Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Romney has his work cut out for him on Obamacare

In my previous post about galvanizing the conservative base over the Obamacare ruling, I mention how it's up to us to get Romney elected as well as congressman who will stand up and repeal this massive failure of a policy.  And Romney, as expected, repeated his vow to repeal Obamacare from Day 1.  There's only one small problem:  Romneycare.  For those that followed the Republican Primaries and debates, you'll remember that the more conservative candidates did a fine job blasting Romney for implementing the program that Obamacare was supposedly modeled after.  Romney's responses to such attacks were pretty weak, citing the semantics between a state program and a federal program.   This will not fly during the general election campaign.


Romney puts himself in a precarious position.  By going full tilt about repealing Obamacare, he's risking himself once again to be defined as a flip flopper.  I mean, how could someone who implemented the system that Obamacare was modeled after be so vehemently against Obamacare?  I'm quite sure the Democrats will use this talking point at every turn they can to get the conversation off of Obamacare.

If Romney is going to capitalize on this rallying cry, he needs to get ahead of the issue.  This next week will prove crucial for him as this is the time where he can cement and frame his stance about being against Obamacare despite him being the engineer of the system Obamacare was modeled after.  If he fails to make this argument, the valuable independent vote could be turned off as they see this rallying cry as nothing but more politicizing.  While there's definitely other reasons to vote against Obama, this resurfacing of his alleged flip flopping nature could reduce the turnout he'll sorely need to succeed.

So, how can he get ahead of it?  By adopting Arthur Brooks' moral argument philosophy, Romney has to make a strong moral argument on the differences between federal and state government.  There is one he could use:  He believes in the sovereignty of the states to make up their own mind about health care reform and that a diverse nation such as ours can never have a "one size fits all" health care reform bill because what may work for Massachusetts doesn't mean it will work everywhere.  He almost did that during Republican debates, but wasn't making the stronger moral case.


From there, he can expound upon the differences and all the other negative qualities about Obamacare that make it bad for the nation.  The important part is that he needs to get ahead of the accusations and get set.  If he doesn't, no amount of fact spewing will matter since he'll just look like a flip flopper.  


Democrats and liberals WILL attack his credibility on this.  By framing the distinction as an overreach of federal power, he affirms the sovereignty of the states, highlighting that the federal government should be limited.  





Obamacare - Chief Justice Roberts might have just won the election for Romney.

Yes, Romney.  Not Obama.  But before we get to that, let's process the decision...

Wow.  Just wow.  

While everyone was so focused on Kennedy being the deciding vote, it turns out it was Chief Justice Roberts who ended up being the proverbial "swing vote".  Never saw that one coming.  I'm not really sure what his thinking is and probably will not know until I get a chance to read his majority opinion.  While the mandate somehow survives as a tax, that seems rather semantic and technical when it comes to the government essentially forcing people to buy a product because they have a heartbeat.  Whether it's a tax or a penalty, the bottom line is:  You will pay for not having insurance.  This sets a very dangerous precedent.  One that could easily slide down the slope of the government forcing us to do whatever they feel is "necessary".  

But, this doesn't mean that's going to happen, just that we're now one step closer to that being a reality.  So take a deep breath.  Go ahead, take one.  Now take another one.  Get up, get a glass of water.  While we can spend all day asking "What the hell was CJ Roberts thinking?", it really does no good.  The ruling is in, Obamacare survives almost wholly intact.  

But, this is not the end.  In fact, you could say Roberts, whether intentionally or not has probably just given Romney the biggest boost to his campaign that no amount of Super PAC money ever could:  a bunch of pissed off conservatives who now will look to November as their last hope to stop Obamacare.  Do you remember what happened when Congress passed Obamacare (via party lines) back in 2010?  In case you've forgotten, it gave rise to the Tea Party.  And no matter what mainstream media outlets say, it is largely responsible for this latest push of conservatism, resulting in the 2010 mid term elections which provided one of the biggest conservative victories in decades, giving them the majority of the House, narrowing the senate gap as well as giving them more control over state legislatures and governorships (including Scott Walker).  In other words, the last time the government foisted Obamacare upon us, the American people responded by ousting 63 Democrats from the House and 6 from the Senate.  

Keep in mind, in many conservative American's mind, the Supreme court's usually conservative leaning was seen as a fail safe for Obamacare.  And now with that fail safe gone, there's only one course of action left:  Repeal.  In addition to that, it sends a message to us that we have to make sure to elect a government that have their feet firmly planted as to not slide down the slippery slope this ruling has laid before them.  

