The Republican Vision

Taking a break from this blog

2009-03-03T18:30:00.002-05:00

This is a difficult thing for me to do, but I will be taking an indefinite break from this blog. I love expressing my opinions on the political events of the day. I even more enjoy the dialogue with some of you who read this blog (yes the liberals too).
I feel that God has told me this blog is a distraction from what He wants me to focus on. What's that? I have no idea. One step at a time. I hope in the future to resume this blog, but that's not for me to decide.
I hope Republicans will rally around the party for the 2010 elections, as it's obvious from the first few months of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi administration that they plan to spend and grow government as much as possible. Currently averaging 36 BILLION A DAY!
I hope Independents and Libertarians will take a 2nd look at the Republican party, which is far from perfect, but with a little help can regain control of the house and return power to the people.
Finally I hope the politicians will learn from the past mistakes. Conservative principals are what the majority of Americans believe in. You will get hammered by the intellects of this country and the media, the same way the intellects and media attack anything that is rooted in the past. They want new ideas, and attitudes to show enlightenment, and growth. If you stay with the ideas that have always worked it's not sophisticated. Don't worry what the press and intellects say. Worry about doing the right thing. The right thing is taking power away from politicians and returning it to the citizens of this country. God bless you all, and I pray God continues to bless the United States of America.

Someting to think about as you listen to Obama tonight.

2009-02-24T18:44:00.007-05:00

In a few hours President Obama is going to address the nation. It will no doubt be filled with some eloquent soaring rhetoric that he has become famous for. A lot of standard lines too that all Presidents say like our best days are ahead of us, the country must pull together etc. That's all well and good. What's not well and good is what he's going to tell us will fix the problem. The Obama fix is all about consumer confidence. We currently sit at the lowest level since they began measuring consumer confidence in 1967. It has dropped from last February at 76.4 to our new low of 21.2. The Obama plan says these numbers are a self fulfilling prophesy, brought on by the banks freezing credit, which popped the housing bubble, which scared homeowners who slowed their regular consumer behavior, which slowed the economy, which lead to layoffs, and the cycle continues downward. If we can just get Americans to spend like normal, and banks to lend again, that will allow businesses to hire back employees, who will spend more money, which means housing prices return, and we're back to the good ol days! Yea! But that's not how we got in to the mess, nor how we'll get out of it.
We got in to this mess because Americans have been spending like crazy. The saving rate of American citizens starting in 2005 was -1%. That's right America as a whole spent more money than we made. We did this because the federal government drove up the value of our homes starting in 1999. They did that by taking an active roll in getting low income people to share in the American dream of home ownership.

The community reinvestment act was part of the problem, as was the fed keeping interest rates low. Their intention was good. Help poor people own a home which will help save them money on taxes and allow them to save for the future. The fact that there were now more buyers than ever meant home prices started soaring, which lead to a soaring construction industry. The side effect was people started refinancing their houses at lower interest rates and pulling out equity on these artificially inflated prices and used that money for more consumption. Which drove the economy to incredible heights. But the ride can't last. All the poor people got their houses, which meant the prices had to start dropping. Then the poor people started defaulting which threw banks in to a death roll. That's how we got in to this mess.
To get out of it is simple, but quite painful. All those jobs that were created by the consumption, that was made possible by the inflated equity, that was created by poor people buying houses.... those jobs have to go away. Millions of people need to become unemployed. The poor people need to go back to apartments. We need to return the country to the way it was before the government started tampering with the housing markets. Only when we reset, can we start to build again. How long till then? It totally depends on how much President Obama wants to inject his solutions. With no government "stimulus" this trend would have accelerated to the bottom in 2010 by my guess. But if we "create some jobs", those jobs can't last, as American tax payers are already at the tipping point. If we stall foreclosures, we are doing a disservice to ourselves. The houses need to be foreclosed on so we can drop everyones housing value back to a real number.

It's not all doom and gloom however. In the last report issued Americans saving rate is way up to 3.6%. That's a long way from China's 50% saving rate but a big step in the right direction. That 3.6% is also the money President Obama is going to tell you spend tonight to return this country to our past greatness. But as you just learned the past decade was just a mirage, and only a fool would return to a mirage after finding it out.

This isn't just some pie in the sky theory I pulled out of nowhere or someplace even less savory. Listen to one of the worlds top economists being interviewed on European Television. This is Peter Schiff

Jesus would have been a Democrat

2009-02-21T11:43:00.003-05:00

It seems lately a lot of my liberal friends have been hitting me with that. Seeing that Jesus is part of the holy trinity making Him the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe, any person who would attempt to answer His political affiliation on His behalf is a fool. So let's look at some God principals from the bible, and see if we can apply them to our lives in politics. God wants his people to feed the hungry and care for the poor as you read in Matthew and those who don't, will wish they had.
But Jesus was also clear that Government doesn't do Gods work in Mark 12:13-17 where he famously tells the people give Caesar what is his, and God what is His.
Politics is not the place to play the religion card. A Christan who studies their bible also knows, that God raises up all leaders, both good and bad for a number of reasons, but ultimately to bring glory to himself. For those who may have forgotten I direct you to Psalms 75:5-7 , Daniel 2:20-21 And yes that includes women leaders as you read about Deborah in Judges 4 So if you didn't like Bush, or don't like Obama, or don't like your boss at work, still know God put them over you for a reason.
This can be confusing. God wants us to care for the less fortunate, but separates government, from His work, while at the same time putting leaders in their positions. But maybe it's not as confusing as some would make it. What I take away from this is if you're a Christian you should be taking care of the poor. You can't expect government to do the work of Gods people. I challenge the religious right to have such an impact on your community that government officials would be ridiculed for proposing more socialist programs, because the needs of the people are already being met. The people who cry out for equality, justice and change this is where you can effect America. Right in your town. I applaud President Obama and his fellow community organizers as doing a good thing. If they're organizing people to change the community themselves, through hands on 1 on 1 relationships with people who need help. We need a lot more of that! I believe that's the spirit of Christ. However if you're a community organizer doing God's work you aren't to spend your days organizing votes to change some laws so that people are forced to give money to an organization whose leaders line their pockets before distributing the leftovers however they see fit. That organization in question by the way is our federal government. I know there are some good leaders there, but for the most part the men and women who run all nations do so for self centered reasons. Why does God allow that? Maybe so people will learn only He can fix our problems and we'll return our attention, trust and devotion to Him.

Stop teasing me Mark Sanford!

2009-02-19T17:13:00.002-05:00

I've applauded you South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford the past few weeks, as you've been saying that even if the stimulus bill was passed, you may refuse the money. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn was so worried that all his hard work on the bill may not be felt in his home state that he inserted a "punish Mark Sanford" clause at the last minute. The legality of that clause is currently being debated. It says in effect that if you turn down the money the state legislature could go around you to the feds and get the money anyways. I assumed Governor, that clause would make you throw up your hands and say "you guys win".

But last night, there you were on Fox news, and then again this morning on CBS news saying you may still not accept the money.

Is it real? Could you Mark Sanford have the gubernatorial gonads to tell Obama "we will not be forced to follow your bad plan"? The Democrats are saying you're just grandstanding in the hopes of building support for a run at the White House. Republicans in SC are now wilting under the pressure and saying "even though we're against the plan, we're 'paying' for the money anyways so let's spend it". But you're still standing strong. And suddenly I hear John Lennon in my ear...."you say you want a revolution"

What would the revolution cost us? Well the bill that was voted on and passed was never read by anyone individual including the President. But now that it's here, you and the Sanford team are going line by line to see what happens if we do accept the money. You've already told us it would grow unemployment by more than double because now part timers are included in the federal money. Who knows what else you'll find. And no one seems certain what happens to the money if we reject it. Do they spend it anyways?

I'm going to worst case it. We turn down the 8 billion dollars coming to South Carolina. The federal government, like old King George, says we're going to charge you for it anyways. So the 5 million residents of SC are on the hook for 8 billion. Most of the 5 million people aren't tax payers though, so let's say 1 million residents are responsible for 8 billion. That's $8000 per tax payer. I would love to get a loan, from one of the propped up banks of bailout, to stroke a check to the porkapotomus government saying it's over. You can't force us to behave the way you see fit. You can't force us to build electric cars, and educate 3rd graders on sex. You are not the boss of us, rather we are the boss of you! Federal money is our money. You have no money of your own. The only way you can get money is to tax us, or print it, and we've had enough of both. The people who voted for change were sick of the excess deficit spending of the past. Their idea of change was not to increase the rate at which we go in to debt, but rather reverse it.

Mark Sanford, I'm telling you if you take a stand and say "I have the will of the people on my side". Only 37% of Americans wanted this plan. I have the annals of history on my side, showing no society has ever deficit spent it's way out of a recession. The people know that what the federal government is doing, is wrong. And I will not be a participant in growing government, which always hurts individuals". If you say that and refuse the money you may inspire a revolution. There's at least 3 other Governors who might jump on that bandwagon of righteousness immediately. Then TX, RI, GA, IN, AZ, and a few others who have been voicing their complaints would have ability to refuse as well. Mark Sanford you can become a voice for the people. A voice that has been crying out for change, and mistakenly accepted a change for the worse. They've seen their mistake, and now depression has set in as the realization that trillions of dollars of debt is about to be placed on their heads. Mark Sanford you can be the zoloft for taxpayers. Government is so out of control that our current obligations over the next 30 years puts a tax burden of 1.25 million dollars on a family of four according to the CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Government must shrink or it will kill us all like a giant blood sucking tic that never gets it's fill till it kills both itself and the thing it's sucking off of.

And I can still hear John Lennon..."we all want to change the world".

A sad day for all Americans

2009-02-17T20:18:00.002-05:00

I haven't blogged in a while, because I think I'm becoming depressed. Depressed over how our country is saddling itself with a debt that will take decades to payoff. We've been told "we have to do something", and "spending is stimulus". This is the equivalent of an individual about to lose their home in foreclosure buying the best alarm system in the world because he had to protect it.

Their are two ways to attack most problems. Using a sports analogy, you can play to win or play not to lose. Democrats are play not to lose kind of people. Their stimulus package, now renamed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, shows their thought patterns. You can read the entire thing here or here. Here's the difference in thought patterns. Republicans suggested that to create jobs we could lower the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world at around 40% down to European levels of 25%. Allowing companies to keep more of their money, which would allow them to hire people. Also a lower tax rate would encouraging companies to stay here. That's playing to win. Playing not to lose is the Democrats suggestion of increasing the amount of money we pay in unemployment benefits. One has to ask how is that stimulus? How is that recovery or reinvestment?

In 1996 Bill Clinton and a Republican House played to win by passing the Welfare Reform Act. President Clinton correctly predicted it would "end welfare as we know it". The number of people in 1997 on welfare was 12 million. Today it's 5 million. The first time in the history of the program that it dropped. Today the signing of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act ended welfare reform. Growing welfare is not playing to win.

The AP points out a few billion in pork in this plan. They over looked another 20 billion in pork going back to the Chicago airport, that would build a western terminal that all airlines have already assured airport officials they will not rent or use. Literaly the terminal to nowhere, but 45 times more expensive than the bridge to nowhere, that at least some people would have benefited from. And the bridge was correctly protested n both sides of the isle and stopped. No one blinked at this 20 billion. But who had the time to blink. This bill was thrown together and rammed down our throats all in the name of urgency to save jobs. However most of this money won't be in the system for a year or more. The President himself set a goal of 18 months to spend 3/4 of it. Why are we looking a year to 2 years down the road when the economy is tanking right now?

The answer is playing not to lose. Winners however play to win. Instead of bravely taking on the challenge and stimulating the economy by encouraging new companies to launch, we're bailing out failures so we won't lose jobs. Americans for the most part have been bred to be winners. That's why when they learned of what this bill was really about support dropped like the Hindenburg disaster that it is, and now only 37% think it's a good idea.

