I’m #ProLife And Support The #DeathPenalty. Why Do You Ask?

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:16:41 +0000

Last night, after the Gosnell verdit, I had an intellectual debate with myself to see if being Pro-Life and supporting the Death Penalty can be cabatiable with each other. I normally do this when the debate about both seem to come up. Not often in the same debate, but I think Gosnell case is a reason to call attention to how a lot of conservatives can have the same stance on both.

Of course the small debate not only re-enforce my stance on both issues, but afterward I needed to get this down somewhere. Since I don’t normally post political stuff on my site, instead I will come here.

The whole debate comes down to a couple of things: I, like many of my conservative brother and sisters, fundamentally believe there is a HUGE difference between Good and Evil. And the difference between Killing and Murder.

And Murder, in my honest opinion, is an unforgivable crime and sin. Oh you can seek absolution for this from a priest and God himself, but not from the victim. Any other sin or crime and the still-alive victim can, if they want, forgive the person who did them harm. I know this because my cousin hit me resently and since he admitted his crime, I now forgive him. I have learn that forgiveness is more for victim, because without it, it breeds hate. A victim of murder cannot forgive the one who harm them. Family and people who knew the victim may forgive the murderer themselves, but they cannot forgive the murderer on behalf of the victim. This actually might trigger vigilantism in extreme cases and that is anarchy.

I don’t have a problem with the death penalty, because it is not vigilantism or a revenge killing. A jury of twelve good men and women, who have nothing to do with the case, must first all convict the accused of premeditated (or 1st Degree) murder after a fair trail and then only recommend to the judge if they should get the death penalty. After the judge has made the decision on the death penalty, then there is a long appeal process. Sometimes people spend 20 plus years sitting on death row.

But you’re pro-life?!

Yes. As I said, I believe in Good and Evil. And as I explain above, without justice or a sense of closure, then hate will grow in people hearts. This breeds the evil that I call vigilantism and anarchy.

Our justice system is indeed bureaucratic beyond belief, but it is not broken. Not yet. If it was broken, then we would have vigilantes everywhere. I stop reading superhero comics when I realized how broken their universes law enforement and justice systems must be.

So, at least to me and many others, being pro-life and supporting the death penalty is not a contraction. I value life and thus there needs to be a deterrent to premeditated murder AND to vigilantism. I guess John McAdams of Marquette University/Department of Political Science said it best:

“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”

Wait, you only support the death penalty on grounds of premeditated (or 1st Degree) murder?

“Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community’s belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death.” -Supreme Court of the United States of America

Yes. I personally think the death penalty should only be use for the most horrific of premeditated murder cases. In most cases, life without parole is enough. For 2nd Degree, I’m incline for life without parole. For Manslaughter, I support life with possibility of parole.

I don’t care if other nations or states don’t have the death penalty, but I just rather live in a state that does.

But Gator, what if there is an innocent person on death row?

Possibility. Since humans are flawed, our system of justice functions on how we work it. However in the end, I believe if someone is innocent, then the system will vindicate them either by the jury or through appeal.

I also believe that sometimes the guilty go free alot of times.

Is suicide murder?

Yes. It is the most unforgivable of them all. Someone who committs suicide cannot repent to anyone at all for what they have done.

So is Abortion murder?

Abortion as birth control? Yes. This is premeditated murder in my book, because the reasons are completely selfish in nature. The child has done nothing wrong, committed no crime, he or she has not even sinned. There is always adoption.

Abortion to save the life of the mother? No. There is no choice in the matter. If a crazy person is shooting up a place and someone kills that person to stop more death and destruction, that is not murder. If you kill someone in war, this is also not murder. Only a doctor should be making this recommendation. However medical science has come a long way in premature birth care, so hopefully this should be rare.

Abortion because the conceived was done in rape? No. For one, I think it would be horrible to be conceived though hate and not love. A rapist should not profit from their crime. And that child could be a reminder to the mother of the rape she went through. She can chose to keep the child if she wants or put it up for adoption, but abortion in these cases is not a selfish choice. I think rape is still under reported however. Most rapist don’t just rape once, they do it again and again.

