Search This Blog

Thursday, November 29, 2012

The Plan

There is much I could say, such as Ann Coulter wrote about exactly the same thing yesterday as myself (unbeknownst), but added that media spin towards Dems and against the GOP equals 8-10 percentage points on Election Days, according to an economist who studied it. Depressing! Not only does the GOP have a messaging problem, the average voter believes the press enough to vote against the GOP to the tune of as many as 10 percentage points.

That's why I've long been saying that you, dear readers, must read both sides of any story. And now I tell you that you must tell other people that they must also consider both sides because they're missing relevant information.

This is a conversation starter and mind-opener for the uninitiated, unsuspecting, low-information voter. This is why many comments I write on liberally-biased-yet-self proclaimed-"balanced"-news-sites go something like this:
If the GOP were really all bad and the Dems all good, the GOP wouldn't be a threat, now would they? They are not what the press says. Read both sides for balanced coverage because you're only getting half the picture.
And I may or may not add, depending on the particular comment:
How can you make an informed opinion on any topic if you consider only one point of view?
This is where we start. Conservatives, unless we get people in the United States to wake up to the great media-DNC complicity, there is no hope of any Republican president (a conservative one - not a Bush) in our future, also meaning there is no hope of reigning in the spending or deficit or tax increases or economic malaise that afflict our country, soon to impoverish our country. We can work through this but it requires education. It requires your efforts to educate. Please copy my comment if you wish, and consider directing people here to Conservative Mormon Mom or any other conservative site dedicated to education.

Ready? On your mark; get set; go!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

GOP and the media

The GOP is in a tight spot. They always are. The media is never, ever going to represent them fairly or accurately, and members of the GOP elite all know it, but try to get good coverage anyway, which means caving and cowering. Take this, for example. Prominent GOP leaders are throwing Romney under the bus rather than admit the GOP has a messaging problem because of the bias inherent in media coverage! Cozying up to the media is NOT going to solve America's problems.

Here the GOP is trying to avert economic disaster by dispelling thousands of dollars in taxes on middle income Americans and businesses (leading to more unemployment) by getting some real and future-providing entitlement reform, and the Democrats will have none of it. Yet what do we hear? What Democrats and their pals in the liberal media want us to hear.

These "fiscal cliff" talks end with the same old Establishment Republicans willing to cave on taxes rather than seem inflexible to the press (even though it's always the Dems who end up getting what they want - always). Grover Norquist had this to say about the "No Tax Pledge" during an interview (follow the link for the entire exchange):
I understand why Harry Reid is trying to personalize this … What Harry Reid doesn’t want to say is that the American people don’t want their taxes raised. They elected a Republican Congress opposed to raising taxes. and I, Harry Reid am at odds with the American people … First of all, the promise on the pledge is to the American people. What I’ve accomplished with Americans for Tax Reform is to make it easy through the pledge, for elected officials, candidates and incumbents to credibly commit that they won’t raise taxes. Corker was elected to the Senate because he took the pledge and people thought, maybe he was too moderate, that he wouldn’t make it, but he made that written commitment to the people of Tennessee. He would not be a senator today if he hadn’t made that commitment. If he breaks it, he’s going to have a conversation with the people of Tennessee about his keeping his word. And the same thing with other people who are elected because they made that written commitment to the people of their state. I vote in Washington D.C.. The people that Corker promised or Chambliss or Graham promised are in their state. They haven’t promise me anything. They promised the voters of their state that they would go to Washington and reform government, not raise taxes to pay for Obama’s bigger government. They need to focus on reforming government, not on raising taxes to pay for bigger government each year. And it’s a lot of work. It’s not easy, but throwing up your hands and saying, “I don’t know, maybe I’ll raise taxes instead of governing” is not the way to go.
Remember this, as we go forward. The GOP, with its major messaging problems stemming from the nature of liberal media, needs our help. Short of a PAC advertising and telling the truth about what the GOP is trying to do, we the people need to be the ones talking to people around us and calling our senators and Congressmen and enlisting the involvement of the community, otherwise we'll be stuck with tax increases and no spending cuts just like Obama and the Democrats want and the majority of Americans do NOT want. Tax increases alone will not solve a perpetually growing government budget. That takes cuts. Look at Europe - they're having exactly the same problem since they aren't cutting spending!

UPDATE: See also Failing Negotiation 101: How Republicans are losing the fiscal cliff battle over at Breitbart. It's a deeper look at this same topic.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012


At Obama's press conference a week or so ago, he strongly defended Susan Rice. He wants her to be his secretary of state. Meaning, how dare anyone oppose him. Republicans are evil and causing all the gridlock in Washington. Blah, blah, blah.

Well, let's remember something. How many times did Bush get the secretary he wanted? Or the court justice he wanted? How many times did Democrats stop Bush in his tracks? How many times were Democrats blamed instead of Bush for choosing these people in the first place? John Bolton, for example? Clarence Thomas nearly didn't make the Supreme Court thanks to the Congressional Democrats, who wanted to impugn him for seemingly no reason other than blacks should be Democrats. The media was on their side, as it still is. Thomas squeaked in because of popular support. Shouldn't that mean that Obama's unpopular measures (Obamacare, for example) should influence politicians to listen to their consituents, or is that time in American politics now over?

Obama expects and will recieve the media coverage he wants. They'll be on his side the way they've always been on the Democrats' side. That still doesn't mean that all the problems in this country are justly blamed on the GOP.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Unemployment on the rise. Again.

Breitbart summed it up nicely a week or so ago:
The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the "lowest level in more than four years." Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy.

From the Department of Labor press release this morning [Thursday]:
In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 372,000.
This is not a surprise to the GOP. We told you in all sincerity that unemployment would rise again with the implementation of Obamacare and Taxmaggedon. Yet here we are anyway. All taxes are on the rise, short of some miracle that we'd up paying for later. Stop believing the liberal news media for your own good! Obama wants taxes. He's going to get taxes. He'll think he can get away with blaming the GOP for it, but it's all him. Follow the Taxmaggedon link to see how your taxes will change, as they invariably will if no alternative deal is reached (which I doubt). Follow the Obamacare link to see some side effects of that law on employment, which should have been expected but somehow weren't - at least by the Obama administration. No footing in common sense, there.

For more on this topic, go here.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Employment Level Growth Lowest Since Great Depression

Note: I wrote this before the election. Still there are things here worth your consideration.

Very, very interesting. This chart is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's very bad news for Obama. If Obama hadn't been so unfriendly to businesses by increasing regulatory burdens, he would have higher growth than Bush. Plus he didn't decrease spending, which has a dragging effect upon the economy. I find it telling that the times of Big Government (compared spending to GDP growth rates) is the time of lowest growth. Post WWII with Eisenhower doesn't hardly compare to the past 12 years of rapid growth in government. The only reason that Clinton isn't sandwiched between the two Bushes is that Gingrich forced him to balance the budget, thus limiting the growth of government, as seen in the next chart below.


Yes, government spending does have that much of a drain on the overall health of the economy, not that this paints the whole picture since it doesn't reflect the tax rates and regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals. I do also find it interesting that the Iraq and Afghan wars haven't made as nearly as big of a bump in government spending as WWII and WWI, though they do seem big relative to Vietnam and Korea. I also find it interesting that lowering tax rates alone doesn't necessarily predict economic growth: it must be coupled with decreases in government spending - which are very rare. Meaning we haven't experienced the kind of growth we could otherwise. This translates into personal incomes in decline.


