Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Milton Friedman

He was a Nobel-prize winning economist for a reason, and I think it would be valuable and instructive for Americans to revisit his warnings on big government, freedom, class warfare, etc. These are truly critical things to understand in order to make our government work for us.

On Freedom:


Socialism vs. capitalism:

On Alinsky:

Why soaking the rich won't work:

Nothing is free:

Middle class warfare:

Poverty and equality:

The Wefare Establishment:

Tuesday, November 29, 2011


Amidst all the turmoil the world over from various manmade and natural causes, and with the renewal of the holiday season, I think it is a good time to talk about feeling peace. I'm not talking about world peace or lack of conflict. Rather, the ability to feel peace within one's heart in the middle of chaos. "The peace that comes alone from Thee," as as is commonly written and sung.

Martin Luther wrote the hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," describing this feeling which God gives His faithful followers. "A mighty fortress is our God, A tower of strength ne'er failing. A helper mighty is our God, O'er ills of life prevailing. He overcometh all. He saveth from the Fall. His might and pow'r are great. He all things did create. And he shall reign forevermore."

Without faith in God, this feeling is lost, a mystery. Those of you who believe in God and have felt His love and power will know what I'm talking about. Those of you who haven't won't unless or until you give faith a try. I know for myself that the things of the spirit are just as real as the physical body, even if they're not manifested in the same (physical) ways. The spiritual ways are taught in the scriptures. First, you must want to believe, and pray and obey the commandments as if you did believe, then God can manifest His love and power to you, and you will know. I have great peace and reassurance through Christ that He is in control of my life, guiding and blessing my life, and that with His help, I can face any challenges. Even if things don't turn out the way I'd like or if truly horrible things happen, I can handle it with His support.

Monday, November 28, 2011

The Real Story of Thanksgiving

This story is from Rush Limbaugh's book, "See, I Told You So," which I haven't read, but I have heard him quote. This gets down to the nitty-gritties of the Pilgrims and how their colony was set up initially, and why socialism didn't work for them then, just as it wouldn't work for us now. I'll quote him: Rush tells this story on the air annually.

"The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs.

"A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community.  After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.

"And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found -- according to Bradford's detailed journal -- a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.

"Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.  They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

(These are Rush's comments interspersed) "Nobody owned anything." It was a forerunner of Occupy Wall Street. Seriously. "They just had a share in it," but nobody owned anything. "It was a commune, folks." The original pilgrim settlement was a commune. "It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California," and Occupy Wall Street, "and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way." There's no question they were organic vegetables. What else could they be? "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage," as they saw fit, and, "thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism.

"And what happened? It didn't work!" They nearly starved! "It never has worked! What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." If it were, there wouldn't be any Occupy Wall Street. There wouldn't be any romance for it.

"The experience that we had in this common course and condition,'" Bradford wrote. "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote." This was his way of saying, it didn't work, we thought we were smarter than everybody, everybody was gonna share equally, nobody was gonna have anything more than anything else, it was gonna be hunky-dory, kumbaya. Except it doesn't work. Because of half of them didn't work, maybe more. They depended on the others to do all the work. There was no incentive.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense,'" without being paid for it, "'that was thought injustice.'" They figured it out real quick. Half the community is not working -- living off the other half, that is. Resentment built. Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? that's what he was saying. So the Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the under-girding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' ... Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes, it did. Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. "So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians." This is what happened. After everybody had their own plot of land and were allowed to market it and develop it as they saw fit and got to keep what they produced, bounty, plenty resulted.

"And then they set up trading posts, stores. They exchanged goods with and sold the Indians things. Good old-fashioned commerce. They sold stuff. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. They paid off the merchant sponsors back in London with their profits, they were selling goods and services to the Indians. The success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans," what was barren was now productive, "and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'

But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering-in-socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the original Thanksgiving story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God," the pilgrims giving thanks to God, "for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony," for surviving the trip, for surviving the experience and prospering in it. "The bounty was shared with the Indians." That's the story. "They did sit down" and they did have free-range turkey and organic vegetables. There were no trans fats, "but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day," as acknowledged by George Washington in his first Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1789, which I also have here.

Media Bias and Obamacare

Foxnews has a lead article up today about the coming Medicare cuts in 2012, and how those cuts will affect doctors, and patients. I've already talked about that, here. You should read that, if you missed it. What I notice, though, is that while many conservative sites are talking about Obamacare off and on, there is an eerie, deliberate silence on the subject from the left. I am positive that they think the less that you the people of America know, the better. That should scare you. And you should learn more about it. And commit to persuading your Congressemen to repeal it. And vote for people who oppose it. America will never recover from the fiscal burden on the taxpayer if we do not. Not to mention the increased difficulty in receiving quality care.

For a bonus conservative argument against the meaningless stuff the media focuses on, check out this topic on Rush today. He really takes it to them for ignoring really important things, like a discussion on how we can improve the economy and avoid following the EU to the grave, to give time for the relatively meaningless quibblings between candidates.

And a super-extra bonus: Tea Partiers are billed for services by municipalities while OWS gets a free ticket! That's not news. But now it's getting out of hand. This is up on Breitbart, you won't find this on news media.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Back to Work!