—–

So there you have it. This is not an attack on people who are pro-life and against the death penalty, just why I am pro-life and support the death penalty.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

No #Stenographer At #Benghazi #ARB Interviews??

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:42:09 +0000

Something jumped out at me while watching the hiring yesterday. I don’t know if other people picked up on this point, but I think it very important.

When Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI07) was asking his questions*, Gregory Hicks said something that should be front page news:

Gregory Hicks To @RepWalberg: “No #Stenographer At #Benghazi #ARB Interviews” #tcot #p2 #libya #michigan #mi07 #gwot

— BigGator5 (@BigGator5) May 8, 2013

You may look at that and say: “Ok, what of this? Why is this a big deal?”

A court reporter, or court stenographer, uses machine shorthand or voice writing equipment to produce official transcripts of court hearings, depositions and other official proceedings.

So what should be making headlines here, is the fact there are NO official transcripts to the interviews relating to the Benghazi ARB. There is no proof to anything said by anyone in the Beghazi ARB. The ARB could have been invinted out of whole cloth and there is no way we can prove it one way or another. There is NOTHING in it to be believed. It is now tainted beyond belief.

There is a reason why we have court reporters, even to this very day in the age of voice/video recorders. We need someone to look at a transcript and testify that is what someone said or not. For the Beghazi ARB, there is no such person to come forward to testify that even the unclassified ARB is any good.

Another thing that Gregory Hicks said, which stood out, was that he knew of no one interview for the ARB, later saw the unclassified report. This also goes to the creditable nature of the unclassified Benghazi ARB report. We know of no one who can testify that they were quoted accurately in this report.

My head is spinning.

I am sick to my stomach.

Four people are dead, including an US Ambassador, and they couldn’t even bother to take the investation seriously enough to get a court reporter? I am beyond outraged. I am so outraged, my outragemeter just broke. Space and time has collapsed around my outrage into a singularity so heavy, that nothing will escape it.

I don’t recall the Democrats allowing Nixon to get away with using his own hand-selected team to investigate Watergate. #ARB #Benghazi

— Jane Galt (@JGalt9) May 8, 2013

Indeed. I think it’s time for a independant select committee that has real subpoena power and a court stenographer. The United States Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121 and you should light it up for your Representative and/or Senator. Even if they are a Republican or calling for such a committee already.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

PS: Get the Benghazi Four Twibbon, if you haven’t already. Show Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and Smith that they will never be forgotten.

*What Tim Walberg asked was not written down by me and is largely unimportant right now, only what Gregory Hicks said is important. You can likely find the video of this exchanged somewhere.

@CoachAlopez And Teh #UniversalBackgroundChecks Stupid

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:00:07 +0000

@biggator5 so make the data base better.I’m still for #universalbackgroundchecks

— Angelica (@CoachAlopez) March 25, 2013

Teh Stupid! They Are All Around Us!

But let’s not just concern ourselves with ad hominem attacks and acutally educate poor Coach Alopez on why Universal Background Checks are actually a bad thing.

Universal Background Checks Defined

Right now, there are already criminal background checks when you go buy a gun from a licensed retail store. It is federal law.

Universal Background Checks will force person-to-person sale (or gifting) of a gun to get a background check of the person getting the gun.

Expanding, Or Enforcing, Current Backgroud Checks

Sadly, even current background checks would not have stop the Sandy Hook shooter or any of the mass shooters in resent memory. Even if Adam Lanza bought the guns himself, he still would not have been stop from getting a gun. He had no criminal record. Ok, from our current laws:

Let’s say we put in a new restriction from mental health w/o Universal Background Checks: Same result.

Let’s say we put in a new restriction from mental health for you and your family, w/o Universal Background Checks: Same result.

Let’s say we put in a new restriction from mental health for you and your family, w/ Universal Background Checks: Same result.

So, we have a criminal/mental health restriction and Universal Background Checks, nothing would have changed. Adam Lanza would have still killed his mother and stolen the guns.

Nothing short of a complete ban on rifles and handguns would keep crazy people, who have never been arrested or institutionalized, from getting guns and causing mayhem. Even then, crazy people will find a way to kill people.

