Political Wrongness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problems with bailouts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do Obama voters know about Obama?

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

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

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

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

Lessons from the Great Depression

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Reagan inspire a revolution?

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

How to fix a stalling economy

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The slippery slope of lawmaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good news/Bad news about media bias

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.

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

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

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

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

How to market yourself

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

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

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

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

What did we learn from Election Night 2008?

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








What did we learn last night?

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














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


RELAX!















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

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

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

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

Election Night 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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