Liberals did African-Americans a real disfavor by giving out welfare as it is currently constituted. Handouts breed dependency, thereby 'buying' the vote of the dependent groups. If you haven't noticed, Obama's policies are all about creating more dependencies; that is why nearly half of the entire population of tax payers get returns. That is why he's taken over so many industries in the form of bailouts, and the reason for the coming takeover of medicine in Obamacare. We're in big trouble if we as Americans are bought this way.

Self-reliance breeds prosperity: not handouts. Self-reliance breeds dignity: not handouts. Self-reliance breeds pride in one's self and one's business and one's country: not handouts.

Watching all these documentaries about third world countries recently has not only made me realize again how blessed we are in America, but also how ungrateful we are for those blessings. We are no longer taught to be so much as patriotic. It's a shame.

Many of the Sudanese refugees brought to America, for example, love their country so much that they do everything in their power to work hard, earn good money, and use that money to better their families' situations or that of orphans there, etc. While in this country we are free to choose how we earn and spend our time and money, I greatly admire these Sudanese for their devotion and love of country. My favorite part of this particular documentary, in fact, was when a Sudanese refugee chided some fellow refugees for getting in with the wrong crowd (the ghetto African-American crowd, unfortuneately), and forgetting who they were as Sudanese and what they should feel towards bettering their country. I sure hope that we can educate or reform welfare hand-outs to the point that we are truly seeking the best for the poor in our country and teach them what it means to be contributing, proud members of our society. 

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving!

On a day like today, we are all thankful for blessings such as family, friends, and the freedoms we enjoy. My husband and I were talking recently and came to the conclusion that people the world over largely like to be left alone, free to live their own lives as they see fit. This would be true of people in North Korea, those involved in civil wars across Africa, as well as the United States; a truism of humankind. The difference between them and us is in government. The people in North Korea don't have food to eat or medical care or adequate shelter, thanks to their oppresive government. Those in civil wars or those wishing for overthrows of oppressive regimes simply don't have the ability to survive thanks to their governments. We recently watched a terribly depressing documentaries about these subjects.

While obviously we in the United States don't suffer from the abysmal oppression and rampant human suffering in North Korea and other evil regimes across the globe, or the lesser tyrannies such as those born by people in China with government laws so meddlesome in family life, we are not what we were. We are not the champions of democracy, religious freedom, free markets and therefore prosperity of our people that we have been in the past.  Here's to a free America. Here is to keeping America free from oppression, free from preying politicians, free from a government imposing its will on its people rather than allowing freedom to make their own choices. Here's to America the way it was founded. I love our country.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Ron Paul

Ron Paul scares me. Watching the debate last night scared me more. Good debate, but the idea that someone (Ron Paul) who thinks so ill of foreign policy as to suggest we, the United States of America, the champion of democracy the world over, should stick to ourselves and 'mind our own business,' makes me quake in my boots. What of our allies? What of our foes? Does he want countries with more evil inclinations to fill the power vacuum? Would he let Iran build a nuclear weapon? It sure seems like it. Doesn't he know they would use one against us right after nuking Israel? Apparently not!

Yet another idea puts genuine trembling fear into my soul: Ron Paul not ruling out running as a third party candidate. He's got to know that by splitting the vote, he gives Obama reelection, which is about the same thing as handing Iran a nuclear weapon to use, and sealing the doom of our country's economy forever (owned by China at that point) with Obamacare. Not to mention our quick road to socialism under Obama and the general resultant dearth of prosperity. Could he care so little about the fate of an entire nation? OUR entire nation?

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Family Proclamation

The leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published the following proclamation in response to the moral degeneration in our time. This proclamation is written by the prophet, his counselors and is also signed by the quorum of the twelve apostles.The Family: A Proclamation to the World is considered part of LDS church scripture, and provides direction specifically on the gospel doctrines of the family.  This is the standard I hold myself to living, and the morals and values I look for in those holding public office.

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Friday, November 18, 2011

Speaking of crony-capitalism ...

Here is an article written by Sarah Palin in the Wall Street Journal, talking about cronyism as it exists among Congressional politicians across the board - and what we can do about it!

Specific Reforms:
1. Transparency laws in Congress
2. Freedom of Information Act on Congress
3. Making Insider trading illegal
4. Stricter rules governing lobbyists - for example no nepotism between Congress and lobbyists
5. No campaign donations while Congress is in session

And her closing paragraph:
"This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park."

She's absolutely right!


An article on Yahoo! News is entitled, "Deep Spending Cuts Pose New Threat to US Ecomony." Oh, since obviously all the excessive spending by the Obama administration and Congress have been so stimulating to the economy! Including the quote "Stimulus!" Good grief! What sort of garbage do the media think Americans will believe? Don't be deceived: the same leftist media that welcomes Chelsea Clinton into its ranks with no prior experience, passing by numerous more qualified people, gets its headlines and slants directed by the leftist politicians.  Of course politicians - including too many in the GOP- don't want to reign in excessive spending, they like being in control of lots of (your) money and taking what they can of it! The debt is spiraling up at a faster than it ever has in American history thanks to the spending of the past three years. Wasn't it $8T when Bush left? High? And now it's on track for $14T before Obama's term is up? If this article were honest, it would be called, "High Government Spending Poses Continual Threat to US Economy."

