Search This Blog

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Where's Obamacare and Romneycare in this election season?

Why hasn't the Obama campaign been waiving Romneycare over Romey's head as everyone believed back during the primaries? I have two thoughts on this:
a) Obama wants to save it for October, though I rather doubt this scenario because
b) Obama knows Obamacare is wildly unpopular with several taxes due to hit Jan. 1. He also knows the less he reminds Americans of this the better for him come Election Day.

I do think it will surface in the debates, whether or not either candidate wants to talk about it, and I think Obama won't talk much about it and say a bunch of nothing, while Romney will reiterate states' rights and their ability to be a testing ground for democracy, and also reiterate that he will send waivers to all 50 states on day 1, that he'd defund it, and that he'll repeal it if he has enough votes to get it through the legislature. He may point out the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare (and there are some substantial ones, not that the media will ever admit it). Given Romney's track record of getting what he wants with the MA overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, maybe he can make it happen regardless. Obama, on the other hand, refused to meet with the GOP minority leaders of Congress for the first two years, yet he (and the complicit media) still love to make hay over the lack of "compromise" from the GOP. Yeah, right.

Ahem. Back to the matter at hand. Why hasn't the press been talking Romneycare with Romney? Romney/Ryan make repealing Obamacare and its associated taxes a big part of their campaign, but the media doesn't report it. Typical. They ignore the substance and drum up gaffes and questions about the campaign to make them look bad. Those gullible enough to believe the press go along with it. Those who aren't so easy to sway check some conservative sites and realize that Romney/Ryan are rocking!

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Obama would inherit a worse economy than 2008!

If he is elected, that is. Rush Limbaugh pointed this out yesterday. I wonder who he'll blame it on this time? History would suggest he won't look in the mirror. Even Jay Leno admitted that Americans wasted 4 years waiting for Obama to do something constructive with the economy. Obama has already told us to expect more of the same plans from him if he's elected - the same plans that don't and can't bring good economic results. The  media glosses over or fails to report many economic indicators that look bad for Obama, but they're out there all the same.

If Romney is elected, then he would inherit this terrible economy, but he knows how to turn it around. His record shows that loud and clear - if you look at his whole record and not the small parts of it that the media wants you to remember by hashing them over and over again. The media keeps questioning whether Romney has a detailed plan. Yes, he does! It's Obama that doesn't. But the media doesn't ask Obama the details of his plan, all the while they refuse to report Romney's detailed plan. But it's there, on his campaign website.

Don't trust the media alone as a source of information. If you do, you'll be voting blind. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but why wait for hindsight when you can learn more now before Election Day by reading both sides?

Go Romney!

Friday, September 28, 2012

More things the press hasn't covered

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obamas - a record high for any president. We're paying for a record number of staffers for a president as part of that. The dog has his own staffer. Their movie theater has its own full-time staffer. They vacation a lot for a presidential family, at our expense.

Liberals Can't Break 200-Year Racism Habit (by Ann Coulter). Reminding us all that segregation and the Ku Klux Klan were both liberal ventures. Liberals now love to use the word "racism" as a tool, but it results in more harm to blacks.

Rocket from Syria Lands in Israel Liberals don't like to admit that Israel is constantly besieged by its neighbors. That would mean Americans might support Israel defending itself! If America were under weekly military assaults with a threat of annihilation you had better believe we would be defending ourselves.

Postal Service Prepares for Second Default in Two Months The title says it all. Congress isn't solving our problems so we'd better vote for Congressmen that will embrace some serious fiscal reforms.

Media Ignore Independent's Swing Toward Romney Even though we could never stop hearing about independents (swinging to Obama) in 2008.

Progressive Media Run with Two Fake Anti-Romney Stories This is laughable. How could anyone believe that Ryan calls Romney bad names and uses antiquated software and that Romney (who joked) believes in making airplane windows you could roll down? The media is desperate and predictable in reporting any anti-Romney sentiments. Obama? Not so much.

Two Irrefutable Signs of American Energy Dominance Not what Obama wants Americans to know. He's the one who ordered a still-existing moratorium of drilling on federal lands! He's done everything he can to make green energy competitive and it still isn't, while we all suffer higher prices for it. And he's successfully kept the complicit media from talking about it.

The Largest Tax Hikes in American History are set for Jan 1, 2013. Those of you who visit here regularly know I already talked about that with all its economic implications last week.

The Marriage Question, Romney's Polling, and Bibi's Red Sharpie This is over on Red State. More on liberal bias in reporting, made-up statistics, and (more) advice for Romney to consider with five weeks until Election Day.

Americans' Incomes Have Fallen $3,040 During the Obama 'Recovery' Self-explanatory. But missing in the news.

Obama Throws Victimhood Under the Bus?  Rush Limbaugh. Obama is running around in Ohio telling people they're not victims (in response to his erroneous take on Romney's 47% remark) after spending his entire presidency making people think they are.  War on women, racism, gay rights, Hispanics, etc.

Muslim Protests at US Embassies Continue It's just not reported by our Obama-helping media. At all.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Rush's Reminder

Rush Limbaugh is always perceptive - and not at all like what the media says of him. Yesterday he made some fantastic points about Obama that are absolutely disregarded elsewhere. The title of this section on his website is "What Has Obama Done for You?" These are serious questions to think about, with about five weeks until Election Day.
The Hispanic unemployment rate is 10.1%. The nationwide unemployment rate is 8.1%. Just what has Obama done for these 30 to 40 million Hispanics, and why do they think that Obama is their answer? Obama's economic policies are damaging everybody, and his policies don't know if you're Hispanic, black, white, green, Martian, bisexual, trisexual, quadrisexual, they don't know who you are. All they know is, his policies are destined to hurt everybody. Unemployment, again, with Hispanics, 10.1%. It's rising. It's on the way to 11%. Hispanics do not have some special exemption from the economic conditions Obama has unleashed on this nation.

All of you Hispanics thinking of voting for Obama, what's he done for you? He hasn't done anything for you. All he's done is what he's done to everybody else, and that's damage the economy and damage economic opportunity for everybody. And you Hispanics and you women and you blacks and every other group that Obama's talking to rather than America at large, none of you have an exemption from his disastrous policies. None of you have a boundary or a shield around you that will protect you from his policies affecting you. His policies affect all of us. His policies are destroying this economy, and we don't even have half of 'em in place yet.

Obamacare kicks in next year and the year after. His tax increases kick in. His spending continues. We're looking at a financial collapse. If you think that you're gonna survive on what you get from the government, there isn't gonna be anybody producing enough to be taxed enough for the government to redistribute anything. They're gonna have to print it or continue to borrow it, but there isn't going to be any economic expansion or growth. There isn't going to be real growth in the job market. It is not mathematically or policy-wise possible. Not with the policies Obama's put in place.

