The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?

I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc.  So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.

First, almost everyone can see through this charade.  The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months.  The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November.  Besides, the administration has already developed a bill.  They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.

Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes.  They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters).  They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time).  They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it.  After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans.  They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.

Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill?  What is so magical about bipartisanship?  Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies.  They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution.  When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship.  We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for.  I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan.  There is no character in that.  Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate.  Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.

Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care.  This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote.  The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running.  Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote.  When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).

If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench.  However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.

Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis.  In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay.  The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator.  They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval.  They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants.  A few years ago, debate was important.  It needed to happen.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it.  They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver.  Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.'  In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.

This is the problem with our elected officials today.  They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent.  We are finally starting to see a backlash.  A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why.  They do not listen to the people that they represent.  Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough.  And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time.  And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

What should Harry Reid do?

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.

Democrats complete disregard for the electorate

Over the past week or two, there have been many news accounts of ordinary citizens attending town hall meetings, confronting their congressional representative with their objections to the Health Care Bill that Congress is trying to push on top of us. The complaints are many. It costs too much. It will do away with existing, private health care plans. It will give too much authority to the government. It will cause health care rationing. And the list goes on.

Now, all of these are very valid complaints. And after reading about this bill, as well as looking at examples of other countries that currently have this government-sponsored health care, these issues are very accurate.

Now we see that the Democrat leadership (both in Congress and the White House) is trying to fight back, to try to get a foothold in this debate, as they can now see that they are losing on this issue. They have done everything in their power to demean the people who are speaking out against this issue. They are trying to threaten those who speak out against them. They are being nothing more than playground bullies on this issue.

They have accused the 'protesters' of being organized by the Republican Party. I know this is not true. I would not give the Republican Party that much credit right now. Then, the liberals go to their playbook. They blame entities like Fox News and talk radio (esp. Rush Limbaugh).

Their argument goes something like this: Conservatives are too stupid to create their own opinions so they have to listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in order to get the day's talking points. I find this viewpoint narrow-minded. Conservatives know what they believe and why they believe it. We do not like it when someone tells us what to think.

But there is an irony in all of this: Liberals can only argue in Democrat talking points. They do not have original thoughts of their own, as can be seen by their continual use of the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh argument. In fact, this argument is so popular amongst liberals that the President even uses it when he cannot get his way on something.

Now, the congressional leaders are saying that these protests are part of a small, lunatic fringe of the radical right. Barbara Boxer said that the protesters are too well dressed to be concerned citizens (as though, ordinary citizens do not dress neatly). Harry Reid said that these protesters are trying to destroy the democratic process. I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, as though speaking out on issues to your elected representative is a bad thing. I would think that trying to cram a bill through Congress that the overwhelming majority of Americans does not want and limiting debate on that bill is more responsible for the death of democracy. But who am I?

The same people that are decrying these opponents to the health care proposals are the same ones who spoke out against the Tea Parties earlier this year. They do not like that fact that we do not agree with them. To the elected representatives, power does not exist with the people. It exists with the government. They want the power for themselves, and they want to remove anyone that gets in their way, a la Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

The administration is doing their best to strong-arm everyone in their own party to get behind this bill. They are trying to bully the American people into getting behind this bill. And now they are getting physical with some of the protesters at these town hall meetings around the country. They want to beat us into submission. If they were really intent on getting the American people behind them, they would try to persuade us, not beat us. That tactic is just turning more people against them.

It is time we stand up and tell our elected representatives that they work for us. We put them there. If they are not going to listen to us, then we will vote for someone who will. We should not be living in fear of what they may do to us. They ought to be afraid of us and not voting based on the will of the people.

I am tired of Republican pansies

We live in an age where the Democrat Party runs roughshod over anyone in their way and will destroy anyone and everything in its path. They have no qualms about accusing people of racism and ruining the character of people in order to further their own political agenda.

And now the Republicans want to play nice when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor and the Supreme Court. I am not saying that they should treat her as the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or John Roberts or Robert Bork. But they should not be afraid to come out against her and question her actions and her words. This is a legitimate time to do so. And it is part of their role in the nomination process.

However, the Republicans are afraid of offending the Hispanics in this country. They are afraid of offending women. They do not want a harsh tone. They want to be nice, as can be seen in this article on foxnews.com. However, they have short memories. Do they forget how the Democrats treated any Republican nominee to the courts, especially Miguel Estrada? The Democrats would not allow a vote on him because he was Hispanic. I guess the Hispanic community has a short memory.