The ruling, while having many implications of government influence, is largely irrelevant if we can get the government in place to repeal the legislation.  No, it's not quite as simple as relying on 9 judges to interpret the law, but the simple truth remains:  the power to keep our government from continually eroding our personal freedoms is ultimately in our hands now.  

In essence, Chief Justice Roberts told us:  "If you don't like the law, elect a government that will get rid of it and never dream of putting anything like this in place."  Message acknowledged loud and clear. 

Now is not the time to panic and give up.  This is what the current administration and all the lefttists and progressives want.  They want you to be demoralized and give in to the "omg our country is doomed!".  That's when we really lose.  Because make no mistake:  we ARE in a battle for liberty.   Just like Ronald Reagan's famous rendezvous with destiny speech , there is a point where we say enough and a proverbial line in the sand.  Instead of appeasement, our choice is overcoming lethargy, indifference, and demoralization.  We only lose when we give up.  I'm not giving up.

If you're like me and oppose not only the vast overreaching of Obamacare's mandate, but also the fact that it's going to cost 2 trillion dollars over 10 years when fully implemented, it's time to step up and do our parts to send a message this November by kicking Obama out of office and electing government officials that stand for personal liberty and the core conservative values that have kept this nation the exceptional power that it is for over 225 years.   

And if you need more reasons why Obama is bad for America, read my own reasons why I don't want another 4 years of Obama.

Get local.  Get involved in your home town's Congressional race.  Know your senators.  Don't be afraid to engage in conversation with liberals.  I have a theory that states most people are conservative and don't even realize it.  Some have been pandered to for so long that they've been led to believe the causes they're supporting mirror own when in fact it's conservative principles that are the vehicle to such success.  As Scott Walker said, have the courage to do what's right.   

It's now up to the people to take back this country.  Let's make November 2010 look like the calm before the storm that is the elections in 2012.  And along the way, thank Chief Justice Roberts for giving people the motivation to do it.




Friday, June 22, 2012

Race, race baiting, and white apologism...

There isn't alot which enrages me more than the wailing of race baiters.  You know, the people that cry racism any time it's perceived a member of racial minority doesn't receive justice against a member of the racial majority.

The reason it enrages me is how transparent their supposed altruistic goals are.   They claim to do this in the name of social justice when in fact all they really want is special treatment for said minority.  That's what it boils down to.  They're exploiting and continually reviving the racial tensions in this country in order to get special treatment and more influence.  

This isn't to say I don't believe that racism was never an issue because it definitely was.  It was when slavery was legal.  It was alive in the wild west to Chinese immigrants.  It was alive upuntil the 1960's.  It's not a part of my country's past I'm particularly proud of.  But then came Martin Luther King Jr and Civil Rights Movement.  And I firmly believe in the 40 - 50 years since then that racism is no longer the huge issue it was back then.  Yes, racism does exist and it always will to a certain extent, but we have become a far more colorblind society where those extreme racists are a small, yet perhaps loud, minority.

Part of the problem that enrages me is the racial double standard that our culture has developed.  While it's heavily frowned upon for a white person to crack a racial joke about a black person, the opposite is conveniently overlooked.  Growing up in southern California, I got to experience this first hand.  It was ok for the latinos and blacks to call me white boy, honkey, or cracker, yet there would be outrage if I were to use similar slurs.  

This is a big problem we have in America.   People in the majority are made to feel guilty for being in the majority and their majority beliefs.  It happens with non white generated racism.  It's as if our society is guiltily giving them a pass because they were oppressed or are a minority.  This is a HUGE mistake.   While we should be apologetic for what happened, we shouldn't allow racism of any flavor. By allowing this behavior, we've pretty much told minority races that it's ok to be racist against whites.  

And the race baiters have been exploiting that ever since.   They know that white Americans have been conditioned to feel bad for being white and feel bad for criticizing a minority even if the critique isn't racially motivated.  Make no mistake, these people that are out for "social justice" really mean they want special treatment to further their own agenda.   Heck, some even, including President Obama himself, subscribe to Critical Race Theory which basically states that the entire nation, its laws, and its Constitution are racist because it was founded by a bunch of white guys.  

And that, my friends, is racism.  It's walking, talking irony.  It's a problem that doesn't really exist today in the magnitude it did 40 - 50 years ago.   Here's the irony:  the only reason racism is an issue today is because race baiters keep making it an issue despite their claims being absolutely ridiculous and refuted constantly.   Yet, when there's a lull in the racism temperature (ie people go back to their normal lives where racism isn't an issue), the race baiters simply claim that we're all "blinded" into believing it isn't a problem and thus manufacture the problem for us.  