I would ask any of you, whether you're Hispanic or black or female or what have you, what has Obama done for you to date? What's he done for you? How's your life better? It isn't. Your life isn't any better. He hasn't done anything for you. But yet for some reason he's been able to convince some of you that Romney's gonna make it really hard on you. Three and a half years of a record matters. We have a president running for reelection who will not run on his record. His big achievement, health care. He's trying to act like it hasn't happened. He doesn't want you reflecting on it. He doesn't want you realizing that rather than a $2,500 reduction in your premiums, say hello to a $3,000 increase.
Rush sounds like he's exaggerating, but he's not. If you hadn't heard about the looming tax increases, blame the liberal news media who wouldn't dare print something so catastrophic to Obama's reelection. Rush goes on by saying Obama stands in the way black education by killing school choice in inner cities, etc. Then he asks more questions with more references to the state of affairs in the US economy than the media ever asks Obama - though they certainly question Romney about these same things (though they never report Romney's full answers) and Romney has them all answered on his campaign site.
Let me get specific. How will Obama grow the private sector? What have you heard him say? Where are the announced policies that you have heard from Obama that will expand employment, that will grow the private sector? What taxes is he planning on cutting? There will have to be some tax cuts if there is to be economic growth. Some of you may not like hearing that, but the truth is the truth. Have you heard him detail what taxes he's planning on cutting? Have you heard him detail what regulations he's going to repeal? I want you to stop and ask yourself, what's he gonna reverse? What have you heard him say that he is going to put in place that will change the direction of this country?

He says he's gonna get the deficit under control. I want to know what are the policies that are gonna do it. Of course he's gonna get the deficit under control. How? For 3-1/2 years you've heard him say he's focused laser-like on jobs? We keep losing 'em. For 3-1/2 years you've heard him say we gotta get the deficit down, or we're gonna get the deficit down, we're gonna stop all this spending and the debt. Has it done anything but continue to grow out of control?
In case you missed it, I spelled out why tax cuts (and regulatory cuts) are necessary to grow the economy and grow government revenue here (complete with data).  And detailed Obama's tax increases for 2013, the largest tax increases in the history of the United States - across the board. Everyone will see a tax increase in 3 months if Obama is reelected.

In the meantime, please broaden your sources of information because you run a high risk of voting blindly if you don't consider both sides of any issue.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The Founding and the 47%

A caller to the Rush Limbaugh program yesterday made a good point in light of the 47%/majority coalition business (see previous post if you haven't already).
Since last week when this issue about 47% of us not paying income taxes and the 1998 video of Obama talking about building "a majority coalition" of welfare recipients came up, it got me to thinking about the arc of America's history. You know, we started at that point where we had "taxation without representation." And the founders found that so intolerable, they went to war against an empire over it. And now that arc is arriving at a place, not the opposite of "taxation without representation."
But it's the other side of the same coin. We have representation without taxation. And to me the two are equally tyrannical and oppressive. But instead of being outraged about it, Americans just look at now and shrug and say, "Yeah, that's fairness." And I have to wonder: How did we get here, Rush? How did the character of America as a nation fall this far where self-reliance isn't considered a virtue anymore? 
And after some reminders from Rush about the state of affairs and producers versus takers in America and liberal media indoctrinating people etc, the caller added this:
The point I wanted to make is the character of America. I have to believe the Founders wanted us, as citizens, to be self-reliant, and they codified it in the last four words of the Tenth Amendment. It says if the federal government doesn't do it either the states do it or the people do it. That says to me that there must be some things they expected us to do for ourselves. Not 'cause they wanted us to be selfish, 'cause they wanted the citizenry to be self-reliant. 'Cause how could we be an independent nation comprised of dependent people? And they had to have known that. 
This is a very good point. Dependency is only another form of slavery. Freedom would have us be able to achieve our dreams, but the sad state of the economy dictates the opposite. Which economy is caused by bloated government, as I detailed for you here a few days ago. Before you blindly disagree, take a minute to read over my points and sources. I guarantee you'll learn something. And no, I am not saying that everyone on government aid wants to stay on it for the rest of their lives, because the American Dream dies hard. Which is where Mitt Romney comes in to save the day!

By the way: you may have already seen Harry Reid's attacks on Romney that he "sullies the religion" they share, but they are not true. No, Mormonism is not damaged by Romney. He's been accused by the media of being uncompassionate for a Mormon because of the 47% remark, which has been taken out of context by the liberal media. Mother Jones admitted that they left out a couple minutes after the 47% part, but they haven't released the whole thing even though Romney has asked them to do so. Which is still not reported in the media, meaning Reid can get away with this anti-Romney statement in the press even though it's really hypocritical if you think about it because the fundamental belief in the LDS Church is to follow Jesus Christ and Harry Reid's divisive remarks show him to be a politician, not a practicing Mormon, all the while Romney has talked about making life better for all Americans with a better economy.

Where liberals misunderstand conservatives is in the role of government to a) get out of the way of the economy so we can all prosper and b) that entitlements are not compassion. True charity is given by individuals freedly, not government taking money by force. Again, please see previous posts for details and data sources. Thanks for listening.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

What the press isn't covering right now

There is a big story out about Obama right now, in direct contradiction to the harassment of Mitt Romney about this very subject. The problem is that while the 47% "gaffe" is a big story in news media, the other story is being completely ignored. You may have heard of the Obama tape from 1998 in which he says that he believes in redistribution in the media, but you probably have not heard (unless you pay attention to conservative media) that Obama said in the same tape that welfare recipients are a potential "majority coalition." Thus proving Romney's point about the 47% that the media keeps trashing him over. Obama is out to build a "majority coalition" by getting so many people dependent on the government that Obama's reelection and ideology is forever secured. 

If what the 1998 Obama is still true of President Obama (and I suspect it is), we have a man who is deliberately keeping the economy down so more people will turn to government aid. He's eradicated most work requirements for welfare. He's not called the "Food Stamp President" for nothing. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has verified that the number of adults on food stamps has doubled from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010. Yikes! Which means it is even worse now, in 2012. And we already know this is coming out of our grandchildren's pockets, with Obama adding over $5T to the deficit in less than four years.

The media isn't picking up on this story. They feel the need to delude Americans and keep them in the dark about the real record of the most liberal president we've ever had and attack Romney over supposed gaffes and flaws. Their bias is well documented. See every single post I've ever written and any article at and any story at or any of the other conservative sites listed in the sidebar.

Now, I'm not going to do my fellow citizens the disservice of believing that every welfare recipient wants to stay on welfare. I can't believe that. The American Dream dies hard. What Romney offers these people (again, purposefully ignored in media coverage) is the hope that they can get off welfare: he has promised us all that he knows how to grow jobs and grow the economy and given his work experience at Bain and as governor, I believe him! For more details on how that works, see a previous post.

Summary of that post: lowering taxes increases federal revenue everytime it's tried (see associated data links here). Why? Because businesses have more money with which to grow their companies, hire more people, who in turn pay more taxes. Plus, a company with bigger profits pay more taxes. Romney is exactly right when he says we need to get government out of the way so the economy can recover. For example, Obamacare alone has cost American families an average $3000 increase in premiums, a far cry from the $2500 cut Obama promised at the time (this story is not being covered by the news media either). You see, it's impossible for insurance companies to lower premiums when slapped with more rules about what expensive elective procedures they have to cover. Regulations = cost for businesses. Same effect as taxes.