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Campaign Season

It is an exciting season, don't you think? So many candidates so fluidly moving up and down in the polls? What ever will happen next?  While I don't claim to know the answer, there are plenty of opinions out there. Ann Coulter has an awesome, hilarious article this week. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, seems to think that any of them are electable. I don't agree with that, especially given that Rush doesn't have a good track record when it comes to predicting presidential election results. For understanding the way that liberals think and operate, he's your go-to guy.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Big government versus small government

What does big government do better than small government? Interfere in our lives. Anything else? Cost us a lot of money. I've been trying to think here about what advantages there are to growing government and I can't think of many. If we're already to the point (and we are) that the size and cost of government are slowing and obstructing our economic growth, then it is too big and needs to be trimmed back.

I know there are those who would argue that such a move would hurt the poor and that charitable giving wouldn't be sufficient to care for them. I think it would. I think before we enter into a discussion on this subject, you have to realize that conservatives and many GOP politicians donate a lot of money to charitable causes. Compared to liberals and Democratic politicians, the right is enormously generous. Not widely publicized on the net is each year's annual report on charitable giving by politicians. This is because every year the leftist media wants to hide the facts about Democratic politicians who are stingy with their money when it comes to good causes. They aren't stingy with your money and plan to use even more of it in government-funded causes, but when it comes to their own, the pocketbooks are closed. Therefore, the people telling you that government needs to care for poor people are the ones who must be compelled to help, rather than choosing to help out of a love for their fellow men.

I hear rumors that Democrats want to do away with tax breaks for charitable giving. I certainly hope that isn't true. It is NOT the government's responsibility to choose which causes an individual will help, and the individual may not wish to pay higher taxes with higher overhead to the government to do it for him. Tax-free donations are and will continue to be popular, because helping other people is a good thing, and makes us feel good.
Sometimes I also wonder if this opposition towards charitable giving is a war on religious behavior. The news media certainly attacks Christianity and related causes at every available opportunity and I can't think of a single example where they rush to a Christian's defense, unless religion is entirely out of the picture. Muslims, they are feared and left by and large alone but even then, the liberals mock people who believe in God. Which is a shame. For an entity that preaches tolerance and acceptance, I do not find them tolerant or accepting.

Be that as it may, I still hope that trimming government down to size wins the day, restoring our economy and allowing better financial freedom to give where we choose to give and not where we are compelled.

Freedom and the role of government

How does one obtain freedom?  Too small a government, and anarchy is the result, a life without law. I watched a documentary recently about a doctor who participated in Doctors Without Borders. He lived in anarchic Somalia in the 90's during an enormous famine; when gangs and warlords ruled pockets of terrain with such weapons as they could obtain. They would demand any food and aid brought in by the international community to 'distribute' to the people themselves. Children under 5 had a 70% mortality at that time. Anarchy does not lend itself to personal freedom because there are too many who take advantage of the weak.

Dictatorship happens with too large a role of government, and one person or a group of people being above the laws set for the rest of society. When government is the sole entity deciding the activities within the country, there is still no personal freedom. Dictatorships control prices of commodities, access to justice, health care, jobs, sometimes even family decisions like marriage and children, etc. Think of Cuba or North Korea. Sure, they're communist countries, but one man calls the shots and takes whatever he wants and the people suffer. Not much personal freedom available in dictatorships, unless perhaps you have a moral dictator. I've not heard of one in modern times.

Where does the balance come, then? Somewhere between the two extremes is a kind of government allowing the most possible personal freedom, where laws are applied equally to each member of society and each member of society agrees to abide by the laws or suffer the consequences. A society where laws are given to aid and enhance freedoms within the society. This is best achieved  in democracy.  In a democracy, the people have the political power. They have the ability and responsibility to choose political leaders to lead the country collectively towards properity and peace. The United States of America was set up by our Founding Fathers such that a system of checks and balances would keep the government from preying on the people, and the different branches of government from taking over the others.

Our federal government today is not the same as it was then, because when the country was founded, the states had much more power than the federal government. The federal government has grown at the expense of state power and the power of the people. Note I'm not talking about rights for women and minorities here, just power in the federal government. The federal government did not charge taxes until this past century. The federal government has gained control over states by giving the states rules to keep if they want federal (taxpayer!) money, such as for Medicaid. The taxes are high enough, and the restrictions and regulations on private businesses (allowing personal prosperity) expensive enough that we are losing power as a people. We are limited financially by the policies of our government. We can still choose our leaders, but we must choose wisely.  We must choose leaders that will truly act in the best interest of the people, allowing for peace and prosperity to shine.

Throughout history, there are numerous examples of prosperous kingdoms and societies as well as the opposite.  For example, the ancient Israelites were governed first by prophets, then judges and kings. A great example of a lesser-known civilization in the ancient Americas that successfully transformed a monarchy to a democracy is found in the Book of Mormon. It is of one King Mosiah, who ruled benevolently.

Mosiah 6: 7 And king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till the earth. And he also, himself, did till the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people, that he might do according to that which his father had done is all things. And there was no contention among all his people for the space of three years.

Then, when the time came for Mosiah to give the kingdom to one of his sons, they did not want to rule. He instead, with the support of the people, instituted a form of democracy.