The beltway Republicans are mad at Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for speaking out against this nominee. These 2 men have backed up what they have said about her with facts. They are not making things up. They are passionate about their beliefs and what they think is right for this country. Yet, Republicans in Washington are pusillanimous, feckless, and useless. They would rather pick a fight with non-elected public figures than do battle over the direction of the high court.

The Republican establishment just wants to get along. They think that by being more like Democrats, they can regain power. Even one-time conservative stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn are being sucked up into this shameless approach to politics. I guess they have not figured out that Democrats do not want Republicans in office (no matter what their ideology might happen to be), and true conservative, core, grass-roots Republicans do not want Democrat Lite in office with a republican nameplate.

We want people who stand up for the values that we believe in. Let us not forget that we ran a candidate for President who tried to be a Democrat. And we lost big-time. This approach does not work. Just look at Arlen Specter. He had to change parties in order to have a chance to get elected, because the Republicans in Pennsylvania were tired of him selling us out.

According to Peggy Noonan, who was a speech writer for President Reagan and someone who fancies herself a conservative, conservatives like Limbaugh and Republicans like Gingrich should act like grownups. She called the Sotomayor pick 'a "brilliant political pick" because the GOP has struggled to attract and retain Hispanics and women, and because Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story is so moving.' (I note here that these issues have nothing to do with the makings of a Supreme Court Justice). What about Clarence Thomas's story? That did not impress the Democrats. That did not cause them to treat him better. Where was Peggy Noonan then?

She then goes on to say that '"Politically she's [Sotomayor] like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die," Noonan wrote.' Is Noonan for real? Did she forget what Reagan did and stood for in our once-great party?

She then sums it up like this: '"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"' Noonan makes me sick. She should be excommunicated from our party and should not be considered as a conservative by anyone (except, of course, by the New York Times, and MSNBC, who happen to love these stand-up-for-nothing Republicans).

This is just ludicrous. Without the base, the Republican Party will not win. Basically, she is saying to the base of the party, 'Hey, you don't matter any more. Go find your own party. We would rather be like Democrats and ruin this country and never win another election." As far as I am concerned, this woman is an embarrassment. I am sure Reagan is doing somersaults in his grave right now.

Compromise does not win elections. Standing firm on what you believe will win elections. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. All we need to do is go back to Reagan, the Contract with America, and, to a certain degree, George W. Bush. We should not run from the conservative mantle. Rather, we should embrace it and be proud of it. Not like these pansies now who claim to represent us.

More Supreme Court thoughts....

Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?

Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.

We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.

They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.

When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.

I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.

The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.

What is a moderate?

To me, a moderate is someone who does not want to take a stance on a difficult issue. They wait to see how the majority decide, and they just jump in line with them. That is a moderate.

Too many of these people have infiltrated the Republican Party. Thankfully, one of them just left for the Democrat Party, and that would be Arlen Specter. In fact, he was a liberal. he passed by moderate a long time ago.

My problem now is that the Democrats are saying the Republican Party needs to be more moderate. They are too right-wing now. I would say that this is hypocrisy at its finest. When was the last time that the Democrats allowed a moderate to have a prominent position within their party? Does anyone remember what they did to Joe Lieberman? They do not want moderation in their party. They want strict adherence to a specific left-wing agenda.

However, the Democrats are on to something that the Republicans have not yet figured out: Moderates do not help you win elections. Rather, they will pull you down. That is the reason that they want the moderates on the Republican side. They know that moderates do not stand for anything, so they want them with the Republicans in order to split the party apart.

Look what has happened to the GOP when they allow moderates to lead: They lost control of the House, the lost control of the Senate, and John McCain was beaten handily in the 2008 Presidential election. Moderates do not help the Republican Party win. Rather, just the opposite is true.

Now, Republican leaders in Pennsylvania do not think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter in a general election. While that may be true, now is the time to back the candidate and support him, not try to tear him down and throw another moderate into the front-runners spot. The leaders want former Gov. Tom Ridge to run for Senate. While he would be better than Specter, he still has his faults.

But a moderate is not the answer. We need a principled person that we can vote for. We need someone who will stand up for the constituents that voted him/her into office. We need someone who has the courage of his convictions. Now is the time to stand up for something, which would disqualify any moderate who is interested in the job.