As a reminder, the Congressional Budget Reform Act of 1974 basically ensured that government spending would never again stagnant from year to year. Ever since then, federal budgets have automatically increased annually regardless of necessity or revenue, by as much as 10%. Any talk of cutting those automatic increase rates in federal budgets have Democrats crying "Draconian cuts!" even though the departments would still have more money than the year before.

Now, some other correlating charts about growth: Government continues growing and spending our money which they do not have (last chart), and total spending is looking exponential (second to last chart) - a really bad sign that a collapse is inevitable unless we change course. And of course, the chart immediately below shows our growth is suffering. I know there are those that argue that government spending is not the cause of lower growth, but I think they're related, as well as the regulatory and tax burdens upon individuals and businesses.

The rate of spending is high enough that taxing individuals and businesses at 100% (leaving nothing left over for reinvestment and growth) doesn't solve our total federal deficit. Spending cuts are the only answer. That is what real "austerity" measures mean: not tax increases, which still don't solve the spending problems - as is all too evident in Europe. This is what the Tea Party stands for: fiscal responsibility. Why demonize that, leftists?

found here.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head

PAUL: I thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace, it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled.

Find more of what he said:
Washington Times: Does Ron Paul's Farewell Mean the Fight for Freedom Is Over
FOXNews: Ron Paul's Farewell to Freedom
InfoWars: Paul Ryan: The Founders Believed in Secession

He's right about this. I wish he weren't, but he is, whether or not the liberal news media would ever admit it. The masses seem eager to believe Obama's class warfare and "free" handouts and that capitalism ruined our country. As if! Without capitalism, we wouldn't have the (formerly) largest economy with the (formerly) low unemployment and (formerly) great innovations and (formerly) best standard of living of anywhere in the world. We may still hold that last title, but probably not for long if Obama gets his way. Policies do have consequences, whether intentional or not.

Friday, November 23, 2012


Reagan won in 1980, with the nickname, "The Great Communicator." The right has not had one like him since: a representative willing and able to explain clearly and quickly why the policies on the left don't bring the consequences they're hoping for, and the converse. Reagan was well prepared for explanations. Romney wasn't.

From Thomas Sowell at American Spectator:
Very few Republican candidates for any office today show any sign of such in-depth preparation on issues. Mitt Romney, for example, inadvertently showed his lack of preparation when he indicated that he was in favor of indexing the minimum wage rate, so that it would rise automatically with inflation.

That sounds fine. But the cold fact is that minimum wage laws create massive unemployment among black teenagers. Conversely, one of the lowest rates of unemployment among black teenagers occurred in the 1940s, when inflation virtually repealed the minimum wage law passed in 1938, since even unskilled labor was paid more in inflated dollars than the minimum wage law required.

Even during the recession year of 1949, black teenage unemployment was a fraction of what it would be in the most prosperous later years, after the minimum wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep pace with inflation. One of the few benefits of inflation is that it can in effect repeal minimum wage laws, which politicians can do directly only by risking their reelection.

Conservative opposition to minimum wage laws is just one of the ways that conservative principles often work out to benefit those with lower incomes, more so than liberal principles that sound so much better as political rhetoric.
One of the secrets of Barack Obama's success is his ability to say things that will sound both plausible and inspiring to uninformed people, even when they sound ridiculous to people who know the facts. Apparently he believes the former outnumber the latter, and the election results suggest that he may be right.

Since most of the media will never expose Obama's fallacies and falsehoods, it is all the more important for Republicans to do so themselves.
Yup. The media never will. They'll quote Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama spewing nonsense all the day long and give them credit for their intentions, but they will never connect the bad consequences with the liberal policies which create them.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012


Try something new. Give Rush Limbaugh a chance. Listen in our read the trancripts at his website. He actually has a challenge: give him six weeks, and see if you still think the same way you thought before. He has a beautiful Thanksgiving Day program, given each Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving!

Sunday, November 18, 2012


We've all heard a lot on this topic by now, but I found a couple new things worth adding to the discussion. First: Ann Coulter:
Under Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act, our immigration policy changed from one that replicated the existing ethnic population to one that strictly favored unskilled immigrants from the Third World. Since 1968, 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from what is euphemistically called "developing countries."

We can't admit computer scientists from Spain fleeing their failing socialist nation because we have to make room for a recent Senegalese immigrant's brother-in-law with no skills but great needs.
Most recent immigrants oppose abortion, gay marriage and big government. The problem is that poor, uneducated people -- the Democratic base -- are easily demagogued into voting tribally.

A white person can vote for a Republican or a Democrat without anyone saying to him, "HOW CAN YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR RACE?" But that is exactly how poor Hispanics and blacks are pressured into voting Democratic.

Noticeably, the No. 1 issue Obama had in his favor this year was not his policies. It was that a majority of voters agreed with the statement: Obama "cares for people like me." That's how Hugo Chavez got elected. 

 Meaning: education is the key for the GOP. Even more importantly, educating the underinformed and undereducated is key. Will they be open to that? They might. Foxnews has a new report: Latino poverty rate climbs to 28%. After four more years of continued or worse economic hardships, I'm guessing a lot of people in poverty - of any race - will be more open to listening to what the GOP has to say. This will require the base in the GOP to reach out and act as mentors and educators - the liberal media sure isn't going to do it, and neither is the RNC, given their history. As Ann Coulter points out, the underinformed are tribal voters. I've lived in near the ghetto before, and that statement is absolutely true.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Where we're headed

Europe is back to recession. We'll be there soon, unless we get our politicians to make serious cuts in government spending, of which there is no sign. Ever since the 1974 Congressional Budget Reform Act, all federal budgets have increased annually by as much as 10%, regardless of revenue and regardness of necessity. Any "cuts" we've seen since then have largely affected the rate of budget increases, as opposed to actually decreasing budgets. This is a far cry from zero-based budgeting. Europe's "austerity" measures aren't working because they're not making big cuts: tax increases alone do not close budget gaps because tax increases lead to increased unemployment leading to more benefits and less tax revenue.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Paul Ryan: Obama has no plan or leadership

Drudge has/had a link to this. For those of you not familiar with Drudge (or Breitbart, where the link leads) but happen upon my blog, here you go. Two valuable tools to combat the liberal bias in media, who do not report this sort of thing.

Quoting Ryan:
Speaker Boehner has outlined a bipartisan way forward to avoid the "fiscal cliff" and get our economy growing: common-sense entitlement reform coupled with pro-growth tax reform. We can find common ground on responsible spending restraint and greater revenue through economic growth, but we have yet to see either a serious plan or leadership from President Obama. Speaker Boehner and House Republicans have delivered both.
De ja vu. This is exactly what happened in the last debt ceiling debate. The GOP had plans, were willing to compromise, and the Democrats without a formal plan threw it all away and did exactly what Obama wanted, leading to more spending and less reform. And the GOP got blamed for it. Story of their life. That's what happens in a party-controlled, liberal "news" media.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Fiscal Cliff

Back to the matter at hand: taxes and the fiscal cliff. I love Mike Flynn's write-up of the current state of affairs:
One of the left's favorite parlor games to play on Republicans is to ask them, hypothetically, if they would accept $1 in tax hikes for something like $9 or $10 in spending cuts. The game is designed to show that Republicans have some kind of unreasonable opposition to higher taxes. Republicans, however, realize it's a trick. The tax hikes are always real, while the promised spending cuts never materialize. This year, however, the slow-moving train wreck dubbed the "fiscal cliff" offers an even worse bargain. Unless a deal is struck, the "fiscal cliff" will deliver $4.75 in tax hikes for a measly $1 in spending cuts.