So it's a sad day for Americans because in spite of their objections, our government went ahead and did what they thought was best for our economy. By the way 200 of our nations top Economists took out a full page ad in the NY Times to let our government know this bill was a bad idea. This bill will cost over a trillion with interest and will negatively effect every living American the rest of our lives. It's a sad day. We'll overcome this like we do every challange, but it's a national day of mourning for lost jobs, and the further diminishing of freedom, by government extending it's roll in to all of our lives.

Maximum wage is the new minum wage

2009-02-04T13:23:00.004-05:00

President Obama announced today that he had set a maximum wage for executives at companies who receive future bailouts. The maximum wage is a very generous $500,000! Obama commented; "This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers." I can hear the chants of "right on" and "power to the people" rising all over this great land. What Obama and his supporters somehow are unable to grasp is that $500,000 a year is a lot more than these executives deserve. (There's probably at least a few libs who agree with that). What these executives deserve is to be fired. Obama is correct that it's an outrage that executives are being rewarded for failure. But the executives would have been fired if the Federal Government hadn't stuck it's nose in to the free market. Either these executives would have been fired and replaced by competent execs or the company would have folded and the competent companies would have grown. Either way failure is not rewarded in a free market.

But "we couldn't let the banks fail" is the cry of the lib. Why not? Unlike the depression, all Americans money is insured up to $250,000. So if Wachovia went under what happened to my money? The same thing that did happen when Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo. The money goes in to a different bank, and a bunch of sorry execs drop down a few rings at their next bank job and are reeducated on their job, making them better at their profession.
Now we have the same sorry lot, running things as they see fit, which obviously isn't good, and Obama trying to correct their mistakes. Is that really the job of future Presidents? To train executives on how to run their business? I know there's still a few people out there who think George Bush was a moron. What happens when the next moron gets elected?

The President and the government in general should not have the power to effect our economy outside of declaring war and raising/lowering interest rates or taxes. That's it! If GM fails are we all going to walk or only buy foreign cars? Or would a group of savvy business people see an opportunity to create a new car company? That new company would have a fresh start without trillions in debt weighing it down, and they could create a better car for a lot less. They would need people who know the car business and there would be a bunch who had recently become unemployed who could help guide this new venture. They would be the best of the best who learned from their mistakes.

I think what scares the pants off libs is that if they didn't jump in and rescue companies, thousands of people would lose their jobs, and it starts an avalanche where all companies start downsizing and once you lose your job, you're out, because no one is hiring. That is scary! In that scenario it can't be stopped without an outside force (IE; Government) stepping in to spend money and reignite the economy. But that's not how markets work.
When economies hit a down slide there are some people who become inspired to create, or people who have been waiting for cheap labor, or cheap commercial rent, or some change in the market to launch their venture. They are the fuel to reignite the economy. There's close to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS waiting to be invested. That's a lot more than the 825 Billion Obama and crew want to invest. But the people in charge of those 9 trillion bucks will sit on it, till conditions are right for them to make more money. Having a government tinkering around with banks, auto, airlines and just about every other industry is not what these people are looking for. How do I know? You don't see them investing do you?

Why Citigroup should have got their new jet

2009-01-28T06:23:00.004-05:00

Yesterday Obama put pressure on Citigroup to cancel their order of a 45 million dollar jet. Citigroup had received 45 BILLION DOLLARS a few months ago from the Federal government because they were on the verge of going out of business. The government decided Citigroup was too big to fail. Too many people would lose their jobs, and just about every American would be effected negatively by the collapse of Citigroup. So fueled with the best of intentions the government spent 45 billion dollars to keep Citigroup alive.

According to Henry Paulson the former Treasury Secretary, Citigroup and in fact all of the banks didn't want the bailout, because they were afraid the government would start tinkering with their business. Paulson had to assure them that the Feds would stay out of their affairs, but wanted them to take the money to keep the credit markets flowing.

The banks fear started to come true yesterday with the call from Obama. The point isn't whether buying a jet is the proper move for the bank. The point is once government gets involved in your business they want to run it. That's tinkering with the free market. What about the jet manufacturer that lost a 45 million dollar sale because of Obama's call? Are they going to have to layoff people now? Would there have been any pressure from Obama if Citigroup was spending 45 million on electric cars for their executives? What if the 45 million was for solar panels to help power their banks? Will all future purchases have to get government approval?

If the government hadn't bailed out Citigroup, those people buying the 45 million dollar jet would be out of a job by now. The market would be falling deeper in to a recession. Thousands more would be unemployed. But the reality is that's what the market needs. Once we hit our bottom we can start to rebuild. The best thing would be for us to get to our bottom fast so we can get out of this quicker. Instead of dragging it out for years or even a decade like we did with the socialist programs of the 30's, or Japan in the 90's. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the mood of the country who continue to pray for a miraculous turn around brought on by the super intelligence of a few men in Washington. You could gather 1 million of the most brilliant men in Washington and they can't legislate us out of this. It was legislation that tinkered with the free market and got us in to this!

Citigroup should have gotten their jet, and run their business as they see fit. If they go out of business, other banks would get more business and hire more people. Instead they caved and have given government more leverage to expect them to respond to more "advice" in the future.

Should Republicans hope for Obama to fail?

2009-01-26T19:10:00.005-05:00

That was the big question all weekend after Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails". Isn't that being a hypocrite? Didn't Rush and most Republicans say you have to support our President especially when the country is at war? So what's good for them doesn't apply when a Democrat is in power? Conservatives, if they were fair, should be rushing (no pun intended) to Obama's defense, and yet they're silent! Well the headlines and news shows covered the story as "I hope he fails", but what did Limbaugh actually say? He actually wants Obama's policy proposal to fail. If the Government does nothing, that would be far better than adding 825 billion to our headache.
If you believe in smaller government than you have to hope Obama fails, because if he succeeds in passing his proposal, it will hurt the country. Now if he gets it passed and spends the 825 billion only a fool would say I hope that the stimulus package fails, because then you are rooting against America, not Obama. I have no ill will towards Obama. I have voluminous ill will for his proposals. I know the bigger the government, the bigger the problems. They have proven consistently for 200 years they are inept at running anything. From DMV, to medicare, to social security, to their own cafeteria. Which taxpayers had to subsidize. No matter what government takes over, it never goes well. So why would I want them in charge of our healthcare, the auto industry, the banks, our energy etc?

Am I smarter than a Professor at MIT?

2009-01-23T07:09:00.003-05:00

No I am not smarter than any M.I.T. Professor. Sadly though being smart doesn’t mean you grasp problems. This morning around 5:15a as I was driving to work I heard Dr Simon Johnson on NPR. He is a very decorated economist and currently a professor at M.I.T. Previously he was a member of the U.S. Securities Exchange commission in the Clinton administration and the Chief Economist for the IMF till August of last year. There’s no way I’m smarter than this guy. However he amazingly has no idea what is currently happening with the economy. I was able to deduce that when he said “The U.S. doesn’t currently have too much debt so we can afford the bad bank program”. This site will scare you if you have no idea how in debt we are. It’s a very fluid situation but it’s safe to say it’s over 10 trillion dollars, while some estimates have us at over 50 trillion. But let’s use the lowest figure. 10 Trillion dollars makes us the most in debt country in the world!

Perhaps Dr Johnson developed his position on percentage of debt compared to our GDP. Then we’re way better off compared to every country in Europe, but still running at about 100 percent. Yes what we make every year is how far we go in debt every year. By a 3rd graders comprehension this can’t be healthy, and can’t be sustained for an extended period.

Dr Johnson and the Obama team are suggesting the reason we’re in this problem is a lack of confidence in the banking industry and by consumers in general. If we can get the banks to lend money and consumers to start spending like they did in years past then companies will start hiring again. That would be true except for one major flaw. We are out of money.

What I mean by that is for years Americans consumed more than they earned. The average American since 2004 spent $1.02 for every dollar they earned. Most did that because they were able to get home equity loans. House prices were rising at record rates, so why not take out some that equity and spend it on trips, clothes, home improvements etc? The government policies of tinkering with the free market drove up home prices, and kept interest rates artificially low. If the Government had not taken an interest in trying to get every American to own a home, there would be less buyers. That would have kept prices stable. Which would have stopped people from getting home equity loans. It also would have slowed the economy to a real rate. Car sales wouldn’t have exploded, Construction wouldn’t have exploded. Computer sales, retail, service industries all would have kept growing at a much slower pace than the explosion that has taken place since around 1995.

The artificial growth of our economy also grew our tax base, and as we know government at any size will spend every penny. Now that our tax base is shrinking local, state and federal government is scrambling to find new ways of taxing us.

Recession is another way of saying our economy is shrinking. It’s shrinking to it’s proper size. Millions of people will lose their jobs. That doesn’t change the fact that we need this recession. The economy will grow again when some of these people who are currently out of work start new businesses. It will take years for us to right ourselves, but we will do it. The worst thing we can do now is try to “stimulate” the economy. This not only stalls true recovery but adds to the problem by adding more debt.

Are you tired of hearing how amazing Obama is?

2009-01-22T17:49:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I was at the gym and Forest Whitaker was on Oprah explaining that Barack showed the country it's OK to be passionate with your wife. Because we've never seen a President dance that way with his wife before. I thought "What?". Oprah said that simply because Barack is our President it not only makes her want to be a better person, she is in fact already a better person. I thought "Huh?". For months I've had to listen about what a moron our President was. Only electing Obama could make this country whole and respectable again. Today on NPR they interviewed an English Baroness at the U.N. who said the election of Obama returned America to prominence. These types of statements by "citizens of the world", both here and abroad, have been consistent for about 6 months now. They don't even make sense!

I remember watching Jimmy Carter get uncomfortably freaky with Rosalyn on the dance floor, and many tender moments with all the Presidents and their wives through the years. America has been the prominent country in the world since WWII. If not us, whom? China? Russia? England? Which country was the world looking to the past 8 years? It's like a large part of this country and the world have popped wacky tablets and can't remember what life was really like before Obama!

Then I had a revelation. Of course I have always known it was going to be a big deal that Obama was our first black President. But perhaps it was I who had popped the wacky tablet. No one who reads this was a slave, had a friend who was a slave, or even a parent who was a slave. There might be a few people whose grand parents or great grand parents were slaves. I had a great grandmother who was an American Indian. She was a tad bitter about how her entire village was forced on to a reservation in CT. And while I had sympathy for her and how her life turned out, it never effected mine. Because although my roots are Indian, African, European, Asian, and from all corners of the world, (just like everyone else) I look white. It was easy for me to believe in school in the 70's that I could grow up and do anything I wanted, because I looked like the people doing the big things.

I grew up in a lower middle class town, so I had friends who looked like the rainbow. Friends with names like Esdars Chisolm, & Freddie Diaz were less likely to believe they could achieve anything they dreamed of, because no one who looked like them had ever done it before. Since the 70's we've had numerous minorities rise to very high positions in all walks of life. Robert Johnson started BET, Oprah became a household name & billionaire, Richard Parsons became CEO of Time Warner and then Citigroup. The CEO's of Aetna, McDonald's, Merril Lynch, Xerox, American Express to name some biggies, are all minorities. Colin Powel was not only a 4 star General but became Secretary of State, and was replaced by Condoleeza Rice. Minority Governors, Senators, Congress people, and mayors of major city's. Business, politics, sports, entertainment, military it seemed like all the doors have swung wide open. America had transformed itself in to the country where you truly were judged by the content of your character. But a lot of those changes came in the last 20 years. They had heard all they could stand about George Washinton Carver and his damn peanuts! All of the other famous minority leaders were pretty much Civil rights oriented, but not a whole lot of Mexican Governors, or Black CEO's in the 70's or before. So anyone over 30, who is a minority, has a whole different perspective on opportunity than a white man. They've seen the changes in their lifetime, but wondered how real is it. A couple of politicians, and a handful of CEO's is a start, but will it last? Now their glass ceiling has been shattered. The most powerful man in the world is a minority. Will minorities still miss out on jobs because of the color of their skin. Never again! Just kidding. Of course they will. Is there now reverse discrimination against white men? Absolutely. The playing field will never be level till we get to heaven, but as a society we're getting better every day. So if "citizens of the world" who have been prejudiced against most of their lives want to celebrate this enormous occasion for a few years, I guess we should all just sit back and let them go nuts. Telling them they're being irrational certainly isn't going to help anything. And if my great grandmother was alive and an American Indian became President I'm sure she'd take a break from being ticked that her tribe didn't get a casino, (yeah if she'd only been a Mohegan I'd be rich!) and go crazy for the next few years.