Mosiah 29: 11-17; 24-34; 38-39; 43
11 Therefore I will be your king the remainder of my days; nevertheless, let us appoint judges, to judge this people according to our law; and we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.
12 Now it is better than a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgements of God are always just, but the judgements of man are not always just.
13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people - I say unto you, if this could always be the case, then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.
14 And even I myself have labored with all the power and faculties which I have possessed, to teach you the commandments of God, and to establish peace throughout the land, that there should be no wars nor contentioin, nor stealing, nor plundering, nor murdering, nor any manner of iniquity;
15 And whosoever has committed iniquity, him have I punished according to the crime which he has committed, according to the law which has been given to us by our fathers.
16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.
17 For behod, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!

24 And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.
25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law - to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
28 And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law shich has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.
29 If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.
30 And I command you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I command you to do these things, and that ye have no king; that if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads.
31 For behold I say unto you , the sins of many people have been caused by the iniquities of their kings; therefore their iniquities are answered upon the heads of their kings.
32 And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.
33 And many more things did king Mosiah write unto them, unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king; and he explained it all unto them.
34 And he told them that these things ought not to be; but that the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.

38 Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.
39 Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.

43 And now it came to pass that Alma (the first chief judge) did walk in the ways of the Lord, and he did keep his commandments, and he did judge righteous judgements; and there was continual peace through the land.

I glean so much from this chapter of Mosiah, and I recommend reading it in entirety. It makes me reflect back on the discussions among the Founding Fathers while they set up our union. It makes me think about the potential for peace and prosperity, given righteous leaders. And helps me realize the blessings of liberty. I think also about what this chapter hints about entitlements or those who negate their civic responsibilities to answer for themselves. Above all, I think about the potential in this country to elect good moral leaders, if each citizen would take seriously the responsibility they have to select good leaders.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Morals versus Corruption

All this 60 Minutes hoop-la about insider trading involving Congressmen reminds me just how much needs to change in Washington. Sure, they featured 4 Republicans and only 1 Democrat despite the fact that there are actually many more Democrats than Republicans guilty of this problem. But that's not really the point, here (though it is yet another example backing up the premise of the previous post). The point is that Washington is corrupt!

Corruption implies that people think they are above and beyond the law. It implies a lack of morals. It means no good things for society.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon Church, we believe in the existence of absolute right and wrong. This belief is shared with many other religions across the country and the world. For example, we believe it is right to keep the commandments of God and follow the laws of the land in which we live. We also believe that when people at large begins to break the commandments of God and the laws of the land, arguing that they are above the law or that it doesn't pertain to them, that society begins to decay. The very forces that bind us together into a nation are imperiled when the majority of the people do not recognize good and evil for what they really are.  We see this in small-scale quite clearly with the effects of single-parent homes. A family without two parents is not equal to a family with a broken home in terms of outcome. Broken homes come as a result of one or both of the adults in the family breaking promises to each other and often commandments of God in addition. So, to prevent the break-up of our society as we know it, we need to return morals to society!

I dislike the liberal agenda that tries to paint white black and black white (bending laws for OWS, for example, or liberal politicians, or ignoring the impeachable instances of the Solyndra and other similar Democrat-donor companies 'stimulus loans,' of the DOJ sending weapons to Mexico to try and undermine the second amendment. Wrong is wrong. Breaking the law is illegal at all times. I like the Tea Party stance of throwing out every single representative (of any party) that doesn't act the way he or she should: representing and furthering the interests and freedom of his or her constituency. Not furthering his or her own gain, power, fame, etc. Not setting forth an agenda other than to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. An informed voting block is what will change this country, by selecting representatives who are committed - morally- to doing their duty. Let's hold our leadership accountable!

The Hypocritical Media, as relating to Obamacare at the Supreme Court

Nothing in this political enviroment gets me more upset than the hypocrisy and lies in liberal news media. They will, EVERY time, say that the jobs report is better than expected in some detail even though the jobs reports are always horrible and are often adjusted to that effect after the fact. They will say that Republicans are the reason bills aren't getting through the Senate (the so-called Jobs bill, most recently -really it's a tax bill), when the Senate has a Democrat majority and could pass bills without any Republicans voting at all. They will likewise paint any failures of the Super-commitee in Congress as the fault of the Republicans when the liberals on the committe have rejected proposal after proposal brought forward by the GOP and have set absolutely no proposals forward of their own. This feels like deja-vu - oh, wait; it is! This is precisely what happened leading up to the very bill giving us the Super-committee, when the threat of 'default' was upon us this summer and the Democrats refused to but a budget bill on the table but attacked every single GOP plan, most notably the Ryan plan. You'll see a repeat, just wait and see.

The media is completely hypocritical when it comes to liberals versus conservatives: they stir up cries of sexual harassment against Cain with NO details, yet ignored multiple leads and of instances involving Clinton, Weiner, Edwards, Ted Kennedy, etc. as long as they possibly could, and made excuses for them when they couldn't ignore it any longer. The media and the liberal politicians are so entirely tied together that the liberals have been entirely in control of the national news conversation for decades, until the recent bloom of more conservative, non-traditional media like the internet.

Here they are, the newsmedia and liberals in Congress, lately calling on conservative Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from judging the Obamacare trial because of his wife's work in the past? After years of proving himself more than able to separate his work from hers?