The "fiscal cliff" is simply the confluence of the expiration of several tax measures and mandatory spending cuts put in place during last year's negotiations on the debt ceiling. The across-the-board spending cuts, i.e. sequestration, take effect if Obama and Congress fail to identify specific spending reductions. The media uses scary words like "draconian" and "severe" to describe the cuts, but in reality they are a paltry $109 billion a year. That's just around 3% of this fiscal year's spending. Even with this cut, federal spending will still increase next year by around $16 billion.
Read more here if you like. A couple days ago I wrote about why spending cuts work and tax increases alone don't, can't, and never will reign in a deficit. Confused about the annual increase in federal budgets? That because the federal government doesn't practice zero-balance budgeting. They automatically increase budgets by as much as 10% each year, ever since the 1974 Budget Reform Act (also around the time when D.C. really took off in growth). Also tied to the continually increasing deficit, which really took off after that point. You see, the budgets grow regardless of necessity, and certainly independent of federal revenue.

Then head over to a report by Marc Faber. First he explains that the market is going to sink. A lot. Because corporate profits are going to shrink with all the taxes new and old. Then:
Faber argued that the “fiscal cliff,” a rise in taxes and automatic spending cuts, would actually involve some minor tax increases in “five years’ time” and some spending cuts “in 100 years.”

What the U.S. needed was some pain, he said, aptly demonstrated by the euro zone’s austerity measures that are attempting, with a mixed measure of success, to curb gaping budget deficits.
“There will be pain and there will be very substantial pain. The question is do we take less pain now through austerity or risk a complete collapse of society in five to 10 years’ time?” he said, adding that there was a lack of political will to tackle the U.S. budget.
Faber identified several issues curbing an economic recovery, such as the real estate market, which he said had never been so “overbuilt.” He also said there was lots more deleveraging ahead.
“In the Western world, including Japan, the problem we have is one of too much debt and that debt now will have to be somewhere, somehow repaid or it will slow down economic growth,” Faber said. “I think we lived beyond our means from 1980 to 2007, and now it’s payback period.”
I completely agree, except I'd say we're still living well beyond our means - in fact more so now than ever before. 1980 was retrenchment compared to what we've seen in the past four years - and don't forget about the 1974 Budget Reform Act which Reagan had nothing to do with, not that he got rid of it either. Obama's had four years of $1T annual deficits and the budgets proposed (which he exceedes) have been the largest in our history! Unprecendented. Unthinkable. If it were Bush, this spending would never get off the front page. But since the liberal media prefers Democrats, they'll refrain from reminding us of the hole we're in.

And for the true consequences of Obamacare and all its taxes, I think Rush Limbaugh says it best:
Folks, let me give you a number to put that in perspective. From $30 billion to $71 billion, we're talking a $40 billion increase in bureaucratic expenses to administer health care. "That’s enough money to buy private health plans for fully half of all Americans who are now uninsured because they can’t afford it."

This law has never been about health insurance. It has never been about health care. This law is trillions in expenses and deficit spending, and it's ostensibly to cover the uninsured and to lower the costs for those who are. This is one of the biggest deceits that's ever been spread. For $80 million to $100 million we can insure everybody who's uninsured, versus trillions for this.

This is not about health care. It's not about insuring the uninsured. It is about the total control of a free people under the guise of health care. Once you're in charge of people's health... I mean, everything people do affects their health and therefore you, as the government, have the power to regulate it, which is what's on tap starting January 2014.

You say, "Well, is there something that can be done?"
I think so, but I'm not in the House of Representatives.
Yup. Obamacare will be the death of us all. And the death of our country as we know it. I am tied to the healthcare community and rest assured this law is not for the doctors, either. They're getting laid off too, because of Obama's drastic Medicare cuts, meaning that hospitals have to find new ways to meet their bottom line, including cutting needed healthcare professionals.

Meanwhile, the states in our union paint a portrait of our future as a country. From Ben Shapiro:
In the aftermath of the 2012 election, the vast majority of states are either entirely blue or entirely red, their entire legislatures and governors of one party or the other. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “In 46 states, the same party now controls both chambers of the legislature, creating distinct divisions between red and blue states.” That’s the highest number in 70 years. When governors are counted as well, there are just 12 states across the country with divided government. A full 38 states are of a single party.

If this continues, we are watching the end of America as we know it.

Red states are governed very differently from blue states. Of the 22 right-to-work states, which have provided 72% of the jobs under the weak Obama recovery, only Iowa (...) and Nevada (...) are not solid red. Meanwhile, the bluest states – states like Michigan and California and Illinois – are totally bankrupt.

What we are seeing is a complete divide throughout the country on the state level. We only get to elect one president. But on a state-by-state basis, it’s clear that the American people have two very different ideas of which way they want this country to head.

If the blue states hold true to form and the red states continue to grow, it will not be long before the red states are largely subsidizing the blue states. And when that happens, look for the bond that holds the states together to fray. If California is America’s Greece, Texas will be America’s Germany. And if the European Union cannot hold, don’t be surprised to see internal pressures in the United States, too, as more and more Americans become frustrated by a distant yet intrusive federal government they feel they cannot control.
Scary to think about, but I think he's right. Already there is talk of and signatures for seccession in all 50 states, in part to distance states from the fiscal problems and taxes from the federal government, including but not limited to Obamacare.

Americans, we conservatives tried to warn you. However ridiculous the "fringe" labels given us by the threatened liberal media, you'll find we speak sense. We talked about the hard times coming down the pike. But you didn't listen and we're stuck with the most "progressive" president in history. All that means for the every-day citizens is pain with more job losses, rising healthcare costs, new taxes across the board if a deal isn't reached (and maybe even if one is reached), more recession, more deficit, more bankrupt businesses. You reap what you sow.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012


You know how the liberal news media loves saying that the gridlock in D.C. is all the fault of the GOP? That they need to compromise? Guess what? So do the Dems. Obama is utterly unwilling to compromise (as we learned during the past four years if we were looking closely enough to see past the media spin), and with the support of an adoring media, he can get away with blaming the GOP for something which he and Senate Dems should share the blame (as he has been for four years). It takes two to tango. It takes two to fight. It takes two (or more) to compromise. Not just one.

Common sense again eludes the leftists. Tolerance for them means support for all their causes and complete intolerance for any conservative cause. Thus compromise eludes them. It's their way or the highway. In the past four years, Republicans proposed budgets. They didn't expect to keep everything they wanted in them. The Democrats never crafted a budget, other than to ignore Obama's proposed budgets. Yet they still got away with blaming the GOP for the lack of a budget - that's the power of a complicit media.

If you don't understand what I mean about the media, consider the press Bush had following Katrina compared to Obama following Sandy. Two devastating storms, and Sandy might arguably have the worse recovery because liberal policies liberal policies and groups stand in the way! The supplies are there, at least the ones donated by private sector businesses and charities, but they wait undistributed because of union rules and NYC laws. Yet this is unreported in the mainstream. It would reflect too poorly on the real performance of liberalism. Ineffective. Inefficient. Expensive. Likewise the media following of any Sandy cleanup revolves around the Occupy movement, even though that is but a small effort compared to many religious groups.