To our leaders in Washington this doesn't mean you rubber stamp Obama's socialist movement. Fight it tooth & nail! We can ill afford to have a government, irregardless of who is the President, running our business's for us. And that's exactly Obama's plan, with the very unassuming pleasant sounding names of "stimulus", "job creation", & "bailout". Their real names are "state run", "communist" & "Marxism". History is clear that whenever any government from any nation starts running any business it always turns out bad. Government can't create jobs without running the business. Government can't stimulate the economy by flooding it with freshly printed money. And it can't bail us out with money it doesn't have.

An open letter to Time magazine

2009-01-15T19:40:00.002-05:00

Dear Editors of Time magazine,
When you publish op ed pieces it's very important to have the facts checked. Your Jan 19th 2009 print edition features an opinion piece filled with misleading facts written by Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University. The cornerstone of Mr Sachs article is that Americans are taxed at 18% of GDP and Europeans are taxed at 28% of GDP. This tax difference began in the 1970's. And now the Europeans enjoy better health care, the elimination of poverty, and improved educations, because of their increased tax burden. Unfortunately the facts are in opposition to Mr Sachs case. Starting with health care. If 30 plus years ago the European health care began to improve, then their life expectancy should have as well.
However the CIA World factbook has life expectancy for for the U.S. and most European country's at 78, with Poland is laging at 75.

As for education a European compilation lists 11 of the top 15 universities in the world in the US including state schools like Penn State, Cal Tech and others. Because school districts are run at local levels we can't address anything other than college results. But the fact is if you want the best education in the world, you come to America.

As for poverty, it doubled between 1970 and 1990 in the United Kingdom. Currently 20% are considered "very poor". The European term for poverty. The US is at 12.5% and has been for years. Not that anyone should be happy with 12.5% of Americans being in poverty, but the facts bear out that the exact opposite is true from what Mr Sachs argued. Europeans increased tax burden has not improved their region but weakened it in comparison to the United States. So again the facts tell a different story.

In France 10,000 people die each year because of their socialized medicine. And they're boasting that it's only 10,000 dead per year. Another half million suffer severe adverse effects from things like confusion of the patients name. When we hear about someone getting the wrong leg amputated or something sad because of misreading names we are saddened but understand that the people responsible will have a penalty from fines to prison. A story in todays London Times shows there's 130,000 casses a year of doctors doing wrong procedures on patients. In Europe there is no punishment because you can't sue the government, and with medical people underpaid and overworked by the government accidents are going to happen. Our country and systems aren't perfect. But if we're going to debate the merits of ideas, then it's only fair to present the facts of history as well.

Is this really how you heal a country?

2009-01-13T21:08:00.005-05:00

AP reports today that Michigan Democrat John Conyers has introduced legislation to form a committee to see if anyone in the Bush administration broke the law while working on national security. I'm assuming here that Sen Conyers feels like the world is outraged by our torture of inmates, and in order to regain our respectability we must prosecute those who have besmirched our good name.

Sen Conyers should be reminded of a few things. John I hope you're reading this. First, the election of Obama has already cleared the American people with the "citizens of the world". Second, 47% of the country voted against Obama so despite the chorus of glee from the left, almost half the country isn't for this administration, and a lot of us believe the 44th administration will be one of the most dangerous to our long term health in this country. You can't argue that we're wrong, anymore than we could argue that you were wrong with Bush. It's an opinion. So if you really want to start trying to build some unity, the last thing you do is say we're going after the administration that was twice elected and served 8 years. I don't care if Bush's approval rating was as low as the Houses (oh did you forget that Bush still has an approval rating more than twice that of you and your pals on the hill?) it's never a unifying thing to go after Presidents. Finally, let's stop pointing fingers. We could still be pointing at shady things about Obama that were getting traction just before the election but thankfully the majority of our side has let it go. Both of us are saddled with kook fringes, that we can't be held responsible for. So anyone who starts ranting about illegal campaign contributions, Bill Ayers, stolen speeches, Jeremiah Wright, ties to dirty politics in Chicago, etc we consider them our kook right. It'll be back in 2012 and open for discussion then, but for now it should sit quietly.
So Sen Conyers, put your legislation away. Tuesday will be a huge day in DC. Go to the parties, live it up, and let Obama start leading you and your boys. That is the best thing you can do for yourself, your party, and the country.

What is the definition of Communism

2009-01-10T22:49:00.002-05:00

According to Webster the definition is : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. In all of recorded history Communism has never "worked". Meaning instead of some people lowering their standard of life so that everyone else can raise their level, so that all citizens share a comfortable lifestyle. Not for a lack of trying! François-Noël Babeuf lead a socialist revolution in France in the late 1700's, and before he was executed said; "Society must be made to operate in such a way that it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others". Since then wonderful intentioned people as diverse as Susan B Anthony to John Lennon have pushed for socialist/communist governments. Currently China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, & Vietnam have government for the common good. And some of the most deplorable living situations in the civilized world. The Soviet Union was suffering under communism till 1990. As bad as things are currently in Russia, their citizens see a way of improving their lives through Capitalism. When they strive harder to improve their lives, the entire country benefits from increased production.

So knowing that it has been attempted numerous times and failed every time, any one who would propose anything like it again would be insane. Because insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I'm sorry to announce that President elect Obama is apparently insane. George Stephanopoulos blogs that in his interview with Obama that will air tomorrow: I asked the president-elect, "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?" Obama said "Yes". Again, when you ask human beings to sacrifice for the greater good, we all suffer. We must all contact our Reps to let them know that we don't want to Socialist or Communist reform.

Reintroducing Milton Friedman

2009-01-08T16:24:00.004-05:00

I received a call from an old friend today and as with most of conversations they either turn to Christ (my favorite subject) or politics (my 2nd favorite). This one ended up in the latter, and at some point I brought up Milton Friedman. My friend is around 30 and it dawned on me that a lot of young conservatives may not be familiar with the brilliance of Friedman.

He was an economist who rose to national fame in the 60's and 70's. He was a supporter of the New Deal till he challenged his own theories, and his conclusions shocked him. That Government can't manage the economy, because people will know what they're doing and adjust their habits to neutralize the goal. That there will always be a rate of unemployment so it only harms the rest of the country to try and create jobs for the 5% or so who don't want them. He then created his own theory called Monetarism. His theory predicted in the 60's an effect that our government deficit spending would create in the 70's called stagflation. That's when the economy becomes stagnant but inflation rises. Other economists laughed at him, but his model was shockingly accurate. In 1976 he won the Nobel prize for his theory and work.

His true value to us is his ability to break down complex issues so we all can understand. Here he is on the Phil Donahue show in the 70's. This 2 minute clip was the inspiration for the great scene with Michael Douglas in Wall Street.

If you want to learn more from Friedman we're fortunate that he hosted his own show where he taught his principals on public television in the early 80's, and recorded lot's of lectures. There are hours and hours of Friedman material on youtube. I'll leave you this incredible 30 minute interview from the 60's. Great quotes include "I admire the softness of their hearts, but it very often extends to their head as well." & "The problem is they feel like the people need to have Big Brother look out for them, when in fact Big Brother is supposed to be the one being watched by the people".

Fixing the middle east in one post.

2009-01-06T21:22:00.003-05:00

I’m under the impression most people have no clue what’s happening in the middle east. They hear things like Gaza is shooting rockets at Israel, and Israel is now attacking and won’t let Gaza civilians receive medical attention or food. We’re told this war has existed for thousands of years and will continue till the end of time. Maybe the hostilities will continue, but I think the U.S. position needs to be clear.

The back story. Judea was the land of the Jews. Romans captured the country and renamed it Palestine. Later Palestine was conquered by the Arabs who ruled Palestine for over 1000 years. In 1917 things went nuts. The Balfour Declaration from the British Government who was the worlds super power of the day announced; the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" with the understanding that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Understandably the Arabs weren’t thrilled with that idea and rioted continuously and attacked the Jews who tried to move back in to the land. 30 years and 2 world wars later the U.N. designated the formation of a country for the Jews to be called Israel. Immediately the Jews and Arabs went to war and the Jews won. The Jews then expanded on the land the U.N. had designated claiming that was their right for winning the war. There have been skirmishes ever since and wars in 1956, 67, 73, & 82. Israel now controls both the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights which are part of Palestine. They have maintained control since the won the war in 1967

It doesn’t help that the land the U.N. designated to create Israel is smack dab in the middle of Palestine. Palestine is currently divided in 3 Golan to the north, the West Bank and the tiny little Gaza strip to the south. So you can understand why the people of Palestine are ticked. If the U.N. created a country and put it between Philly, Pittsburgh and NY Americans would be ready to fight I’m sure. On the flip side The Jews did nothing wrong. They are an incredible group of people who without a homeland for thousands of years, maintained their identity. No other group has done that. When you read ancient text accounts of the Canaanites, and the Ammonites, you also read of the Jews. No other group survived. When nations were conquered, the survivors melded in to the dominant nationality, and became Romans and then Arabs or even British. But the Jews survived and the U.N. decided to return part of their homeland to them. Of course they should take it! And be proud of it.

The solution according to both the experts and from surveys of Palestine and Israel citizens is called the The 2 State Solution. So all we have to do is draw up some borders that both sides can agree to and it’s over. But here’s the rub. Every time negotiations start rolling folks in the Gaza strip start firing off rockets in to Israel. For the past 4 years that’s been going on and while only a few Israelis have died, many have lost homes, property, and of course are under the constant threat that a rocket is going to sail through their window. Israel which ranks 3rd in the world by combat power behind America and China, has shown great restraint in not attacking Gaza. But it makes negotiations impossible. Gaza has their own leaders separate from the West Bank and Golan. Gaza elected the party Hamas. Hamas started in 1987 as a party that prides itself on suicide bombings of Israelis and social programs for Palestinians. It’s like the mob in NY. You know they’re killing and robbing other people but they feed the less fortunate in the neighborhood, so you like having em around. But you know they're bad. Never forget that Hamas is evil. Hamas charter calls for the end of Israel by any means possible. When Hamas candidate Dr Al-Zahar won the Presidency of Gaza in 2006 he gave an interview where he said he dreams of new maps with no Israel on it. This is consistent with Hamas co founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi statement in 2002 that Hamas would remove Israel from the map. That was shortly before Abdel himself was removed from the map by an Israeli missile into his car. Before he left this earth he announced that God hates Israel and America.

If all this rhetoric sounds familiar it's because it's awful similar to Iran’s president Ahmadinejad announcing that Israel must be wiped off the map. The U.S. State Dept announced years ago that Hamas was being funded by Iran so this position of their President wasn’t a surprise. So you understand what IRan is funding, the money is to pay poor people to become suicide bombers, and pay their family upon completion of the mission.