Wholesale Attack On Private Property Rights

Universal Background Checks will just make criminals of those of us who otherwise are lawful. This is because private property will quite frankly be a thing of the past. Private Property is definied as meeting all of these criteria:

Title
Control
Use
Ability To Dispose

Currently, licensed retail stores have the resourses and the time to run a criminal background check on people. It does not limit their ability to dispose, through sale, of a gun.

Let’s push guns aside and let’s focus on other items:

Cars. Cars are dangerous, no? In the hands of someone under the influence, they can kill people. Let’s place a Universal Background Checks on the sale of cars. *boom* Now you have a car and you want to sale it to buy a new car or you need fast cash. Guess what, you are now responsable for if that person you sold it to kills anyone. Sale it to a dearlership or junkyard, forget it. Corporations are people and you still have get a background check on them. Your ability to dispose of your car is now infringed upon. Your car is now public property.

This can apply to any item. Books, iPhone, land, anything and everything. Any time one of those four private property criteria is infringed upon, it stops being yours.

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, And Gun Registration

The only way to make Universal Background Checks workable, is a national gun registration. And guess what, that has already been declared unconstitutional… Under The Fifth Amendment:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851

Read that whole article. Good stuff there. And also ObamaCare also forbids such registration:

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”

CNN is calling it “a gift to the nation’s powerful gun lobby.”

Ops! Guess we had to pass it to find out what was in it, no?

Privacy Issues

I tried sending her to James Taranto‘s article and got the tweet above, so maybe Moe Lane can better sum this up for her:

Greg Sargent is mentioned because he wrote an article wondering why anybody would be against universal background checks: I’m not entirely certain that Sargent realizes that the system he wants would more or less guarantee that people would end up using it to do evil, right out of the gate – and, more importantly, they’d be using it to do evil in unexpected (and unintended, for given value of ‘unintended’) ways. Or that mischievous or malicious people could do it to people like Greg Sargent; that, in fact, they will do it to people like Greg Sargent, simply because they can.

But then again, if Sargent’s done nothing wrong then of course he has nothing to fear…

Coach Alopez is also unworried, as well made the “nothing to fear” ad nauseum argument. All right, then Angelica Alopez won’t mind if I do a background check on her if this thing passes. It will be easy enough to find out if there was ever a Fresno State coach under that name, if it was a public school (it is). Then she might not mind if I publish the results here.

She doesn’t mind. She doesn’t care. She clearly has nothing to fear.

For The Children

Most people who want gun control, want to do it #ForTheChildren. OK:

If #GunControl Is #ForTheChildren, Why Is #Abortion Ok? #tcot #p2 #waronunborn #2ndamendment

The above quote, is 92 characters long. That gives you 48 characters to plugin whatever else you want to include in there on Twitter. No one has yet answer me. I’d like to see this answered by a liberal.

The “For The Children” argument for gun control is a false argument, because they have no problem with the wholesale slaghter of 55 million unborn children since Roe v Wade. To turn around to make this dumb argument is infuriating. They don’t care about children, when they don’t care about the unborn.

Learning Something

Coach Alopez is not stupid, not by a long shot. If we tweet this enough times, maybe she’ll read this and learn something.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

Karl Rove: End Policy Of Korean Reunification

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:00:56 +0000

Karl Rove said something on Fox News Sunday that caught my attention.

And no, it wasn’t his remarks about Sarah Palin. I am so over “High School Level Drama Bombs” at my age.

No, he said something on a foreign policy matter. One that rung true to me for some reason. He thought we should end our policy of Korean Reunification. He noted that this policy was a hang-up to getting China more involved with North Korea and smacking Kim Jong-Un a couple of times upside the head.

I thought to myself: ‘Oh no, that would only give China a foreign policy win. Also, German Reunification wasn’t all that bad.’

Then I sat back and thought a little more. Why was German Reunification so suggestful?