Arlen Specter: It's about time you admitted your true allegiance

Well, the inevitable happened today. Sen. Arlen Specter came out and said he was going to change over to the Democrat Party. Is this news? He has been in their camp for years. He has voted with them more than he has voted with his own party. The Democrats could rely on his vote more often than some in their own party. So no, this is not really news, as this is something we have known anyway.

Sen. Specter knew that this is what he needed to do in order to be re-elected next year. Basically, all of the polls had him running behind Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination. And given his recent voting record, he knew he had no chance of catching up to Toomey. So, instead of going through the Republican primary having a debate on ideas, he chose to take the cowardly way out.

He does not want to have the debate, because he knows he will lose on the issues. He has lost touch with those who voted for him and put him in office. He has been in the Senate for several terms, and what does he have to show for it? Nothing. How has he represented those of us in his state who have voted for him in the past? Only according to his own interests and not on the interests of those who voted for him.

Does he have a good chance of winning the Democrat primary? Yes, he does. Does he have a good chance of winning a general election? Yes, he does. Pennsylvania has a high liberal population in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Since most of these people are Democrats, they would not have been able to vote for him in the primary, which is why he would have lost.

I am happy to see him go. He does not stand for anything that the Republican base (i.e. Conservatives) stands for. He has thrown us under the bus too many times. After George Bush and Rick Santorum stuck their necks out to support him in 2004, he basically stabbed them in the back. For him, it is all about notoriety, re-election, and a legacy (that he is still searching for). It has nothing to do with principles and doing what is right.

* I am amused listening to and reading the commentary of the media and other politicians.
President Obama was glad to see him join the party and promises to campaign for him.
* Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that “Sen. Specter did not leave the Republican Party. The party left Sen. Specter.”
* I have read message boards where people said that this is another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party.
* Some have said that the Republican Party has no business saying it is a ‘big tent’ party after running Specter out.
* Others have derided the party for ‘caving in’ to the right-wing of the party.
* Moderates have applauded him for standing up to the right-wingers.
* Sen. Specter has said that the Republicans are no longer the Party of Reagan that he belonged to in the 80’s.

Let me see if I can answer these.
* Is it any surprise that President Obama would campaign for him? My question is this: Is this even a news story?
* Why would one of the most liberal Democrat senators make such a stupid statement? Specter was never on board with his core constituents in the party. He was always a loose cannon. He has been testing the Democrat waters for a long time.
* This is not a nail in the coffin for the Republicans. Rather, this is what needed to happen in order for them to have a recrudescence in the political world. In fact, there are several other senators and congressman that I would like to see go along with Specter. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. We need look no further than Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as the congressional elections of 1994. When conservatism runs, it wins.
* Where is it written that the Republican Party must be a big tent? When did someone ever say that the Democrat Party needs to have a big tent? The left wingers would not allow conservatives or Bible-believers or pro-national security types to be in their party (and I have no idea why those people would want to take part in the Democrat Party). In order to have a big tent, you must compromise on core principles. This is not something that you can do and survive.
* These people that are labeled as right-wingers are the core constituents in the party. We are the normal, ordinary people that go to work every day and pay our taxes (on time). We love America and the freedom we have as Americans. We cherish the rights granted to Americans under the Constitution. We are not embarrassed by the greatness and power of America. We love God (we actually believe in Him). We are not a group that is going to hurt America, as this administration would like to think.
* What are moderates? They are people who are too gutless to take a tough stand on anything. They would rather see what decision the majority makes, and then they will side with the majority. Who cares what moderates think? I certainly do not. I want people on my side who are principled, not like the chaff, driven with the wind and tossed to and fro.
* The problem with the party is that we are no longer a party that embraces the ideals of Ronald Reagan. We do need to be careful not to worship the man, but stand up for the ideals and principles that he held dear. The problem with the Republican Party is that we got rid of those principles and ideals and started to cater to people like Specter. That is why we are not a strong party right now. We let people like Specter in charge and they ran the party into the ground. So it is not the ‘right-wingers’ that hurt the party. It is the wishy-washy people like Specter that hurt the party.

I say ‘Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.’ Once we regain our footing and stand firm on the conservative principles that the party once stood for, then we will become a great party again.

Thoughts on AIG and the government-sponsored bailout

Over the course of the past few days, we, as taxpayers and Americans, have come to find out that a portion of the government bailout money that was given to AIG has been given out to some of their executives, to the tune of $165mm (give or take a few million). 73 of their executives stood to gain a bonus of at least $ 1mm.

