receives are a drop in the bucket compared to our largest deficit problems.  That may be true, but every little bit that we can cut matters.  Except for big entitlement programs that are funded on autopilot, and not through the normal budgetary process, most of the federal government’s spending when looked at individually is a drop in the bucket.  However, if we look at all of the spending as a whole, then it adds up to a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Burton is correct to draw attention to educating the next generation.  My question is why isn’t he and others like him collaborating to do it themselves?  Why aren’t parents stepping up?  Why do they need the federal government to take on the responsibility of what used to be the responsibility of the parents?  The Founding Fathers formed a Constitutional Republic that would be limited to the defense and protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property foreign and domestic.  Education is not one of those responsibilities.

The best solution that improves education in America, and keeps federal government spending limited to its Constitutional responsibilities is school choice.  School choice puts education back into the hands of state and local authorities, and parents because people closest to an issue are generally best suited to address problems.  School choice also allows the federal government to focus on balancing the federal budget, eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional responsibilities, and focusing on a limited list of duties like protecting and defending America.

When we have a stagnating economy, trillion dollar deficits per year, and a 16 trillion dollar national debt that exceeds our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), there should only be two priorities of the federal government.  Our leaders should first be focused on getting America working again by replacing the current tax code, and streamlining and eliminating unnecessary burdensome business regulations.  Their other priority should be paying off our debt, balancing the federal budget, and eliminating unconstitutional programs and agencies.  When will America be the land of opportunity and freedom again?

What Paul Ryan Needs to Do


Today is the vice presidential debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden.  Considering that the Vice President isn’t the leader of the free world, this debate isn’t as important as the presidential debates.  However, they can help the candidates explain how each ticket would handle the issues if elected.  It’s a way to tie the ticket to one vision.  The GOP establishment is probably quaking in their boots about how well Mr. Ryan will do because of how opposed they were to Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan to be his running mate.

The mainstream media would probably love it for the man who would supposedly have the experience (Joe Biden) to wipe the floor with Mr. Ryan in this debate.  Now that there are polls showing that Romney-Ryan have taken the lead, tonight is Obama-Biden’s chance to jump-start their campaign.  For the Romney-Ryan campaign, this vice presidential debate is important because it will tell the American people that a Romney-Ryan Administration will continue to offer bold solutions to this nation’s real problems.

The first obvious thing Mr. Ryan has to do is look Presidential and come across as someone who would be ready to assume the duties of President if something were to happen to Mr. Romney.  If America elects a new President, will we be electing a Presidential ticket?  Of all that Mr. Ryan has to do in tonight’s debate, I think appearing that he would be ready to become President will be the hard part because this is his first national campaign and first national debate.  Don’t get me wrong, he will shine in this debate and will probably come across as more Presidential than Mr. Romney.

Mr. Ryan will also need to continue to make the election a clear choice between an opportunity vision for America and a dependent-on-the-government vision for America.  Mr. Ryan won’t have trouble making this distinction.  He has always been very good at talking directly to the American people and making the moral case for big reforms.  Paul Ryan is the 21st century’s Jack Kemp.

He needs to talk directly to the American people when he’s making the moral case for new leadership and bold reforms for America.  If he “attacks” Obama-Biden, he needs to do it forcefully and looking at Biden.  However, he needs to not come across as angry, or the content of the “attacks” won’t be heard.  Mr. Romney was able to get under Mr. Obama’s skin in their first debate, Mr. Ryan needs to do the same with Mr. Biden.  The Romney-Ryan vision for America needs to be the main topic of the debate because people already know Obama-Biden is a failure.

Make this debate be a conversation between the candidates, not about the moderator.  After the questions are asked, Mr. Ryan needs to pretend there is no moderator.  Tonight there is only himself, Mr. Biden, and the American people watching.

Above all else, Mr. Ryan needs to show he has a command of the facts in tonight’s vice presidential debate.  The establishment hates bold Conservative candidates.  Mr. Ryan needs to prove to the establishment that bold Conservative leadership wins elections.  The Vice Presidential debate should be a continuation of passionately distinguishing the Romney-Ryan vision from the Obama-Biden vision, and getting under Obama-Biden’s skin to force Mr. Biden to appear angry.

The Vice Presidential debate is Mr. Ryan’s chance to make the moral case for real reform verses more big government.  Mr. Romney distinguished the two visions in his first debate with Mr. Obama, which has set up Mr. Ryan to make the moral case for the Romney-Ryan vision of opportunity and freedom.  Mr. Ryan needs to be his bold self in this debate and the election will be decided in Romney-Ryan’s favor tonight.  My prediction is that if Paul Ryan can win this Vice Presidential Debate, Romney-Ryan will win the election come November 6.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

America Needs to Replace the Current Tax Code, Not Reform It


High taxation under the current system is a problem that stifles economic and job growth in the private sector.  However, just cutting taxes does not solve the fundamental problem.  The real problem is a 73,608-page broken tax system.  The real solution is to replace the current tax system with a completely new system that collects taxes differently, more efficiently, more fair and transparent, and is revenue neutral.  The two best tax replacement solutions that have been developed are Herman Cain’s 999 Plan, and the FairTax Plan.

Herman Cain’s 999 Plan tackles America’s fundamental tax problem: a broken tax code.  The 999 Plan eliminates all forms of taxation under the current system and replaces it with three visible flat tax rates.  A 9 percent flat corporate tax, a 9 percent flat individual tax, and a 9 percent flat retail sales tax.