They're hypocrites and shame every other legitimate civil rights activist that has come before them. Not just mere hypocrites, but sleazy, deceitful racemongers that are only using it as a means for their own benefit.   It's utterly despicable.  

What's actually funny is that there's all this rabble about race and inequality.  Yet, the actual factor that influences inequality is the financial factor.  Money.  It's not black people don't have as many opportunities as white people.  It's poor people who don't have as many opportunities as better off people.  Yeah, perhaps there's a disproportionate amount of certain minorities that are poor, but that's not an indication of racism.  

You know what else is funny about all this is that with all this racism talk, no one seems to notice the Asians.    They, particularly the Chinese and Japanese, have suffered their own level of racism in this country. Yet, for some reason, they've done just fine for themselves as a whole.  How often do you hear about a racism case that involves an Asian?  Like, never.   The reason I bring this up is point out that those think this country is racist because there's a disproportionate amount of poor blacks or latinos  conveniently forget about the Asians. Among the economic classes in this country, a poor white guy and a poor black guy have just about the same opportunity to better themselves.  In fact, the poor black guy ends up having MORE opportunity thanks to special racist organizations that specifically cater to one race or simply to just non white races.

This country needs to stop with the special treatment of minority races.  By giving special treatment, it conditions minorities to feel they're entitled to it.  Next thing, they're emboldened to demand, crying racism when they're denied.  The irony here is that it's the special treatment they're demanding for that keeps them from breaking out of the poor paradigm.   When you can demand, and expect, someone else to give you free stuff and special treatment, there's no motivation to want to better yourself on your own.  And bettering one's self on their own is the hallmark of the American Dream.  

Racial special treatment is a form of racism that has conditioned greedy race baiters to push their own agenda until they've taken away everything from hard working white people.  That's the bottom line:  They ultimately want to reap the spoils of the majority's success.   It's contrary to the American Dream and should be rejected at every turn.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Why the Wisconsin recall election results should matter to you...

So the past couple days I've been thoroughly pumped about Scott Walker's resounding recall election victory this past Tuesday.  Not only did he win, but so did his Lt. Gov Rebecca Kleefisch (and if anyone wants an inspiring American story, just read about her) and 3 out of the 4 Senate seats up for recall.  Yeah, the Democrats won majority with that singular win, but it's a moot point since the state senate will not be in session until after the general election in November, which will undoubtedly shake things up again.  Anyway, didn't mean to get too off topic, but the point being that this was a big win in so many ways.  And I was a bit saddened to realize that not many people, every day down to earth Americans, know or really care about it.

Not that I was surprised really.  In fact, before I started reading Breitbart and other conservative blogs, the most I knew about the Wisconsin recall election was the governor pissed off the entire state.  And that's probably what many people think, if they even know who Scott Walker is.  But, unlike a lot of political news, even Breitbart's Obama Vetting coverage (which I think is great), the Recall election is something I feel every day citizens should know about.  In one event, we witness the embodiment of liberal propaganda and union thuggery at work while also watching conservatives fight back and prevail.  It's a story of every day American conservatives fighting back against the liberal narrative and the union's scare tactics.  If there's any symbol of hope that every Americans can take back their country from the liberal bullying that's ruining our nation, the victory in Wisconsin is it.

First, let's talk about what happened:

In the fall of 2010, Republican Scott Walker, running on a platform of reform won the Wisconsin gubernatorial election.  The left didn't like this very much and almost immediately they began working toward recalling Walker.  Walker, not being a slouch and wanting to stuff done, immediately went into action. Barely a couple months into his term, he introduced the bill to the state legislation.

With a Republican majority, the Democrats knew the bill would pass along party lines.  So what did they do?  They did everything they could to keep the bill from passing, including 14 democratic senators fleeing the state to Illinois to avoid having the bill come to vote.  You see, because the bill touched on financial matters, there was a quorum (minimum amount of voters) that needed to be met. Without those 14 senators, the state Senate didn't have the quorum and couldn't put the bill to a vote.