Please don't get me wrong - I am not against bonuses. I believe that they should be paid to people when a business is profitable, when people are doing a good job, when it is deserved.

However, I do believer it was unwise for AIG to pay these bonuses to their executives. Was it illegal? No. Were they contractually obligated to pay them? From what I understand, yes they were. Could those executives have chosen to turn down the bonuses? Yes. Many things could have happened better. But, what other companies have also paid this same kind of bonus from the government bailout funds that they received? Apparently, they paid enough to Democrats over the years to keep it quiet. How many of Obama's advisors received bonuses in the past from firms that are now failing? Many of them.

My problem, though, is not necessarily with AIG. My problem is with the government officials that allowed for this to happen in the first place. The bailout, first and foremost, was wrong and should never have happened. It is not the government's role to underwrite industry. By handing out money (that they did not have), they opened themselves up for this kind of mismanagement. And let us not forget, they inserted the clause into the bill that allowed for these bonuses to be paid in the first place. Had Congress been allowed to read the bill, maybe more would have voted against it had they known this clause was inserted.

Consider some of the principle characters in Congress (and Washington) that helped lead the charge on this bailout: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter, and the Obama administration. It is my contention that they had this amendment inserted into the bailout bill in order to create this anger we are seeing right now. They now have the opprotunity to harness the anger of the American people and use it as an excuse to have more government intervention into places where it should not be. The faux outrage shown by Congress (mostly Democrats, with a few Republicans joining in) is nauseating. They knew this was going to happen when they passed the bill. They knew well before the bonuses were paid that these bonuses would become public, yet they allowed it to happen. They wanted a political football to kick around to try and make themselves look good.

My problem is that there are too many people out there who are too dense to see this. They are too lazy to think about it and put the puzzle pieces together. They cannot see it as a government ploy to give the government more power. They see it as being the fault of AIG with no government responsibility whatsoever. People are so reliant on government now that they think government is the cure to everything.

Now, Congress wants to tax the bonuses to the tune of 90%. I am not sure that this is even legal (and Congress knows that), but they are going to try. They want the outrage to be focused on AIG, not on them. After all, government is the one that is causing things to fall apart. They need a scapegoat. Magicians would call it slight-of-hand. In football, it is referred to as a misdirection. In the Democrat Party, it is called blaming someone else.

Barney 'Banking Queen' Frank said in committee the other day that since it is his money, the government's money, the taxpayer's money, that we ought to go in and take it back. He wants the names of those who received bonus money to be released, regardless of the safety of those involved. Many on the loony left are threatening violence against these people. He does not care about safety. He only wants people to think he is being heroic in getting this money back. Many are too caught up in the anger of the moment to realize that this fruitcake helped cause the whole crisis in the first place.

Ultimately, the money was given to AIG (and other companies) to help them continue to do business and remain afloat so as to avoid bankruptcy. However, the government wants to tell them how to run their business (as if the government knew what it was doing). This is the problem you have when you allow government to get involved. They are not content watching from the sidelines. They want to run the show. Since they are handing out the money, they want to tell you how to spend it. This leads to socialism, which is the ultimate goal of these people.

This is the reason some governors do not want to accept stimulus money. It comes with too many strings attached. The governors know that by accepting the money, they will then accept the federal government's power to come in and tell them how to spend it. Who would know better how to spend moeny for the benefit of the state? Would it be the states? Or would it be the federal government? The answer is obvious.

It is time that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, say that enough is enough. Bailouts do not work. While it is not good that companies go bankrupt or go out of business, it has to be allowed to happen. Government intervention will not fix things. The strange thing about a free market is that it has the ability to heal itself. That is what happened in the 80's. That is what happened in the years after 9/11. It can happen again. In an age of instant gratification, we are not willing to be patient and allow for the free market to fix itself. We want it now, and people are unfortunately willing to give the government more power to try to fix things. Once the government has that power, they are not going to give it back. It is up to us to get it back from the government.

So I say to you: Get out and nominate conservative candidates that know the power belongs to the Americans, not to the government. Vote those clowns out of office that think government is the answer. Do your part. I will surely do mine, starting with being active in campaigns to unseat my Congressman and my Senator. Remember, the Constitution starts out "We the people...". It does not say "We the government.."

Republicans and NASCAR: Are they heading down the same path?