I almost forgot! Article 32 of Hamas charter states that Zionists “aspire to expand from the Nile to Euphrates. We must not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity”. In case you’re unclear on Zionism it’s the belief that Jews should have a homeland. So America & England are tops on that list of must be destroyed. Knowing that as the back ground you have to laugh when the head of Hamas now says “we mean no harm to Israel or the Jews of the world. We just want them to stop attacking us so we can negotiate”.

In the opinion of Hamas, and Iran, the west led by America and Europe, is the only reason there is an Israel. So they want to end Israel and then turn on us. In the same speech Ahmeadinejad announced Israel must be wiped off the map he said "Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels…say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan." He also calls us The Great Satan. So again it’s laughable when he tells 60 Minutes in an interview “it's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war?". Of course they don't want a war with us. Iran and Gaza can’t go to war with anyone…yet. But they are building up. They are trying to pursuade Egypt, Jordan, and all Muslim nations to join them. In the mean time they have thousands of suicide bombers ready to go. 10,000 Iranians volunteered last week to go to Gaza to blow themselves up in the hope of killing Jews.

In 07 Ahmeadinejad said "Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future. the will to commit suicide is one of the best ways of life."

We’re dealing with mad men intent on leading their people to war with us. Political correctness will kill us all if we don’t respond properly to the threats. When we treat Hamas like a regular political party it’s the same as treating the Fascists, or the Nazi’s as a regular party. All 3 were elected by their nation to lead, but if their goal is end our way of life, we can’t allow them to sit at the table and persuade other nations they mean no harm. Cry it out from the roof tops and expose them as pure evil. Then don’t back down. Bush was right in 02 when he called out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. Iran is no longer in a position to sponsor terror, as they had for decades. North Korea was a monster for years with 200,000 political prisoners according to Amnesty International who said those prisoners are raped, starved, and used for medical experiments. Until recently people were executed for listening to radio stations from South Korea. In the 70’s & 80’s North Korea had people hijack planes with westerners on to execute them. But they changed their ways in the 90’s and began sponsoring Libya and Syria with weapons in their attempts to bring down the U.S. Since being called out North Korea is turning around. Kim Jung has actually started introducing Capitalism. Most importantly they have shut down their nuclear weapons program, and are no longer dealing with Syria. Libya of course has had a turnaround of it’s own the past few years, and is now an Allie of ours.

The last 4 years Bush has gotten wishy washy about holding up Hamas and Iran and saying these leaders are not to be trusted. We will not negotiate with them, they are terrorists who have no honor. We need to remind the world and ourselves of how bad they are so there is no confusion. Israel will remain a country. They want to work with the leaders of Palestine to draw up a 2 state map, but can not work with Hamas. Iran will do what it can to end the peace process because they want war. When it’s out in the open you can see through the veiled attempts at peace. It’s important to know your adversary, and what their goals really are. I beg our leaders to tell Americans and the world the truth and face the criticism that comes for being insensitive to other cultures. The criticism can’t kill you. Hamas and Iran can.

Once the world sees these groups for what they are, the groups will be forced to change or face the cold reality that they’re going it alone. Either way we’re all better off.

A libs concern for Republicans

2009-01-05T18:35:00.003-05:00

Well it's the first Monday of the new year and time to start cleaning up the mess of what's left of the Republican party, and begin building our foundation for 2010.

A concerned liberal friend of mine wrote me an e-mail over the weekend that included an article from a guy who was pointing out that Republicans are basically all white guys, and suggested we don’t want minorities in the party. This friend has sent several e-mails in the past that have inspired intense dialogue. My friend has never given me permission to reprint his e-mail. So today I will present the gist of his and then reprint my response. You'll notice the 2nd response is a little more passionate

As for this article the guy is obviously of the belief that Republicans don't want anyone other than white guys in the party, and uses facts to build his case. However the truth is that Democrats have done a better job of attracting minorities, and hence they have more candidates that are minorities.
The Republican party I believe is going to change, and probably not how liberals expect. Conservatives are going to reclaim the party and stop chasing moderates. It's a race to the center every election with who can be the least offensive candidate. That ends up with both parties looking very similar and most people frustrated. See http://www.blackagendareport.com/ to see how liberals are frustrated already with Obama. The Republicans are way more frustrated than that with Bush, and our leaders, so expect to see conservatism rise on this side of the isle. I believe that once a clear message of what conservative values are is sent out a number of minorities will respond and want to be a part of that. A young man up in the DC area has already started a movement. http://hiphoprepublican.com/about/ I would love to see Michael Steele head up our party, but either way he is becoming a major force for conservatives to reach out to blacks, and invite them to explore our platform. We definitely need to resemble the face of America more so all conservatives feel like their voice is represented. And now that we're starting to get back on point, I think you'll see that begin to happen.

Happy New Years!

My friend then responded that Michael Steele is “too partisan” to attract minorities. He also thought “Rove & Co” tried to shun the center with Bush and that’s why Bush is one of the most polarizing figures in American history. Here’s my response to that!

Michael Steele is a partisan and so am I. You are a partisan too! We have values that we don't waiver on to try and win votes. Bush is so polarizing, because libs were ticked he told them their opinion didn't matter. I hope Obama does the same. As a leader you do what you believe is right. The American people aren't in a position to know how to handle problems, so whatever you and I think is useless. We don't see the reports they see. A lot of info they can't share with us, so all they can do is try and make us feel secure that they know what they're doing. As for the House I expect Republicans to be ticked off at Bailouts, taxes, Supreme court nominations etc. I expect the media won't play it up like they do when the Dems get ticked at what Republicans do. When Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, and their gang are screaming about anything, I instinctively know it was the right decision. When they are happy, I'm concerned. So Obama will be just as polarizing a figure as Bush because I and people who think like me believe he's dangerous to the economy, the military, our courts and everything you thought Bush was dangerous for. For Obama's sake I hope he just gives Republicans lip service. Taking meetings with them and acting like he cares what they think, but then does what he feels is right. Because Bush lost the base when he started trying to appease Dems. Then no one wanted to follow. At least 50% want to follow Obama now, like they did Bush 4 years ago. In order to keep that 50% he should close Gitmo, raise taxes on anyone making over 200 grand, and print 1 trillion dollars to start businesses that use solar and wind. All those ideas are horrible from my standpoint but at least he'll be keeping his base happy.
Rove and Co screwed the base with things like No Child left behind, pushing for home ownership for every American, sending out stimulus checks, keeping the borders open and suggesting amnesty for illegal aliens. All things Libs liked at first. It showed he was a moderate with compassion at the time. Liberalism at it's very heart is about compassion. How do we show it? Making sure kids in poor communities get the same education as rich kids, making sure poor families have a chance to start building wealth by owning a home, giving every American some money to help through the rough times, and giving hard working law abiding immigrants the same chance our forefathers had in this great nation. POPPYCOCK! Universal testing leads to universal cheating, because teachers want to keep their jobs, so all kids get cheated out of an education to prepare for a test. People who don't make enough to own a home, can't own a home. It's not the nations job to help them. It's the nations job to give them a chance. Times get rough because the free market says we need to slow down. When the government tinkers, we suffer a lot more down the road. Let the suffering begin! And for every dollar we print to "bail us out" will just extend the length of our misery. Other than the pilgrims, and the slaves, most people's forefathers came through legally. We've had limits on immigration for a number of reasons, and one of them is to make sure people with a stake in this country are the only ones making a living. Immigrants who make money and mail it back to their country are a huge drain on us. Of course I don't blame them, and if in their situation would probably attempt to do the same. But it's not best for the country. McCain was a moderate who got out centered. I and millions of others have been disenfranchised to use a popular term as of late, because while my vote counted, I wasn't given anyone to vote for. Palin, Johnson, Jidel are the first of a new wave of diversity that's coming. Conservatives are getting fired up for 2010. I'm looking to get a few seats back then. But look for a new party by 2012.

So you can see I'm fired up and ready for big changes. Let me know if you are too. In the words of C&C Music Factory; "Let's get this party started right"!

My interview with Senator Demint

2008-12-15T20:26:00.002-05:00

Today I got to spend some quality time with South Carolina Senator Jim Demint who broke down how boycotting the bailout of the Big 3 is really the only chance there is to save those jobs. Click here to listen

Is Rush Limbaugh hurting conservatives?

2008-12-13T08:48:00.003-05:00

Colin Powel made some news this week when he slammed Rush Limbaugh. I remember hearing Rush for the 1st time in 1989 on WABC NY and thinking this is the funniest guy on the radio. I also appreciated his ability to point out how absurd some liberal positions are through comedy. I also remember thinking in 1994 that our party was making a tragic error when the newly elected Reps called themselves the Dittohead Caucus. Then Sean Hannity started getting quoted and then Laura Ingraham and so on and so forth. The point is that Radio entertainers are in fact entertainers. As a party, you lose credibility when you quote them. Rush is by far the most popular radio personality in America with an audience that fluctuates between 14 and 20 million people every year. But that alone tells us most conservatives don't listen to him. Most American voters consider themselves conservative. It's actually 60 %. (Apparently we start every election off with a 10 point lead and blow a lot of them) In this last election Obama received 66.8 million votes to McCain's 58.3 million votes. That's 125 million voters. Meaning 105 million of them don't listen to Rush or probably talk radio in general. So when molding an argument to an undecided voter never say "Well I heard on Rush Limbaugh...", because he's an entertainer. It's similar to when a Democrat says "John Stewart reported..." If an entertainer makes a point you want to enlighten your friends with find the source and quote from there. Ususally they will say today's NY Times or an ABC poll or whatever before breaking it down. Of course you can always quote me because, no one knows who I am.

Republican response to Illinois Gov arrest

2008-12-09T17:52:00.014-05:00

At 6:15 AM today the Governor of Illinois was arrested at home, after a Federal wiretap indicated he had been asking for $500,000 to appoint someone as replacement to Barrack Obama's Senate seat. There's a bunch of other tawdry allegations as well which you can read here if you care. The governor's Chief of Staff was also arrested.

Illinois has a long history of corrupt governor's. Governor Blagojevich's arrest today makes him the 5th Illinois governor to be arrested in 5 decades.

Some people including Jack Tapper at ABC News are attempting to link Barrack Obama to this scandal. As a Republican this isn't a thing to rejoice over. It's sad when elected officials betray the trust that people placed in them. The people of Illinois are embarrassed, surprised, and rightfully angry over this latest scandal. Attempting to link Obama to this is a foolish PR mistake by anyone hoping to further conservatism. It makes you appear opportunistic with your own desires being placed over concern for your fellow citizens. It's exactly the way you alienate potential supporters.

When friends ask you what you think, simply acknowledge that it's disappointing. If they clearly want to pry out some "Republican rhetoric" perhaps mention that corruption knows no bounds and we Republicans have numerous scandals of our own. But because men of great influence are often tempted to sell that influence that is another reason you're for smaller government with less influence. Do not get in to a debate over which party is more corrupt! Both parties lose that argument.

Other indicted IL governors

William Stratton 1961

Otto Kerner 1973

George Ryan 2006

Do you know Peter Schiff?

2008-12-08T15:23:00.007-05:00

This is a tough blog for me to write. I focus on politics, and attempt to encourage Republicans to return to smaller government, less taxes, and allow free markets to work. Today I'm focusing on the man who worked on Ron Paul's campaign. I ignored Ron Paul for the most part because I didn't think he was electable. I wish I had paid more attention.
Peter Schiff is an Economist who founded Euro Pacific Capital He spent 2006 and 2007 being laughed at by other economists (as you can see on these clips) as he predicted the evaporation of wealth, due to inflated home prices brought on by the Fed keeping interest rates low which led to aggressive lending. The home price collapse would lead to a banking collapse which leads to a stock market collapse leading to a total economic recession that will last for years.

