The Left Loves RINOs, You Should Not

I’m tired of the media picking GOP candidates. Michele Bachmann is too radical. Rick Perry has a sharp tongue. Rick Santorum is anti-science. Newt Gingerich is too crotchety. Sarah Palin is too stupid. Herman Cain is too much like a preacher. Our field is too weak and our candidates are too narrow-minded.


We are told Democrats would love for any one of these wacky conservatives to win the nomination because it would be clear sailing for President Obama. Never mind the paradox that if these candidates really had such serious character flaws there would be no need to keep pointing them out to everyone since they couldn’t possibly win in the first place. Or could they?

This is where our liberal charade begins. A quest to develop whatever narrative is most likely to steer the public toward their particular candidate. In order to clear the field, liberals must lift up those GOP contenders most likely to keep their entitlement agenda intact. Call it a win-win for the Democratic Party. If the RINO (Republican-in-name-only) wins the presidency, much of the previously laid Democratic legislative agenda stays intact. If the Democrat wins, it continues unabated. Either way, liberal policies become so entrenched over time there is no way to undue them. The great trap is sprung.

Enter John Huntsman and Mitt Romney. They are the moderate, fair-minded republicans who will work with Democrats. They are the really intelligent candidates most likely to appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. President Obama’s campaign staff is most afraid of his re-election chances should either of them win. Heard any of these straw man statements recently? Why is it, right now, these two men are the sane Republicans while the rest of the field is so out-of-touch? It is because Huntsman and Romney are the most liberal of the pack.

Romney was governor of a very liberal blue state and was elected by flip-flopping on a bunch of social and some economic issues. Huntsman is a big global warming advocate as shown by his favoring of cap and tax. He also threw his support to the terribly pork-laden stimulus plan, and has no problem forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it. These guys almost make Obama blush.

What unnerves me about this agenda is how affective it really is. Our media hands us defeat and we run with it. Palin, Bachmann, Gingerich, Santorum, and other conservatives are not the crazies NBC wants them to be. Palin knows high oil prices are brought down by increasing supply not building wind mills. Bachmann understands the key to illegal immigration is actually securing the border not perpetually leaving it open. Gingerich understands you increase government revenue by finding more taxpayers not beating up on the ones you already have. Santorum knows you cut back spending during difficult times instead of doubling down on it. These are some very bright individuals, and conservatives should not be disappointed they represent us.

Don’t let liberal media elites pick our candidates. Get behind your favorite conservative and talk up their common sense solutions in the arena of public ideas. Our crumbling republic desperately needs another Ronald Reagan. Remember he was an idiot too.

Social Issues. What Social Issues?

Where did social issues go? Much of the country’s conversation today centers around one all-encompassing subject: our economy’s precarious situation. Our news is about jobs, recessions, depressions, unemployment, GDP, and government spending. Little else seems to matter short of some tired liberal celebrity’s latest rant about the hateful Tea Party or what sac religious song Lady Gaga just released. When did issues of morality within the GOP take a backseat to Donald Trump's latest advice for fixing our economy?

Last time I checked, over a million babies a year were still being aborted in this country. Six states now legalize gay marriage. Recreational drug use is becoming more rampant. Divorce is now so common place we don’t even really give it a second thought. Women continue becoming more content to have the baby without the husband. Pornography on the internet slices up our relationships and makes sexual deviants out of more and more citizens. How many "To Catch a Predator" reruns does it take to crystalize the notion our young people are committing some pretty lewd acts?
I’m not blaming the Tea Party for keeping our national focus on the exponential spending occurring in Washington since 2008. In fact, I marched in Washington D.C. twice since November 2008 speaking out against destructive runaway spending. Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid’s economic notions are extremely dangerous, and I applaud the Tea Party for keeping the crisis in front of average Americans. Our media certainly won’t do it in an intellectually honest way. Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Printing money to spend when you don’t have any is a sure fire way to find insolvency. Americans need to understand the effects of this crippling spending spree.

Yet, I wonder if we conservatives are focused too much on spending while leaving the back door open to continued erosion of our collective moral conscious. How did America rise to prominence in the first place? Was it our robust adherence to capitalist principles or our allegiance to a power greater than any one human being? Was it lower marginal tax rates or loving and helping our neighbors as ourselves? Was it supply side economics or self-reliance and individual responsibility? Does economic policy drive our success or could a moral, virtuous, people be the foundation for ultimate wealth creation? It would appear we need both. One or the other is not enough. We need capitalism and we need morality.

Don’t misunderstand me. I love capitalism. I understand its power to lift up the greatest number of people out of poverty. I’m all for the free market, and supply and demand. I know that many a moral people can live in socialist economies and not experience freedom like we have. But capitalism with no morality ultimately equals destruction. A republic will not stand unless its citizenry understands their very liberties come from God.