Contrast that with liberal Supreme Court judge Elena Kagan, who immediately before her Supreme Court appointment worked for President Obama as solicitor general, responsible for legally defending the positions of the administration. She cheered at the passage of Obamacare. If you haven't heard about the hypocrisy involved here, it's because you are a victim of the liberal news media. To quote an article from CNSnews,  "According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”" 

Sometimes I just can't take it anymore! That's why I write these posts. I get it out of my system and hope that my words will educate at least one other person, and then I go back to being a nice conservative Mormon mom, hoping for the possibility of raising my children under a United States government that listens to the voice of the people and works for them instead of against them. That will only happen when the majority of the American people recognize the mess we're currently in and that we're headed to worse. In short, when people understand that the media lies.

Monday, November 14, 2011


Obamacare gives me a sick feeling to my stomach. It fails in all of its objectives: it will not provide better quality care, it will not make health care more accessible, nor will it provide health insurance at less cost. The root of that is that Obamacare was crafted by lawyers, not doctors. There is no tort reform, so doctors will continue to practice defensive medicine to avoid, as much as possible, getting their butts sued off from doing the best they can. There are a few rare exceptions I've heard of where the doctor really did need his medical license suspended- and did-but for the most part doctors do the best they can and only practice defensively because that is how they avoid paying millions in lawsuits. It is truly a bad time to go into medicine.

There hidden costs to Obamacare that largely ignored but are already being implemented. This has to do with Medicare. Starting in 2012, Medicare will reimburse a hospital for a patient in one lump sum, determined by the reason for admittance, or diagnosis. Thus, the ER (emergency physicians), the floor to which the patient is admitted (hospitalists or internal medicine), any blood work (pathology), other imaging tests (radiology), and any other doctors involved in that patient's care, will have to split the money. And it is NOT much money, not enough to cover costs. Regardless of length of stay in the hospital, regardless of any other health conditions treated or considered in the patient's treatment. One sum. Hospitals are quaking in their boots, with good reason.
Doctor's salaries which are tied to hospitals are about shrink from about $150k-$200k to about $100k a year (what a pediatrian or family practice often makes at the current time), unless they work more- and most of these doctors are already working far longer hours than the average American. When you consider how much time and effort and debt a doctor has to put in to finish his training (often about 30 years old before a real job is possible), they are really getting a bum deal. Less time and ability to save for retirement, get out of medical school debt, less time for families, etc. The only winners in terms of jobs will be hospital administrators, who have the uncoveted duty to divvy up the money such that all doctors won't quit and move to another country or retire early. Which is certainly happening in Great Number. As I write.

Now let's consider how this affects the patients. Fewer doctors: bad for patients. Less money for procedures and treatments: the less the doctor will want to spend quality time with patients, preferring to treat more patients to be adequately reimbursed. As doctors continue to practice defensive medicine in the absence of tort reform, patients will continue to be paying for care they don't necessarily need. As far as the government option is concerned, I can vouch from personal experience that the quality of care available for people NOT paying for care is NOT equal to the care available to the ones who do.

Next let's look briefly at the implications for private health insurance companies. The pricey demands of Obamacare upon both insurance companies and employers using private insurance companies are ridiculous. Basically, Obamacare insists that people must be issued the same top-grade coverage including non-essential things like abortions and sex-changes, rather than allowing them to choose the kind of medical coverage that makes the most sense for them which might well be less expensive. In the case of employers, offering insurance for employees under Obamacare is so costly that many are hiring independent contractors, specifically to avoid paying for employees' health insurance. Obamacare is even costing jobs, at a time that employment in this country is struggling.

This looks like a lose-lose-lose to me. And fewer jobs in every case: fewer doctors, fewer employers hiring because of Obamacare, insurance companies going bankrupt leaving thousands more without jobs...

So why did it pass - against the will of the American people? Why did Pelosi/Reid/Obama ram this down our throats one unfortunate Christmas Eve? I believe I know the answer: government control. They know full well that the implementation of Obamacare is bad for private health insurance and doctors and patients, but that soon the government option will be the only one left. They don't care about the quality or availability of care to individuals, either, because if they really did, Obamacare would never have passed. Repeal now! Or overturn it! Or both!

As an aside: I could say the same thing about the auto bailout, Wall Street bailout, takeover of student loans, etc. We're headed towards socialism. Why wouldn't we want to copy Europe? Maybe because it's ridiculously in debt and going down the tubes and the people have far fewer economic freedoms?!

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Foreign Policy Debate and LDS Church Welfare

I found last night's CBSNews/National Journal debate wonderful: it was civil, it was informative, the candidates were asked good questions that elucidated the audience as to positions, as well as providing more information regarding situations around the world. Many of the situations worsened in the last few years by the involvement of our current administration. You should watch it if you missed it. You can find video and transcripts here.  I think the winners were Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Perry. In that order. Ron Paul doesn't even make any sense: how could the US have obliterated Bin Laden without having been in the region for the war?

One thing that Newt said, reiterating what he's said in the past, stuck out in my mind. He was talking about cutting the budget and mentioned having work training programs a prerequisite for getting government unenployment. What a terrific idea! I would love to see that sort of principle applied to every government entitlement! (Also mentioned by Perry and supported by Gingrich and Romney was the idea of Baseline Budgeting, another terrific idea for another day.)

Unlike our federal entitlement programs like food stamps, the LDS Church (sometimes called Mormon Church), has a welfare program based upon the principle of self-reliance. When a family or individual is in need of assistance for basic necessities and the extended family is unable or unwilling to help, the church is able to assess needs and step in, but on a condition: it is earned. The expectation is that the family or individual will provide some work or service in order to receive the food or budgetary assistance. LDS Employment Services are available to help the unemployed with acquiring needed skills, improving resumes and interviewing skills, etc. As a result, the people on church welfare are often not on it on a permanent basis. I have long thought that government welfare ought to be modeled on the same sort of principle: a principle of allowing the people using the program to better themselves instead of create dependency. Here's hoping for some reform along these lines with the next administration!