Well the collapse has arrived. 5.8 Trillion dollars evaporated in October. 11 consecutive months of rising unemployment. November we lost another half million jobs. Close to a million jobs are gone from last year. Peter called all of this, and may not have been alone in doing so, but very few gave him weight. Even today some suggest he doesn't know what he's talking about. But not me. His theory makes sense and his past statements have come true.

What does Peter say about the future? More importantly what should you do? First thing is get out of the dollar.

He suggest buying gold, silver, foreign bonds & foreign currency. Now if you're not in the stock market, what about our economy in general. Basically we have to pay the price of borrowing from foreign countries for decades to live the lifestyle we've all lived. We need to produce and save more. We need to spend less. Which is the exact opposite thing the Government is saying. Bush/Obama and all their followers are announcing that this is a confidence issue. Once consumers feel confident again, they'll buy more houses, and cars, and clothes, and trips. So the government is printing money to spread to banks, and big companies, so they can stay in business, which will slow unemployment, and hope that people will go buy stuff to keep these companies afloat. The problem is everyone is drowning in debt. After years of 2nd mortgages on artificially inflated home prices to pay for renovations to make our houses more valuable, we now find out that the kitchen/bathroom renovation that cost 30 grand is worth zero. There's no one left to prop up our economy. The more we print money the deeper the hole is getting. Te best thing we can do now is tighten our belts for a 3 to 10 year recovery, and beg our government to stop bailing things out. In other words let's stop digging the hole.
Just to illustrate this point. Japan had amazing growth in it's economy from 1950-1990. When a market correction began, the government chose to stop it. Their infusion of cash kept things sort of stable but market pressure demanded correction and with that their recession began. Their government still kept printing yen and creating jobs till around 1995. From 1990 till 2001 their stock market had dropped almost continuously. Even after a 7 year "recovery" the Nikkei is worth about 75% of what it was 18 years ago. Now that a worldwide recession has begun Japan is really in trouble because inflation will begin to rise. Watch billionaire Jim Rogers try to explain this to some arrogant reporters.

We're a lot bigger economy, and we're considerably more over extended than Japan was.But we're only at about the 1991 point of the Japanese time line. We can take our medicine in a couple of nasty gulps and be back to prosperity in a few years or drag it out for decades like the Japanese. We need to educate our friends and neighbors as to what this bailout will do. Together as a nation we need to let our Reps in Washington know that we understand tough times are coming but if they try to put it off further to win another election we will vote them out.

I'm going to be filling in for Keven Cohen right after Rush Limbaugh on 560 WVOC Monday and Tuesday (12/15 & 12/16). Peter Schiff's assistant says Peter will start the show Tuesday at 3 with me via phone. If you have any questions you'd like me to ask him please post them here.

How do you cut a program?

2008-12-02T13:33:00.008-05:00

Conservatives always whine about bleeding heart liberals. Liberals never met a cause they didn't want to support. It feels right to support causes. Today in South Carolina we have a good example of how difficult it can be to cut programs, that need to go. WIS reports that the head of Project Faith is warning Governor Sanford and the State House that their decision to cut that program will result in thousands of deaths and even more dollars to the SC taxpayers. Project Faith works with churches to prevent the spread of HIV. "For the health of this state, for the benefit of tax payers and for the economy, if you want to save lives and save money, you've got to prevent a disease like HIV," says Dr Gaddist the head of the program.

Are the Republicans so cold hearted, so short sighted that they will cut this program to balance the budget this year and put our young people at greater risk of contracting HIV? 39 Churches are going to ask lawmakers to not cut Project Faith because it's too important. Especially because statistics show South Carolina ranks 9th in the nation in the rate of newly diagnosed cases of aids. Nearly 1,600 people were newly diagnosed with HIV last year in the state. The story doesn't contain a response from Governor Sanford or any of the reps who voted to cut it for 09.

The response needs to be, we care too much about our future to keep funding a program that has proven that it doesn't work. SC is the 24th most populous state with a little under 4.5 million people. If the program was at all effective we'd be ranked around 20th or less with new AIDS diagnosis. If the program was working we should be less than 30th. Instead we're neck and neck with Georgia who has over 9 million residents and Pennsylvania with over 12 million residents. How can a program say it's working when we have the same amount of AIDS cases per year with 1/3 the amount of people living here? Let's be honest with ourselves. This program was started in the late 90's with the hope that government could somehow effect peoples behavior. I don't believe that the government is either responsible or successful at protecting it's citizens from themselves. When we spend money on it, we spend it poorly. SC has spent millions of dollars in attempting educate people about poor eating habits. Yet we're always near the top of any list that ranks, heart disease, blood pressure, diabetes etc. So the fact that we're near the top of an HIV list isn't shocking. It's sad, and needs to be addressed, but this project since it was officially funded by South Carolina in 2001 has had no measurable effect. We have hovered around the top 10 before and after their creation. I can't speak on their methods, because I have no idea what they do. But the results speak for themselves. So sadly, this project must be cut. I say sadly because of course I wished it would work. I wish no family had to suffer the heartbreak of HIV, or the nightmare of AIDS. If we could write a check and make it go away I believe all conservatives would sign up for that. But in very few instances has a government anywhere had the ability to change the behavior of free people. So it's not that Republicans aren't concerned about the spread of HIV/AIDS it's just that spending money doesn't fix the problem, it only makes us feel better about ourselves that we tried. The citizens of SC know that abstinence from sex is the only 100% guarantee. If they do have sex to wear a condom. We also know that eating Maurice's BBQ will raise our cholesterol, and watching the Gamecocks will give us heart attacks. Yet we do what we want, and sometimes regret it later. That's what the pursuit of happiness is all about. The possability that the pursuit will kill you, is the individules decision, not the states.

Political Wrongness

2008-11-30T20:43:00.016-05:00

Are these guys in the act of a crime? If you said the guy on the right has created a spelling crime against marriage you're a wisenheimer...and I like that. But seriously should either be sent to prison for their display?

The Democrats for decades have been pushing for legislature that forces Americans to be tolerant but makes it a crime to offend. Republicans have opposed such bills because they don't protect all Americans. When there's a need for a new law Republicans sign up to help. JFK introducing the Civil Rights act in 1963 comes to mind as an example of when there were offenses against citizens being carried out, that were not being punished under the current law, a new law had to be written. Freedom doesn't give one the freedom to impair another's pursuit of happiness. Both Democrats and Republicans who fought for civil rights, and sexual equality are to be applauded, and thanked for making this country better. (quick sidenote; Democrats often take all the credit for civil rights passage, but in the 3 attempts it took to pass Democrats never had more than 69 percent of their party vote in favor while Republicans never had less than 80 percent. One day I'll do a blog on how Republicans have been the champion of minorities that will make my liberal friends heads explode) But political correctness, as we all now refer to walking on eggshells, is beginning to impair people's pursuits of happiness. And is on the verge of literally outlawing the major religion of the United States, Christianity.

As we head in to the Christmas season, now would be a perfect time to fire off an e-mail to your Congressmen and Senators to let them know where you stand on the Hate Speech bill as most in Washington are calling it. It sure sounds like a Christian should support a bill against hate speech. But like a lot of things in this world, and especially Washington, things that seem right, are often wrong.

Following the lead of Canada and Europe the U.S. version of the Hate Speech act would make it an arrestable offense for a religious leader in his church, to say that sex outside of marriage is wrong, because that would be hate speech to the people having pre-marital sex, and especially hateful to homosexuals who aren't legally allowed to get married. This Bill is now named the Matthew Shepard Act in honor of the young man who was brutally murdered by 2 guys who hated gay people. It's hard to stand up against a bill named the Hate Speech bill that's now subtitled the Mathew Shepards Act. By voting against it, it appears that you're for hate speech and against gay people. Is it possible voting against this bill is actually voting to protect Homosexual rights?

Obviously the men who murdered Matthew Shepard have done something horrendous, and thankfully our laws cover that. They are both serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. But there are those in the gay community and the Democratic party who feel that our current laws need an addition to prosecute a crime motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability. They use the example that if a person spray paints homosexual slurs on a gay persons home or automobile that the perpetrator needs to have more severe punishment than a person who simply spray paints a Yankees logo on a Red Sox fans property. In case you're wondering, police classified the Yankee logo spray painting as robbery even though nothing was stolen. If caught the guilty party faces 5 years in jail. So we're covered. There's no need to guilt people in to supporting a bill that serves primarily to threaten religious leaders to be more inclusive, by not talking about what their religion teaches. Now we're not just talking about Christianity here, because clearly the Muslim, and Jewish religion also proclaim homosexuality a sin. Even the Hindu's Manu Smriti demands punishment for homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals caught having sex. And the Buddhist leader Dalai Lama has spoken out about those same things. So all of the worlds major religions have taught the same things for thousands of years, but the federal government now wants to make those teachings a crime.

I would suggest there's no need to clarify the motive when sentencing a crime. If one murders, steals, or rapes the motive is unimportant. They will be punished accordingly. So then what purpose could this bill serve? Well as Chuck Colson pointed out in his article "This bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech". Any speech that can be considered hateful by any group sending the person saying it to jail?

Now I know this seems a bit extreme to believe that police will be marching in and dragging preachers away for breaking the law by preaching what's in the Bible. But you need only look to Canada and Europe to see how this is already happening there. If that seems too far away, try Pennsylvania. Under a Pennsylvania state law this 75 year old grandmother was dragged off to jail for holding up a sign at a gay rally that said "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth". On the basis of that interpretation, a Philadelphia Eagles fan holding up a sign that says The Pittsburgh Stealers have an overrated Quarterback should be arrested in Pittsburgh. Sometimes the truth hurts,or some times the message isn't even true. The Stealers QB is great, but someone saying he's not, is supposed to be free to say that. I believe Jesus Christ died to pay the cost for my sins, and anyone else who repents and puts their trust in Him. According to the Bible Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6 no one will go to Heaven without accepting Him as their savior. All of my studies have proven to me, that it is impossible for me, or anyone else, to enter heaven by being a good person. I should be telling everyone I know that, because it's incredible news. We can all be saved and go to Heaven regardless of our pasts, our race, our lineage, anything. Of course Atheists are positive that there is no God. (Not to be confused with Agnostics who just think it's impossible to know). So if I was an Atheist I'd be telling everyone that religion is a hoax to put you under some faceless authority and to milk you of your money. That's what they should be doing! And in this country we should both be able to stand shoulder to shoulder and say the other is wrong. Homosexuals can hang huge banners in front of their houses that say God created us gay, and while that's obviously offensive to anyone who believes the Bible, they too have the right in America to proclaim it. (in case you're wondering why that's offensive to Christians, it's because the Bible teaches we're all created perfect in Gods image and that we're born with sin which is passed on because of the fall of man in the garden of Eden. Being born homosexual isn't something God did any more than being born a liar is) We should all make sure that our adversary has the ability to speak their mind. Fighting for their right to speak is fighting for your own right. The Matthew Shepard act would also open up gays to arrest for speaking about the Bible in a way that most Christians would deem hateful. It wouldn't start out that way, but anytime you start to limit speech it leads towards all citizens losing the privilege. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not. A law that outlaws you from peacefully expressing yourself, because others are afraid of what you're expressing, goes against the fiber of this country, where we are all free. President elect Obama says passing the Matthew Sheppard Act is one of his priorities . While it's intentions are good, it's execution will hurt all Americans.

If you agree with me, here's a list of the email addresses for all the Congressmen and Senators in America. I encourage you to find your representatives, and let them know where you stand. If you don't agree with me, um act like you didn't see that list. Just kidding! Contact your reps and tell them you want free speech banned, or however you want to spin it.