Obama, like Clinton, will always have favorable press. Bush, like Romney and fellow Republicans, will always have disfavorable press. This doesn't mean that the GOP is solely responsible for all the nation's problems.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Misplaced furor

You know how some restaurants are under fire from liberals because they're firing people? Don't blame the restaurants. Blame Obamacare. You see, when a law requires a business to spend even more money on employees' health insurance for those who work over 30 hours a week - and the fact that they have to provide health insurance at all - means that they can't afford as many employees and preserve any sort of profit to keep the business going. If businesses lose money for whatever reason, they have to make cuts to preserve the future of the business. They don't run on air. They run on money. This should be common sense.

Same thing for individuals. If people have bigger costs of living put on them with the same or even lower income, they have to make cuts in their spending. Maybe replace restaurants with meals at homes, cut back on trips to avoid paying for the extra gas money, maybe get another job to make ends meet. This is what normal people do: they live within their means.

I'd like to see the same common sense applied to government. If the government gets less revenue because fewer people are working or whatever the reason, the government should cut spending to match revenue. Period. Live within their means.

Now, sometimes people get caught up in credit card debt and it's not pretty. Just as our elected politicians spending more federal money than they get in federal revenue isn't pretty. We're headed for a fiscal cliff. Already the deficit exceeds $16T and debt per capita is far worse than Greece. Ahead of us lie downgrades, government cuts (if we're smart enough to elect politicians who favor this), tax increases... not pretty. Yet so many liberals are still in denial that government debt is a problem...

I read that the government spends $60k per welfare family! If government just gave that money directly to the welfare families, there would be no poverty in this country. Instead, most of it is absorbed in paying government officials. Overhead. Ineffective. Inefficient. Private charity always tops government welfare for distributing aid efficiently and effectively. Look at Sandy.

Therefore, the next time you see liberal media ire at firings and layoffs and bankruptcies (you won't see their ire at unemployment - that means buying votes with benefits, in their book), look no further than the liberal policies causing them. Reckless government spending and even more carelessly crafted government programs have led us exactly where we are today. Not that you will ever see the liberal news media admit as much.

Government bites the hands that feed it. Instead of us punishing them, it's like we haven't realized that the bites are doing us serious harm! Maybe we think we're the dog. We're not. We have the power to force government spending cuts instead of only taxes increases on us to cover for their bad management. Of course, maybe we really are the dog if we've got a majority of people voting for these kinds of policies, but I don't believe that's a true majority of opinion. Either way, our anger is misdirected if it's focused on those who work and employ in this country.

Contact your representatives today and let them know what you expect of them to earn your vote.

Monday, November 12, 2012


With much thanks to the media burying the evidence against Obama on Libya, burying the ineffectiveness of government cleanup after Sandy until after the election, burying the coming Taxmageddon on January 1, and the delay of reports such as record Food Stamps participationgrowth in a month, we arrive where we are today.

Those are the more recognized contributors of last week's election. The consequences are we've now got to live with higher taxes across the board - not just for the rich (see here for how you individually will be affected, not including FICA increases). Also, Obama's been turning out an average of 68 new regulations a day. Which will impact businesses and those who work for them and those who buy their products and services: we're all connected. If government makes life hard for some of us, it affects us all. As we've been experiencing. As not enough voters believed. They will believe this after four more years.  I saw somewhere (I wish I remember where so I could attribute it) that Obama's political philosophy is that he needs to rid the world of injustice by punishing those he sees as the cause of injustice. He makes and implements laws, and lo and behold, injustice still exists. The cycle continues. We are all punished together.

If a business is hard hit (as health care now is) with regulation or rules or laws with which to comply, the costs go up for that business. They have to pass the costs along to the consumer or go bankrupt. Naturally, no business wants to fold, but when they reach the point that revenues (with which to pay employees) are lower than expenditures, they have to fire people. Hospitals are already cutting back on doctors and medical personnel, not because they're not needed, but because they can't afford to pay everyone anymore. Obamacare directly and ruthlessly affects their bottom line. Not all the changes are bad, but the consequences include that patients will have less access to care.

Healthcare is only one example. Companies are laying off workers afresh, with Obama's reelection. They know that the 2013 taxes will affect their bottom lines so they have to make some cuts to save the business. Watch out, food stamps. What Obama did with food stamps in the past four years is nothing to what he'll do in the next four years. The deficit will continue to skyrocket and probably give Obama $12T in eight years, in comparison with Bush's inexcusable $5T in four years. Yet the media won't make much of the fiscal cliff because a Democrat's in office instead of a Republican.

These are just some of the consequences of Obama's reelection.

American Spectator has written about ten lesser known consequences. It's worth a read. They range from worrisome to bizarre.

UPDATE: Redstate has a report up about the supplies delivered to NYC for Sandy victims, yet unused - because of red tape and unions.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Civility and Taxes

Today I am again reminded that we need more civility in our discourse.

Mitt Romney lost. Obama won. That doesn't mean that anyone should crow over anyone else, that anyone should shout out obscenities at anyone else, that anyone deserves to be treated as less than a human being. I'm talking to both sides, here. There is NO reason to be uncivil. To quote other civility advocates: sure, you have the right to say anything you want. But it doesn't make it right to say anything you want. If we start listening to each other, we might just learn something.


Meanwhile, I stand by what I say in that we are doomed. We have to raise the debt ceiling again, already? And be downgraded again? How long until the government checks start bouncing? Obama spends our money like water - in fact, he's more careful with water! Obama admitted a long time ago that he wants Taxmageddon to remain (rather than get to real spending cuts other than defense) even though he publicly says he is waiting on Congress. All that means is he wants to blame the taxes on Republicans. That is not compromise or even a desire for compromise. That's politics.

Be prepared: the FICA reduction expires Jan 1, 2013, and you'll pay 6.2% again. Not to mention all the other taxes that hit every single American in Taxmaggedon. Read it and weep. And call and plead with all your Congressmen and women to cut spending now. Ironically, if Congress does absolutely nothing, according to the CBO the economy will be impacted immediately but we'll recover from it quicker because of the spending cuts detailed (which Democrats might otherwise eliminate). I fully expect this level of tax increase to throw us immediately into a recession, if not depression. And there will be no way out without cutting spending (meaning no way out for four more long years with a president unwilling to compromise).

Government is too big, takes too much from us, is too big of a burden, so it must be cut down to size. There is no other way.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

And so it begins

Not only is Petraus suspiciously resigning the week before the Benghazi hearings, and not only did Iran fire at a US drone over international waters BEFORE election day and we didn't hear until after, not only is the DNC airing commercials in Mexico about how to come to the United States and get on Food Stamps, not only are businesses laying off thousands of workers across the country with Obama's reelection, not only is Obama not going to approve Keystone just as he didn't approve it before, not only is Obama saying he's willing to compromise even though he also says that we need tax increases (when they're already coming down the pike for all Americans), not only is Obamacare increasing the doctor shortage and wait times for care and cost of care, not only is the media not reporting ANY of this, not only is the media continuing to ignore the fact that the Sandy recovery is every bit as disorganized as the Katrina recovery, not only is the media continuing to ignore evidence against Obama in Libya and elsewhere.....

None of this is going to change.

It's only going to get worse.