Saturday, November 12, 2011

The Occupy Movement

I'm sure you've already heard plenty on the subject. But what CNN and the like don't tell you is that there is a ton of crime. Rape, violence, murder (I think), drugs, besides the illegal usage of city parks. You can find information on those sorts of problems at sites like Drudge. And no, there is no hard evidence of any unlawful activity at a Tea Party rally.

What you probably have heard is what OWS is protesting: crony-capitalism, among other things. Supposing these people know the difference between real capitalism and crony-capitalism, I'm all for it- as is the Tea Party. The two movements have a lot in common with the root of dissatisfaction, despite the lawlessness of one of them, and the misunderstanding by OWS about basic economics. Additional government cannot solve these problems in a way beneficial to the American people.

Back to crony-capitalism: I didn't support a bail-out of any industry; those are evidence of crony-capitalism. When a business or industry donates large chunks of money to politicians (Democrats, usually, despite the picture the libs paint to the opposite, including Wall Street), the politicians want to keep it coming, and give them tax breaks and bail-outs, etc. Good recent examples are big banks, Solyndra, GM, etc. Crony-capitalism has been rampant under the Obama administration. This is not capitalism. These businesses should have failed and been rebuilt from the ground up, with less expensive government oversight, as it costs businesses a lot of money to comply with government regulations. Nor should these businesses be allowed to get tax breaks, hardly fair when the rest of the country is suffering from too large a tax burden for the economic times. Of course, capitalism is not Obama's goal.

Capitalism is the ability to create a product and sell it, creating in the meanwhile jobs and economic growth, often including health insurance and other benefits for the people who work for them. If there is no profit, the business has to downsize (fire people) or fold (fire a lot of people). If there was no profit in a business, there would be no business. These businesses also pay taxes, benefitting the public sector. The public sector, despite the contradictory messages they use, depends on business for its income. Whether from taxes of the business employees (individuals) or the business itself, it depends on business. This war against the private sector makes no sense because without the private sector there can be no public sector. Right now the biggest problem in the country is that the public sector is growing and imposing even more expensive regulations on businesses (think Obamacare and EPA, for starters), while the private sector is shrinking, which equals difficult economic times.

This is what Mitt Romney was talking about when he said in Iowa, "Corporations are people!" This is what Newt Gingrich refered to in the Michigan debate when he said, "Who does the OWS crowd think will pay for these parks if business don't make a profit?"  Capitalism, a true free market with less government intrusion, would solve all of our current economic problems. Just as the GOP candidates have been talking about - they know what they're talking about. Most of them have business experience and they know economics, unlike President Obama.

If President Obama really cared about the American people, the least he could do is lift the oil-drilling bans so that gas prices come down, our costs of living and doing business come down, and thus restore some economic freedom to the American people. Businesses could grow again, with fewer costs, and hire more workers, etc. But, no. He doesn't want to do that. He wants green energy only, even though the market is telling us otherwise.

I believe Obama is behind the Occupy movement, I believe he supports the unrest and discord because they provide needed distractions from how dismally he has failed us as president of the United States. Inciting class warfare? So classy, Mr. President, to divide the American people. What happened to all your Unity, Hope, and Change? Ruining the economy and ruining businesses are hurting each citizen of the United States of America in the forms of higher costs of living and fewer livelihoods. This, from the party that accuses the GOP of no compassion?

Friday, November 11, 2011

How to be well informed

This is important. I think it's very difficult to see the 'slant' in newspaper editorials unless you read both for's and against's, accounts about the same issue written by different sides. Even the satirical site The Onion is derisive towards the GOP while poking good-natured fun at Dems.

Here's what you need to do: read both liberal and conservative publications! How can you possibly know what you agree with or identify with -or oppose- in a party if you don't know both sides, and know them well?

Conservative sites:
Drudge Report
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Red State

Liberal Sites:
New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Washington Post
Too many to mention...
Most likely your local paper
Most AP and Reuters news articles

If you have more conservative sites to recommend, please do!

It Comes Down to Honesty

Once upon a time, I never paid any attention to politics. I knew my family voted Republican and that there was a reason, but I really didn't know more than that. And I didn't care to, would usually avoid discussion, and ignore it. Then I got married. My new family followed politics religiously and would get all fired up about events and politicians. I didn't understand that at the time.

Well, folks, I do now. What's the difference? I can see that the direction that the leadership in Washington is driving this country is NOT in the best interest of the people. In fact, the leadership rarely listen to their constituents. Many spend a lot of time lying to constituents and being evasive, pushing bills through before people really know what's in them, etc. Think of Obamacare! With a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Democratic President of the United States, it was rammed down our throats despite the protests of a large majority of people in America. Think of the latest Debt Ceiling Debacle: Boehner handed the Democrats almost everything they wanted while the majority of Americans, particularly the ones most knowledgeable about the matter, protested about the terrible burden that deal gave to the taxpayers. Do any of them care about any of us? I don't think so. I think they care about power, controlling the purse strings, and telling us what we want to hear so they can be reelected.