The problems with bailouts

2008-11-28T08:20:00.007-05:00

Americans deep in their soul just don't like bailouts. New Yorkers asked about the government saving thousands of New Yorkers jobs by bailing out Citibank said overwhelmingly they don't like it. Another survey last month showed 3 out of 4 Americans don't think the bank bailouts will work.

I'm going to float some ideas here that may make some readers angry. But if you'll stay with me till the end I think I'll win you back. Americans are the same as every body else in the world. We're not born special, we're born lucky. People in third world or Communist nations when given the chance to live here, pretty much adapt to capitalism in short order. However if an American were to find themselves transported to the communist country they would constantly long for the freedoms they had lost. Free is the way God created us to live. But in an attempt to find security people surrender those freedoms to people or an entity they feel will do a better job than themselves. If you've never experienced freedom you don't long for it, like a person whose born free. One of the steep prices of freedom is that there are no guarantees.

Bailouts are a way for the government to take over a business or industry. As Nancy Pelosi so eloquently told the auto makers "till they show us a better plan, we won't show them the money". Meaning that business has to now get approval from government on how they shall conduct their affairs. Congressmen who have never worked in the auto industry are going to tell them what they need to do in order to turn things around.

When government controls an industry capitalism suffers. Management is no longer free to run their business the way they see fit. They have to ask permission from their partners who may have a different agenda. In the case of auto makers, their main objective is to sell cars and be profitable. The stated main objective of the government is to produce fuel efficient green cars. A lot of you are probably thinking that those 2 concerns should go hand in hand. Everybody wants fuel efficient vehicles, so the company making them should sell a lot. But what if gas prices stay below 2 dollars and Honda and Toyota who haven't submitted to the governments whims are able to market SUV's which Americans love? The big three have already been told in a letter from Pelosi & Reid that if they waiver off the agreed upon plan the 25 billion will become due immediately. Some of you may be thinking that the big 3 have been getting smoked by Toyota and Honda for years and that's why they find themselves in this mess. The truth is The big 3 still sell way more than Toyota and Honda. Last year, the 7.6 million cars sold in the U.S., 5.4 million were sold by the big 3. Their financial problems have nothing to do with making vehicles Americans want, and everything to do with a horrendous deal they made with the union. The insurance premiums alone cost the big 3 over 12 billion a year! As opposed to all the other foreign automakers combined spending less than 2 billion. So despite what popular belief is the big 3 are outselling foreign automakers big time. They need help on how to deal with crazy unions.

The auto industry is just microcosm of what happens when you allow the government in to your business. They want to run as they see best for the general public, not for the company. This is how to kill capitalism. If we take our example not too much further we can see newspapers needing a bailout soon due falling readership, and shrinking ad revenues. The government would then have the right to approve news stories. I think it's obvious to see where this example is heading.

Now back to the premise of why most Americans dislike bailouts. I wish it was because they instinctively knew this was an attack on capitalism. That it will take away their freedoms that a free market provides. Sadly the truth is, because government bailouts are for the corporation. I am very afraid that if the federal government put to vote a bill that said any American making under $100,000 would receive a tax free stimulus check every year of $25,000 for the next 10 years, people would be screaming at their reps to pass it. The only stipulation was that the government dictated that you spend that money on American grown food, green vehicles, and energy. "Well it's a great idea to support American farmers and help the environment so of course I'm going to do that". This my friends is a deal with the devil. Anytime you surrender a freedom in exchange for security you forfeit both. Giving you (or corporations) money the government doesn't have by simply printing more, devalues the money you currently have. That's called inflation. In the example I just gave the $25,000 would be worth approximately $250 a year by it's 10th year. Never mind that $30,000 a year job would be worth 300 a year. Inflation will destroy the middle class as it's done it countless countries.

In order to protect ourselves we must never allow government to have more power. Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated that this way. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Benjamin Franklin added "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

What I would like to hear from a leader this Thanksgiving.

2008-11-23T21:35:00.008-05:00

My fellow Americans; we are on the verge of one of our great national holidays. A day set apart specifically to give thanks for all the blessings in our lives. Yet there are so many among us whose lives have taken a financial turn for the worse. And indeed the vast majority of Americans today are feeling less sure about their financial future than they were last Thanksgiving. The question on every ones mind seems to be 'how can we solve this massive problem facing all of us'? How can we fix the housing, the banking, and the auto industries whose downturns have lead to cut backs in every other job sector in this nation?

I wish one man could provide that answer. I wish one group of people, or even a political party had the ability to solve this. But history has taught us, if we will learn the tough lesson, that this can only be solved by the American people. We can dilly-dally if we’d like, fooling around with quick fix schemes that the government and industry call bailouts. However these bailouts only put off the hard work that has to be done and prolongs the pain. We need look no where else but our own history. Where the well meaning leaders of this nation offered the American public a New Deal when the economy fell upon hard times. This new deal gave millions of people jobs, and kept industries afloat. Yet after a decade of the government spending trillions of dollars with this New Deal, unemployment was still triple what it is right now, with soaring inflation. Those fortunate enough to have a job, worried that it wouldn’t still be there the next day. We now call it the Great Depression, but to those living it, it was a 10 year nightmare. So bad was life in the 1930’s, that relief came in the form of World War 2!

Why did conditions stay miserable for 10 years if the Government was doing all it could to help? Well the answer should be obvious. Government can’t fix the economy in a capitalist society. Government can only hurt it. But why? Again the answer is obvious if you step back to look at the problem. Government generates no income. Despite what some in Washington think, we can't "govern more", in order to bring in more revenue. All the money the federal government has, it had to take from the citizens who earned it. In order for government to spend money on projects, it has to take more money from citizens. That leaves less money for the citizens to spend in the marketplace. Slowing the economy. Higher taxes discourage people from working to get to the next level. And higher taxes discourage people from taking risks to create wealth. If Government decides to spend money with out taxing the citizens more, then it has to print more money. That devalues the money you have saved and earned. When you're money is worth less that's inflation. So in fact the government has taken money from your pocket once again by making the things you buy more expensive through inflation. The equation is rather simple. The more the government grows, the more the economy slows.

So if government can’t bail us out, and companies are failing and people are losing their jobs, what are we supposed to do? Well like I said earlier, the American people are going to have to provide that answer. If we in Washington will stay out of the way, and create incentives for you to build your dream, the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans will lead the way once more. There’s exciting breakthroughs for us to make. Can wind or solar power become efficient enough to run every home? Or is there another source we haven’t thought of? What will fuel our cars in the future? These breakthroughs will come from the private sector, not government. Despite what some may think the World Wide Web was actually created by a private citizen, not a Vice President. . On Christmas day 1990 Sir Timothy Berners Lee implemented the first successful communication between an HTTP client and server via the Internet. There’s no telling how many jobs were created by the Internet. But rest assured no government had a hand in creating that industry.

And let’s not forget small business. From flower shops, to garages, dentists, to Joe the plumber. Small business is the back bone of America. Government certainly isn’t going to help the small business man or woman by creating a national job corps and raising taxes. The best we can do for you, is tighten our own belts and stay out of your way.

Let’s be clear with ourselves. The next few years will be tougher than we’ve faced in quite a while. If we allow the government to attempt to bail us out we will surely extend that period. The late 1970’s were similar to the late 1920's and today. However both unemployment and inflation were much higher than where we are at now. Yet it was in the face of that, that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs launched new companies, in a field that at the time was 40 years old and yet these young men transformed it. They were helped by the government with tax incentives. Together Apple, and Microsoft along with other competitors they inspired to launch, have lead to millions of jobs that didn’t exist previously. I don’t know which field the next great employer will come from. But I do know that government can only slow that progress. We have clear lessons of the different ways to address these problems. The path of the 1930's New Deal bailout, or the path of 1980's low tax Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't promise there won't be rough times. It does promise the opportunity to work our way out any mess we find ourselves in, unlike bailouts which handcuff business and stifles the free market. For those among us who would argue taxes are as low now as they were in the 80's, I would remind them, you don't inspire a movement by doing nothing. Let's show the Americans who are willing to work for their dream that the government is going to help by giving big incentives to those who create new jobs, even if the job is just for themself.

So as your family and friends gather for Thanksgiving and some may grumble there’s nothing to be thankful for. Why not remind them of what our first President George Washington said back in 1789 when he proclaimed Thanksgiving as a national holiday. “The fourth Thursday of each November shall be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be”. In other words, thank God for the good we’ve enjoyed in the past, and thank Him for we are sure there is good to come. Because we live in a free nation. Where our dreams are not shackled but encouraged. Where people can rise to their full potential without the burden of government restricting that growth. America is today, as it was at it’s formation, the country where you are born with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are millions of us in this great land. And all of us have been blessed by “the great and glorious Being” with different gifts. As a leader in Washington hopefully we are blessed with vision to see how we can best serve our citizens. And as a private citizen, now is the time for you to find what gift you have been blessed with, and then make the most of it. That will bless the country, honor your Creator, and most assuredly lead to your happiness.

What do Obama voters know about Obama?

2008-11-20T12:36:00.006-05:00

There's been a lot of talk the past 24 hours or so about this Zogby poll that reveals the majority of people who voted for Barack Obama really had no idea about his or Joe Biden's documented negative past. However those same voters knew all of the negative things about McCain/Palins past. Actually they mave been guessing at that part. It was a multiple choice survey and the vast majority of Obama voters answered negative questions (like "Which candidate had to drop out of a previous campaign after they were caught plagiarizing speeches") as Palin.

The fact that Obama supporters don't know anything about him is neither shocking or even upsetting to me. It will be upsetting to them when they realize that Obama's change doesn't necessarily line up with their change. Obama supporter/Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban may be the first to have had his balloon popped, as he wrote about in his blog Obama 1st Big Mistake

It's human nature to poo poo (or is that pooh pooh?) negative things about your candidates. We Republicans have, on more than one occasion, given our candidates wide berths after scandals erupted because we can't trust the "liberal media". For a reminder see Duke Cunningham. I don't believe the majority of today's voters take the time to not only learn the current position of key candidates, but their history. So when a likable intelligent person says times are tough and I can make them better, unless someone presents a better option, a lot of people are sold. Most of the people surveyed were unable to identify who Barney Frank, or Harry Reid are. That reinforces to me what I already thought. People have no idea what's going on in DC. You can complain all you want about how people need to educate themselves, and take voting more seriously, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't.

The Democrats have stuck with a message of inclusiveness, and empathy for all. They have stuck us, with a rep as the old boys club who are bigoted, homophobic, and on the side of big business (because they grease our palms). We have done little to dissuade people from that perception.What is the real message of the Republican party? I will write that message over the weekend and post it Monday. In the mean time, if you're interested, here's the video of Obama supporters that was being shot for a documentary that coincided with the Zogby poll.

Lessons from the Great Depression

2008-11-17T19:04:00.009-05:00

We have heard for the past 6 months that the country is facing Great Depression level challenges. Democrats say it’s the Governments job to help Americans find jobs. Obama repeated that last night on 60 minutes.
Republicans say Government spending actually hinders Americans from finding jobs. Let’s look back to the Great Depression to see how we handled it, and what we should have learned from it.

The great Depression in most people’s mind started Oct 29, 1929 with the stock market crash. The 28th was actually a bigger crash losing 13 percent of the markets value in a day, the 29th followed with another 12 percent drop. However the market rallied several times over the next year and while prices dropped, wages and unemployment stayed the same. Most economists agree that if the Federal Reserve had opened up some cash flow somewhere in that 12-18 month time frame, confidence would have returned to the markets, and normalcy to the economy. However regulations passed earlier prohibited the Federal Reserve from doing this, so the Fed sat back and people began to horde their money. And we slid in to a decade of hell.

