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.  

Tell Me, Who Are You?

Here's my daily football reference.  The featured band at this past year's Super Bowl was The Who.  Thanks to CSI on television, their most well-known song is Who Are You.  That's a question we should be hearing a lot between now and November's elections.  

I read a lot of news and opinions from sites as diverse as Big Government and The Huffington Post.  Even more informative than the articles themselves are the comments that follow.  On one site, you will see a lot of "Obama's the anti-christ" type comments.  Of course on the other, they claim that it's all Bush's fault, you racist!  Read enough of the comments, and you really start to worry about where our country is heading, and even more importantly, why our politicians are encouraging the division.  There is very little discussion of the topic.  Mainly a lot of name-calling.  Both sides of our national arguments strongly believe they are right, and that the other side is stupid, evil, or possibly just stupidly evil.

In the past four months or so, I have become a Glenn Beck fan.  The thing that first attracted me to his show was his level-headedness.  He would lay out the facts, tell his listeners to check them out for themselves, and then decide for themselves.  He has never, at least that I have heard, read, or seen, said that our president or his supporters were evil.  Beck has repeatedly said that they have an agenda for the transformation of America.  That happens to be a progressive/socialist agenda and they have been very upfront about their intentions, but only if you are listening.  The progressives truly believe that their plan is what is best for America.  Beck has also said that he believed that when he laid out the facts, the national media would take the story and run with it and the American public would wake up.  Well, the national media has not covered the story.  They seem to be part of the progressive/socialist movement.  So then Beck laid out the connections between the media (GE-owned NBC networks), the president, Al Gore, Fannie Mae, the economic collapse, the global warming hoax,  the cap and trade legislation, and the trillions of dollars the legislation would bring to each of them.  Still no public outrage.

So, for the sake of comparison, say you see flames bursting out of the upstairs window of a crowded theater.  You run inside yelling "fire!!!"  Only a few patrons glance your direction.  So you yell louder.  Still no response.  You run outside, take a picture with your handy dandy cell phone camera.  Run back inside, waving the photo over your head, while still screaming "fire" at the top of your lungs.  When only a couple of patrons follow you outside, you get mad.  Now, instead of trying to inform the movie-goers of the danger they are in, you start name-calling.  "Moron" comes to mind.  How can they not see the peril.  They just must be stupid.  Maybe in reality, they are very cold-natured.  Burning the theater for warmth is the best idea they have.  They truly believe you are a conspiracy theory loving idiot; they are not trying to kill everyone.  A really big fire is the best way to get warm.

Ok, it's a stretch.  But that's where we are as a nation.  While Beck and others are yelling "socialism, you idiots," Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, and NBC are yelling, "we know, you idiots!"  We've got stop the name-calling and birth certificate checking and educate ourselves and those great masses of uninformed about what is really at stake.  Progressive sounds good.  We all like progress, right?  Well, kind of like the change we were promised, we'd better find out what we are progressing toward.  History does not paint a very pretty picture of past socialist movements.  

And history is what we all need to learn.  A big part of the country is waking up to the fact that the progressive movement began to change our history almost a century ago.  The changes to the Texas curriculum could be a start in the change back to the truth.  David Barton was part of the board that made the changes.  Check out his book, Original Intent for the real history of our founders, especially their belief that they were led by God.  As Barton says repeatedly, the founders were Christians.  Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  The founders did not believe in government sponsoring a religion, but neither was religion banned from government.  

Another extremely hot topic is race.  So, take a look at Barton's American History in Black and White.  It tells the true roles of black Americans in the formation of our country, starting with patriots who were instrumental in the winning of the revolution.  The 3/5 compromise (slaves only counted as 3/5 a citizen in deciding representation in Congress) was a powerful anti-slavery provision.  That's not Barton's opinion, Glenn Beck's, or mine.  That's the opinion of Frederick Douglas.  Just in case you went to public school between 1980 and today, Douglas was a former slave and abolitionist leader who became great friends with Abraham Lincoln.  At first glance, it looks like the founders believed that blacks should not count as a whole person.  Then think logically.  When counting population to determine representation, southern slave states wanted slaves counted.  Northern states said, they count when freed.  Southern states threatened not to sign the Constitution, so a 3/5 compromise was reached.  Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and John and Samuel Adams believed that slaves would be eventually freed in response to the free market and in order to increase southern states' representation.  But counting slaves for representation would only tilt the congress toward making slavery permanent.  When was the civil rights bill first passed?  How about during the Grant (R) administration.  Some was overthrown by courts, then the rest repealed by the Wilson (D) administration.  Who re-introduced it?  Eisenhower (R) re-introduced it.  It never made it out of a Democratic senate.  Kennedy(D) and Johnson(D) both voted against it.  The vast majority of Americans believe that Republicans have consistently fought against rights for minorities and that Democrats have been leaders in the fight for equality.  At least since President Lincoln (R) got it all started.  But we all know that he would be a Democrat today!