We can't afford any more of Obama. If he is reelected, we may well need to kiss the American Dream goodbye, because he's all set to allow the biggest tax increase (also neglected in media reporting) in American history to begin Jan. 1, which will bankrupt more companies and force even more onto federal aid. Majority coalition, here we come.

Monday, September 24, 2012

NYT: Washington vs. America

Ross Douthat at the New York Times picked up on the fact that Washington D. C. has been growing at leaps and bounds with 7 of the 10 richest American counties and no housing collapse while the rest of the economy is in decline, He mentions that it's been growing rapidly since the 70's. He credits (accurately) the federal government and the reckless spending going on there for decades, but he doesn't get to the source of the problem or the dire consequences on our economy if this problem is not addressed. Allow me to enlighten you.

It's a piece of legislation (what isn't, in this country) that is at the heart of this bloated government. The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act began a pattern of annually increasing federal budgets, by as much as 10%, without regard to federal revenue or the necessity of an increase. The NIH, for example, gets a full 10% budget increase each year. Some reforms have been attempted since then but with little lasting effect.

You can understand the result, then, of drastically expanded government expenditures year by year, to the point that now government spends (our taxes) in excess of $1T over budget each year while revenue is down with the bad economy (caused by bloated government - see previous posts). Any sensible proposals of cutting the amount of federal budget increases, for example cutting a 10% budget increase to something smaller like 4% or 6%, is greeted with cries of "Draconian cuts!" from the left or "GOP killing elderly!" or "GOP slashing Medicare" or other such nonsense, even though the budget would still increase from that current year. It's all poppycock. And unsustainable spending.

Thus, we're burdened with a government bloated beyond necessity with overlapping programs, money beyond need, with federal workers making more than private sector counterparts not to mention their federal benefits. It creates a substantial drag on the economy. (See many corresponding links in this post.) This is where the Tea Party comes in. It is a grassroots movement of people who would love to see fiscal sanity and responsibilty return to Washington and work to get the votes to do it, and they have succeeded in various races including the recall election of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, where he successfully reigned in spending and bettered employment while lowering taxes, through his union reforms. The Tea Party is demonized by the big government spenders themselves, including big government Establishment Republicans.

Between Obama and Romney, only Governor Romney has a record of cutting budgets and reigning in spending. He has my vote.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

101 Days until Large Tax Hike

*Before you disagree with any one point, please use the links provided to read the conservative viewpoint and see if you learn something you hadn't before. Don't trust the news media alone. They only tell you what will make you want to vote Democrat. To rely on the press for information at this time is the antithesis of informed voting.

The largest tax hike in the history of the United States, in fact. There are many congruent factors.
  1. The 2001 and 2003 tax reliefs expire Jan. 1.
  2. Personal income tax rates increase across the board, Jan. 1.
  3. Marriage penalty rises and child tax credit drops Jan. 1.
  4. Middle class death tax returns Jan. 1.
  5. Higher tax rates on savers and investors Jan. 1.
  6. Some of the Obamacare taxes begin Jan. 1.
  7. The Alternative Minimum Tax will impact more middle class Jan. 1.
  8. Business tax rates increase across the board.
  9. Charitable contributions may not be deducted from IRA taxes Jan. 1.
  10. Tax benefits for education reduced.
How depressing. This will halt any progress our economy has made. If you were running a business would you be hiring or firing right now? Firing, of course, to leave a little extra to pay more in taxes. Some more businesses will fold. Wealthy people will sit on their money rather than invest in new businesses. Unemployment will go up again. Even more people will stop looking for work while our labor force participation rate is already at a record low, last one since Carter's legacy. More people will go on the government dole. The federal deficit, skyrocketing with unreformed entitlement costs, will continue to accelerate to the breaking point, at which point their checks bounce. If you haven't noticed, our government has already been downgraded twice for poor fiscal management.

I, like many of you, don't know how I will afford to pay taxes this year if Romney is not elected and pushes some sensible tax legistation through the legislature, especially with Bernanke playing for Obama and raising our cost of living by printing more money. Also, in case you missed it, Obamacare is set to raise taxes on 6 million uninsured Americans, and most are in the middle class.

Here are the details for personal income tax rates:
The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which the majority of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

-The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%
-The 25% bracket rises to 28%
-The 28% bracket rises to 31%
-The 33% bracket rises to 36%
-The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Some people think that higher taxes will solve the revenue problem for the federal government but this is backwards. Obama has spent $1T over budget every single year, and revenue has been below budget every single year. This means that government needs to cut spending and reform entitlement programs so they'll last, not raise taxes. Raising taxes puts more people out of work, generates less revenue for the government. There isn't enough money in the entire country to tax to make a dent in our deficit, even taxing at 100% which would shut down all business and income forever!

For government revenue to increase, first we need to get the economy growing, and for that we need low taxes. Lower taxes mean more revenue, not that you'll find the liberal media admitting that this works every single time it's tried. Businesses thrive with low taxes (and regulations), then they hire more people who pay more taxes, and the businesses themselves make more profits and pay more taxes. Plus, people stimulate the economy only when they have money to spend so high taxes combined with rising costs of living has gotta stop for a healthy and growing economy.

In this critical time (see yesterday's post), I trust Romney to actually cut spending as he promised, to cut taxes as he promised, to grow the economy as he promised, and to lower unemployment as he promised. He knows how. He has a record of growth and budget cuts. We've seen a lot of empty, broken promises from Obama thus far and no sign that he is going to change course and do what works. Putting the same failed methods towards the same problems isn't a real solution. It may fool voters, but the end result is a welfare state moving towards socialism and away from freedom and prosperity (again, see yesterday's post).

Friday, September 21, 2012

The Election: Six Weeks Left

*Before disbelieving any one point, please read the conservative viewpoint linked and see if it doesn't add to your overall education about the state of affairs in America. You have to read both sides for balanced coverage nowadays, because it doesn't exist in one place and both sides leave stuff out entirely to some extent. I'm certain you already realize that you can't make a truly informed opinion relying on only one viewpoint.

You should be aware that Romney, Paul Ryan, and other conservatives such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Mia Love keep talking about how this election is critical. In it we choose the destiny of America forever. We either choose to return to a path of freedom and prosperity by limiting government so we can regain a growing economy, or we stay on current course to morph into a socialist state with big government sucking the life-blood out the economy through taxes, which leads to high unemployment and produces a welfare state while Obama gets rid of work requirements for government assistance with already more people added to food stamps and disability than find jobs.

This "47%" issue is precisely why we are at a crossroads, and 75% of CNBC readers agree with Romney about the 47%.