The 999 Plan also eliminates the capital gains tax, the repatriated profits tax, and the payroll tax.  It will also eliminates all deductions and special interest loopholes.  The 999 Plan is accompanied with a monetary policy that strengthens the U.S. Dollar.

The FairTax Plan eliminates all forms of taxation on income and payroll at the federal level.  It also eliminates taxes on alternative minimum, self-employment, estate, corporate, personal, social security and Medicare, gift, and capital gains.  The FairTax replaces all that it eliminates with one flat retail sales tax at 23 percent on new goods and services with no exemptions to keep the special interests from tinkering with the tax code.  A FairTax system also does not tax you on the basic necessities.

America is yearning for real solutions that solve the real problems.  Herman Cain’s candidacy and 999 Plan was generating enthusiasm because Mr. Cain understood that America wanted leaders who would offer real solutions.  Regardless of what the political and media elite would have us believe, the Tea Party is successful with moving the debate towards solutions because they draw attention to the real problems that America faces.

Lower taxes with a new tax system is the real solution that America needs to generate the economic growth, productivity, and job creation that our country needs.  Reduced spending and a smaller government footprint in our lives will sustain our new economic and tax system under the 999 Plan or the FairTax.

Mitt Romney moves in the right direction with his tax plan because he lowers taxes on all Americans.  However, his plan doesn’t do away with the current tax system, he just tweaks the current system with lower tax rates.  That doesn’t address the real problem.  Barack Obama would let the Bush Tax Cuts expire if it were truly up to him, add new taxes through his new healthcare entitlement, and put government spending on autopilot at full speed.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama both would be smart to endorse either Herman Cain’s 999 Plan or the FairTax if they truly want to fix America’s real economic problems.  America’s problems aren’t a Republican or Democrat issue.  It’s an American issue.  Americans should unite around the real solutions that transfer power from Washington back to the people.  Individual economic opportunity, not collective socialism, will get America working again.  Tax replacement with the 999 Plan or the FairTax is the first step to restoring America’s prosperity.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Big and Astonishing News Happened Over the Weekend


Hugo Chavez won his re-election bid for the Venezuelan Presidency.  Is anyone surprised that Chavez won?  He is a socialist dictator that has been controlling more and more of Venezuela’s media.  Of course, he’s also going to move to control the electoral process.  Evil people in power tend not to want to give up their power.  “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a good axiom to remember when dealing with evil dictators and big government.  The real question is if we’re going to try to help countries to either choose freedom, or choose democracy, which countries do we help?

President George W. Bush’s two main countries that his Administration focused on were Afghanistan and Iraq.  Going into Iraq and Afghanistan started out to be battlegrounds in the larger war on terror.  They eventually became projects in helping Iraqi’s and Afghani’s build democracies with free and fair elections.  Our problem in those countries were that we thought they could build new free governments in a year or two, when it took us 13 years to get our Constitutional Republic under the current Constitution.

President Barack Obama chooses countries like Libya and Egypt supposedly to spread democracy for “humanitarian reasons.”  The problem President Obama has created for himself in those countries is that he has supported known Islamic fascist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, as if they’re going to spread freedom for those people.  The Muslim Brotherhood is going to be just as dictatorial as Qaddafi.  They might even be more radically Islamic than Qaddafi.

President Obama seems to be all too eager to go into other countries for “humanitarian reasons” like Egypt and Libya, but won’t help the people in Iran during the green movement or the people in Venezuela against Chavez.  However, Mubarak and Qaddafi, as evil as they were, President Bush’s Administration was able to convince them to help us fight terrorism in the Middle East.

Two of the biggest enemies of President Bush’s Administration were Venezuelan President Chavez and the Iranian President, but it’s the opposition in those two countries President Obama just so happens to seemingly ignore.  Moreover, it’s Mubarak and Qaddafi, who started helping Bush fight terrorism, that President Obama decided to oppose.  Where are President Obama’s true priorities in foreign policy?  It seems to be the exact opposite of President Bush’s policies.

America is the greatest country on earth and we are the only country with the moral integrity to hold the torch of liberty and lead the fight for liberty all around the world.  The increasingly shrinking world and the increasing number of evil leaders in some countries that have desires to destroy other nations is the cause that America must stay involved in the world.  We cannot afford to isolate ourselves.  However, we are an independent and sovereign nation.  We should still prudently base our foreign policy on our own American interests before we get directly involved in some foreign crises.  We should focus on promoting the ideas and principles of freedom, rather than specific forms of government.

International relations are a complex chess game that America is playing for the cause of freedom and liberty.  We don’t just have one enemy in the Middle East.  We have a enemy in the Asia-Pacific region known as China.  Russia threatens our Eastern European allies and us.  Iran is our primary Middle Eastern enemy that could reach all the way down Africa as well.  We also have a Communist enemy in Venezuela by the name of Hugo Chavez in the South American region.  If America isn’t careful, our enemies are going to realize that there isn’t much difference between Communism and Islamic Fascism.  The only difference is that one is secular and the other is religious.  America is the only country right now that is in the position to show strength and clarity in our resolve for peace and freedom against the forces of Secular Communism and Islamic Fascism.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

And the Winner Is...


Mitt Romney.  Where has this Mitt Romney been since the GOP Establishment forced him down the grassroots throats to become the nominee?  Mr. Romney has never been specific in talking about his policy plans.  He’s never really gone on the offense against Barack Obama’s record and class warfare attacks.  He’s never looked passionate or confident in his own policy ideas.  Mr. Romney looked like a candidate handing the election to the worst President in America’s history.  Last night the Real Mitt Romney stood up.  He was confident, passionate, and on the offense.