Well, for one thing the USSR gave up on East Germany. Gorbachev order troops in East Germany to stay in their barracks instead of helping Erich Honecker. Germans wanted to come back together. Another thing that jumps out at me, is that they didn’t have a German Civil War. East and West Germany quite literally split Berlin in half, deep in East Germany terrority and both consider it their capital (with the West German government setup “provisionally” in Bonn). While East Germany was in worse shape next to West Germany, at least they have some infostructure.

To be quite honest, China is not going to give up North Korea. Not any time soon anyway. We will have to wait until they collapse before North Korea collapses. North and South, while talking a nice game, can’t even agree on how to go about unification (each saying they will lead the new Korea) and they still has yet to end their civil war. And let’s not get into the fact they have two capitals. North Korea is quite literally dirt poor.

We really need to sit down with South Korea and hammer out the fact that reunification is quite possibly not going to happen any time soon. And we really need for South Korea to come out first with a policy change. Now I am not saying we should give up reunification altogether, just give up on it for the time being.

I am also not advocating an isolation policy in the Far East. On the contray, I personally would reiterate at the same time that we will not sit back and allow Taiwan (as well as give them full diplomatic relations and an embassy, if they want it) to be antagonized by China* anymore. We should also let them know that the SENKAKU Islands should be left alone and not a single toe will cross the Korean DMZ.

They want North Korea as a clinet state? Fine, then they should stop North Korea from having nuclear weapons. We don’t want Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea to have nuclear weapons, now do we…

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

*They don’t support Korean Reunification? Then we don’t support Chinese Reunification. It is as simple as that.

You Are No Longer A Neoconservative Moe

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:50:17 +0000

I honestly don’t like the term neoconservative, because it used to applied to liberals who agreed with Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and is now used by liberals to described compassionate-conservative, super-hawks.

But whatever, let’s say the term is correctly used right now (which I will NOT conced). By your own omission, you have actually shifted from being a neoconservative to conservative. Let me explain:

Neoconservatives are, by definition, super-hawks. They like to point out that the executive branch should have unilateral power of war. Ace Of Spades goes on to blast super-hawks like McCain:

I gotta tell ya, I don’t mind fighting wars in which almost all the risks fall upon the enemy’s soldiers. But McCain has this medieval concept that only face-to-face battles are sufficient to safeguard our national “honor.” (Rather like how the crossbow was reviled as a coward’s weapon because it killed knights so easily and didn’t put the archer himself at great risk.)

I am certain that the way forward is not continuing to talk the way McCain talks, in that Kennedyesque “We will bear any burden” way. When Kennedy said that, it was a lie. It was just a bit of noble-sounding rhetoric. He didn’t really intend to “bear any burden.” It was a quote for the press.

But McCain actually seems to believe it — which is why the public will praise Kennedy’s grandiose lie (it makes us feel good about ourselves without actually committing ourselves to anything) while being a bit alarmed by a similar-sounding McCain pronouncement.

I think it’s time to stop talking about having “no limits” as to what we may do with our military and start talking about the limits which certainly exist. These are real, living, flesh-and-blood men and women. They’re not lead figures in a war game. When we talk about “bearing any burden,” we are not “bearing any burden.” They are.

As Governor Perry remarked, relating, I think, the feelings of a Marine: “They say America’s at war, but America’s not at war. America’s military is at war. America’s at a shopping mall.”

Now that’s the job they signed up for, of course, but let’s not just send them everywhere to die over this medieval notion that “honor” is only satisfied when there’s a cost in blood. If we can accomplish objectives more cheaply, and lose less American blood, certainly, let’s do that, and the hell with McCain’s sense of “honor.”

Libertarians are, by definition, isolationists. End free trade, end all foreign aid, and so on and so forth. They even want to dismantale the US Military in favor of 50 State Militias (no, I am not joking).

I personally don’t see how ending free trade would do us any good and I don’t mind giving foreign aid to, say, Israel.

Ace also takes issue with this and concludes:

I actually don’t believe in Paulian pacifism and do believe in the need and justification for American intervention on a limited basis and in pursuit of a limited number of objectives.

If McCain also believes that — and of course he does — he would be wise to stop making the choice between the Ron Paul doctrinal peacenikism and the McCain Interventions Incorporated model.