Obama thinks he has a mandate now, and knows he can get away with whatever he wants - which evidently is to squeeze working Americans, forcing them to government aid or the unions. We're moving to a socialist state within his second term. He wants to put us past the point of no return - no return to our Founding principles. He thinks he's setting us up for a lifetime of Democrat rule. That is not what the majority of Americans really want, as evidenced by the increasing unpopularity of Obamacare. Mark my words, we won't stand for more of this after four years.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Diving Deeper: What does it mean?

Erick Erickson at Redstate:
These are exciting times for the conservative movement. But the conservative movement must get up and lead now — lead with conservative ideas for the GOP, not a Republican agenda packaged as conservative. We must begin again anew talking conservatism as evangelists, not fellow travelers. We must remember we are not in a permanent decline, but a cycle of politics that is only permanent if we let it be. 
Our think tanks must stop producing white papers designed to woo donors and must produce ideas designed to persuade voters to limited government.
Yup. It really does go back to having conservatives take the Establishment out. Out of office - on both sides. This is why the Tea Party rose up in the first place.
Rush Limbaugh: Why did 3 million Republicans stay home?
CALLER: Well, Rush, the last four years, for example, every time the debt ceiling was hit, the Republicans, unfortunately, voted to raise it again. We need to get conservative Republicans in Washington. And if the Republican Party wants the vote, the support of conservatives like myself, they've gotta get conservatives to run. If they don't want to win the White House, if they don't want to control Washington, then just keep doing what they're doing.
RUSH: So you engaged in a protest vote, essentially, and you did so in sufficient numbers that you have secured the reelection of somebody truly destructive of the traditional, as founded, American way of life. How do you live with that? (...)

RUSH: If there's a 70% chance of curing your cancer, but you hold out for a hundred percent, is that what you would do? Or would you go for the 70% chance? Takes all kinds.
As Ann Coulter wrote yesterday, the purists are destroying any hope we have. Until we get rid of the Establishment entirely, that is. Rush also pointed out the Establishment is most definitely NOT getting the message that the GOP base wants more conservative candidates.
Mark Tooley at American Spectator
Whatever the reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat and Barack Obama's victory, it cannot be faulted on traditional religious voters, who seem to have voted in force. (...)

[Christian Coalition Cheif Ralph] Reed himself, who convened a post-election D.C. press conference, was more sweeping. "This election was a tale of two cities," he said. "Evangelicals and faithful Catholics turned out in large numbers and voted overwhelmingly for religious liberty, the sanctity of life and marriage, and limited government." But he regretted: "Younger voters and minorities turned out in even larger numbers in 2008 and delivered Obama to victory." Searching for good news, he said many of the young people and minority groups like Hispanics who ensured Obama's victory are "people of faith" who might respond to conservative appeals.
That's huge relief to me, as a Mormon. Christian religious votes were up for Romney across the board! Even though Romney lost, even evangelicals aren't scared of Mormons anymore, or at least they know enough not to be scared of voting for them. Wahoo!
 John Nolte at Breitbart:
The good news is that we won’t be caught off guard again and that all this talk from the media about how we're now living in a liberal America just isn't true. We lost a tactical race Tuesday night not an ideological one.
The President doesn't have a mandate because he didn’t run on a platform. He ran on David Axelrod's divisive tactics, David Plouffe's distraction tactics, and Jim Messina's metrics.
The polls told us this was working. We didn’t listen. That won't happen again.

Election-day Survey:
The Breitbart News Network and Judicial Watch partnered with Public Opinion Strategies to conduct an election night survey that included 800 respondents contacted by land line (70%) and cell phone (30%). The partisan breakdown was D+3, within the margin of national exit polls, which suggested a D+6 electorate. The margin of error was 3.46%.

Voters’ responses suggest that the American public agrees with conservative policies--but does not trust the Republican Party to implement them.
The results from key points asked in this study:
  •  Majority dislikes big government.
  • Voters feel big government leads to more corruption.
  • Voters trust neither the Democrats nor Republicans in dealing with corruption.
  • Voters overwhelmingly distrust the media.
  • Majority support conservative ideas on immigration.
  • Voters in every demographic support Voter ID laws.
From the survey write-up:
In sum, voters agree with conservatives on the issues.

As Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, said:
“The electorate is closely divided on who our nation's political leadership should be. But there is strong voter support for core conservative values: limited, honest and transparent government; the rule of law approach to illegal immigration; and strong election integrity measures, namely voter ID."

Larry Solov, CEO and President of Breitbart News Network, said of the poll results:
“It appears the Republican Party has failed to convince voters it is a better vehicle for their conservative values and policy preferences. The problem is bigger than the challenge of winning elections. It requires a significant re-branding of the Republican Party for a new era.”
Benny Johnson at The Blaze:
To any conservative wondering where they went astray this cycle, observe the religious-like conviction of the voters here when rattling off liberal talking points. But beyond the rhetoric, how much do these eager voters know about our American government? Just a few questions, then: How many Senators are there? How many Congressmen? Supreme Court Justices? Who is Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Can you name an amendment to the Constitution?

The answers inform. Was this election really a rebuke of conservatism and its principles? Or was it a function of the masterful marketing of emotions, niche issues and yes, even revenge? Judging by what you’re about to observe, the answer seems pretty obvious: [video, follow the link above to watch it]

In conclusion, even though most Americans identify with conservative ideals, we can't trust the Establishment in either party to do anything we want. We're not going to see Voter ID laws. We're not going to see corruption addressed or tax reform or wasteful government spending. We're not going to see any changes in the Establishment of either party unless we vote out all Establishment politicians! This is a prime opportunity to educate Americans about how we can band together to make this happen. In essence, a large majority of us (at least 70% according to the survey) identify with the Tea Party movement (and the libertarian movement is related), though most of us don't know it, thanks to the complicit media.

UPDATE: A Breitbart Exclusive details the collapse of the Romney campaign's GOTV program on Election Day. Read the comments too.

Thursday, November 8, 2012


What does it mean? Where did the GOP go wrong when it seemed like we were more enthusiastic than we've been for 30 years? I've found these conservative journalists' views helpful in making sense of it all.

Erick Erickson at Redstate:
The odds were never with us historically. It has nothing to do with an embrace of one world view or rejection of another. It is just damn hard to beat an incumbent President who is raking in millions and laying a ground work for re-election while your side is fighting it out in a primary.

Primaries make challengers stronger. But they also let the other side lay groundwork your side will never have the time to lay.
Robert Stacy McCain at American Spectator:
The search for scapegoats always attends political defeat, and Republicans have no shortage of candidates for the role, beginning with Todd Akin, whose ill-considered remarks about "legitimate rape" during an August interview set off a nationwide demand that he quit as the GOP nominee against Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Akin went down to ignominious defeat Tuesday, as did Indiana's Richard Mourdock, who upset Republican Sen. Richard Lugar in the primary but then imploded after making Akin-esque comments about rape and abortion. Perhaps pro-life groups should sponsor a training session for political candidates, teaching them how to answer "gotcha" questions without either ceding anything to the abortion lobby or offending voters with off-the-cuff comments about rape. (...)