Ann Coulter, being her plain-spoken and instructive self, says it this way:
There's going to come a time, in the not-distant future, when it's 51 percent paying no income tax. And when that happens, the party of big government will never lose another election. America will become indistinguishable from Western European nanny states -- except there will be no America to protect us.

The media happen to love the party of big government with all their heart, so from now until the election, no matter what Romney says, they plan to be scandalized.
As a reminder, all socialist countries share misery equally. It's not sharing prosperity. I've spent time in a country like that, my husband has too, as have many of our friends. If you don't understand that Obama's high spending of taxpayer dollars and high financial burdens on the taxpayers are why our economy is still struggling, then allow me to explain. Economic growth is only created in private industry, if given sufficient freedom from government to grow businesses and jobs and incomes without financial hardships from complying with regulations (Obamacare and 11,237 other new pages of regulations under Obama) and taxes.

The government doesn't produce money or add to wealth or grow the economy, because it feeds off of private industry and takes all the money it has from private industry in the form of taxes. The only exception is their money printing press that guarantees inflation and higher costs of living across the board for taxpayers, thanks to QE3 and the earlier QEs. And our government is spending $1T annually more than it takes in for the past five years (no, I don't approve of Bush's high spending either). Meaning that they are not good stewards of our tax dollars and are not careful to spend them wisely.

Thanks, Obama for over $5T more in debt for programs that didn't create jobs and didn't restore the economy or do anything but funnel money to your friends the unions and big donors, some of which went bankrupt like Solyndra; and for growing government at compensation levels completely bloated above the private sector.

No, Obama, government isn't the best entity to choose winners and losers in the business world. That isn't how things work in reality, where markets will eventually decide the fate of any company if taxes don't break them first. What a waste of all of our hard-earned money. Romney, who understands these principles well - having worked in the private sector and cut budgets where necessary to save businesses and created jobs and wealth - has my unwavering support.

The media doesn't tell you these kinds of things. They bury them. They tell you everything is fine when it is not. All of these links in my post today are the conservative news sites' reports about what was hidden by the liberal media at the time or currently.

The future of our country is at stake. Please take your voting responsibilities seriously enough to educate yourselves. Even if you plan to vote Obama, please plan to do so with your eyes wide open. A democracy depends upon the education of its constituents. We have six weeks left before Election Day.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Stephens: Muslims, Mormons and Liberals

The Wall Street Journal posted this editorial the other day elucidating the differences between Muslims and Mormons and how they each treat their antagonists, and also how liberals treat each of these groups. Lest you misunderstand me, please believe me when I say that I greatly respect the peaceful practice of Islam and that my biggest problem doesn't lie with radical Islam either: it lies with the liberal press misrepresenting the situation in the Middle East to Americans. Not that I approve of the practice of radical Islam, but the press bothers me more.

On to the WSJ: the introduction reminds us all that everyone has an opinion of the Book of Mormon whether or not they've read it, and the mocking Book of Mormon musical on Broadway is popular because of this. (I don't have any particular bones to pick with the musical, all it's doing is bringing more attention to the LDS Church which means some people actually learn more about us and what we believe).
So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.

Here's what else we learned this week about the emerging liberal consensus: That it's okay to denounce a movie you haven't seen, which is like trashing a book you haven't read. That it's okay to give perp-walk treatment to the alleged—and no doubt terrified—maker of the film on legally flimsy and politically motivated grounds of parole violation. That it's okay for the federal government publicly to call on Google to pull the video clip from YouTube in an attempt to mollify rampaging Islamists. That it's okay to concede the fundamentalist premise that religious belief ought to be entitled to the highest possible degree of social deference—except when Mormons and sundry Christian rubes are concerned.

And, finally, this: That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude?
Why is this opinion important to me? Because he's accurate about both the Obama administration, the complicit liberal media, and about Mormons. He didn't add this in directly, but it's pretty obvious in the LDS Church response: the fundamental belief and practice for members of the LDS Church is to follow Jesus Christ. As in, we don't believe in hurting people that hurt us. We believe in loving all people like Christ did and does. I've yet to find this central message of Mormons printed in the news media.

Skipping down to his conclusion:
President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do.
On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life.  
If you feel like you're missing something, you are correct. In the middle he talked about freedom of speech, but you can read the entire editorial yourself. And a friendly reminder: please read both sides for balanced coverage, because it doesn't exist in one place. And how can anyone make an informed opinion relying on only one point of view? Impossible.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Media Selectively Edits Romney's Remarks

This is big. You know that Mother Jones video from Romney's meeting with donors back in May? Well, they promised the full video but they are now forced to admit that the recording shown is missing a couple minutes in a critical locations: right after the 47% remark. Romney has called for the full video to be released. The media is in trouble over this, I'll tell you! Not that they'll report either Romney's call for the full video to be released or report that they aren't referring to a full video missing a critical part of his speech to donors.

If I had to guess, Romney said in those two conveniently missing (for the liberal media) minutes that he does have a better vision for people now forced to be on welfare. He wants America to become the land of opportunity once more and he knows how to do it! Yesterday, he said that the "best course for America is to create wealth, not redistribute wealth" and "redistribution does not get people back to work."

UPDATE: There is a new report released verifying that Obama's gutting of the work requirement for welfare recipients has doubled the number of able-bodied adults enrolled, and that's just from 2008-2010. I'm sure worse statistics will revolt us once 2011 and 2012 data is available.

Conservative Enthusiam Through the Roof!

Now that Mitt Romney is on record as a strong conservative (thanks to liberal Mother Jones' publishing a secretly taped meeting with Romney donors), the sky is the limit! Nothing he said is not true. Everything he said is resonating with the conservative base. I agree with the base: Romney should be able to use this "gaffe" to great advantage. Not only could he lay out a grander vision of a life of opportunity for those now on welfare, he can lay out the stark differences he has in what he wants for the American people compared to what Obama is doing for the American people. Not only that, this "gaffe" is outing the bias in the media all the more. No one who hears Romney and agrees with him is going to turn around and then agree with the media saying that what he said is all bad.

The fear now, of the conservative base, is that Romney will listen to his stifling "advisors" who don't want him to scare away independents - as if this would. If you don't know, Republican campaign advisors tend to be old school GOP - the Establishment Republicans. The kind who like big government, that don't fight to reign in spending and deficit, those that fear tackling the Democrats head on. They play to lose, on average.

How much will this matter in the end? Since it's not even October, probably not much. The media will make hay of this for about a week and then they'll move on to new attacks. They change frequently - about weekly, with all the big networks saying the same exact things (except Fox). It will matter in the long run only if Romney uses this to his advantage. I sure hope he does.

Rush Limbaugh put it well:
Screw the independents. We have 47% we're talking about here. Forty-seven percent is a much bigger universe than whatever the independents are. Go for this bunch. Head for 'em right now. Tell them how great they can be. Tell them how crucial they are to making this country work. Tell them. Tell them. Give them some high expectations. Tell them what's possible. Barack Obama's not. Barack Obama's not touching that. Barack Obama doesn't want to go anywhere near how great people can be. He doesn't want to go anywhere near how great this country can be because he doesn't believe in this country's greatness. He thinks it's unjust, it was unfairly acquired or achieved. He's trying to roll it back.