Except for when Mr. Romney chose Rep. Ryan to be his running mate, he and his campaign always talked in vagueness and platitudes.  He seemed to have no confidence in the substance of his plans.  I blame his establishment advisors.  Last night, Mr. Romney walked on that debate stage with a Presidential confidence in his own plans to get America working again.

Even on healthcare, which is been his biggest blunder throughout the entire campaign, he finally found an answer that he could defend without admitting that his planned failed.  I still believe he needs to come out and admit that RomneyCare failed because it was a version of government-controlled healthcare (ObamaCare is a 1000 times worse).  However, he did do a good job of answering Mr. Obama’s attacks and comparisons by putting Mr. Obama on the defensive about ObamaCare.

For the first time in this campaign Mr. Romney looked passionate about his plans and his principles.  By coming armed and well prepared with the facts about his own plans and about Mr. Obama’s class warfare attacks, he showed a passion to defend his policy ideas.

The final and third thing that Mr. Romney did that contributed to his debate victory last night: he finally went on the offense against Mr. Obama.  Mr. Romney and his campaign have always been slow to attack and critique Mr. Obama’s policies, record, and class warfare rhetoric.  They would eventually attempt to go on offense, but by the time they would, the damage by the Obama Campaign would have already set in.  My hat off to Mr. Romney for going on the offense and making Mr. Obama get agitated and flustered.

Last night was the Real Barack Obama’s oratory skills.  Everyone says he’s this great orator.  The only time he sounds good to the ears is when he is 200 percent in control of his speech reading it off a teleprompter or a piece of paper.  When Mr. Obama has to go off script for some reason, or when he is challenged in any way about statements and policies he has made, then he gets flustered and can’t communicate well.  A great communicator is someone who yes can deliver a speech well, but a great orator also has to be able to communicate well when challenged or goes off script.  Barack Obama does neither.

All Mr. Romney has to do is continue to be substantive, and to get under Mr. Obama’s skin to win this election.  I recommend changing the Romney Stump Speech to reflect last night’s debate for starters.  The Romney Campaign should also change its advertising strategy to reflect the confident, passionate, offense that Mr. Romney showed in the first debate.  No more vagueness.  The second Mr. Obama and his campaign attack Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan, the Romney-Ryan Campaign immediately needs to turn the tables around on Mr. Obama and get under his skin.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

What Mitt Romney Needs to Do


Today is the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Nearly all of the establishment pundits claim that this first debate is Mr. Romney’s last chance to change the direction of his supposedly stagnating campaign.  The mainstream media would love it be his last chance at beating Mr. Obama.  Presidential debates can be important and this year’s election debates are important.  However, I don’t believe this first debate is Mr. Romney’s last chance.

The first obvious thing Mr. Romney has to do is look Presidential and come across as a President for every American.  I know how cliché that sounds.  It’s because it has become a cliché.  That will be easy for him to do.  The hard part for Mr. Romney is for him to speak with passion for his policies.  He will also need to make it a clear choice between an opportunity vision for America and a dependent-on-the-government vision for America.

Mr. Romney has always had trouble passionately articulating his vision, and contrasting it with Mr. Obama’s vision.  Throughout this entire campaign he has always reverted to listening to his establishment advisors who tell him to play it safe.  As if that won’t hurt his chances at beating Mr. Obama.  He needs to take a hard look at the polls, which show that playing it safe has kept him behind Obama in polls.

He needs to talk directly to the American people when he’s passionately articulating his vision for America.  When he “attacks” Obama, he needs to do it forcefully and directed at Obama.  However, he needs to not come across as angry, or the content of the “attacks” won’t be heard.  He needs to figure out a way to get under Obama’s skin and put Obama on the spot.  Romney’s own vision still needs to be his main message in the debate because people already know Obama is a failure.

Mr. Romney needs to let the moderator ask the questions, but he needs to ignore the moderator when he answers the questions.  He needs to make the debate be a conversation between himself and Mr. Obama talking directly to the American people.

The establishment loves to say that Mr. Romney did a great job at the Republican debates.  He was okay.  He didn’t say anything.  Republican voters did learn a thing about his vision for America in those debates.  What he did do well in those debates was that he stayed above the fray and he let his opponents do all the “attacking.”

However, these presidential debates between party nominees are completely different because Mr. Romney won’t be debating opponents in his own party.  These debates need to be about passionately distinguishing the Romney vision from the Obama vision, and getting under Obama’s skin to force him to appear angry.  Mr. Obama does not do well when he is confronted directly.  He gets agitated.

The first debate is Mr. Romney’s chance to make this election be about the future and whose vision is best to get America working again.  Mr. Obama’s vision is about “fundamentally transforming this country” into something where more government has more control over our lives.  Mr. Romney’s vision is about turning America around and putting individuals in control of their own lives, and creating an environment where private enterprise can create jobs.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Environmentalist Light Bulb Stupidity


A few years back the environmentalist succeeded in getting Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs, and required people to replace them with mercury-filled fluorescent light bulbs.  Aside from the fact that the federal government decided to interfere in the market and pick winning and losing products, this does not necessarily sound like a bad idea.  We are going to have to use light bulbs that tend to last longer.  The federal government actually chose the better product this time, right?  On the other hand, is the fluorescent really that much better?