The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly also will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous clown who (a) hogged up a prime time spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney's presidential campaign. Good luck with the remainder of your political future, governor. It is unlikely Republicans shall soon forget your perfidious betrayal.
And we shouldn't forget. Thanks to Christie, Obama got to go have a photo-op at all. Even Bloomberg refused to let Obama come and look 'presidential.' It's impossible to know whether Christie ensured Obama's reelection, but he certainly contibuted greatly to it, according to exit polls. And this, despite the recovery of Sandy being arguably worse than Katrina's! People just don't know about that thanks to the liberal media who have ignored it ever since Obama left. They are also to blame.
Ben Stein at American Spectator:
It is nonsense to say that this election is in any way a repudiation of the GOP or principles of conservatism. Facing a totally united front of the mainstream media, the beautiful people, the unions, the black block vote, the incredibly, unbelievably powerful gay and lesbian forces, in the media, all of whom have as much right to campaign as anyone else… but still facing all of that, and facing an incredibly skillful incumbent in office, the Romney-Ryan campaign got almost exactly as many votes as the Obama-Biden campaign.
That is, with every wind of modern political culture against them, Romney and Ryan drew forth endorsement of conservative principles on a truly virtuoso scale. (...)
Yes, the Hispanic community is incredibly important now in America. They should be conservatives. The ones I know are all ferociously pro-life and pro-work. Let's make an effort in their direction in a big way.

 Aaron Goldstein at American Spectator:
At the dawn of the '80s, a critical mass of the American population knew what life was like in the Great Depression and WWII, understood the evils of Soviet communism and did not take kindly to American diplomats being held hostage. (...)

In 1980, Americans would not tolerate rising unemployment. In 2012, not only is high unemployment accepted as a fact of life but receiving food stamps is encouraged. (...)

In the final analysis, it must also be remembered that a significant segment of the electorate was emotionally vested in Barack Obama in a way it never was with Carter -- and I'm not just talking about the mainstream media. Obama received a near unanimous vote from African-Americans and a substantial majority of Hispanics as well as people under 30 (especially women). That doesn't necessarily mean we've entered the permanent Democratic majority which Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wroteof a decade ago. It is certainly possible that America could again elect a conservative Republican President. But conservatives must recognize that the American electorate has changed and that 1980 has come and gone, never to return.
Rush Limbaugh:
Based on early exit polls, Obama is locked in a tight race with Governor Romney. Nationally we believe the race to be as tight as it could be, and to the extent that Obama is running strong and can win, it is because they see him as someone who cares about people like them. They feel he did a very good job in the response to Hurricane Sandy. When I saw that, I thought this thing is starting to read like a Democrat campaign speech, this exit poll data. Hurricane Sandy and the aftermath and the way Obama handled that, what did Obama do? He showed up one day, he bear hugged Chris Christie, and then he left. The situation on the ground is devastating, and yet Obama triumphs in the exit polls with that.  
I guess those people didn't notice that Sandy coverage evaporated as soon as Obama left (unlike Bush and Katrina - there's liberal bias for you). Yet it's dismal over there, to this day. Hundreds of people dead, thousands displaced. Government hasn't solved anything, and in fact has stood in the way to some extent of some private charity.

And more Rush Limbaugh:
Look at what happened to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, it's impossible to exaggerate what a great man Mitt Romney is, what a great family he has, how great he would have been at this time for this country. It's impossible to exaggerate it. And yet, the people that voted for Barack Obama believe he allowed a man's wife to die because he didn't care. They believed that he is a felon. They believe he's not paying his taxes. The left gets away with every lie, every smear. Why? We are going to have to come up with answers to this, and we are going to have to realize at the same time that the antidote to what is happening in this country is happy, confident, full-fledged, unapologetic conservatism. The Republican Party still has not tried it. But that is for another day. I want to get that out there. 

Alfred Regnery at Breitbart:
During his 2008 campaign, Obama famously said that if you don’t have a record to run on, you just attack the other guy so voters won’t think about your record. It was Clinton’s rule, Obama’s campaign team adopted it with a vengeance early in the summer of 2012, and the results are now obvious.
Dan McLaughlin at Redstate:
Bush may have grown in office as Commander-in-Chief, but on domestic policy, his principles, record, rhetoric and platform were consistent and enduring. When George W. Bush said what he meant to do, people knew where he stood and believed him. That – and not Romney’s flip-flopping history and strategic ambiguity – is the model for how to become the next Republican president.
Ann Coulter:
 After supporting Mitt Romney in 2008, some of you may recall, I ran off with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie midway through Obama's first term for precisely that reason: The near-impossibility of beating an incumbent president. Christie seemed like the kind of once-in-a-lifetime star who could pull a Reagan upset against an incumbent president.

But I was wrong. Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It's less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.

Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded. Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it's delusional and won't help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future. (...) 
The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off. (...) 
Purist conservatives are like idiot hipsters who can't like a band that's popular. They believe that a group with any kind of a following can't be a good band, just as show-off social conservatives consider it a mark of integrity that their candidates -- Akin, Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell -- take wildly unpopular positions and lose elections.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Can we hold out?

With Obama's victory, I join millions of Americans wondering how we can afford four more years. How can we keep tightening our belts? How can we afford to pay the higher taxes due to hit us all across the board on Jan. 1, 2013 - which Obama has admitted he's unwilling to delay? How can we afford the rising costs of health insurance forced upon us by Obamacare? How can we afford higher costs of living forced on us by inflation from Quantitative Easings? How can we afford continued high rates of job loss and lengthy unemployment?

As Mitt Romney (and Joe Biden) said, the middle class has been crushed by this administration. How many of us will still even be middle class after four more years? The rich will become richer under Obama, as they have been. But the rest of us will not.

As for the country, there can be no question that we will have at least a $22T deficit. I doubt employment will significantly improve. The rate might improve, but the labor force and number of jobs in this country have shrunk significantly in four years, and I don't see any indication Obama is willing to make things easier for businesses and employees to correct that. Neither is there any indication that Obama is willing to really work with Republicans in the House, rather than forcing them to give him everything he wants. Not compromise.

I expect that with four more years, more than 50% of the country will want real change. Unless, of course, more than 50% of the country prefer the government's care to their own. But that's not who we are, as Americans. We believe in freedom. I have a hard time believing America would really like European-style taxes and programs, once they experience them.

There is also no question that with Romney/Ryan campaigning we learned more, as Americans, about what we can do to save our entitlement programs for future generations. I doubt Obama will do anything about those besides grow them in recipient numbers while cutting reimbursements, as he's already begun to do. However, I like that we are beginning to have this national conversation about fiscal responsibility.

UPDATE: I eagerly await turnout reports - comparisons between 2008 and 2012 in each state for each party. The sense that conservative/GOP turnout was high and Dem turnout may have been lower I'd like to see in numbers. I also await the military vote, which I hear have not been/will not be counted in many states. It may be in the states where it wouldn't make a difference anyway, but I don't know that. It won't change anything at this point since the media-favored Democrat won, but I'd like to know all the same.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Answers about turnout found here. Democrat turnout significantly less than 2008, Republican turnout slightly less than 2008 - which surprised me. McCain's numbers would have beaten Obama's yesterday. There is some significant talk that the voting machines were programmed to record Obama votes in Ohio, with an untested software "patch" since the polls, the exit polls, and the "actual" votes are disparate with each other. I doubt Mitt Romney will challenge this, however, though I think he should. McCain getting more votes than Romney doesn't make sense with the enthusiam levels in the GOP this time around.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Voting for Love of Country

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation."   Martin Luther King, Jr.

Obama: Voting is the best revenge

Is the Secret Service Ignoring Threats against Mitt Romney?