Lasting success does not come without integrity. It does not come without honesty. It does not come without a desire to serve other people. Each of us should strive as individuals to live and lead with moral clarity. We need to be models of integrity. We need to do the right thing even when it could lead to personal hardship. Our fellow neighbors, friends, and co-workers will be moved to change only when they see authentic people living their lives in such a way as to honor their fellow man. This is the real hope and change so many of us are looking for.

Iowa Debate

The Iowa debate, now behind us, encourages me about the potential conservative leadership we could see running the country in 2012. Don’t listen to the media elites who define the Republican primary as Romney and a bunch of also-rans. Their implication is our field is weak and we should be disheartened. Their goal is to pick our candidate for us. They want any Republican-in-name-only (RINO) they can find. Romney is not really a conservative. He is a step above John McCain. Well, he does have business experience so maybe he is two steps above McCain. Make no mistake conservative candidates are what the Obama campaign and liberal elites fear most. Whenever Romney is feared and Bachmann is not, you know Bachmann should be the candidate and Romney not.
We have some seriously smart candidates who understand the precarious position our country is in. These candidates identify themselves as conservatives and I believe will govern as conservatives.

Newt Gingerich proved his thorough grasp of issues, both domestic and foreign. His ability to articulate common sense solutions should hearten any conservative. Conventional wisdom says Newt’s favorability ratings are too low for election. He is too emotional. He created too many enemies as Speaker of the House. With the rise of the Tea Party and the country’s overall mood being one of intense frustration, Newt’s passion just might resonate during this moment in history. If he can stay around long enough to get enough face time during debates, I predict his stock will rise quickly because clearly he articulates our values better than anyone else.

Michele Bachmann demonstrates continued strength under unrelenting pressure. The Left hates her. If the Left hates her, you know she would be good for the country. Her appeal for many lies in unwavering support of conservative values when many others fold. She doesn’t capitulate every time the other side uses scare tactics to push Republicans around. She’s been a bulldog against the Obama-Pelosi agenda at every turn. She’s from a blue state, in Minnesota, and grew up in another blue state, Iowa. Two blue states would be in play that otherwise would still likely go for President Obama. A calculation we should not lose sight of.

Herman Cain and Rick Santorum offer two different, yet equally compelling reasons to get excited Cain is a successful business man. He understands what conditions must exist if you want job growth and comes across as very practical. He would be a champion to the private sector. Santorum is a traditional social conservative. He believes social values are still every bit as important as economic ones. Much of the conservative movement seems to have ditched social issues with the errant belief jobs are more important than the human soul. Santorum reminds us this isn’t true.

What about Rick Perry and Sarah Palin? The media is terrified of a Palin candidacy. I know Sarah is portrayed as too dumb for the office, but the narrative is false and created by a media obsessed with making any conservative woman look stupid. Sarah is adored by many and would be a formidable opponent the moment her candidacy was announced. CNN knows it and so should you. Perry comes from a state, in Texas, that people flock to for jobs. Texas is one of the few job creating states in the country right now. His record on job growth is sorely needed to contrast with President Obama’s dismal numbers. Perry, like Santorum, considers social issues just as important as economic ones.

Conservatives should hold their heads high. I realize anything really would be better than what we have now, but we shouldn’t settle for Mitt Romney when so many true conservatives are ready and able to lead.

Conservatives are compassionate

Is anyone else tired of hearing how conservatives are for the rich? Why are there so few conservatives who can articulate the fallacy of this statement? Year after year we hear the media blathering on about this as if it is fact. Most conservatives don't even bother trying to explain where this is wrong. It's like we've conceded the argument. I'm not conceding it. I'll try to offer up a few ideas on the matter.

Start with taxes. Conservatives want to lower taxes on individuals and corporations. Right now, under George Bush the bottom 50% don't pay any income tax already. That sounds compassionate doesn't it?? Doesn't this actually help the middle and lower classes? Those yelling no, stay with me for a few sentences. One big reason our economy is stuck (besides high energy costs) is we have the third highest corporate tax burden among industrialized economies. Since I've been born (35 years), every time we lower the tax rate, income into the US Treasury goes UP...not down. Research income receipts at www.ustreas.gov and the facts will back me up. How is that possible? Lowering taxes offers incentives for folks to work harder. Folks working harder, take risks and often become more successful. They hire additional people who work harder to generate more income, and the cycle continues on and on bringing more income tax in even at the lower rate.