As I mentioned before, fluorescents are filled with mercury.  What happens when one of those fluorescent light bulbs break?  You technically have to go through all these hoops and rules before you can throw one away if one breaks.  What about a fluorescent light bulb that is burning out and it heats up so much that you start smelling the mercury, and then the bulb explodes almost setting your house on fire.  Is that really an environmentally safe light bulb?

A Burned Out Fluorescent Light Bulb that Exploded and Broke

I guess the federal government really did not choose a good product in its intervention.  Why are there still people that believe the government can know better than individual people can?  What would have happened if the free market were allowed to freely choose its products?  People would have had the freedom to choose the best product, and in some cases, people would have had the freedom to make a better and safer product.

The environmentalists and elites either just do not get it, or they do not care.  The free market is not some mechanical machine that can be controlled and regulated to operate better.  The free market is a living organism made up of individual human beings making free choices in how they buy, sell, and interact with other human beings.  The free market in one word is FREEDOM.

The environmentalist likes to label Conservatives as anti-environment.  Assuming the only true environmental solution is one where the federal government intervenes and controls individuals to meet onerous regulations.  Conservatives are not anti-environment.  We are anti-big government doing the things that are the responsibility of individuals.  We want to be free to find ways to make a better product that is also safer for human beings, as well as safer for the environment.

The problem with the government solution is that it tends to want something one way before the technology is even invented to make it.  Government is caught up in the emotions of an issue, acts too quickly, and then makes a product that either does not work or it is not as safe as they thought.  Emotional lawmaking is going to be the downfall of America if we do not elect responsible leaders that have Common Sense.

People who care for the environment should continue researching the environment.  However, they should not seek a government solution that involves government intervening in private enterprise and centrally controlling business and individuals.  They should seek to provide business and the inventor with well-documented environmental research, and then allow businesses and inventors the freedom to build the best useful product that is also safe for human beings and safe for the environment.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Why Mitt Romney is Losing to the Worst President


Is any Common Sense-thinking American really surprised at the recent presidential poll numbers showing President Obama leading, and in some cases gaining ground?  Granted most of the polls are within the margin of error and a lot can change in an election very quickly, and most of the polls are skewed in favor of Mr. Obama.  Governor Romney still doesn’t have an excuse, at least not a good one, for running behind in the polls when he’s running against the worst President in American history.  Why hasn’t Mr. Romney run away with the election by now?  Why isn’t he able to solidify his base and independents to support him?

I’ll tell you why in two words: THE ESTABLISHMENT.  Mr. Romney has always talked in generalities like “I have a plan for a stronger middle class, while Obama’s stimulus spending has failed us.”  However, he rarely takes a stand on bold solutions and explains those bold solutions.  THE ESTABLISHMENT has convinced him not to do anything that will supposedly jeopardize his chances at defeating Mr. Obama by making the election a referendum on Mr. Obama’s failed policies.  Who’s still behind in the polls?  Governor Romney.

The only problem is that doing nothing is jeopardizing his chances at defeating the worst President in American history.  America has big problems that require bold solutions and bold leadership.  When Mr. Romney picked Representative Paul Ryan to be his running mate I had a glimmer of hope that Mr. Romney was finally going to tell his establishment advisers where they can put their timid advice, and finally be the bold candidate and bold leader that America needs.  However, since then, Mr. Romney seems to have backtracked and started listening to his establishment advisers again.

The American people do need to know and understand why Mr. Obama’s failed policies and failed leadership has been the worst in American history.  However, that won’t be good enough.  The people don’t want to just vote against someone to get new leadership.  They want to be able to vote for new leadership that has a vision and the solutions that will get America working again.  That is why THE ESTABLISHMENT’s idea of doing a referendum-only strategy without offering bold solutions is dumb.

That is why a big choice strategy is the best option for Mr. Romney’s campaign.  A big choice strategy explains both Mr. Obama’s failed leadership as well as Mr. Romney’s bold leadership.  A big choice election is a referendum strategy with bold solutions and bold leadership.  Candidates for any office, particularly for the White House, should give the American people a reason to vote for them (not just against their opponent).

President Obama has to attack Governor Romney on the petty issues instead of offering his own solutions because he has a record of failed policies, and he’s on record proposing basically the same failed policies.  Governor Romney can offer his own bold solutions, and explain to the American people why those bold solutions are better than Mr. Obama’s failed policies.  The Tea Party and Conservatives are looking for a leader with a bold vision that will not only get America working again, but also restore America to her founding principles.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Common Sense Ideas to Create Jobs and Shrink Government


In his first term, President Obama has given us an unemployment rate at or near 8 percent, more debt than President Bush’s 8 years in office, and more despair.  What is his solution to his less jobs, more debt, and more government agenda?  It’s the same failed deficit spending, and more regulations so government can have more control over our lives and businesses.

Policy makers and the established elites debate what the best policy is to fix our economy and get it growing again.  Supply-siders argue that we must keep taxes low so that the private sector can create wealth and increase production, and create jobs.  They seem to be willing to ignore the problems of our high debt and deficits to keep taxes low on individuals and small businesses.  Then there are the deficit hawks who are willing to raise taxes while cutting spending to shrink the overall size of government.  The American people just want their leaders to use Common Sense to fix our nation’s problems.  Common Sense argues for low taxes, spending restraint, and more freedom for all Americans.

