And the Winner Is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Mitt Romney Needs to Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Environmentalist Light Bulb Stupidity

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

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

A Burned Out Fluorescent Light Bulb that Exploded and Broke

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

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

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

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

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

Why Mitt Romney is Losing to the Worst President

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Sense Ideas to Create Jobs and Shrink Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Libya Debacle and the Growing Chaos in the Middle East

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

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

Did the Anti-Islam Film Cause a Spontaneous Uproar?

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

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

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

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

Forced to Acknowledge the Attacks as Pre-Planned by Terrorists

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

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

Slow to Acknowledge Terrorism in the Middle East

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

I think one reason why Obama seems to be slow to acknowledge terrorism is because he fights for “democracy” in a different way than Bush did.  Bush seemed to be more methodical in who his Administration supported to spread “democracy” in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world.

Obama seems to support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a known terrorist group, without much investigation into what type of groups they are.  If we truly believe in spreading freedom and democracy across the world, then we need to make sure we’re supporting the right groups and not just groups that when in power will basically continue the policies of the regime we’re trying to topple.

Chaos in the Middle East and the Broader Struggle for Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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