Because McCain will lose, and so will the concept of interventionism itself.

Gingrich had it right on this– he said “I’m a hawk, but I’m a cheap hawk.” McCain is an extravagant hawk, and he’s the worst spokesman for hawkishness there is. And if he keeps pushing his No Limits doctrine, he’s going to find the country is now embracing All Limits.

Let’s be smart about this, let’s remember that the United States is made up of actual human beings who do in fact have limits, and start thinking about Some Limits. Smart Limits. Realistic Limits. Workable Limits.

I agreee with him, and I think you would agree too. Like Ace, I was a super-hawk (but I never liked the term neoconservative) but have since shifted to being to just a hawk. We can take issue with some of libertarian’s isolationist rhetoric, but bury the neoconservative’s unilateral power of war to the president rhetoric. We can be “pro-due process” and “pro-spray al-Qaeda guts all over the sand” at the same time. We can be ok with the spirit of the War Powers Act Of 1973 and want only Congress to authorize war/conflicts, but we can have an honest debate if any act of declaring war should not be fetishized just to Congress.

The problem with President Obama, is that his foreign policy is all over the place: Rushed to get involved in Libya, taking sweet time to get involved with Syria. Spoke out for protesters in Egypt, stayed slient on the Iran protests. Wants to pull out troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has no issue with troops in Germany and Japan. Hates capturing terrortists, but has no problems just killing them with drones. Dispises Free Trade, but signed a couple of them into law. One moment he’s a libertarian isolationist, but then he becomes a neoconservative who loves his unilateral power of war. It’s like he has a Wheel Of Foreign Policy or something. It doesn’t make much sense. I wish he would just pick a unifying policy and stick with it. At least with Paul and McCain, you know where they will land when something happens in the world!

But I digress.

We need to become conservatives again. We can be a Ronald Reagan hawk with an attitude, never take the military option off the table, all without becoming Interventions Incorporated.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

PS: This started as a simple comment on your blog that blossomed. I realized I had enough for a full post and thus came here. Hope you don’t mind.

Aratrum Republic

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:05:59 +0000

Three days late, but I hope well worth it. Not makeing excuses, but we had major shifts in the weather over the weekend, and the start of this week, and it completely killed me.

So, I present my answer to my own Thought Experiment:

Aratrum Republic

Now remember, this is for a small island nation of about 400K. So it does have a strong central government, with a slightly decentralized administration. We’ll get into that later. Let’s start with…

Article One – The Legatus

I put all the legislative powers into my lower house, or Legatus. It has two representatives from each of the five territories, plus three at-large members.

It can pass laws and regulations, but has no power over the budget. I think, in hindsight, it was likely not a good idea to give the power of making laws and the power of budget to the same group of people.

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

Currently in the United States, we have full branch of the government that can say: “Vote for me and I will give you generous gifts from the public treasury, and we can make laws to make sure we stick the bill to the rich or your great grandchildren.”

If and when you think about this, it is a horrifing idea. At least I think making laws and control over the budget, should be left to two different groups. While I do encode Herman Cain’s 999 Plan (which I think it is brilliant), I do give them one little check over the budget: A one time nonrefundable income tax credit and power over which items have an examption on retail sales tax. They have to be careful and not give away the farm, so they are going to have to work with the upper house or…

Article Two – The Rector.

Come, I will hide nothing from you. I like how my local county government works. It is like a borad of directors, then choses a manager (with some exceptions) and other people to run the day-to-day operations. However again, they can also pass ordinances and raise or lower taxes. Again, a fundunmental flaw (in my honest opinion).

So, I created the upper house, or the Rector, to have the republic’s executive powers. The have the power of budget, albeit with tight constitutional controls, and the power to delagate day-to-day operations to appointed officers.

Taking a lession from most dicators, I’ve taken the executive head of the government down a noch, and made him and his cabinet answerable to a small group of elected reps. I also give the Legatus a check over this as well.

Article Three – The Supreme Court

A Supreme Court with tight constitutional controls. However I actually think this could be made better. Thoughts on this one?

Article Four – The Five Territories

In which I give the territories some local, administrative control. However they still cannot make laws. They are more or less cities, since they are smallest local government.