Folks, I'm telling you, it is such an opening. But you have to be able to see it. If you don't see it, you have to be convinced of it. You have to believe it. From the Republican convention, I know Romney believes it.
Now, other times Rush Limbaugh has talked about how preaching conservatism is what attracts independents anyway, not being moderate. I agree. I don't know why he didn't bring it up today. Other conservative sites have mentioned it though.

And if you've missed earlier lessons on the Democrat idea of compassion and that sentencing people to a life of handouts is not real compassion, then here you go. Rush Limbaugh again.
We want you independent of government. We don't want people depending on government. That's never gonna get anybody anything. That's not prosperity. That's existence, at best, subsistence, the norm. Nancy Pelosi's a millionaire. How did she become a millionaire, aside from marrying it? Do you think she did it on food stamps? John Kerry's a millionaire. How did he do it? He married it. Do you think John Kerry's a millionaire 'cause of food stamps or welfare or any of the other programs they want you to be on?

Who really has the best intentions for the poor? I would submit to you it's Mitt Romney. Any Republican, any conservative looks at people in poverty and says, "It's not necessary, not in this country." There are ways out of it. Not ways of sustaining it and calling that compassion. We don't define compassion by adding up the number of people who get food stamps. We define compassion by how many people no longer need any of that stuff. Not Barack Obama. Not Joe Biden. Not Harry Reid. Not Nancy Pelosi. And not the media. The more dependent you are, the more ignorant you must be, and that's how they want you. 
UPDATE: Romney has responded in many places, but here is his article printed in USAToday. Score for Romney!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012


I am not a libertarian; I am a conservative. I am a realist and I know that playing nice isn't going to stop bullies from beating me up, which idea goes against human nature and my own childhood experiences.

However, that's not much of an explanation. I ran into a fantastic explanation in the comment section of Breitbart, under #WAR: No More Cocktails. It's a series devoted to remembering Andrew Breitbart and what he taught, in case you're wondering. The comment was given by someone going by Andrew Grooms in response to a libertarian. Please excuse the somewhat belligerent tone. I wouldn't have written it in this overgeneralized way myself, but I still use his full comment because I think he's on to something: what it means to throw morality to the wind collectively in a society.
"True Conservatism is Libertarianism"?

After reading that bigotted, hate filled, smear of a screed of yours, it looks like a something an OWS hippie's caricature of what a hard-core commie lib thinks a "conservative" is. Nice try though.

Libertarianiasm is closer to anarchy and deconstructing civilization that it is "conservative". The Libertarian Platform is riddled with anti-family, anti-civilization, anti-God ideals. You can't celebrate Sodomy, Abortion, Open Borders, Drug Abuse, Prostitution and Atheism as the national religion and have any chance of being taken seriously as a "conservative".

Libertarians are also incapable of processing abstracts, and thus being morally challenged, unable to see the harm their ideas impose, and completely disconnected from reality and human nature they tend to project their limited and narcissistic world view on everyone else.

For example: prostitution and drug abuse destroy families. In the interest of preserving families society sets up a broad spectrum infrastructure including churches, education, law enforcement, rehab programs, etc. Libertarians tend to hate the Church and see it as a threat to their gallery of sins Libertarians believe are harmless, fun and personal; Libertarians hate "Big Government" and see the horribly executed "War On Drugs" as a threat from a secular position what the Church imposes from the spiritual and thus wants to rid "law enforcement" through the insane idea of embracing more evil as a solution.

The goal of pursuing selfish and often self destructive activities overrides absolutely everything. Libertarians don't really care if the family is destroyed or civilization crumbles - they got to smoke weed while frequenting whores and there wasn't anyone around to stop them.

In your rant against "Haliburton" an example of how Libertarians can't process abstract ideas is provided. Conservatives like Free Trade in terms of a "Wealth of Nations" sort of way. Unfortunately, human nature is such where if using violence, theft and corruption is a short-cut to riches, then unrestrained people will engage in that until honest people realize that their work is for naught. For all of human history, this has been the case and piracy was such a problem that our Nation's forefathers organized the Marines to engage in foreign wars to put an end to piracy and slavery that the Muslims were engaged in.  
Today's Libertarians would consider that against their Utopian ideals and thus there would be no level of death and bloodshed that would compel a Libertarian to use the war making powers of the State to re-open the waterways for the safe transfer of goods.
Libertarianism isn't conservative - in its self-absorbed quest for an impossible and vain ideology, they actively promote embracing the worst elements of human behavior. That is demonic.

Monday, September 17, 2012

The Middle East

I've seen a ton of polarized reporting on this topic. Check out these headlines from Drudge, for example:
Ambassador Rice: Attack NOT Premeditated...
Libyan president: 'No doubt' was 'preplanned' starting months ago...
Video Purports To Show US Ambassador Dragged; Cheers From Crowd...
Israel: America ignored Arab wrath...
Netanyahu warns Tehran only months away from nuke weapon fuel...
Egypt President calls for calm...
Claims some got paid to protest...
White House Preparing for Long Siege of Arab Unrest...
AMERICA? Filmmaker taken in for interview... 
And this is just those up this morning. Over the weekend you could find
WH: Protests not directed at USA... *
Revealed: Inside story of ambassador's assassination... Sensitive documents have gone missing... Exposed: Names of Libyans who are working with Americans... *
Anti-American protests spread to Iran... *
FBI Warns of Violence in America... *
PAPER: Attacks cast shadow over Obama reelection hopes... *
Further, at Breitbart, you will find references to Hillary Clinton being notified of the threat in Libya but ignoring it, that Libya told the U.S. that Al Qaida claims credit for that planned attack, that Obama hadn't been properly briefed since September 5th, that Obama squarely blames a movie over his own incompetent "leadership," and information regarding other attacks on US consulates in the region.

Ann Coulter sounds all the more prescient now, since in her column this past week she noted that Iraq alone of all the Middle East has remained "pacific" with the United States during past Islamic uprisings. They continue to provide that example to their neighbors. It is interesting to note, further, that they had no part in the Arab Spring that Coulter denounces as being far from a democratic revolution with well thought-out plans for democratic rule, being instead more comparable to the French Revolution.

Try as they might to spin this otherwise, Team Obama is in big trouble and they know it. Why else would the complicit media be so extremely focused on Mitt Romney's statement (that didn't kill anyone) and a filmmaker (who didn't kill anyone) and a movie (that didn't kill anyone)?

UPDATE: Red State lists out multiple foreign papers doing real reporting about the attacks on Americans and they're turning on Obama - even the leftist papers. The kindest of them agree that scapegoating a filmmaker doesn't move the responsibility away from Obama. His moves are highlighting his failed leadership, yet again.