This principle is so common sense I can't see why people even argue against it. Say you are making $10/hr and the government decides to tax you 50%. That's $5. Are you really going to even bother working for a net of $5/hour? I doubt it. What if taxes were 10% or $1. Aren't you much more likely to bother working for $9 vs. $5? Why is this logic any different at the top of the income ladder? People taking on the risk of borrowing money to start businesses often by threat of losing their homes if they fail are not going to when 30, 40, even 50% of the money is gone before they start. So, I say conservative tax policy is actually for both the rich and the poor.

What about the church? Well, about 2/3rd's of the Christian & Catholic churches in America identify themselves as conservative. According to www.generousgiving.org, churchgoers give about 3.4% of their income vs. 1.1-1.4% for non-churchgoers. Non-churchgoers is a group of folks always polled as extensively liberal and progressive. In addition, conservative congregations give $2,627 per person/per year versus $1,582 by "liberal congregations." Who are the compassionate ones again?

Let's end with "teaching a man to fish." Conservatives always get attacked because we don't want our hard earned funds redistributed to others by fiat. This is interpreted as not caring. The principal here is: I worked hard, I paid for my college education, I took risks, and I don't want government just "taking" my money. I want and believe individuals, the church and other private enterprises should WANT to help these folks. My wife and I give a lot because of this principal.

Private enterprise almost always does things better than government. And many of us believe we should offer help but also teach folks how to be self-sufficient so they are productive members of society. Isn't that truly compassionate?? Giving someone on the street $10 so they can often turn around and buy beer or drugs is not compassionate. It is enabling and makes liberals "feel good" but doesn't actually accomplish anything. Soon the same person is back at it looking for free money so they don't have to work.

I'd like to hear from you. Am I all wet on this? What do you think. Comment me and get a dialog going.

Is there another choice for president??

Less than 80 days until US citizens step into the booth to cast their vote for our highest office. Frankly can I sit this one out? My choice is between a liberal who loves being called liberal, and a liberal who hides behind the cover of an elephant.

On the left, we have Barack Obama, the choice of European elitists. While those of us in Middle America are hanging on to our guns and religion, Barack is overseas belittling American values and generally trashing our way of life. We are the stupid people. He is siding with the folks around the world who would like nothing better than seeing our republic fall in stature.

The pendulum swings wildly for this guy. The unborn don't seem to matter as much as the environment. America shouldn't be polluting the environment drilling for oil, but it is fine for Saudia Arabia to do so. Clarence Thomas can't measure up as a Supreme Court Justice, but Rev. Wright with his American bashing, and Bill Ayers with his terrorist leanings are people he seeks council and friendship with. The war in Iraq is wrong, but we should march into Afghanistan or Pakistan. Mexicans should be free to live here and not integrate, but Americans need to speak other languages like French.

Electing this guy surely means higher taxes, sky high gas prices, more government, lousy health care, appeasement to our enemies, and unrelenting socialism dumped on the American public. I never thought someone could be scarier than Mrs. Clinton, but I have no doubt she would've drifted to the right a bit, just like her husband did. Mr Obama? No way, this guy is hard core left. No thanks, Barack. I've already had enough of the blame America crowd. This man doesn't inspire individual hope and hard work. He inspires the "blame everyone else" crowd and promises a government that will rescue us from every ill. Plundering the rich and passing things to the poor will solve everything. I happen to like the rich...without them where would the jobs come from? Have you ever worked for a poor person?

Of course, I'm not thrilled with Mr. McCain either. Here is a liberal in sheep's clothing. He snubs conservatives every chance he gets. What can we expect from him? Remember his endless talking about the appeasement of law breakers sneaking into the country by granting them amnesty? Or how about McCain-Feingold?? McCain-Kennedy?? If they weren't squaring off, I can almost see it now, McCain-Obama. Remember when he was pro-tax 5 years ago, and now he is anti-tax today? Or being against offshore drilling until a month ago. He still thinks we should protect ANWR and the 2,000 acres out of 19 MILLION at all costs. Apparently, he hasn't seen the photos of the caribou huddled around the oil pipelines. On most social issues, this man is clearly liberal.

So there you have it, we have a social and economic liberal versus a social liberal/economic moderate. Ronald Reagan cannot be smiling today. The city on a shining hill just had its lights dimmed a bit. I've decided to hold my nose and vote for John McCain in November. While he is leeringly liberal, he does have several very good points that make him infinitely better than Barack.

*He recognizes our national sovereignty is tied to being on the offensive against those who would nuke us.

*He without question loves this county. As opposed to Mrs. "America has never given me reason to be proud" Obama. Sure, Barack didn't say it, but do you really think he disagrees with his wife?

*He hates earmarks, and unlike most other Repub's. and Dem's. might actually cut spending.

I just hope the single, under 30 crowd stays away from the polls. I'm tired of having my vote cancelled out by people who look to late night comedians to direct their vote instead of actually thinking about the issues. Voting for president requires more than 5 minutes of listening to David Letterman.