tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731267175829746672024-03-14T02:13:53.639-05:00Conservative ThoughtsBy Trey Mays |
Defending Conservatism from Leftist AttacksAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-5400391854824563002012-10-25T14:17:00.003-05:002012-10-25T14:17:52.135-05:00Obama's "New Economic Patriotism" Equals the Failed Keynesian Economic Thought<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-38484321779797055322012-10-23T12:08:00.003-05:002012-10-23T13:33:30.408-05:00Who Is More Presidential On Foreign Policy Issues?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-8902987472693691842012-10-18T15:14:00.005-05:002012-10-18T16:24:01.173-05:00American Leadership and Peace through Strength and Clarity<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-84742672621413327652012-10-17T11:33:00.003-05:002012-10-17T14:32:41.221-05:00The President Is A Chronic Pathological Liar<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-17999502093874935262012-10-16T16:06:00.001-05:002012-10-16T16:06:38.662-05:00Taking Responsibility for the Failures at Benghazi<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-12871516715347510622012-10-15T16:24:00.001-05:002012-10-15T16:24:35.753-05:00A Vice Presidential Debate of Personalities<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-13232982018728053112012-10-11T15:58:00.001-05:002012-10-11T15:58:34.997-05:00Big Bird, PBS, and Big Spending Keynesians<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-37382797552006329982012-10-11T13:45:00.001-05:002012-10-11T13:45:46.139-05:00What Paul Ryan Needs to Do<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 21<sup>st</sup> century’s
Jack Kemp.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-82551608227384179442012-10-09T14:00:00.000-05:002012-10-09T14:27:18.862-05:00America Needs to Replace the Current Tax Code, Not Reform It<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-80476241248991340222012-10-08T15:21:00.000-05:002012-10-08T15:21:30.327-05:00Big and Astonishing News Happened Over the Weekend<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-61547470607004606952012-10-04T11:01:00.001-05:002012-10-04T11:01:31.483-05:00And the Winner Is...<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-55602089239562169502012-10-03T10:56:00.000-05:002012-10-03T10:56:02.750-05:00What Mitt Romney Needs to Do<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-90765000307804396552012-10-02T10:20:00.000-05:002012-10-02T10:20:03.420-05:00The Environmentalist Light Bulb Stupidity<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HEoBZLolous/UGsFwMSlURI/AAAAAAAAAFk/Vk3vPGHMbm0/s1600/Broken+Fluorescent+Light+Bulb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HEoBZLolous/UGsFwMSlURI/AAAAAAAAAFk/Vk3vPGHMbm0/s320/Broken+Fluorescent+Light+Bulb.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">A Burned Out Fluorescent Light Bulb that Exploded and Broke</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-48501186538667733702012-10-01T14:43:00.000-05:002012-10-01T14:43:37.806-05:00Why Mitt Romney is Losing to the Worst President<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-46238003275100010492012-09-28T09:54:00.001-05:002012-09-28T09:54:14.377-05:00Common Sense Ideas to Create Jobs and Shrink Government<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-41932275526746374062012-09-27T11:43:00.000-05:002012-09-27T11:43:31.734-05:00The Libya Debacle and the Growing Chaos in the Middle East<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Did the Anti-Islam
Film Cause a Spontaneous Uproar?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Forced to Acknowledge
the Attacks as Pre-Planned by Terrorists<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Slow to Acknowledge
Terrorism in the Middle East<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-14550503320326456862012-09-27T09:42:00.005-05:002012-09-27T09:42:58.586-05:00Chaos in the Middle East and the Broader Struggle for Liberty<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-41378399063234331142012-09-26T16:50:00.000-05:002012-09-26T16:50:12.091-05:00Never Forgetting 9/11... 365 Days a Year<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-75688313141523562472012-08-28T15:21:00.000-05:002012-08-28T15:25:44.765-05:00Are 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-70294274107971814452012-08-11T07:50:00.001-05:002012-08-11T10:55:10.036-05:00Breaking News: Mitt Romney Taps Paul Ryan<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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 <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Choosing <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Establishment calls <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a> a policy wonk and too
wonkish. The Tea Party likes him because
<a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a> is bold and seeks real solutions to America’s real problems.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Mr. Ryan is an excellent choice for Vice President.</a> He is a capable, articulate, and a great
communicator. Mr. Romney needs to let
Mr. Ryan be <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a>. He needs to not