Those are just some of the things that were taught at one time.  We need to learn why the texts were changed and make sure all Americans know true American history.  Americans need to make informed decisions at the next election.  We need to know who we are and where we want to go.  We can't again vote for change without asking "change to what?"  Obama's idea of what America is, is not my idea of what America is.

Glenn Beck is very good at distilling issues to their core.  On his television show today, he said Americans need to look to the summer of 1969.  Are we the Americans that went to the moon?  Or are we the Americans who, three weeks after the moon landing, rolled in the mud smoking pot at Woodstock?  As Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who (they played at Woodstock by the way) asked, "Who are you?"

Potato e????

Anyone old enough to remember Dan Quayle remembers his spelling mistake.  A student spells p-o-t-a-t-o.  Quayle says "don't you need an e? P-o-t-a-t-o-e?"  The media ran with that tape.  It ran over and over and over and over.  What an idiot!  Can't even spell as well as a 4th grader!  And the republicans picked him to be vice-president.  Hope President Bush is healthy!

Our current vice-president, Joe Biden asked a congressman at a rally to stand and be recognized.  Problem was the congressman, supposedly a "longtime friend," was in a wheelchair.  Last week, he told a story about another "close friend's" mother, "God rest her soul."  What?  She's still alive.  Well, God bless her!  Then at a big healthcare conference, with C-Span cameras rolling, Biden tells a fellow senator that he has the easiest job in the world.  Don't have to do anything.  "Kind of like being the grandparent instead of the parent."  And of course at the press conference announcing the passage of the healthcare takeover.  Biden again forgets about the open microphone, and says to President Obama, "this is a big f____ing deal!"

Remember the stories about Sarah Palin saying that she could see Russia from her front porch in Alaska?  How stupid!  Only problem, she never said it.  Tina Fey said it in a comedy skit where she portrayed Governor Palin.   Or the NBC morning hostess making fun of Sarah Palin for saying that George Washington was her favorite founding father.  The hostess chose to move Abraham Lincoln back almost 100 years and make him her favorite "founder."

Now we have Rep Steven Cohen from Tennessee saying that the Tea Party is only missing their hoods and robes, and are "followers of George Wallace."  Coincidentally Wallace, like Cohen, was a democrat.  How about congressman Phil Hare a democrat from Illinois?  He is on video saying that he "doesn't care about the Constitution."  He then quotes the Constitution.  Oops, that's the Declaration of Independence.   Then he claims to have read the healthcare law three times.  A total of 8,100 pages!  And he can't answer a specific question about the law.  Still waiting to see that one on the news.  

Former democratic presidential candidate, congressman, and Democratic National Party chairman, Howard Dean stated in an interview, that "of course, the president's agenda is a socialist agenda."  And his advisor/supporter Al Sharpton, says that America "voted overwhelmingly for socialism when they voted for Obama."


But will anyone ever top congressman Johnson from Georgia, yeah, he's a democrat too.  8,000 marines and their families might cause Guam to tip over and capsize!  That's just too easy.  A friend suggested that we import thousands of elephants to the Texas panhandle.  That much weight would tip the state up and make it easy to just scoop up all that oil.  No environmental concerns there!  

I think maybe the president himself topped the list when he claimed that one of the biggest benefits of the campaign was the opportunity to visit "57 states so far."  And he wasn't going to be able to get to Alaska or Hawaii.   Just "one left to go."





And he's the "smartest man in the room???"  Only when he's in a room full of democrats.

Politics

I have always been fiscally conservative, but generally socially liberal. While I voted for McCain, I never felt that Obama was dangerous, or really that different from McCain. I believed that anyone who made it that far in the process was intelligent and mainstream enough to at least be relatively harmless. Wow, was I wrong! From the bailout that had to be passed RIGHT NOW or life as we know it will end!!!! To the takeover of two of the big three US auto makers. To the takeover of the banking industry. To the appointment of admitted communists, socialists, and marxists to major cabinet or czar positions. Not to mention a tax cheat to Treasury Secretary! To the rush to pass cap and trade legislation that is based on veeerrry shaky global warming (excuse me since it's no longer warming we now call it climate change) science. The rush to health insurance reform in an attempt to take over 15% of the U.S. economy (in addition to the majority of the auto and banking industry). Where will this administration stop?????? Oh, apparently on defense. Can't rush into a decision to back our troops in Afghanistan with an increase in troops as requested by a general on site. Let's take over 100 days and then give them 37,000 troops instead of the 40,000 requested. It seems like a pure power or ego driven decision. It took 100 days to decide that the general was close to right, but not quite. And it took our President to make the adjustment.

Let's just get back to the Constitution. You know the one that both the President and all the Congressmen in office took an oath to protect and defend. A recent poll showed that less than 5% of the people could name 5 rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Let's get back to the basics. Here's a link to the Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html By the way, it's not nearly the 2000+ pages needed for the health insurance reform bill.