Thousands of Shocking Threats of Violence by Obama Supporters on the Eve of the Election

Philadelphia: GOP Inspectors Being Tossed from Polls; Black Panthers Return

Service members purged from voter rolls in Florida

Mentally ill in NC 'coaxed' into voting for Obama

More Dem playbook in action, shredding GOP registrations

Allegations of unions putting illegal immigrants on voter rolls clouds Nevada voting

Thousands of ballots unlikely to reach military voters in time

I pray that the election will be fair. Even amid Gov. Cuomo's order in NY that anyone can vote in NYC without ID, which means anyone could go there and vote multiple times and no one would ever know. Even amid voting machines that change votes from Romney to Obama. Even with the other voting issues listed above. In places with a conservative presence, people seem to be overwhelmingly and enthusiastically voting for Romney with long lines yet respectful conversation while waiting. In more liberal places, thus far there are more problems reported and/or less turnout. Reports from many citizen journalists (voters) here.  Add your experience! Contact the Election Tip Line at

UPDATE: Another installment at Breitbart of voting reports. Continued enthusiam for the GOP and less turnout in Democratic areas.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Here is yet another installement at Breitbart of voting reports. There are others besides. I find them all inspirational.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Not your parent's Democrat Party

Conservative talking heads talk about this a lot - that the Democrat party has grown increasingly liberal and caters to its fringe elements. Now a former Democrat, Sheldon Adelson, talks about his own "conversion" in the WSJ with I Didn't Leave the Democrats. They left me.

Among his points:
  • Democrats now barely favor Israel over Palestine.
  • Democrats now aren't as individually charitable as Republicans.
  • Democrats' arugment that government welfare does a better job at caring for the poor isn't holding true in Democrat-run states such as CA, IL, and NY.
Here is his detailed argument against Obama:
Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.

Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: "Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress."

At times, it seems almost as if President Obama wants to impose the failed Illinois model on the whole country. Each year of his presidency has produced unsustainable deficits, and he takes no responsibility for his spending. Worse still, unemployment has become chronic, and many Americans have given up on looking for work.

Whenever President Obama deplores the wealthy ("fat-cat bankers," "millionaires and billionaires," "at a certain point you've made enough money," and so on), it tells me that he has failed to learn the economic lessons of Illinois, and that he still doesn't understand the vital role entrepreneurs play in creating jobs in our society.

As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That's why I switched parties, and why I'm now giving amply to Republicans.
Thank you, Sheldon Adelson. I'm so glad he noticed that liberalism doesn't work in the real world, however good it sounds. He might also have added that President Obama opened the doors for states to offer welfare without a work requirement, adding to the deficit, employment, and entitlement solvency problems. He might have added that Obama is responsible for annual trillion dollar deficits. He might have added that Obama has never even tried to work with Republicans at all - a Chicago thug tactic, or maybe he just doesn't know how to lead. He might have added that Obama is not learning from his mistakes or setting a new course.

He might also have added that Mitt Romney embodies all the American ideals with the added bonus of a career spent in turning around failing entities. He can save America if anyone can. Vote for Mitt Romney.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Mormons and Hurricane Sandy

I'm a Mormon. All of the destruction left by the hurricane last week left me wondering when we were going to hear about LDS groups helping clean up the area in the news? Today it hit me. We won't, but not because Mormons aren't helping out, but because it's now two days away from the election and a Mormon Republican is running against the Democrat/liberal media machine. By the way, there are such reports about Mormon service - just Google "Mormon Sandy" or something like that and you'll find quite a few. They just haven't been picked up by the big papers. I don't have TV or watch TV so I can't answer for any television coverage.

Let me tell you why I know that Mormons are helping clean up the mess. First, the LDS Church sends humanitarian aid (medical supplies, food, clothing, blankets, hygiene kits) as needed anywhere in the world. They try to get it there immediately following any natural disaster, such that when help is needed, it's already available. The Church owns trucks for stateside deliveries, and uses planes for disasters further away. They coordinate and partner with local authorities and charities to best disperse the aid.

Then, there is the Mormon Helping Hands program. Following any natural disaster, LDS members reasonably near the disaster are organized and mobilized to assist people and towns in cleaning up. They do anything and everything. Really. Chain saw fallen trees, dig mud out of basements, repair buildings... It's all strictly volunteer.

Missionaries in the area of a natural disaster are always out helping in the community, whether they are organized through Helping Hands or the local congregations to whom they are assigned.

Lastly, the LDS Church has programs implemented among Church members that leave members prepared for disasters. Self-reliance, or "provident living" is an important principle in the LDS Church. For example, every person in the Church has "home teachers" assigned to watch over them and visit with them, and these home teachers (most men in the Church are home teachers) called the families and individuals they watch over before the storm to make sure they all had emergency supplies, and then contacted them after the storm to make sure they were OK. It's part of the Emergency Plan that every LDS congregation has for home teachers and sometimes people nearby in the congregation to check on each other and report to the bishopric, without the bishop having to check on all 100+ households in his congregation himself. In this particular storm, members whose homes were not damaged housed extra families whose homes were destroyed or damaged. Emergency preparedness also includes:
  • a two week supply of water for everyone in the household
  • 72-hr kits, with all basic necessities for 72 hours
  • food storage for a year, meaning even if the stores are empty, you have food you can eat for a long time. Some people have a full year's worth, others a few months' worth. Either way, they're more prepared for disasters or other temporal problems such as job loss.
  • other emergency supplies and fuel, such as propane stoves, lanterns, hygiene items, blankets, etc.

The LDS Church is widely noted for its service pending natural disasters. Just not in the news this time, because of politics. For the record, the LDS Church also has humanitarian programs across the world for clean water, wheelchairs, wells, neonatal resusitation training, other medical missions, drought and famine relief, etc. Also members of the LDS Church are often involved in serving the needy in their communities, in coordination with other service organizations.

Here is an excerpt from one report on LDS service after Sandy, to give you a feel for the scope of organization and generosity of this effort:
Missionaries, Church members and other volunteers will spend the next few days out in neighborhoods, helping meet immediate needs and assessing damage, then will make plans to return to help with larger, long-term projects. Some damage assessment and work must wait until roads are safe, downed power lines are cleared and flooded areas open up. As soon as first responders determine it is safe, local Church leaders will work with government and relief agencies to help organize assistance in those areas.

Relief efforts are being coordinated on both a local and regional level. Church leader Elder Jeffery E. Olson is helping coordinate efforts by Church members in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and said local leaders are eager to organize all the assistance they can. “Everyone expressed a willingness to go where they needed to go and help anyone who needed help,” he said. “In fact, they were willing to come from as far away as Buffalo if we needed them.”

The Church has equipment and supplies that are being distributed as needs are determined. The Church has pre-positioned supplies in warehouses in Indianapolis, Washington, D.C., New York and New Jersey. Those supplies include generators, food, water, blankets, hygiene kits, tarps, chain saws, shovels and wheelbarrows.

Elder Olson said Church members in the area were fairly well prepared for the storm and have been able to reach out to those who need help. “We’ve been teaching our members to be at a level of preparedness so that they are also able to help their neighbors and community recover after a disaster,” he said.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Bias exposed by Pew

The Pew Foundation performed a study of the negative and positive coverage of Obama and Romney during this election season. It's a long and detailed report of many kinds of media. One striking result: MSNBC is more biased for Obama than Fox is for Romney! This isn't news to conservatives, but it may come as a shock to people who actual believe media claims of balanced coverage.