Re-UPDATE: Now that Mitt Romney is coming out strongly for Isreal, and not embarrassed to say that Palestine isn't interested in peace, the anti-Romney attacks are flying. Don't be deceived. He's absolutely right. I know a lot more about Israel and Palestine than I do about Libya, from a well-researched book presenting both sides in their own voices, the voices of real Palestinians and Israelis: The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East, by Sandy Tolan of NPR.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Paul Ryan at the Values Voter Summit

I found the full transcript at Politico (which surprised me). Here is a part that Rush Limbaugh mentioned in his Friday show.
It is true that President Obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. But he also came in with one-party rule, and the chance to do everything of his own choosing. The Obama economic agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed.
Great line! And true. The liberal fact-checkers disagree because they're liberal, but it doesn't make it less true all the same. Obama would love for all of us to forget that he had 2 years of complete cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Continuing:
And here is what we got: Prolonged joblessness across the country. Twenty-three million Americans struggling to find work. Family income in decline. Fifteen percent of Americans living in poverty.

The record is so uniformly bad that maybe you’ve noticed something: President Obama himself almost never even uses the word “record,” – that is, except when he’s trying to trade on the record of Bill Clinton. In his convention speech, the President never once said that simple word, “record.”

He didn’t say the word “stimulus,” either, because he wasted $831 billion of borrowed money. At a time of mass unemployment, he didn’t even say “unemployment,” because we’re in the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. And by the way, he didn’t use the word “recovery,” either – never mind that recovery was what all America expected from Barack Obama.

He wants us to forget all of these things, and lately he’s been trying out a new tactic. It’s a classic Barack Obama straw man: If anyone dares to point out the facts of his record, why then, they’re just being negative and pessimistic about the country. The new straw man is people hoping for the decline of America.

It’s pretty sad, but this is the closest President Obama can come these days to sounding positive himself. But we have to face up to all that has gone wrong these past four years, so that the next four can be better. Ladies and gentlemen, this nation cannot afford to make economic failure a two-term proposition.
It goes on. You could read it yourself if you like. I recommend the full transcript over the bits and pieces the liberal media's taking out (of context) to hit Paul Ryan with.

A little more to entice you to read the entire thing:
When all the new borrowing brings our national debt to 20 trillion dollars, and then 25 trillion, nobody’s going to ask you about the debt crisis, or even help you prepare for it. But we the people need to think ahead, even if our current president will not, to avoid that crisis while there is still time.

Everyone knows that President Obama inherited a bad economy. And four months from now, when Mitt Romney is sworn in as president, he will inherit a bad economy.

But here’s the difference. When a Romney-Ryan administration takes office, we will also take responsibility. Instead of dividing up the wealth, our new president will get America creating wealth again.
And, since I routinely tell you all that Romney's character is nothing like the press' version of his character, I'll include this part too.
We can be confident in the rightness of our cause, and also in the integrity and readiness of the man who leads it.

He’s solid and trustworthy, faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best.

Not only a fine businessman, he is a fine man, worthy of leading our country, and ready to lead the great turnaround we have spent four years waiting for.

I’m not the only one who has told Mitt that maybe he needs to talk more about himself and his life.

It wouldn’t hurt if voters knew more of those little things that reveal a man’s heart and his character. This is a guy who, at the height of a successful business, turned the entire company into a search and rescue operation the moment he heard that a colleague’s young daughter was missing.

He’s a man who could easily have contented himself with giving donations to needy causes, but everyone who knows him will tell you that Mitt has always given himself.
He’s one of those guys who doesn’t just exhort and oversee good works, but shows up and does the work.

Mitt Romney is the type we’ve all run into in our own communities, the man who’s there right away when there’s need, but never first in line when praise and credit are being handed out. He’s a modest man with a charitable heart, a doer and a promise-keeper.

He’s the kind of person every community could use more of, and he’ll be the kind of president who brings out the best in our country.

Friday, September 14, 2012

On Federal Reserve Sponsored Inflation and Obamacare

With Bernanke's new move to pump money into the system, let's not forget what that really means. The dude over at the Economic Collapse Blog knows his Federal Reserve, and what you really need to know is that even though QE1 and QE2 did nothing to help normal people (those NOT on Wall Street) since it grossly inflates the cost of living by devaluing the dollar, making our 1995 level salaries feel even more cramped - not even so much as creating any jobs - this new QE3 is open ended.

That means we can experience inflation ad infinitim! I can't wait to see how far I'll learn to stretch a dollar. To give fair credit, Romney DOES understand what this means for normal people because he asked Bernanke not to do it. Deflate the dollar, that is, by printing as many dollars as he wants in an election year. To make money on Wall Street with his pals the (mostly) Democrat politicians before Romney is elected and replaces him.

One good effect is the common people might just learn enough about the Federal Reserve to support its removal, as Ron Paul suggests. Romney does want it audited, which is at least a start. One bad effect is the US credit rating just dropped again, now to AA-.
In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real gross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar.
In turn, this increases the cost of commodities, which will pressure the profitability of businesses and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power, the firm said.

Obamacare is more bad news. I know it's not part of any major news cycle, but it is affecting everyone in very real ways because our medical professionals are preparing to enter its servitude. We're talking mountains of paperwork, hours of compliance regulations, studies to see which doctors are using their time most effectively, and ultimately some doctors will be fired. Even though we have an overal doctor shortage.

Why? Because Obamacare changes Medicare reimbursement by giving the hospital one lump sum depending on the diagnosis and it has to be shared between all departments who care for the patient. This will mean fewer diagnostics per patient, fewer examinations, shorter hospital stays.

There is a large penalty on the hospital for readmissions (patients who come back still sick), nor does Obamacare touch tort reform, which would give doctors some peace of mind in our excessivly litiginous society, but you need to understand that this bill is projected to cut most doctors' pay nearly in half, on average, to about $120k. While raising their already-long work hours. While they still go through years and years of education to make a salary at all, and reach a job with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. Yup, Obamacare is a mess.

And it will drive insurance companies slowly but surely out of business by raising the regulatory burdens on insurance companies which necessarily raises the premiums we pay, until we all end up on the government plan. Long wait times, low-quality care that you could get anywhere else in the world. Congratulations, America, for voting for a socialist.

I think the majority of Americans realize they don't want to be in a socialist country where equal outcomes means bad outcomes, so that Romney will win. We need to work to ensure he gets enough help in the House and the Senate - and we may have to keep on them about this - to overturn Obamacare for real.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Reporters on Open Mic

If you didn't hear about this, you should. Someone taped a bunch of reporters from the major networks collaborating against Mitt Romney yesterday by what questions they would ask him: how to shape the narrative through their questions rather than anything Mitt Romney says in response. And Mitt Romney didn't get tripped up in his answers, so the story in the news was still about the questions and not his answers. See here, here, and here.

What this means is that conservatives now have proof of the bias in reporting that they know goes on routinely and is the antithesis of real reporting.

Meanwhile Obama refuses to take questions in press conferences...