This is why I am attracted to the new breed of politician cropping up: the conservatives who do not in any way have the support of the Republican party. They are telling the people, in a blunt and honest way, the problems in Washington - and even more importantly - the kinds of things we can do to fix our problems. People like Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Joe Walsh, just to name a few.

You can recognize the threat to the 'establishment' policitians by all the smears and derisiveness directed towards them. The people that Washington leaders don't want are exactly the kind of people I'm looking for to lead this country! It's time to reign in spending, reform entitlements, reform the bureaucracy and overregulation, grow the economy, and create jobs. It's time to get the government out of the way of prosperity! The candidates are putting out some terrific ideas on the table; ideas that should be looked at carefully and not derided by the people who have put no ideas forward themselves.

Right now, we're headed towards socialism. The government, with Obama's leadership, has taken control of several large business like General Motors, student loans, a larger chunk of mortgages, health care, and they're headed for more. This costs us too much, and of course Obama wants us to turn to bigger government as the answer, creating a socialist state. Of course, since socialism is working so well in Europe, why wouldn't we adopt it here? Please. We don't want to pay for Europe's socialism failure by bailing them out! With money we don't have! Nor do we want to become like them! I know plenty of people who have been to Europe and seen the economic mess that is called socialism. The lack of personal freedom that is socialism. The death of the American dream that is socialism.

The problem is, the Republican party doesn't seem to want to reign in spending and restore properity to the American people either. Be very careful of wolves in sheeps' clothing! Trust to the people who are honest enough to educate the American people, trust the ones who are under hypocritical attacks by our current leadership. Naturally, you don't need to take my word for it. You can do some research and come to your own conclusions the same way I have.

Thursday, November 10, 2011


I have a HUGE problem with entitlements, following four years residing in South Chicago. I know what I'm talking about. Anyone who takes this up against me had better spent a lot of similar time in the ghetto.

First of all, you should know that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have spent a lot of time visiting with and caring for other members. We have a lay clergy, with each member of the congregation being issued a calling by the bishop, inspired and directed by the Holy Spirt. I spent most of my time in Chicago in a leadership position for women, called Relief Society. This meant that I had shared stewardship, along with a few other leaders, over all of the women belonging to our congregation. Some of these were 'natives' of South Chicago, you might say. Others were there as students at the University of Chicago or as spouses of students, still others resided there for jobs but hadn't grown up there.

I got to know many of the black Chicago South Siders in our congregation very well. The neighborhoods they lived in, even family problems they had were eye-opening to me. I'm not black myself, and had been raised to be 'colorblind,' so I was blindsided at the racism and threats of violence against whites in certain poor black neighborhoods in South Chicago. I, or others, would visit there to help people in their neighborhood, for crying out loud!

These same people were the ones who would soak the government for all they could get: Medicaid/Medicare, Link cards, food stamps, Section 8, etc. There was more! Getting on disability for obesity or mental health or even social problems was common. There were people who would spend $500 of $600 Social Security immediately upon drugs or a new flatscreen on the first of the month. There were people who would eagerly pay for others' groceries at the end of the year so that they would be eligible to keep their food stamps. (As an aside, the amount of money given for food stamps DOUBLED our monthly grocery/household budget for a family of four in Chicago.) There were people who rushed down to New Orleans from Chicago to get in on the handouts when Katrina struck. There are people who won't open a bank account or put any earnings in a bank account because it would lessen the money received from the government. Talk about fraud! It was everywhere! It was encouraged and taught! I knew of a lady who got on Medicare early for a mental disability (I have my doubts that it was legitimate) who promptly blew all the tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursement for the waiting period on her thieves of sons, who promptly took everything and sold everything back for cash. Yup, your tax dollars at work. Girls were expected to get pregnant and get on Medicaid and other welfare programs to get money to live on. Many teens had had multiple children, leaving their aunts or mothers or cousins to raise them if you could call it that. This society of indolence fostered by a welfare state were ungrateful: they took all handouts as a right, a due, something owed them. The older generation is ashamed of it.

By the way, do not ever tell me you 'deserve' something, I hate that attitude. What do anyone of us deserve but a swift kick in the pants? It is only through Christ that we have the opportunity to be clean before God.

But back to the welfare state: it is ugly. It is full of ingrates, crime of all kinds, and hatred. If it was set up such that people had to work for what they got in some form, I believe some human dignity would be left them. As it is, it is a crying shame. Don't tell me that raising people this way and fostering these sorts of attitudes is compassionate: it's not. Empowerment on the other hand, would be compassionate. The change would have to come through education at this point, since the older, moral generation of African Americans aren't listened to by the kind on welfare. And education there is abysmal too, basically circles of gangs and crime all over again. And the sad part is, the ones who could really help, like teachers, are the last ones that the youth would turn to for advice about how to improve their lives. So it is a hopeless cycle with people in and out of jail and always depending on the government instead of themselves. A cycle of neighbor preying on neighbor, girls with children of hosts of different men, men who won't support them because the government will, men in and and out of jail for drugs and crime, with not much chance for anything better and if someone did happen to want out he or she wouldn't know how leave.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of African Americans who value education, who know how to work, teach their children morals, etc., but the welfare crowd is not on speaking terms with them, for the most part.