Herbert Hoover (A Republican who acted like a Democrat) started things like The Mexican Repatriation, where people were "voluntarily repatriated" to Mexico. 2 million people of Mexican decent including 1.2 million who were born in the U.S. were moved to Mexico. The jist was taxpayers would pay to move you to Mexico in order to open up more jobs here. Then came the tremendously anti-business Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to raise tariffs on imports. Unfortunately 2 can play that game so the rest of the world jacked their tariffs as well. That effectively killed our export business and raised significantly the prices of things we needed to import. Hoover fell under the spell that the Government could provide jobs by getting rid of people, and make more money for the country by raising tariffs. Both of those ideas proved to be huge failures, and with that he was replaced by the man who promised America change!

Roosevelt won 57% of the popular vote in 1932. At his inauguration FDR announced; "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people…The general idea behind FDR's New Deal was too many Americans were unemployed. We need to get them back to work, so they will have money, to shop with, which will spur more jobs etc. On March 9th 1933, 5 days after taking office, FDR called a special session of Congress. He passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act From there he created the Works Progress Administration, (tax payers spent over 11 billion on this program which became known as the We Putter Along due to the laziness of it's workers), not to be confused with the PWA Public Works Administration (which spent 6 billion tax payers dollars. They were just as inefficent and in their attempt to build low income housing were only able to build 25,000 units in 4 years. Private construction companies had promised to deliver 30,000 units per year at the same cost). Everyone's favorite example of quality government investment is FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act (taxpayers paying farmers to not farm). Then he created welfare (taxpayers paying for other Americans who aren't working). Shockingly we had to wait 60 years for Bill Clinton to reform this disaster in 1996.

They were shocked that with all of these billions being "pumped in to the economy" from 1933 till 1936 minimal recovery was shown. In fact from 1930-1932 unemployment went from 8.7% (2 percent higher than today) to 23.6%! Then in 1937 the economy collapsed again. Unemployment stayed in the teens. We remained in a Depression for another 4 years till the start of WW11 in 1942.

In 1995 Doctor Robert Whaples of Princeton took a survey of economists who split 51/49 in regards to if the New Deal was good for America. I would argue you don't need a Ph.D in Economics to look at the results. If economic stability didn’t return till 9 years after you implemented your programs, and a World War had to break out, they failed. Not only did they fail, I’ll go further and say we returned to stability in spite of the programs.

As Roosevelt began running for a 2nd term he promised more relief for low and middle class taxpayers by raising the taxes of the wealthiest Americans (people making over 75,000 a year at the time), and tax cuts for the rest of us. "Taxation according to ability to pay” became his battle cry. And with that he passed the 1935 Wealth Tax Act and won himself the Presidency in 36. Not surprisingly to Conservatives unemployment jumped 5%, and manufacturing dropped 40% in 1937.

Where are we today. Barack Obama has won 52% of the popular vote. The 48% of Americans who didn't vote for Obama wanted change, the same as the 43% who didn’t vote for FDR wanted change in 1932. However those Americans want a change that will work. Taxing business and the wealthiest Americans at a far higher rate has always failed. It failed with the New Deal in the 30's, It failed the decade of the 70’s! We had double digit inflation and unemployment and the Democrats kept begging for "more help" for the low and middle class. Reagan took office and cut taxes for everyone, most especially for the rich and it spurred jobs for all of us. Tax cuts worked for the 60's and the 80's. The 90's didn't have any major tax changes and thanks to the dot com boom we had a great decade. This decade has been tough with a war on 2 fronts raging for 7 years. The economy has to correct itself due to the housing, banking and auto challanges. This could take a couple of years. Or it could take a decade or more.

We can argue fairness. Although it's hard to convince rational people that someone paying 35% of their income in taxes has an unfair advantage in tax breaks over the person paying 15%. Liberals love to start class warfare battles with their cries of trickle down economics. This despite one their great hero's JFK attempting to educate them on how national economy's work with his Rising Tide Lifts All Boats response after he was criticized for cutting taxes for the rich. History has shown that the richest Americans drive the economy. They employ the most people, and they spend the most money. Whenever the government tries to stick it to rich people, they hide their money, and spend it in other countries. The winning plan has always been do what you can to entice all people, and business's to spend money. Help new business’s launch ventures. There's way too much bureaucracy in any national government to actually create jobs, without going out and just hiring people directly. But as government grows, the economy slows. (I believe I'm the first person to have uttered that rhyme!)

One final look back to our history book. By 1939 Americans had finally learned their lesson and some Roosevelt appointees as well. When the Gallup poll in 1939 asked, 'Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?' the American people responded 'yes' by a margin of more than two-to-one. The business community felt even more strongly so, with 90% responding that The New Deal policies were hurting business. Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, confided to his diary May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."

The lessons are obvious. Let’s pray that our Republican House members will encourage their Democrat colleagues to study history and then act accordingly.

Why did Reagan inspire a revolution?

2008-11-13T22:54:00.003-05:00

A lot of younger people have asked why Republicans love Reagan so much. I don't think it's an understatement to say it's because he stopped our nations decline and returned us to greatness. I've made a 4 minute tribute video that will hopefully give you some insight as to what started the Reagan Revolution, and maybe inspire some of us to take up the cause once more.

How to fix a stalling economy

2008-11-12T20:21:00.004-05:00

Number 40 (who inherited a far bigger mess than this) explains in less than 3 minutes how to fix the economy. Plus gives a shout out to Bill Gates & Paul Allen.

For those of you too young to remember the late 70's through the early 80's here's some stats. While today's jump in unemployment to 6.5% is bad, we've seen much worse.

Inflation has risen to about 5%, however the average from 1979-81 was 12%! By 1982 it cut in half to 6% and down to 3% by 1983!

The conservative plan has proven it works. As you can see by the history of taxes, George Bush has been the best friend to lower income Americans since before World War 2! Republicans should be ashamed that no one knows that! Let's remind America that times have been far worse than this,and we have the blueprint to return us all to prosperity!

Do you have to be a Christian to be a Republican?

2008-11-11T16:50:00.000-05:00

You can most certainly be a Republican and not be a Christian! I have been a Republican since I was 12, but didn’t become a Christian till I was 36.I would suggest the proud lil button on the left actually has its priorities listed backwards. Being a Republican has nothing to do with following Christ. You can be a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Agnostic, Atheist, Mormon, in fact the only thing you can’t be is a Democrat. Now my wife became upset last week because a pastor sent out an e-mail encouraging Christians to vote Republican. I understand why a Christian may want to encourage people to vote Republican and it’s basically the abortion issue. The Democrats are pro choice, Republicans are pro life. I was pro life before becoming a Christian. The main reason was as a teen my friends Mike, and Dan had older sisters and both had abortions. Later on both told me of their regret. They also told me of other women who had regretted it. I came to the conclusion that the stress of an unwanted pregnancy could make a woman choose abortion. The other choice, while far from a easy one, was to have the woman give birth and put it up for adoption. New born's have never had a problem finding adoptive parents so it’s safe to assume the baby will find a decent couple . The woman would go through a tremendously difficult year of being pregnant with a baby she doesn’t want, and of course the incredibly painful act of childbirth. But there would never be the later regret of wondering if you did the best you could for that baby. I also knew then, as now, that not all women feel regret. Here’s a recent study on that. Why should women be burdened with an unwanted pregnancy? For those women I answer with a question. Why not surrender a year of your life to give life to another? Could there be any greater way to invest a year then bringing another person in to the world? But before I get too far into the abortion issue, that’s where I was coming from before becoming a Christian.

As a non-Christian I did find all the focus on abortion and religious rights a bit distracting. And honestly as a Christian today, I feel the same way. In the book of Matthew, Jesus said; “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In the book of John Jesus said to Pontius Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.

Jesus was telling us Christians there are worldly issues and Heavenly issues. Our main focus should be on Heaven, as this is a temporary place. I recently heard a phrase I liked very much. “We should be afraid if we are in the world of the living only to be dying. However we are not. We are in the world of the dying heading for the world of the living”. Hopefully I’ve established to my Christian readers I’m one of you, because you may not like what follows.

Don’t smear Christ’s name with politics! We are all looking for the best leaders. You don’t have to be Christian to be ethical, intelligent, calm, steadfast, or any of the other qualities we look for. Republicans are supposed to fight for the freedoms of the minorities. (I know some Democrats jaws just hit the floor). If you read the Constitution (which you can in less than 30 minutes including amendments) you’ll notice it makes no mention of Jesus. The Founding Fathers, all of whom were Christian, (Franklin and Jefferson were Deist's which is sometimes mistaken for atheist) always asked for Gods blessings on this “great experiment” of a nation but understood this was mans work.

Let’s keep the country free so all people of all beliefs, can tell their story here. Freedom of speech is what we need to fight for. As a Christian you lead people to Christ with the Gospel not by court appointments. There’s a lot more to be a Republican than being pro life. However if you’re hot button is abortion, till the opportunity comes for the Supreme Court to change Roe v. Wade (which may not happen in your lifetime) you’ll be better served to argue your points to young people in your neighborhood. And like campaigning for office, empathy and humility will further your discussion better than arrogance. I'd really enjoy reading your comments. I'm hoping this new blog of mine will spark conversation among Republicans and if that's going to happen it will start in the comment section.

The slippery slope of lawmaking

2008-11-10T18:11:00.000-05:00

Republicans by nature are supposed to be very wary of new laws. Most of the bad things in this country can be prosecuted under current law. However whenever something evil is brought to the limelight, some people feel we need a new law to show society how serious we are about that issue. Let’s see how a slippery slope begins. In 1994 Bill Clinton signed in to law the legislature written by Joe Biden known as The Violence Against Women Act. VAWA was hailed by NOW as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." Since then everyone from ACLU to The Supreme Court have had negative things to say about this bill. But what could be bad about a bill that protects women from violent men? First it assumes guilt which is a violation of the constitution. Secondly it suspends law officers from using common sense. When someone calls 911 and reports domestic violence happening in a home, the police by law are no longer allowed to investigate. The man is arrested and placed in jail. The woman also has her freedom surrendered as she is shuttled off to a shelter. We already had laws to protect all citizens from beatings, rape, stalking etc. Those laws were not being enforced to the proper degree, so legislatures wrote a new law. You can read more about how this bill is negatively effecting the very people it was designed to support here or here

I’m not picking on this bill because it was written and passed by democrats. Bush had to re-sign it in to law twice, and there are still a lot of Americans who believe this is helping women. We can argue it’s benefits on a later date. But everyone should agree the law wasn’t written in the hopes of putting a rape victim in jail for 8 days till she agrees to testify. However, by law, that’s what happened.

Another unintended side effect of the law, the arrest rate of women is up over 400% and they now make up 35% of domestic violence arrests. And this is still considered a “good law”.

In England their good intentions have really lead them down a slippery slope The past 7 days their papers have featured stories like children no longer allowed to play with toys at Doctors offices.

Taxpayers now spend 160 million dollar a year on a new group whose biggest contribution so far seems to be suggesting a law that will outlaw sandwiches, and has fined a man 600 bucks for throwing out his lunch wrapper without a waste management license.

And the coast guard can no longer shoot flares because that’s too dangerous. This fella demonstrates flare replacement technology.

So before you rush off to write new laws, check the old ones. Like Thomas Jefferson said “The execution of laws is more important than the making”.

Or my favorite, from Roman statesman Marcus Cicero; “The more laws, the less justice”.

Good news/Bad news about media bias

2008-11-09T08:07:00.000-05:00

For future reference italicized words mean I cut and paste them from another source. I also usually won't post on Friday through Sunday. However I woke up early today and I read this good news/bad news article for Republicans that I wanted to share. The good news is, for all of you who have been screaming that the media is biased against our candidates, you're right. Bad news, no one plans on doing anything about it.