Let's stop a sec for a quick aside.  Because this is the first point in showing how much liberals do not really believe in democracy.  They only believe in it when the majority aligns with what they think is right.  They deliberately stopped doing their jobs, the jobs that they were elected to do, because they didn't like the anticipated outcome of the vote.  So instead of doing their duty, they tried to short circuit and undermine the legislative system.  It's a disgusting tactic.  While stall tactics are common in politics, you generally play within the rules.  It's one thing to dissent and disagree and argue about a law.  It's a completely different thing to deliberately derail the system that's in place because things aren't going the way you want them to.  And liberals do this type of stuff all the time.  Don't think so?  Look at how many times Obama has tried to get around the Constitution to do what he wants.  Look how often he relies on crony agencies to create an enact laws.  Look at how Eric Holder's DOJ is trying every tactic possible to keep from having to comply with a court order that demands the release of all the documents surrounding Fast and Furious.

Ok, back to the story.

Despite several increasingly vehement attempts by Walker to get his missing legislative members back on the job, the democratic senators sat smugly in Illinois, thinking they had beaten him.  Except, they didn't.  Instead of trying to get the required quorum, Republicans altered the bill so that it no longer required a quorum at all.  Since the only piece that required a quorum was about money, they just took at that stuff, keeping in the stuff that actually mattered.  It was put to a vote and, of course, it passed.

This seriously pissed off the unions and recall action went immediately into effect.  The unions brought in protestors from all over to march on the capital, destroying public property, and generally making life miserable for everyone else.  Signatures were acquired, even though some were against the law (there's some law the prevents public law offices from participating in things like these), but alas there was enough to send Walker, his Lt. Gov and 4 Senators to recall.  The left cheered loudly.  It was a proud day for "democracy" and the "working class" and all that other quasi Marxist rhetoric that's thrown about.

And then Andrew Breitbart came to a Wisconsin Tea Party rally.  His words, and the way he was able to connect the dots between the protests, Big Labor and democrats ignited a grass roots effort by the Tea Party and Republicans. The supposedly irrelevant Tea Party and that cracked out, crazy Andrew Breitbart.  They started to fight back.

Also, something very awesome started to happen.  The reforms Walker put in place started to work almost immediately in every county that adopted them.  There was quantitative and undeniable success right in everyone's face.  Suddenly, the gloating unions and democrats, sure of their ousting of Walker, weren't so certain any longer.

Let's talk about the Reform Act for a moment.  Why did the reform act piss off the unions?  What was going on?  Here's what it was like before Walkers reforms:

Pretty much all of the public school teachers in Wisconsin belong to a union, the biggest being the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC).  These unions had collective bargaining rights which allowed to negotiate with the state on just about everything.  Membership to a union was compulsory.  On top of that, union dues were automatically deducted from a teacher's paycheck.

With the power the unions had, they were able to aggressive "negotiate" contracts with the state counties, giving its workers proportionately exorbitant compensation packages.    Ok so what? Teachers should get paid well for the job they do, right?  Yes, they should, but no, it didn't justify what was going on here.

You see, these cost of these contracts were immense.  And remember, being public workers, who pays for their salaries?  That's right, the Wisconsin taxpayer.  Because of this stranglehold that the unions had, most of a school districts' budget went to paying these teachers and their unions.  This left little to work with after the fact, forcing schools to cut back on jobs and/or programs.  But more importantly, the compensation packages were just unsustainable.  It was bankrupting the state.

And it's not like these public employees were merely getting paid fairly.  On average, the public sector worker was making a whopping 28% more than their private sector counterparts.  So the workers making 28% less are having their taxes pay for the ever increasing burden of a public sector making over a quarter more.

That's where Walker came in.  His reform bill restricted public employee collective bargaining, wresting control of the school districts from the unions and giving them back to the counties.   Teachers were no longer required to join a union and automatic union deductions stopped.  By giving the power back to the counties, they were able to make fiscal decisions that made sense and weren't being held hostage by an unbudging union knowing full well they had them over a barrel.  (In a quick example: In a few districts, the unions would not budge on the outrageous cost of the mandatory insurance the districts had to purchase.  Yet, after the reforms, the rates mysteriously dropped to reasonable prices.  Some districts told them where to stick it.  I would have too.)

All this means that the unions, without their compulsory dues and their absolute bargaining power, now were looking at a severe loss in dues and income.  In other words, they saw their survival at stake.  Ultimately this is what pissed them off:  They lost control of the racket they've been running and weren't too happy about it.  Walker and his ilk had to go.

Which brings me to my next point:  Liberals and their union buddies will do everything they can to hold on to their power.  Law and voting results be damned.  They know what's best, not everyone who voted in the majority.  The irony being they somehow are the "open minded" and "little guy" party, but seem to conveniently be close minded to the little guys that don't share their opinion who happen to outnumber them.