About me: I'm a Mormon

I think the people of America have learned more about who Mormons really are and what they're really like of late. This is a good thing. Still, when pastors like Jeffress (Perry approving behind the scenes) make unsubstantiated claims that we're a cult, one realizes that bigotry still exists in America and we citizens can improve in our understanding of each other and civility towards each other.

Many religions have what seem to be incredible beginnings, many have their own treasured words of God, many have encountered intolerance at certain points in their histories, many believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Mormons are one of these.

About me: the conservative

Why should you follow me? Why not? Read what I write and see if it makes sense to you. See if you like it. I created this blog, recognizing the great opportunity to explain both conservatism and Mormonism in the same venue, given the times.

The older I get, the more I realize that America is changing, and it's not for the better. The debt burden is horrendous and growing. There is an absolute lack of transparency in the Obama administration, not available to George W. because of the leftist media attacks against him. The total debt was pushed in our faces every day with Bush! When was the last time you heard about Obama? When did you realize that the debt has increased trillions in less than three years of Obama!? When did you realize that with the debt ceiling raises, the national debt is growing at an unprecedented rate? When did you realize that Congress spends more than one and a half time what it takes in annually? When did you stop to think what this means for the future of this country?

Did you know that the congressional budget automatically increases 10% above the previous year's budget because of some law signed back in the 70's, regardless of money taken into the treasury? Not only that, but with spending levels higher than they've ever been, spending will continue to spiral higher and higher, giving the taxpayers of this country a truly insurmountable tax burden? I'm glad the credit rating was lowered. I hope it's lowered further to push reforms if Congress continues to refuse to get its act together. Did you know that the Super Committee rejected the $1.5T in budget cuts that INCLUDED tax increases?! That was this week, I forget what day. The potential is for Obama to raise total debt from 8T to 16T, if I remember correctly.

Yes, entitlements are a huge problem. More on that later. Yes, spending in every department is out of control: not every department needs an automatic 10% yearly increase in budget! Imagine if you ran a business and you knew you would have that kind of capital available? You'd be a lot more profitable with it than government. Too much beurocracy. Too many paper pushers. Too much money! Our money! Government can only grow at the expense of taxpayers - the idea of benefitting the economy by 'growing' the public sector or 'growing' jobs there is ludicrous: We pay for them in our taxes. At exhorbitant cost! The costs for the quote "Stimulus" jobs were in the 200k PER JOB. We paid for that. Not government. Get the idea out of your mind that big government is for your benefit. It is at your expense, raising costs in products and services, often making beneficial things less accessible. Not intentionally, I grant you, but effectually!

Welcome and the latest GOP debate

Welcome to one and all, and good evening. Just kidding.

To start out, I'll summarize my thoughts on the Republican debate in Michigan last night, that ought to give you a feel for who I am, as a conservative.

Starting from the left and moving right across the debate stage:

  1. Rick Santorum: Impressed more than I've been. I'm not sure why I don't like him more. I've not given him much thought prior but he shows prescience and conservativism, good things.

  2. Michele Bachmann: Relieved and Impressed. No cattiness last night, no nit-picking fellow candidates. Just conservatism, fairly well ariticulated.

  3. Newt Gingrich: Typical. I like the guy, I like that he goads the 'moderators,' but he sure has a lot of baggage. Still, he always takes it home to Obama and he has vast experience in both public and private sectors.

  4. Mitt Romney: Same old. In 2008 he was the most conservative candidate and I supported him whole-heartedly, not least because I thought for the first time we might get a Mormon in high public office. I'm still not convinced that he would have lost to Obama if he had been the candidate instead of that sneaky McCain. Be that as it may, he's showing steadiness this time around. But he's no longer the most conservative! So, while I like him and would support him wholeheartedly if he takes the nomination, I would love to see a more conservative candidate take it.

  5. Herman Cain: He rocks! I have serious doubts that he could force 9-9-9 through Congress, purse-powerful as they are, but I like his ideas, I like his straightforward political-incorrectness, his humor, and his optimism. I like his refusal to be cowed by the 'lynching' as it's been called. And by the way, I don't believe he has done anything inappropriate - think of Clinton, Weiner, Wu, and Edwards for crying out loud. Once again, the leftist mainstream media exhibits their bias. If they weren't biased, Clinton would have been impeached for rape, if not jailed. Instead, he's still a hero of the left: a mere lone example of the power of the media in forming opinions of the under-educated and gullible. Ann Coulter has a terrific article out this week about the subject of allegations against Herman Cain, she always checks her facts before she publishes, too, which is more than you can say for a lot of leftist media articles.

  6. Rick Perry: Not my favorite. I felt sorry for him last night, who hasn't had a brain freeze at a critical moment? Most of the time I dislike him for being bigoted against Mormons, even though he won't admit it directly. I do think he's a fantastic governor though, and would make a fine president. Staying out of future debates is a good move; his speaking skills lack so this will probably help people see his strengths.

  7. Ron Paul: I wish he weren't libertarian. If he weren't, he'd be a fantastic candidate. But as it is, his untried theories regarding foreign policy make me very, very nervous. America would be more vulnerable with him as president.

  8. Jon Huntsman: He's so moderate he thinks he blends in with the rest of the crowd onstage! Which is to say, that by trying to please everyone, he pleases no one, or no one who has his head screwed on straight. It makes me think he may be equally wishy-washy about his Mormon religion, not that I know him or of him well enough to make that call.