This is the Washington Post this morning (November 9th) reviewing the Washington Post's coverage of the Presidential campaign. Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion." You did just read that correct. They didn't cover the issues thorougly,because they were caught up in covering the "exciting" Obama campaign. The Post continues it's critique of it self. The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32). Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

So it was just a few newspapers slanted for Democrats. Who cares! No one even reads those things anymore. ABC News talking about ABC News a few days before the election. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, (here's the definition of cipher, because I can't be the only one who never heard that term)who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

The press will even report on the fact that independent research centers find their coverage biased. The LA Times headline a few days ago; McCain's media coverage largely negative, Pew Research Center finds.

But, you argue, this had to be a one time event based on the significance of the first black candidate having a serious shot at the Presidency. The press is usually pretty fair...right? Apparently not even to the Democratic candidates they take a dislike to. The media attempts to thin out the primary's and help the Democrats pick their own candidates. Early in 1992 the New Republic's Hendrik Hertzberg surveyed major reporters in New Hampshire and asked them which Democrat they would vote for: "The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. So they weeded out the other Dems for the voters in the Democratic primaries. Then went on, in their own opinion, to help him win the White House. In a postcampaign survey of 250 reporters and media executives by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press: "A substantial majority (55 percent) of the American journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe that George Bush's candidacy was damaged by the way the press covered him. Again you read that correctly. 55% of reporters believe their coverage help damage the candidacy of the first Bush. I guess the other 45% didn't want to boast.

So why is this important? Well until the past few years it wasn't. As we learned back in 2001 in Bias, for some reason the majority of people who get in to journalism have always tended to be Democrats, and have always slanted coverage in their favor. However beginning in the 90's their influence has had more of effect. In surveys done from the 50's-80's, 85-95 percent of American voters joined a party. In 1990 that started changing and people started listing themselves as independents. They wanted the freedom to be pro choice Republican, or strong defense Democrat, or whatever their hot button became, they weren't just going to vote the party ticket anymore. It used to be that the debate on qualifications, character, etc happened in the primary. Once that was settled among the voters of the party, it became a rally to get your party people (whoa party people) to the voting booth. Today up to 42% of registered voters now list themselves as independent, making Independent's the dominant party. Today's candidates have to "run to the center" in a battle to get the independent voters. But Democrats have a decided advantage because as we just learned most of today's media coverage is biased in their favor. And complaining about it isn't going to do a thing.

So how do we overcome this? If I had that answer I'd be doing more than writing a blog in my boxers! But I see a glimmer of hope. In the previous articles I referenced, and even this MSNBC article say that coverage gets better or worse depending on poll numbers. So it's not that bad poll numbers are a result of negative media coverage, it's that the media tends to get negative on a candidate if their poll numbers drop. The Pew's research in 2000, for example, found that Democrat Al Gore got a level of negative coverage almost identical to the level Republican McCain is now receiving. Coverage of then-Gov. George W. Bush that year was more positive than Gore's, but more negative than Obama's has been this time. So even when the GOP polls are up, don't expect Democrat-level coverage. However all Americans should be outraged by the fact that if your candidate slips in the polls, the media will further their slide. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. So we need to find ways to get our poll numbers up and keep them there if we want want a fair shake in the press. The comment section is now open for your brilliant suggestions.

Because I don't like to end on negatives, remember this. Over 57 million Americans voted Republican last Tuesday despite, a candidate most of us didn't like, after running a weak campaign, after 4 years of Republicans not handling their business in DC. The message is still strong, and instinctively people recognize it's truth. The challange is for those Republicans who are selected to serve to follow the conservative manifesto. For those of you not familiar with it, here are the 10 points from 1937 that were written in opposition to The New Deal. They were right then, and remain true today.

1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds.

2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion.

3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor.

4. Opposition to “unnecessary” government competition with private enterprise.

5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit.

6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.

7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases.

8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate.

9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility.

10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise.

How to market yourself

2008-11-06T14:10:00.000-05:00

Marketing guru Seth Godin had a piece on his blog I found insightful regarding political advertising. I like Seth because he's smart, and has a great barber.

TV is over. If people are interested, they'll watch. On their time (or their boss's time). They'll watch online, and spread the idea. You can't email a TV commercial to a friend, but you can definitely spread a YouTube video. The cycle of ads got shorter and shorter, and the most important ads were made for the web, not for TV. Your challenge isn't to scrape up enough money to buy TV time. Your challenge is to make video interesting enough that we'll choose to watch it and choose to share it. Marketing is tribal. Karl Rove and others before him were known for cultivating the base. This was shorthand for a tribe of people with shared interests and vision (it included a number of conservatives and evangelicals). George W. Bush was able to get elected twice by embracing the base, by connecting them, by being one of them. Attack ads don't always work. There's a reason most product marketers don't use attack ads. All they do is suppress sales of your opponent, they don't help you. Since TV ads began, voter turnout has progressively decreased. That's because the goal of attack ads is to keep your opponent's voters from showing up. Both sides work to whittle down the other. In a winner-take-all game like a political election, this strategy is fine if it works.
So why didn't the ads work this time?
The tribe that Obama built identified with him. Attacking him was like attacking them. They took it personally, and their outrage led to more donations and bigger turnout. This is the lucky situation Apple finds itself in as well. Attacking an Apple product is like attacking an Apple user.

So if you want to help someone get elected in 2010, or even 2012, now is the time to start building that tribe. Video can be an inexpensive way to start marketing yourself, or a candidate, but take warning!

Your video must be awesome! If it's just ok, not only will people not forward it, they will not open future videos. This may be painful for some of you, but I saw Frank Lutz on Fox News explain that after surveying hundreds of people, this is the best commercial of the last election. Watch it and learn.

What did we learn from Election Night 2008?

2008-11-05T14:11:00.001-05:00

Put down the bottle and let's get back to class!

What did we learn last night?

As I write this the Republican party is having an emergency meeting to figure out what our message should be. They are concerned that Obama was able to out spend McCain considerably on TV in regards to every issue. (It appears no one cares about the enviroment.)

Republicans are fearing that the country has turned towards socialism. Some have even suggested the G.O.P should R.I.P!

RELAX!

Republican values are far from dead! We were beaten by an extraordinary speech maker with a positive message of change. In 1992 and 1996 we were beaten by an extraordinary speech maker with a positive message of hope. They beat us at our own game! The Republican message won, it just came from Democrats who delivered it better! Obama and Clinton both ran on lowering your taxes. We barked "we'll cut em too"! And then the side by side comparison shows Obama and Clinton's tax cuts if passed would lower taxes for most Americans more than McCain's, Doles, or G.H.W Bush. The Republican party then gets in to these yelling matches where we're saying they're lying, or it's a redistribution of wealth and that's socialism or blah blah blah. The average American has now tuned us out because we're flustered, and yelling. No one wants to hear that. So how do Republicans battle the tax myth? In a calm simple way ask the question,"how much money do you need in your budget to accomplish all of your plans"? The follow up question is "where will the extra revenue come from"? Our simple message should be "our annual budget is less, so we will tax Americans less". Keep it simple, direct, to the point. According to Businessweek and the non partisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's proposals will increase government spending by 734 Billion dollars over the next decade. McCain's proposals would have slashed it by 253 Billion. That's roughly a 1 trillion dollar swing!

The best part of this process is Dem's explaining where the extra money will come from. It's magical as Democrats transform right before your eyes in to Robin Hood! Here's the last DNC group shot.

Democrats are going to tax the wealthiest individuals and corporations, because "they need to make some sacrifices too". The average American hears that and thinks "yeah let the big guy pay a little more for the next four years". Unfortunately the wealthiest individuals and corporations are not prisoners here, so they move. Wealthy people move to Bermuda, The Cayman Islands, and suddenly The Netherlands is hot. Big companies move to where cheap labor is. Of course they can choose to stay in the U.S.as well because the rich have the best lawyers to find the best loopholes. Either way, middle class Americans are left to pay the tab on our governments liberal spending. Republicans, your job is to offer the alternative! Lower our budget, so you can lower our taxes, which will grow our economy! Where do you cut? That's the next lesson. Probably sometime next week. Over the following weeks and months I'll cover other Republican values as well. Seperation of Church & State? Abortion? Military spending etc. I'd also love to hear your feedback. I love my God, my family, my country, my party in that order. And because I love my country more than my party, I will be praying for the success of Barack Obama, and the Democratic run Senate and Congress. I hope you'll join me in that prayer.

A quick history lesson on taxes. Peace time, Federal Income Tax was sold to the American public in 1894 as the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff and it promised only the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans would have to pay taxes. Americans voted for it, because they liked the idea of the big guys helping out more. Well that didn't turn out as they planned, which lead to the 16th Amendment . Which lead to the Income Tax Law of 1913, which promised to only tax people in the upper 1 percentile! Again we fell for it. In no short order the federal government found a gold mine in our pockets and has been determined ever since to spend every penny...and then some...for our own good of course.

Election Night 2008

2008-11-04T19:18:00.000-05:00

This is the first night of this blog. I'm watching the returns gritting my teeth with frustration. I'm not frustrated at the country voting democrat. I'm not frustrated with the media coverage of the campaign. I'm frustrated with my Republicans. We have allowed the democrats to mis-characterize who we are.

I became a Republican in 1979. I was 12 years old living in the middle of Connecticut. My grandfather was the head of the Hartford Democratic Town Committee. My other grandfather made me watch the Watergate trial every day after school, screaming what a bunch of crooks all Republicans were. I had my doubts that a group of people could be so evil, but my entire family assured me that was the case. All Republicans were rich, and only worried themselves with ways to help their rich friends. That usually included screwing the working man.

Then I heard Ronald Regan speak. Regan said that government can't fix your problems, because government is the problem. There was too much bureaucracy in Washington, and everyone had their hands in the cookie jar. We needed to tax Americans less so they could spend more to stimulate the economy. We need to balance the budget, so we can control inflation. In order to balance the budget and lower taxes, the government needed to spend less money. There was (and is) plenty of wasteful spending in DC. This made a lot more sense to me than half of the political process was out to screw me over.

I don't believe most Americans believe there is a party out to stick it to them and only help their rich friends. However in the election of 2008 it appears that that argument has won. Democrats stuck the collapse of the housing, credit, automotive, and stock markets at the feet of the Republicans and we did nothing to prove them wrong. Obama stayed above the fray by encouraging Americans to dream.

It's important to point to the future and show how it will be better than our past. The difference is the road we offer to a better life. The Republican road doesn't penalize success, or force you to "share your wealth". Dreams don't became reality without incredible effort. If a country is to encourage your dream, the best way to do that is to stay out of your way. We're the party where a person decides their quality of life, by the decisions they make. If an American makes poor decisions, their life will undoubtedly be hard. However they will still have the opportunity to work their way to prosperity. Millions of immigrants of all nationalities, have proven that true, over the past 200 years. A comfortable life will not be provided for less fortunate Americans, off the sweat or good fortune of other Americans. That's called socialism, and has been proven by history to only benefit those in power while destroying all they rule over. We provide opportunities, not guarantees. We are the party that has proven, you keep Americans safe by showing the strength of our military and our leaders. Negotiating is wonderful. But they need to know you come to the table from a position of strength.

I was too young in 1976 to appreciate Regan and his campaign against Gerald Ford. In fact I wanted Jimmy Carter to win because I did a great impression of Jimmy, and knew I'd be a hit till I was a teenager if Carter won. But this short clip of Regan from 1976 reveals a little glimpse of what I, and most Americans came to recognize as simple brilliance over the next few years. As we now know, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 in no small measure due to the leadership of Ronald Regan through that decade. However on this day Regan and his ideas were defeated. I am inspired by his message to his campaign workers as he takes his defeat with class. I pray Republicans will be as classy with tonight's defeat, tomorrow. And together we can start working towards the 2010 elections, so once again our country can be that shining city on a hill.