Why can’t we have an economic plan that maximizes production to create jobs and grow the economy, and shrink the overall size of government?  Common Sense says that with the combination of low taxes, sound money, free trade, less regulations, balanced budgets, less spending, and protection of property rights will grow the economy and save our Republic (with an ultimate goal of fundamental tax replacement).

Keeping taxes low will help individuals and businesses, particularly small businesses, keep more of their earnings so that they can save and invest more of their own money.  The supply-siders are correct that lower taxes can lead to greater wealth creation and increased production by the private sector.  I fundamentally reject the idea that having low tax rates increases our deficits.  What increases our deficits is spending in excess of our receipts (excessive spending).

The real solution that will close our deficit gap and fix our deficits is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending and shrink the size of government.  The deficit hawks are also correct to point out the dangers of having such a high deficit and national debt.  That is why Common Sense says to cut spending, unnecessary regulations, and shrink the size of government, while keeping taxes low.  The decrease in spending and regulations, and smaller government will be what pays for the lower taxes.

Common Sense argues that a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) that requires a balanced budget every year, requires a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, and limits spending to 20 percent of GDP will bring accountability and checks on the federal government.  This is the only way to force our Representatives to spend only the money that we have.  If we can’t systematically encode these Common Sense ideas into the system by law, then we have no ability to force our elected officials to do what must be done.

Common Sense also proposes that we need to expand free trade.  Free trade helps grow our economy because when American companies can buy and sell more goods and services to more people, we get more jobs and growth.  According to Kim Holmes at The Heritage Foundation, free trade has “created millions of jobs and is responsible for almost a third of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

Common Sense argues for sound money.  A good example of seeking sound money is that during the Ronald Reagan Administration, Reagan’s monetary policy was to keep inflation low and strengthen the Dollar through price stability.  Another aspect of having sound money is making the value of the US Dollar reliable, constant, and certain.  We should also go back to a Classic Gold Standard, and even advocate for an International Classic Gold Standard.

The final Common Sense idea to create jobs and shrink government is the protection of property rights.  People should be encouraged to acquire and possess their own property, and have the freedom to use their property the way they think is best and not dictated by central planners.  The government can seek justice by protecting property rights against people who encroach on others, which should also include encroachment by government itself.

Deficit hawks and supply-siders should unite around these core set of Common Sense ideas.  These Common Sense ideas focus on maximizing production to create jobs and growth by keeping taxes low and expanding free trade while also addressing the dangers of high deficits by shrinking spending, regulations, and government.  These Common Sense ideas also include accountability and justice by requiring balanced budgets and the protection of property rights against encroachments by people and government.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

The Libya Debacle and the Growing Chaos in the Middle East


On this year’s anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Islamic fascists attacked our embassies in Libya and Egypt, which eventually spread to over 20 Middle Eastern and surrounding countries.  The initial reactions by the Obama Administration are puzzling.

They first call it spontaneous and blame the assault on an anti-Islam video posted by an American.  Then they walk that reaction back and call it a pre-planned attack by a group connected to Al-Qaeda.  What’s puzzling is that it has taken the Administration somewhere between 1 to 2 weeks to admit that it was a terrorist attack and that it was pre-planned.

Did the Anti-Islam Film Cause a Spontaneous Uproar?

I’ve seen the anti-Islam film.  It was frankly disgusting and a dumb thing to do.  The person was an idiot to make it and post it.  However, there were barely any views of the film before the attacks to have caused the attacks and the murders.  Virtually all the views of the film came after the attack happened.

The fact that the Obama Administration’s first initial reactions to the terrorist attacks were to, in so many words, sympathize with the attackers and apologize to them is very revealing about Obama.  I find it odd that our President seems to sympathize with foreigners, and sometimes terrorists, better than he sympathizes with his fellow Americans.

I found it interesting that the Obama Administration called the attacks spontaneous.  Obama seemed to be trying to find an excuse for the terrorists before he had to condemn them.  What is also interesting is that Obama called the occupy movement spontaneous as well.

I have no proof that Obama equates the Islamic terrorists with the Occupiers.  However, he has seemed to sympathize with the Islamic terrorists in his initial reactions just as he has sympathized with the Occupiers.  He has also referred to both uproars as spontaneous.

Forced to Acknowledge the Attacks as Pre-Planned by Terrorists

When the argument that the anti-Islam film caused the attacks started to unravel the Obama Administration was forced to acknowledge that the attacks were pre-planned.  Obama still seemed to try to find a way to tie the anti-Islam film to the pre-planned attacks though.  However, they still maintained that the embassies were well guarded and that they didn’t know about the attacks beforehand.

This has been one of Obama’s failures as a President.  His Administration is always too quick to respond to incidents or terrorist attacks with specific initial responses, and then they always have to change their responses as new information suggests something else.  It makes me start to contemplate whether Obama is just flying by the seat of his pants as President.

Slow to Acknowledge Terrorism in the Middle East

As of this writing, FoxNews.com has just reported, “U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al-Qaeda-tied elements were involved.”  This news should cause heads to roll in Washington.  If our government knew about the attacks in advance and did nothing to secure our embassies on the anniversary of 9/11, then the incompetent people that let four Americans be murdered should be fired.

I think one reason why Obama seems to be slow to acknowledge terrorism is because he fights for “democracy” in a different way than Bush did.  Bush seemed to be more methodical in who his Administration supported to spread “democracy” in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world.
Obama seems to support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a known terrorist group, without much investigation into what type of groups they are.  If we truly believe in spreading freedom and democracy across the world, then we need to make sure we’re supporting the right groups and not just groups that when in power will basically continue the policies of the regime we’re trying to topple.