As I was reflecting on the current political climate that we find ourselves immersed in today, I started to ponder the future of the once-great (and hopefully soon-to-be-great again) Republican Party. It has been much to my chagrin that we have allowed others to define the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Some of these defining our party are (but not limited to) the moderates and liberals in our own party, the Democrat Party, and the media. I could not help but be drawn to several similarities between the Republican Party and one of my favorite sports: NASCAR.

The first thing that may come to your mind when seeing this is that they (Republicans and NASCAR fans alike) are all a bunch of southern, redneck, racist, uneducated, Bible-thumping fools. However, that is not the case. While there may be a couple in the ranks that have some of these traits, we do not espouse them. If you look into supporters of any cause, I am sure you can find some questionable characters.

However, as I thought about this more, I saw some striking similarities.

1. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican voter are greatly misunderstood. The NASCAR fan takes his sport seriously. He enjoys it. It is practically a way of life. To him, there is nothing wrong with a car using a lot of gas and going in circles to see who can get around the track the most times before the checkered flag falls. It is a race of man and machine vs. other men and their machines. It is the thrill of the race, not the yearning for crashes that motivate these core fans. The fact that others may disdain their sport is of no concern to them. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican takes his politics seriously. It is who we are. It is how we live. It is our personal beliefs that shape our ideology. It is not our party that shapes the way we believe. We are not motivated by power. Rather, our motivation is based on principles of right and wrong. The fact that others disagree with us does not bother us.

2. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are passionate about what they believe. NASCAR fans are passionate about their favorite drivers, about car manufacturers, about the type of tracks they enjoy the most, about the rules and rule changes. They have a passion for their sport and they treat it with respect. Likewise, the core, conservative Republicans have a passion for their beliefs, whether it is lower taxes, no abortions, no gay marriage, less government in our daily lives. We do not compromise on these things in order to be liked.

3. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are fiercely pro-American and extremely patriotic. I have only had the chance to attend one Nascar race in my life (Richmond, September 2006). What I saw at that time were not only Gordon fans or Tony Stewart fans or Dale Earnhardt Jr. fans. I saw fans of America. I saw people who were not only flying the flags of their favorite drivers, but they were flying American flags. When it came time for the national anthem, everyone stood up, almost everyone removed his hat, many sang along. These are folks who care about this country and honor those who fight for it. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican cherishes this country and the freedoms we enjoy because we live here. It is not our desire to see the government take over our lives. Rather, we enjoy the freedom that our founding fathers passed on to us. People in this country should have the freedom to becomes everything they want to be. We salute the flag, we salute those who fought for our country, we honor those who gave their lives so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that we have.

4. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican believe our problems lie in this fact: We have moved away from our roots and those things that put us where we are today. I have been frustrated with NASCAR over the past several years as they have been moving towards making NASCAR into a glorified IROC series. Everyone races basically the same car. There is no room for ingenuity. Everything has to be within certain specifications, so there is almost no room for someone to gain an advantage through the use of creative engineering. While I see the need for some basic guidelines, it is now out of hand. The other thing that NASCAR has done that has hurt (in my opinion) is their effort to reach out to people who do not like NASCAR and use gimmicks to bring them on board as fans. While there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the non-fan, don’t compromise your core principles in order to pull in these non-fans. You risk losing the core fan by doing so. NASCAR needs to remember where it came from. Likewise, the Republican Party has allowed non-members to come in and re-shape it. The leaders over the past several years have compromised on core beliefs (mainly government spending and growing the size of government) in order to reach out and bring more people into the fold. Look where it has taken the parts: into the toilet. The party no longer has control in Congress or in the White House. We ran a candidate for President in 2008 who was the ultimate compromiser, and it did not help out at all. We got away from our roots. We forgot what made the Republican Party a great party.

As a NASCAR fan and a Republican, I believe that we need to stop allowing others to define us. I do not define those who I do not agree with. They are able to define themselves. They don’t need my help. We have to go out and define ourselves and let others know what we believe. We need to let others know that we do not appreciate their efforts to re-define us. We also need to let them know how many of us there are out here that do not appreciate what they are trying to do to us. Having these beliefs is one thing. Standing up for them is another. It is time that we go from simply having these beliefs to standing up and fighting for them.

The effort to re-write recent history

It is my contention that the education system that is in place in today’s public schools no longer teaches people how to think. Rather, they teach people what to think. The schools want to teach their own revised version of history instead of allowing people to find out for themselves the events that actually did happen.

Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.

Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.

Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.

When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.

However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.

All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.

Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.

Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.

This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.