Oh, they get 2% of the Personal Income Tax from the 999 Plan.

Article Five – Unalienable Rights

This likely my favorite part. This is our Bill of Rights, slightly expanded and tighten a little. I expand a little on the 1st Amendment and make tight the 2nd Amendment.

I am really knee-capping the government here on some points here, and I love it.

Article Six – Amendments

I make it hard to amend this thing. Not impossible, just hard.

I have never understood what some the US Amendments, amend. There was some debate in 2011 when the House read the US Constitution, which parts they were going to read. It was a petty matter at the time, but one that struck me. So I made it clear that any amendments here will spell out what is added, alter, or repealed.

I also make this article unamendable, for obvious reasons. I made the amending process hard so people can see a bad idea from a long way away. If they want to go forward with the bad, then at least they do it with their eyes open.

Article Seven – Ratifation

Just ratifation. Once this constitution is ratified, this article become rather useless.

—–

So, that is what I would do.

I think the interplay between the Legatus and Rector is rather brailliant, if I do say so myself. You may think it is a horrible idea yourself, but you would not be wrong and I won’t take it personally. I welcome honest criticism and how I can make this better, for even I think it is not complete and likely imperfect.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

Make Your Own Nation

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:00:20 +0000

I am so sick of our federal government, I began to think to myself: If I was given total control, how would I start a nation-state?

I have been thinking about this a lot actually. Then I begin to think to myself, what would other people think of doing? So, how would organized your nation-state?

To help jump-start you, I have for you a map and a scenario:

All of sudden, this island* appeared out of nowhere, just south of Florida. 400K Americans from all over the United States quickly moved in and declared they want nothing to do with the U.S. anymore. They also quickly divid the island into five territories. That is where the agreements end. In order to advoid a conflict, they have chosen YOU to make all their choices for them. Make for them any government you want and they’re in no matter what, the sky’s the limit. They have given you just three simple tasks:

1) Name the nation-state.

2) Name the five territories.

3) Write a constitution that governs the government, not the people.

That’s it. Remember, you can have any kind of government you want or you can create a new one. You can be as vauge as you want or very specific. It can be a “control everything” oligarchy or you can push the envolope of anarchy. Will it have a strong centeral government, or will federalism rule the day? A theistic or secular government? Constitutional Monarchy? Parliamentary Government? Separation Of Powers?

And above all, have fun. This is a thought experiment meant to see what would you do. This should not be personal or hurt anyone’s feelings. In one week’s time, I will post what I come up with as well.

You also don’t have to be a conservative to partake in this experiment. I would like to see what my liberal/progressive brothers and sisters have come up with as well. Please tweet me what you have and I will list all that I get here.

BigGator5.net
@BigGator5

*For anyone interested, this is a slightly alter political map of the island of Antigua. This has no baring on the thought experiment.

To #TeamLetItBurn: Our Work Is Not Finish

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:10:56 +0000

First, a little primer on Let It Burn:

[L]et us lay out some key principles of Let It Burn:

1- America isn’t a conservative country anymore and hasn’t been for a while. The fact is, a conservative country doesn’t “accidentally” elect Barack Obama twice. It doesn’t continue to send Democrats to the Senate who voted for ObamaCare and force the GOP to run as the saviors of Medicare. If you think we’re just one or two tactical moves and a great candidate away from political victory, you’re not in the Let It Burn camp.

2- “Let It Burn” is about inaction. There’s no point in trying do anything that avoids going over the fiscal cliff/sequestration. Will it lead to massive disruptions? Yes. That’s the point. The current system is rigged against conservative. We should play no part in its perpetuation. If you can’t win the game, concede and start new one. That’s the heart of Let It Burn. This isn’t some petty “I lost so I’m taking my ball and going home” tirade. This is what people want. It’s simply not sustainable. If we can’t stop them, we don’t have to continue to enable them either.

We need to start disassociating conservatism from the GOP. We’ve tried it for 30 years. It hasn’t worked.

We’ve tried to save the country from the folly of expanding liberalism and the country said, “we don’t want to be saved”. Let It Burn just means letting them have what they want and rebuilding later.