Chaos in the Middle East and the Broader Struggle for Liberty


Is anyone really surprised at the current chaos that is happening right now in the Middle East?  It started in Egypt and Libya – where the Arab Spring essentially started.  Now it has spread to Yemen and Tunisia, and to more than 20 other countries around the Middle East region.  The only true peaceful country in the Middle East is Israel.  Even when they have bombs fired into their country nearly every day, and an Obama Administration throwing them under the bus at nearly every turn.

The Middle East is “Chaostan” when the radical Islamist fascists control the Middle Eastern and Arab governments.  What is happening in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, and Yemen should cause the United States to take the necessary actions to ensure that the terrorists responsible for the attacks are brought to justice (preferably dead) and that the governments of those countries do what is necessary to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

These attacks and murders should also cause us really to take a hard look at whom we are fighting in this Global War on Terror (the war that President Obama refuses to acknowledge).  These attacks are not one-time incidents.  It’s not the first time these radical Islamist fascists have attacked Americans on American soil (at home and abroad).

The Global War on Terror isn’t just a military war that we’re fighting.  It is a much broader ideological war against the ideals of Islamist Fascism.  To fight an ideology that is so evil and destructive to all of freedom-loving civilizations we must first understand the ideology that we are fighting.  Once we understand their ideology, we can begin to do what is necessary to defend our Freedom Ideology.

Islamist Fascism is our most vocal enemy now.  We have another enemy that never died; it just went into hiding until they can make their move again.  The second enemy that we seem to ignore is Secular-Communism.

Everyone seems to think Secular-Communism died when the Soviet Union collapsed.  I don’t understand this because we still have Secular-Communist countries like North Korea, China, and Russia.  North Korea is trying to build a nuclear warhead.  China is attempting to control and strong-arm the Asian-Pacific region.  And Russia, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, seems to be trying to rebuild the Soviet Union under the name Eurasian Union.  Democratic-Socialists also control a majority of European countries, which is just a moderated version of Secular-Communism with both ideologies fully committed to a universal utopian collectivism devoid of God.

When is America going to wake up and realize that we are living in a world with evil and destructive people who are wholly committed to destroying civilizations where freedom, opportunity, and civil society flourish?  When are we going to elect leaders who won’t apologize for the freedom, opportunity, and civil society that have made America the greatest, most exceptional, and most envied country in the world?  America has a moral responsibility to use her global leadership prowess prudently and independently to spread the ideals of liberty all over the world.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Never Forgetting 9/11... 365 Days a Year


When I was 14 years old, the biggest tragedy hit American soil since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  At the time, my parents were homeschooling my brother and I, and the morning of September 11, 2001, I woke up to the news of the first plane hitting the first tower.  My mom decided we were going to still go on our morning walk, and when we returned there was the second plane hitting the second tower.  We knew America was under attack.

As I continued to watch the news, another plane flew into the Pentagon.  The terrorists had just flown a plane into the symbol of the strongest military in the world.  America was in this state of gloom and despair.  However, the terrorists couldn’t keep Americans down long.  The American spirit in defense of freedom and liberty showed her face when the first American heroes sacrificed their lives in defense of their country on United Flight 93.

It became very clear to me that those radical Islamic terrorists were declaring an official war on the greatest country in the world.  It’s okay to have a disagreement with President Bush’s policy decisions concerning the Global War on Terror and foreign policy.  However, the fact is that President Bush was one of the first to recognize that 9/11 was an act of war, and had the strong leadership capability to treat it as a war instead of as a law enforcement matter.  President Bush protected Americans from other terrorist attacks, and put in place policies and infrastructure that allowed President Obama to be able to make the call to kill Usama bin Laden.

The Global War on Terrorism isn’t a conventional war.  We’re fighting an enemy that is committed to finding ways to kill anyone who supports the spread of freedom and liberty, and an enemy willing to use innocent civilians as shields.

America is the biggest and the strongest country militarily and economically in the world.  We are the only country in the position to take a strong leadership position in this ideological fight for freedom and liberty.  However, right now we have leadership in Washington that is pushing policies that is crippling our economic and military strength at a time when no other country is strong enough to fill the void that would happen if America were to collapse.

A stronger and freer economy can and will lead to a stronger defense and military.  America needs leaders in Washington who understand that a free economy is needed to build a strong defense.  If our economy continues to weaken, we won’t be able to continue sustaining the strongest military in the world.  We will no longer be in a leadership position to defend freedom and liberty abroad.  America needs leaders who will renew American leadership if we are going to win this ideological war for the survival of freedom and liberty everywhere.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Are Republicans Using Conservatives?

The answer to that question seems to be an apparent and emphatic: YES!  I was reading the Conservative news sites that I often frequent and ran across something that is very astonishing for Republicans.  At least so I thought.  They're changing the party rules to make it harder for Conservative activists to impact Republican primaries.

This sounds something right out of the the liberal-progressive playbook.  In fact, I thought the news stories were talking about Democrats, then I read further and realized that it was Republicans changing the rules.

Do Republicans support the Tea Party, or Conservative, agenda or not?  If so, then they need to help us elect Conservative leaders who will implement it.  However, they need to stop treating us like we're stupid because if they doing anything to squelch Conservatives ability to elect our leaders, then we're just going to create our own Conservative National Committee (Conservative Party).