Ok, so back to the story...

The unions were pissed, recalls were scheduled, the Tea Party and Republicans rallied around the governor and his legislation with the courage to do the right thing.    The left pulled out all the stops.  Eric Holder's DOJ even sent some people to monitor for election fraud.  Except, they didn't monitor the heavily left leaning areas where reports of intimidation and fraud came from.  For instance, milwaukee reported a 119% registered voter turnout.  What that means is not only did every registered voter vote, but almost 20% more showed up and registered on the spot to vote.  The problem?  Numbers like that never happen.  Not to that degree.  Furthermore, conservative election judges were ignored when they noticed a person voting three times.  Some were thrown out.  The left sent out a mail shaming people into voting by exposing a neighbor's voting history to everyone else.  Jesse Jackson even had vans blast his vote message that drove around poor neighborhoods.  

Even then, despite the union spending $20 million dollars on the recall effort and all the other stops, the recall election provided overwhelming support for the incumbent Republicans.  Walker, the Republicans, and the Tea Party prevailed.

Ok, so WHY is this important?  Because if you're an average American that just goes by what's on the mainstream media, you'd have been told a story where the entire state of Wisconsin wanted Scott Walker gone.  You'd have been told that he was screwing over teachers and hurting students.  In short, you might just believe he's a jerk governor that somehow survived recall because he outspent his opponent.

Yet, when you look at what really happened in the state, you'd see a completely different picture.  If you were to see Scott Walker speak or go into the details, you'd see the truth of the matters.

So it's important first, because it exposes the mainstream media narrative that does its best to tell you what to think through its left leaning reporting, non reporting, and narrative framing.

It's also important because it also shows you that yes, conservative policies do indeed work.  It's important because it shows that we're not alone out there.  The left and the media would like you to believe that your conservative views are stupid, backwards, and in the minority.  But that's not the truth.  If Wisconsin is any indication, it shows there are more conservatives out there than liberals.

And finally, it's important because it shows that yes, we can fight back and make a difference if we the have the courage to not let the left bully us any longer.





Monday, June 4, 2012

Dennis Prager about people getting offended and Americanism

I just read an interview over at Breitbart of Dennis Prager by Dave Gordon.  Without parroting the article too much, Dennis Prager is a strong and prominent voice for conservatism in America.  Alot of what he says is down to earth and intelligent.  While I've caught several articles and videos featuring Mr. Prager, what caught my eye about this article is his response about people getting offended over something he's said in a speech, lecture, etc:


Q: People often come up to you after your lectures and say they’re offended by something or other you’ve said. You’ve maintained that a person has a choice whether to be offended. You also say that words are “things” that can be thrown at people, they can hurt. 

A:  They’re not mutually exclusive. We do choose whether to be offended. For example, a pro-choice person who might hear a pro-life speaker might say they are offended. What they really should say is that they differ. They’ve chosen to be offended. If someone flips me off from another car, I choose whether or not to let that hurt me. There are times, however, when one says something hurtful to their spouse, my God, of course they’re going to be hurt. To a certain extent, we should allow who we allow to hurt us. My wife can hurt me, but a caller to my show can’t. It’s very important to remember.

This is an answer I've been looking to find for a while.  You see, it's always been my mind set that people today get offended too easily.  They're so busy being offended about everything that it not only makes them miserable, but those around them.  It's a result of the politically correct indoctrination and victimizing mindset that has been foisted upon society for the last several decades.  Everybody's a victim and everyone deserves justice/reconciliation for all the wrongs that have been done to them.  People that get offended feel like a victim of someone else's "insensitive and cruel" words.

Unlike Mr. Prager, I couldn't quite put my finger on exactly where this mindset goes wrong.  But I think the above is the answer:  People choose to be offended.  He makes the distinction between the true reaction to someone that may say something hurtful, fundamentally disagreeable, or just plain insensitive and becoming offended.  In other words, being offended is not a natural reaction.   It's a choice.  You choose to allow who offends you and who does not.  While yes, one may disagree with the Christian based morals that are the fabric of this nation, it doesn't automatically mean they should be offended.  They have to make that choice.  Just as one would have to make the choice in being offended by some random stranger calling you an idiot.

As he indicates, it's very important to understand this distinction.  It's very similar to "picking your battles", but on a more internal level.  I believe it takes a mature individual to recognize this distinction and allow who can hurt and offend us.

The entire interview is really good as well, check it out here.