Rush Limbaugh captured this narrative situation well today:
If I didn't know better, if I'd just landed here from Mars and I'm watching the media cover these two guys, I'd think Romney is the president. He's the one whose comments are being parsed. He's the one who's answering questions. He's the one the press is trying to get answers from. This other guy, this Obama guy, goes out in the Rose Garden and acts like he doesn't care about anything when he makes his comments.

He turns his back, ignores questions, gets on a plane, and flies to Las Vegas for a fundraiser they had to move indoors from outdoors because there's not enough interest. He goes on 60 Minutes and starts sounding just like Jimmy Carter. This is unbelievable. Of all the presidents! We did that side by side where his acceptance speech at the convention, parts of it, seemed to be lifted word-for-word from Jimmy Carter.

Yesterday on 60 Minutes, I actually laughed out loud when I heard Obama tell 60 Minutes that Romney has a tendency to "shoot first and aim later." This is the same Barack Obama who said that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" when they arrested his good buddy, "Skip" Gates. Obama shot off his mouth about that without having the slightest clue what really happened, and here he is getting on Romney for "shooting first and aiming later," which is not at all what Romney did.

But that's the narrative: "Romney spoke too soon! Romney violated protocol! Romney this; Romney that!" That was the narrative. That was the purpose of the questions. Obama's entire presidency has just been an endless stream of shooting from the lip. I don't know if we really should be surprised hearing Obama say that or not, no matter how ironic it is. It's almost word-for-word what Jimmy Carter said about Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Foreign Policy

I don't know much about foreign policy. I don't trust the media to enlighten me, because their bias prevents me from understanding both sides of the situation. What do I do? Wait for sources that actually make sense. This week it's Ann Coulter. I get it, now! I get Libya. Her intro:
When President Obama intervened in Libya last year, he claimed that "it's in our national interest to act" to remove a tyrant who -- in response to Bush's invasion of Iraq -- had just given up his weapons of mass destruction and pledged to be America's BFF.

Apparently Gadhafi neglected to also tell Obama, "I've got your back."

Obama said: "We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms ... our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people."

The Libyan mob was the equivalent of our founding fathers! (If you overlook the part about it being a murderous Islamic mob.)

Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, said: "The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedeen from around the world." We are "enabling people who may not be formally aligned with al-Qaida but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power."

Scheuer said the media had taken "a few English-speaking Arabs who are pro-democracy and a few Facebook pages out of the Middle East and extrapolated that to a region-wide love of secular democracy," adding, "It is as insane a situation as I've ever encountered in my life."
She goes on to point out which politicians didn't make fools of themselves on Libya/Ghaddafi (including Mitt Romney), and called out multiple left-wing papers for their biased reporting. Her conclusion is awesome:
The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorialized: "Most of the world is rejoicing because of the historic success in Libya. We're glad it was accomplished by Libya's people, not by a U.S. invasion ordered by right-wing American politicians."

I note that the American ambassador in Iraq has not been murdered and his corpse dragged through the streets. I also recall that, a few years ago, when Muslims around the globe erupted in rioting over some Dutch cartoons, one Muslim country remained utterly pacific: George W. Bush's Iraq.

Apparently U.S. invasions ordered by right-wing American politicians are the only ones that work in the Middle East. Fake uprisings orchestrated by Muslim fanatics are less propitious.

Learn your history, Americans. The American Revolution was not the revolt of a mob. It was a carefully thought-out plan for a republic, based on ideas painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.

The much-ballyhooed "Arab Spring," with mobs of men gang-raping American reporters, firing guns in the air and murdering their erstwhile dictators, is more akin to the pointless bloodletting of the French Revolution.

That godless antithesis to the founding of America is the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler's Nazi Party, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's slaughter and America's periodic mob uprisings, from Shays' Rebellion to today's union thugs in Madison, Wis., and Occupy Wall Street.

Americans did win freedom and greater individual rights with their revolution. By contrast, the French Revolution resulted in bestial savagery, a slaughter of all the revolution's leaders, followed by Napoleon's dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.

Violent mob uprisings have never led to a functioning democratic republic.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Clinton talks Mormonism

Buzzfeed had an interview with Bill Clinton, touching on many topics but concluding with Mormonism. Make no mistake about it, this is a deliberate, calculated move by a professional politician placed at the end to leave a bad taste about Mitt Romney. His interview:
Clinton also recalled a moment from his youth in Arkansas being approached by two or three Mormon missionaries in Hot Springs, where they explained the Mormon view.
Clinton spoke highly of their effort, recounting the different degrees of heaven as was explained to him 50 years ago, describing it as a pyramid with many levels that put Hitler and Stalin at the very bottom, faithful Mormons on top, and everyone else in between.
Clinton, a Baptist, said the sticking point for him was leaving his friends and family out of the top level of heaven.
This is wrong. The Mormon salvation is more inclusive than any other of which I know. I've talked about that before. Additionally, so has a Patheos blogger in Misunderestimating Mormonism, who took the trouble to understand the context of Mormon beliefs on salvation though not a Mormon himself. Or you could visit and read about Mormon beliefs for yourself. The press sure isn't directing people there so I might as well myself.

What Obama's doing

Obama doesn't seem to be doing much of anything besides campaigning. This isn't news to those who have followed Obama more closely than the liberal Obama-loving media. Here are recent headlines from the conservative sources Breitbart and Drudge:
Exclusive: No Record of Intel Briefings for Obama Week Before Embassy Attacks
New York Times Buries Attacks on Page 4; Joins Obama in Capitulating to Mob, Attacking Romney
Fiddling While Rome Burns: Obama Isn't Working -- Literally
Obama Declines Meeting with Netanyahu
11,327 Pages Added to Code of Federal Regulations Under Obama
White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...

'Schedule Full'...

Announces 'Letterman' Appearance...
I saw some report from Drudge a few days ago (no longer up on the site) noting that Obama's hours on the golf course far exceed those he spends in intelligence meetings! Obama sure likes to complain about how hard it is to run the country. For example, he complained about the debt deal last summer and showed a general lack of leadership. Why doesn't he step aside and let Mitt take over the job? Romney seems up to the challenge and has a strong work ethic, as evidenced by Bain and the SLC Olympics, as well as dozens of personal accounts of Romney.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The story underneath the Chicago strike

You've heard that teachers in Chicago are on strike for the first time in 25 years. Depending on your sources, you may not know that they make the most on average of any public school system - $75k, that they turned down at 16% pay increase excluding benefits (which are large), 80% of the students don't graduate, and that 39% of Chicago teachers send their kids to private schools. They haven't even started negotiating with the city of Chicago about teacher evaluations and the ability to fire incompetent teachers. I've heard rumors of the strike happening so Obama can swoop in and solve the problem, even though he hasn't contacted them, at least on public record.