I began to have high hopes for Mitt Romney when he chose Paul Ryan to be his running-mate.  I thought just maybe he is the Conservative he claims to be.  I started thinking maybe his changes in positions really are as sincere as he says they are.  But if he supports these rule changes, then I don't know if I can support Romney for President.

Send a message to the RNC by contacting the Rules Committee delegates and tell them don't change the rules or they will lose their base.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Breaking News: Mitt Romney Taps Paul Ryan


Mitt Romney has spoken.  He has made his first important decision he can make before he becomes President of the United States of America.  His decision is Representative Paul Ryan.

This was truly one of Mr. Romney’s most important decisions he would make during the campaign.  Most importantly, Mr. Romney needed to choose someone he believed could step in as President if something were to happen to Romney.

However, probably even more important was whether Mr. Romney would choose someone that could convince Conservatives that they could trust Governor Mitt Romney as their nominee to defeat President Barack Obama.  Mr. Romney also needed to pick someone that would complement Mr. Romney’s strengths and not necessarily steal the spotlight from the candidate himself.

Choosing Paul Ryan

The Establishment calls Paul Ryan a policy wonk and too wonkish.  The Tea Party likes him because Paul Ryan is bold and seeks real solutions to America’s real problems.

Mr. Ryan is an excellent choice for Vice President.  He is a capable, articulate, and a great communicator.  Mr. Romney needs to let Mr. Ryan be Paul Ryan.  He needs to not try to micromanage Mr. Ryan the way the McCain Campaign tried to do with Governor Sarah Palin.

This choice helps Mr. Romney solidify his commitment to restoring America’s economy and creating real jobs.  It also is a choice that could convince Conservatives that Mr. Romney is committed to their Conservative budgetary and fiscal solutions.


When Herman Cain announced that he was running for President, I was so excited because I thought, “Finally, we have a leader that can restore America!”  I was fully committed to helping Herman Cain defeat Barack Obama.

Newt Gingrich was the best Conservative choice after Herman Cain was forced out of the race.  I believed Mr. Gingrich was the next best choice because he had the ideas and he had the leadership that led a revolution that began to restore America back in the 1990’s.

Let me be honest.  I didn’t know whether I could support Mitt Romney no matter what because he seemed like an Obama-lite.  Mr. Romney’s plans seemed to show that he had no conviction and was more committed to practical, timid policies.

However, this choice of Representative Paul Ryan has, at the very least, convinced me that just maybe Mitt Romney really does want to find real solutions to America’s real problems.  That is why today I am announcing my endorsement of Paul Ryan for Vice President to defeat Barack Obama.  I will be casting my vote for Paul Ryan for Vice President, even if that means voting for Mitt Romney for President.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Romney's Tax Returns and Obama's College Records


Although the general election doesn’t really start until after the national party conventions, it’s pretty much already started between Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama has such a terrible record as being the anti-freedom, anti-jobs, food stamp president that he can’t run on it.  He knows this and this is why he is viciously attacking Gov. Romney.

I’m not a Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination.  Gov. Romney wasn’t as Conservative as he says he was in his political career, and his current policies are timid at best.  However, no matter what you think of Gov. Romney, the attacks from Mr. Obama’s campaign have been vicious.

Mr. Obama first started with attacking Gov. Romney’s private sector record at Bain Capital.  As vicious and personal those attacks have been, they seem to have not gained much traction for Mr. Obama.  That brings us to the new string of attacks on Gov. Romney from Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama and his team have decided, in my opinion, to go even more personal by choosing to attack Gov. Romney’s tax returns.  They seem to imply that Gov. Romney is this rich, profit-making corrupt twit (that’s my version of an expletive).  How does Mr. Obama want Gov. Romney to prove he’s not corrupt?  He wants him to release his tax returns as far back as 10 years.

Gov. Romney should continue to resist and continue to talk about his plans to grow America’s economy.  Better yet, Gov. Romney needs to get bolder in his plans to grow the economy.

However, Gov. Romney could also hold a Press Conference to make a big announcement.  That big announcement could be for Gov. Romney to ask President Obama to release his college records.  If Mr. Obama will publicly release all of his college records, then Gov. Romney could release more of his tax returns.  Gov. Romney should not run away from the wealth he has built for himself and his family.  He worked hard to get where he has gotten financially.  He should praise wealth creation.

The Establishment Just Doesn't Get the Tea Party


I meant to comment on this article that I found over at FoxNews.com earlier.   In this article, Fox News’ James Rosen poses the question: “Is the Tea Party the new ‘Establishment’?”   That question assumes that it’s about who has the organization and the money to win elections.

That’s a false understanding of what both the Tea Party and the Establishment are.  The Tea Party is about principles and ideas, and electing leaders who will stand up for those principles and ideas.  The Establishment is a political machine that is concerned with one thing: how to keep and maintain their power.

Yes it is true that there have been people and organizations that have money backing the Tea Party candidates recently.  However, if you compare the Tea Party candidates’ money to the Establishment candidates’ money, the Establishment still has the edge over the Tea Party.

That gets me back to my point.  It is not about who has the money and the organization.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tea Party is making elections be about what they should have been about from the beginning: Principles and Ideas.

The antithesis of the Tea Party is all things Establishment.  The day the “Tea Party” becomes “Establishment” is the day it will cease to be the Tea Party.  What has made the Tea Party so successful is not the money behind organizations like FreedomWorks or people like the Koch Brothers, but the fact that the Tea Party is a people-based movement.  The Tea Party has a lot of people who are passionate about their principles and ideas that they have shown they can turn out the vote.