try to micromanage Mr. Ryan the way the McCain Campaign tried to do with
Governor Sarah Palin.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Endorsing <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan for Vice President</a><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, this choice of <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Representative Paul Ryan</a> 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 <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan</a> for Vice
President to defeat Barack Obama. I will
be casting my vote for <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/action/fundraise/support-paul-ryan-vice-president" target="_blank">Paul Ryan for Vice President</a>, even if that means voting
for Mitt Romney for President.<o:p></o:p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-77199815445593530092012-08-07T17:10:00.004-05:002012-08-07T17:10:25.826-05:00Romney's Tax Returns and Obama's College Records<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-36147898781401184252012-08-07T10:54:00.003-05:002012-08-07T10:54:33.836-05:00The Establishment Just Doesn't Get the Tea Party<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-31702884317097424542012-07-28T17:00:00.000-05:002012-07-28T17:00:33.110-05:00A Conservative Pro-Growth Austerity Plan<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-60713958778663522422012-07-28T16:53:00.001-05:002012-07-28T16:53:26.340-05:00The Case for Conservative Economics<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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).”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle">
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.<o:p></o:p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-873126717582974667.post-23380677681234305372012-07-28T16:45:00.003-05:002012-07-28T16:45:58.613-05:00Why the Tea Party is More than a Fad<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Tea Party is a definite wave of antipathy towards all
things big government, and more specifically, corrupt incumbency. Nearly all the Washington pundits love to
compare the Tea Party and the year of two thousand and ten to that of the
Republican Revolution of 1994. I view
this wave of antipathy a bit differently.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Is the Tea Party and two thousand and ten really just a 1994
Republican Revolution repeat? I think
not. The biggest difference between then
and now is that in 1994, the revolution was largely a conservative revolt of
conservative politicians from within government. In 1994, there was virtually no grassroots
uprising (with the exception of established political organizations), as
opposed to today, except at the polls when the American people gave the
Republicans the majority.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though both movements were instigated due to similar
concerns, the Tea Party revolt is much larger.
It is not a group of conservative politicians developing a set of principles
and policies to pledge to the American people, although there is some of that
going on. The Tea Party is largely the
people standing up to locally organize and pledge to the politicians that if
they do not support their principles and policies, then they will fire them and
elect someone who will.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Tea Party movement is similar to the 1994 revolution in
that they both are conservative revolts.
However, I believe the thing that makes the Tea Party a much larger and a
more long-term, sustainable revolution is the fact that it started not from
within government like in 1994, but from <span class="apple-style-span">little
pockets of average Americans in towns and cities all over the United States</span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another substantial difference that I see between the 1994
revolution and the Tea Party movement is organizational. The conservative politicians in 1994 did not
really organize as the Tea Party has.
For the most part, the conservatives in 1994 developed a list of
policies that they would sign and pledge to bring them to a vote if the American
people gave them a majority. The Tea
Party has taken a different route. The
people have chosen to organize themselves primarily in local communities to
push an organized grassroots pressure on Washington in support of liberty and
American Exceptionalism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The 1994 Republican Revolution was about conservative
politicians telling the American people that they were going to stand up for
principle and commit to bringing certain policies to a vote. The Tea Party movement is not about
conservative politicians making pledges, although there are politicians doing
just that. The larger idea behind the
Tea Party movement is the people telling the politicians: <span class="apple-style-span">listen to the American people and do not ignore us once
you are in Washington. Hear what we are
saying and then stand by it no matter what.
</span>The Tea Party takes the first line of the Constitution
very seriously: “We the People.”<o:p></o:p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11674695377656102234noreply@blogger.com0