I told you so. Obama isn't as great as the liberal news media indicates, and Romney is much better than they indicate. They caricatured Romney past the point of recognition with personal accounts of him! Those accounts all agree Romney is kind, caring, honest, hardworking, helpful, humble, thrifty, and funny. That's the guy we met at the debates - though if the news media were worth their salt we would already have known his real character. I've never found personal accounts of Obama besides his own - and I've looked. Obama is also the guy we met at the debates: arrogant, dismissive of alternative points of view, a liar, and egotistical. That should also not have been news to us, in a fair and balanced news world.

Read or watch both sides, because balanced coverage doesn't exist in one place. Never has, never will. And how can anyone make an informed opinion if relying on only one point of view? Impossible.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Obama's Failure in Libya

The truth slowly leaks out on Benghazi. I imagine that if Bush were president right now and had pulled the same shoddy stance as Obama, that we'd have gotten to the bottom of it weeks ago, because the media is inherently against Republicans and protects Democrats in office.

Yet everything points to the president: his policies and his unwillingness to change them to protect Americans requesting help led to the death of four Americans. None of the excuses are adding up. The State Department had repeated requests for more security months ahead of time. They had information of the attack in real time. They had hours of advance warning that an Al Qaida attack was planned for September 11. They had drones in the area, and more military personnel only an hour away. By Obama's policies, no increase in forces was granted. Obama had plenty of time to respond and bring in additional forces for this exceptional circumstance, but he didn't. Why? Apparently Obama doesn't think Americans representing America abroad are worth protecting, and that blaming a video for what he knows is a planned attack by Al Qaida is a winning strategy.

  • Heritage: Secret Cable Revelation Blows Open Benghazi Cover-Up Story About Ambassador Stevens' cable to Hillary Clinton on August 15 revealing terrorist activity and the need for more security and an emergency meeting (which was not granted that we know of - quite possibly because of Obama's inflexible foreign policy rules for the area - Hillary Clinton has admitted that she was following orders).
  • ABC: The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip Obama isn't participating (or cooperating) in the investigation

  • Washington Post: In Benghazi Timeline, CIA Errors But No Evidence of Conspiracy - David Ignatius The CIA waited for red tape to be cut? Really? It was an attack on Americans!

  • CBSNews: Key Task Force Not Convened During Libya Attack - Sharyl Attkisson Again, why were people on hand to respond not allowed to do their jobs? Obama's (failed) policies.

  • Las Vegas Review Journal: Benghazi Blunder: Obama Unworthy Commander-in-Chief As in his handling of the economy and energy policy, Obama's foreign policy is a liability to the United States.

  • Commentary: Why Did We Abandon Benghazi Compound? Report from Libya:
  • Foreign Policy magazine has a story on its website by two Dubai-based Arabic TV reporters who visited the site of the former U.S. consulate on Oct. 26 and found important documents lying around that were left behind by an FBI team that visited a month ago. These included a document claiming that on the morning of September 11 one of the consulate security guards spied a police officer charged with guarding the compound photographing it instead. Sean Smith, one of the slain diplomats, wrote hours just before his death in an online forum: “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
    And we now know that the Obama administration/State Department were warned of an Al Qaida attack hours earlier than it happened, with all the information they could possibly want to order increased security ahead of time. And they didn't. This is all on Obama's head. No surprise he's still not talking about it four days before Election Day. This is bigger than Watergate.

    Thursday, November 1, 2012

    Repealing Obamacare

    I'm seeing a lot of conservative pleas for people to elect Republicans so that Mitt Romney will have enough Congressman willing to work with him in repealing Obamacare. There is something to that.

    However, the last thing Republicans need with a perpetually antagonistic media is to "force" the repeal of Obamacare the way Obamacare was rammed down all our throats against popular consent and without a single Republican vote in the first place. At least in my opinion - I've not seen much call for this elsewhere on the right.

    Now, Obamacare certainly isn't about to gain in popularity because the of the ensuing $2500 average increases in private insurance premiums as necessary to cover the procedures mandated by Obamacare, the Obamacare taxes hitting middle Americans on up beginning January 1, the loss of employee benefits because of the costs to employers, and the hospital system that is already groaning under the payout changes to Medicare as directed under Obamacare. Meaning layoffs of medical professionals - including doctors. Not what anyone needs right now, in a country that has long needed more doctors than it has. And yet some hospitals prepare to close their doors forever- flat broke from serving the neediest Medicare patients with less reimbursement, and some doctors are retiring early to avoid this monstrosity of a healthcare system. I even know of many foresightful doctors switching careers to get out of fields that will be the hardest hit by Obamacare regulations.

    Nor is Obamacare likely to be treasured by Democrats in Congress who want to keep their seats in districts with large opposition to Obamacare - they'll vote for its repeal.

    That's what we need. Bipartisan support. Enough support that the liberal media can't honestly accuse Republicans of forcing anything on anyone. Enough support that the people who believe the media blindly won't be taken in by their lies about Republicans and health care because the media can't lie and maintain any remaining credibility. Not that that's stopped them before - painting Romney as something he's not and yet they still think they can get away with it.

    Mitt Romney, if nothing else, know how to get what he wants out of people ideologically opposed to him, as he did in Massachusetts. That's not to say he got everything he wanted, but he got a lot of what he wanted in coordination with his legislature. He's a leader. As Ann Coulter says this week:
    Lifelong politicians haven't the first idea what an efficient, operating system would even look like. If only we had a presidential candidate who had spent his life working in the private sector ...

    The way to fix health care is to take as much as possible away from the government and give it to the private sector. It is a universal law of nature that everything run by the government gets worse and more expensive over time -- the postal service, airport security and Amtrak. Everything run by the private sector gets better and cheaper over time -- cellphones, computers, hair products, dishwashers, etc.

    You know who specializes in rescuing failing enterprises and making things work? Mitt Romney. 
    Contrary to ignorant slanders about Romney's private sector work, his specialty was not buying thriving companies and stripping them for parts. Rather, the Bain Capital model was to take companies that were on the verge of collapse -- about to cut all jobs, pensions and health care for their workers -- and save the business.
    Yup. Introduce the principle of competition into our government services, and the prices will plummet - as they did when AT&T (initially protected by government) was forced to make room for competitors in the long distance phone service world. Monopoly broken, lower prices benefitting every consumer. If we did the same with health care - granting Medicaid out to states and restructuring Medicare to have more market principles (including private industry protections against fraud) then Medicare costs will drop WITHOUT doctors dropping Medicare patients, or Medicare hospitals closing their doors, unable to cover costs.

    And Romney knows how to do it! Go Mitt!

    If we don't elect Romney, we're stuck with Obamacare forever. This is Ann Coulter's forecast:
    If Obamacare is not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare -- to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.

    There won't be one moment marking the end of America. Everything will just gradually get worse, like trains and the tax code, until a bustling, prosperous nation is as distant a memory as pleasurable train travel and one-page tax returns.
    She's right. This illustrates perfectly the choice America faces at this moment. Will we ever again be a beacon of freedom and industry and prosperity? Or will we sink ourselves behind a government leeching more than any of us can afford to sustain programs more expensive than they should be with lower quality than they would have if they were run privately?  $16T and counting... There's a reason that government cost analyses are always revised upwards, and that is that the government adds costs through their inefficiency and overhead. Mitt Romney knows how to counter this - he's been doing it his entire career!

    Repeal Obamacare. Vote Mitt Romney.

    UPDATE: for more on the same general there, go here.