The Tea Party is not some political machine that is trying to gain power.  It is a movement of people that believe in the Founding Principles of this great country known as the United States of America.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

A Conservative Pro-Growth Austerity Plan


Conservatives have come out and endorsed a debt reform plan that will work called the Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan.  I believe we can do more.  I believe America can do more.  Let me be very clear: default would be and will be a serious problem that would make an already serious problem worse.  Nobody, including Conservatives, is advocating for going into default.

We must substantially cut federal spending.  The notion that we can continue to raise taxes (I mean, “raise revenues”) to cover our debt and deficits is outrageous.  The only way to nip our debt problems in the bud is to cut spending.  Looking at what our annual deficit is, it looks to me like we’d need to cut spending ranging from $120-130 Billion per month to cover our annual deficit (that's if our annual deficit is about $1 trillion).  The biggest spending drain on our economy is the so-called “entitlements.”  We need to either restructure or eliminate the entitlement programs.

We also need to cap federal spending.  Caps are the only true enforceable way we can put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.  We ought to cap federal spending at 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and designate 4 percent of that 20 percent towards military and defense spending while eliminating wasteful spending.  Then force the federal government to balance the budget with a Constitutional Amendment that both limits spending and requires a super-majority for raising taxes.

Now that we’ve begun to get federal spending under control, we must have sustainable economic growth through keeping taxes low.  Take the corporate tax rate to zero percent.  Corporations do not pay these taxes; individual consumers pay them through increased prices.  The corporate tax was just Congress’ way to raise individual income taxes indirectly.

Next, eliminate the capital gains tax and the tax rate on repatriated profits of foreign profits for US companies, so that the business sector can make investments and create jobs.  Then make the tax rates permanent.  Give both workers and employers a 6.2 percent payroll tax holiday for one year so that the economy can grow faster.

Eliminate all subsidies because a subsidy is just another name for a tax on consumers.  Force companies and products to compete on a level playing field in the free market.  We also need to streamline, and possibly eliminate, all unnecessary and burdensome regulations.  Get the government out of the way.

The plan that I have outlined will be hard, but it will work.  America will need leaders who will be able to make the hard decisions to keep us from becoming the next Greece.  It’s time we start self-governing ourselves and get the government out of the way.

The Case for Conservative Economics


Our policy makers and the “experts” debate what the best policy is to fix our economy and get it growing again.  Supply-siders argue that we must keep taxes low so that the private sector can create wealth and increase production, and create jobs.  They seem to be willing to ignore the problems of our high debt and deficits to keep taxes low on individuals and small businesses.  Then there are the deficit hawks who are willing to raise taxes while cutting spending to shrink the overall size of government.  Conservatives argue for both low taxes, and low government spending.

Why can’t we have an economic plan that does both – focuses on the supply-side of the economy and shrinks government?  I call this economic philosophy “Conservative Economics.”  This economic philosophy has seven core principles: low taxes, sound money, free trade, less regulations, balanced budgets, less spending, and property rights (with an ultimate goal of fundamental tax replacement).

Keeping taxes low will help individuals and businesses, particularly small businesses, keep more of their earnings so that they can save and invest more of their own money.  The supply-siders are correct that lower taxes can lead to greater wealth creation and increased production by the private sector.  I fundamentally reject the idea that having low tax rates increases our deficits.  What increases our deficits is spending in excess of our receipts; i.e. excessive spending.

The real solution that will close our deficit gap and fix our deficits is not to raise taxes, but to cut spending and shrink the size of government.  However, I believe deficit hawks are also correct to point out the dangers of having such a high deficit and national debt.  That is why Conservative Economics proposes cutting spending, cutting unnecessary regulations, and shrinking the size of government, while keeping taxes low.  I believe the decreased spending and regulations, and smaller government will be what pays for the lower taxes.

How can “We the People” force Washington to spend within its means?  We Conservatives argue that a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) that requires a balanced budget every year, requires a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, and limits spending to 20 percent of GDP will bring accountability and checks on the federal government.  If we can’t systematically encode these principles into the system by law, then we have no ability to force our elected officials to do what must be done.

Conservative Economics also proposes that we need to expand free trade.  Free trade helps grow our economy because when American companies can buy and sell more goods and services to more people, we get more jobs and growth.  According to Kim Holmes at The Heritage Foundation, free trade has “created millions of jobs and is responsible for almost a third of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

What about our money?  Conservative Economics argues for sound money.  A good example of seeking sound money is that during the Ronald Reagan Administration, Reagan’s monetary policy was to keep inflation low and strengthen the Dollar through price stability.  Another aspect of having sound money is making the value of the US Dollar reliable, constant, and certain.  Conservative Economics endorses the idea of going back to a Classic Gold Standard, and even argues for an International Classic Gold Standard.

The final economic principle of Conservative Economics is property rights.  People should be encouraged to acquire and possess their own property, and have the freedom to use their property the way they think is best and not dictated by central planners.  The government can seek justice by protecting property rights against people who encroach on others, which should also include encroachment by government itself.

Therefore, deficit hawks and supply-siders should unite around these core set of economic principles.  Conservative Economics focuses on the supply-side to create jobs and growth by keeping taxes low and expanding free trade while also addressing the dangers of high deficits by shrinking spending, regulations, and government.  Conservative Economics includes accountability and justice by requiring balanced budgets and the protection of property rights against encroachments by people and government.