I've lived in Chicago and I am eternally grateful we left before my kids were old enough for school. Their education system is a mess. There are a few good schools that promising children compete for and the rest have to make do with sub-part schools. They have to apply for middle schools, high schools, and the stress on these kids is enormous! It is really hard to get any kind of education in some of the poorer neighborhoods, where gangs rule the school, police roam the halls, and teachers can't assign homework and hardly teach anything during class. I have great respect for a few friends that teach/taught in some of these kinds of schools, perhaps trying to make a difference. For the most part these kids don't value education, not seeing it as their ticket to a better life. For the most part, their teachers don't value education either, and think of it as an easy paycheck and don't try to make a difference for their students. I really don't know that it's worth teaching in schools like that, even with the pay double what many other teachers make across the country.

But I'll tell you, the overriding thought I have about the teachers' union is that they are so selfish! Chicago is deep in the mire. Are the teachers so full of themselves that they really won't accept pay increases so far removed from the private sector? Would they really rather be part of the problem than part of the solution?  Who do they think is going to pay them or thank them when Chicago paychecks start bouncing? And for the quality of teaching, do they really think they're more important than the students? That students should suffer through teachers who do not perform well? Teachers ahead of student interests.

This attitude is more reflective about the Democrat party in general than Democrats would like to admit.

They funnel money to their special interests, which in turn donate to Democrats (if they're unions) or vote for Democrats (the welfare crowd). These are not people trying to make America a more profitable place, these are not people growing the pie by starting businesses, these are not people contributing to economic growth. Shoot, Obama's (illegally) gotten rid of the work requirement for welfare! As for quality of performance, these are the same people arguing that we should keep Obama even though he has a terrible record. Obama ahead of American interests.

As I know all too well from living in Chicago, these welfare types are takers, some frauds, some abusers of the system, very few genuinely need it for life such as the handicapped. Most of them? They should be working towards employable skills with which to support themselves and their families and get off government dole, saving government money for more worthy causes. Some of these people have never paid taxes in their entire lives. They're taking money from taxpayers. As far as federal budgeting is concerned, this money is washed down the drain. This is the antithesis of the American dream, and Democrats are embracing it. They show no signs of engaging in meaningful entitlement reforms. Who do they think will pay the welfare checks once federal checks start bouncing?

Monday, September 10, 2012

Troops Voting Rights

Have you heard about this? Apparently a new-ish law orders the military to set up voting-assitance offices at each base, and some bases are setting up electronic voting, others paper ballots, and still more are ignoring the law entirely. Depriving military personnel of their absentee ballots is nothing new (though this law is), and I've written before how Illinois and New York both failed to send ballots to their citizens serving in the military in time for them to be returned and have their votes counted, just because the military leans Republican. Not that they cite that reason, naturally. Either way, the military doesn't get to vote because there is no penalty for states (and now the Pentagon it seems) for failure to comply. The Washington Times reported yesterday:
Six Republican senators are asking Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta personally to intervene to ensure that U.S. troops stationed away from home get the chance to register and vote in the upcoming election.

They say Pentagon officials are ignoring a 2009 law that ordered the military to set up a special voting-assistance office at every U.S. base around the world, to make sure troops can negotiate the confusing patchwork of 50 different sets of state registration and absentee voting requirements, and get their ballots mailed in time.
From which point the Times describes the lack of established voting offices in over half of military locations. Not good.  A Pentagon representative will come before the House Armed Forces Services subcommittee this week. Watch the news media ignore the meeting entirely. They're good at ignoring problems which would benefit Democrats to ignore. Instead they like to drum up sympathy for illegal immigrants' lack of voting rights, rather than our own servicemen at work to protect our country. They show their colors.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Jefferson and media coverage of Mormonism

These two things might not seem related except in my own mind, but I'll explain.

I'm reading Jefferson, a novel by Max Byrd of Jefferson, written in a mostly historical but slightly embellished way. A few things have jumped out at me - Jefferson's devotion to freedom and democracy first of all - intensified by his diplomatic service in France. Next his realization that religious freedom means that the state cannot have a favored, preferred religion or that any faith have the power to force itself on any people (to which I might add that I doubt he would approve of atheism being forced in public). Third, his passion for education, knowing that democracy is impossible if the citizens are ignorant (to which I notice that the news media does all in their power to not educate but lead their readerships to think the same biased way they do). Lastly, the ill of slavery.

Jefferson himself was opposed to slavery as an institution but yet had slaves. I don't understand it and don't pretend to. Later on in the book, a slave of Jefferson's (in Paris with him as a free man), is told he is a slave to strong drink. It's true there are many kinds of slavery. This is a big part of why members of the LDS Church avoid alcohol, coffee and tea, drugs, pornography, and any other addicting sustance or behavior. A slave to habit has less freedom. Less freedom to choose his or her path in life. Unfortunately, exactly what the entitlement system in the United States has become. Those on government welfare have less opportunity than those that don't. Without a work requirement for many welfare recipients across the country, it's literally a life sentence. How can they work again without competitive skills? Why isn't the government instead more devoted to education and empowerment of its citizens? It comes down to "buying" votes with welfare checks. That's why Herman Cain raised so many tempers when he said he got "off the plantation."

Glenn Beck recently featured Mormonism on his TV show, dispeling myths and clarifying beliefs and practices of those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is a Mormon himself, if you don't know. I respect him greatly for being bold and brave enough to devote an entire show to his faith, partly because of the false attacks on the LDS Church, which are prevalent because Romney is Republican and the press is liberal so they want to sway voters away from Romney.

What Jefferson most feared in democracy was the ignorance of its participants. What I saw in response to Glenn Beck's show (at least as written up at The Blaze) boggles my mind. Here Glenn Beck devotes an hour to dispeling myths and assuring people that Mormons aren't what the press says (a case of mis-education in and of itself), and some of the comments still insist that Mormons are evil and don't worship the same Christ as the rest of Christianity! I don't know that these ideas all came from the press, because some might come from well-meaning but misguided pastors.

I understand this exclusive mentality of some Christians in this country (myself having felt 'superior' in my faith in more immature years - many apologies to any I offended then), but it is not in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is not a competition. [For more on this please go here]. Christ welcomed all with open arms. Christ loved all without reservations. Christ accepted sinners and taught them to repent, because repentence brings happiness.

I believe that there is much good and truth in every religion in this world. I believe that the faithful all over the world worship the same God, whether or not we call him by that name. I believe that Christ is the Savior of the world. I believe that God loves all His children and wants us to love all His children too. I believe that there are people all over this earth who try to please God with all their hearts. This isn't to say all religious people, but I hope you catch my meaning. The people who are close to God realize that love is what counts. Unconditional, Christ-like love. Even if they're not Christians and call it something else.

Mormons realize that there is much good outside of ourselves, and we embrace it. We invite those interested to learn more about what we believe and see if we cannot add to the truth they know, the peace and happiness they know. The core belief in the LDS Church is to follow Jesus Christ, because that is where true happiness lies.

John 17:3 "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thought hast sent."

In conclusion, rest assured that freedom is only possible with education. A balanced, open-minded education. Read both sides because fair and balanced coverage doesn't exist. How can you make an informed opinion relying on only one point of view on any topic, religion or politics or anything else? You can't.