Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

Charity begins at home, at least in the conservative home

A conservative sees a poor homeless man and feels sympathy.  The conservative offers him a job, so he can earn money to get clean clothes and a place to live.  A liberal sees the same homeless man and feels compassion.  He turns to the conservative and says, "give him some of your money."  I read that years ago and I think it was attributed to Winston Churchill.  Of course, just about every humorous quote is attributed to either Churchill or Mark Twain.  

With all President Obama's plans to redistribute wealth and fundamentally change America,  I thought I would do a little research on charitable contributions of the wealthy and conservatives compared to liberals.  The president and the media would have us believe that the rich must be taxed to force them to contribute to society.  The only way the poor can survive is if the government takes money from the more fortunate (funny how that's an accepted description of the wealthy, as if it were all luck, education and hard work had nothing to do with their success).  

One of the neat things about people that run for or hold public office, their income tax filings are available to the public.  So, for a little history on charitable contributions.  The grandfather of all liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave on average less than 2% of his annual income to charitable organizations.  Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, who, by the way, did not come from a wealthy family like the Roosevelt dynasty, gave an average of 6% of his income to charity.  The Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy gave less than 1.5% of income to charity in the years that he released his income tax statements.  I'm pretty sure he came from a fairly well-off family.  

For a little more recent history, President George W. Bush averaged just over Obama's threshold for the wealthy $250,000 per year in the years he was Texas governor and United States President.  In those years, he gave an average of 10% of his annual income to charity.  His vice-president, Beelzebub, I mean Dick Cheney, was inconsistent in his charitable contributions.  In one year reported, he gave 0.1%, but the following year gave over 77% (no decimal in there, 77%!!), for an average of 19% in the years reported.

The current holder of the vice president's office, Joe Biden, was very consistent.  Stingy, but consistently stingy.  In the past 10 years, he has given a low of 0.1% and a high of 0.3% of his income to charity.  And yes, those are decimals in there.  He has given an average of $369 a year to charity in that timeframe.  His boss, President Obama is, by comparison a regular philanthropist.  In 2000, when he ran for senate, he reported contributions of $2350, or 1% of his income.  Now, in total contradiction to his belief that the wealthy don't give more, last year when revenue from his two books produced an income of $4.2 million, he and Michelle gave $240,000, or 5.7%.  


National statistics from 2004 were the most recent I could find.  That year, 2/3 of Americans reported charitable contributions.  They gave an average of $2047 or 3% of their taxable income.  Citizens that made between $200,000 and $500,000 gave an average of almost $41,000 to charity, or just under 9.5%.  


The best way to redistribute wealth is to let those who earn the wealth decide how to distribute it.  That redistribution comes through jobs created and obviously through charitable contributions.  Let's keep the government out of the process!

Oh, I could mention that Jesse Jackson and Al Gore each averaged under 1% in the years they made their income taxes public.  But that would be going overboard in making the point.

I remember an old Saturday Night Live with Chevy Chase playing President Ford.  They did a skit with the debate between Ford and Carter during the election campaign.  Carter goes through a 2 minute dialogue about tax rates, oil company profits, and the effect of the cost of oil on the American economy.  When it is Ford's chance to respond, he has that blank stunned look that Chevy Chase did so well and says "um, they, uh, they promised me there would be no math."  I promise, no more math in my posts.