Let It Burn isn’t an option, it’s an eventuality. The questions are will we be complicit in it any longer and do we want to delay it? I say no. Let the liberals own it. Very few things are made better by delaying the day of inevitable reckoning.

The sooner it burns, the sooner we can try and rebuild.

I’ve boiled down much of what DrewM wrote, to get at the heart of the matter.

Let It Burn isn’t a solution or an answer. It’s letting go. Let It Burn is allowing the fiscal house of cards to collapse, sooner rather than later. Once we let inevitability take over, we can rebuild sooner rather than later.

So if you completely agree with this simple philosophy, then welcome to Team Let It Burn. Now we need to stop this bad deal that was pass last night:

It raises taxes by $620 Billion (over Ten Years).

It cuts spending by only $15 Billion (over Ten Years).

This is unacceptable and solves nothing. In fact, I think it’s insanity*. This is worse than kicking the can, it’s feeding the beast. The money raised on the taxes will likely go for even MORE SPENDING and not to reduce our long term debt. Nothing in this promises any spending cuts and President Barack Obama is going to demand more taxes. On top of everything, everyone will see their taxes go up because the payroll taxes will not be extended.

Up until this point, I’ve only rooted to go over the cliff. However I am now going to actively do something about it and I am calling on my fellow conservatives join me. Even if I wasn’t in Team Let It Burn, I would not support this monster that just came out of the Senate. Even Sen. Marco Rubio couldn’t vote for it. Nothing illegal, no acts of terrorism, or massacres. Just call your US House Representative and tell them this is a bad deal.

You can call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121** if you don’t know there number and demand one thing: “NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL”

We need to stand on principle and stop this abomination of a bill!

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

*Doing the same thing, expecting different results.

**If you don’t have free long distance, you are paying to much for your phone service and I can’t help you.

President @BarackObama: #Egypt May Or May Not Be An Ally

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:00:20 +0000

And yet they accused Mitt Romney from shooting from the hip:

Asked if he considered the current Egyptian government an ally of the United States, President Obama Wednesday balked.

“You know, I don’t think that we would consider them an ally but we don’t consider them an enemy,” he said in an interview with Telemundo.

I find the quibbling over “not an ally, but not an enemy either” both dumb and noncommittal. If you don’t know much about me, know this: I have found that I loath this kind of behavior. It pisses me off to no end. I encounter it every day on the road when I pause to let people by and they sit there like a lump-on-a-log, wasting my and their time/gas.

What President Obama has just done here, is wasted our time. Then of course, he compounds the problem:

Asked about the president’s comment, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said: “‘Ally’ is a legal term of art. We don’t have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the President has said, Egypt is long-standing and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt’s transition to democracy and working with the new government.”

Not only does he try to walk it back, but he sends some peon spokesman to do his graveling to the American people for the shake of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I feel used.

I would be outraged by all of this, but my personal outrage quota has been filled since the murder of Ambassador Stevens, the first such Ambassador to be murdered since President Jimmy Carter was in office (Ambassador Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979 during a failed kidnapping attempt while serving in Afghanistan).

Instead, I will be personally working every day to get Governor Mitt Romney elected.

I was at the Lake County, Florida REC yesterday and this woman was calling to complain that Mitt Romney isn’t doing enough to get elected. I told her we are the Romney Campaign (more or less, since we are the Republican Party) and we are doing everything we can, and that she should be there at the office making phone calls. She quibbled (again, something the pisses me off to no end) and then hung-up.

So, what is it going to be RedState Reader? Are you going to quibble about what Romney is or is not doing*? Or are you going to go down to your local REC and start phone banking? Are you going to spend 24/7 here on RedState with people you already agree with**? Are you going to break open that Phone Book you normally use as a door stopper and start making calls yourself?

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

*He’s shown up and is currently at the limit of what he, personally, can do. Can we say the same of you?

**We can read RedState when it is night and after the election. During the daylight hours, turn off that computer and do something else.

Endorsing: None Of The Above

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:00:59 +0000

I can’t take it anymore. I am endorsing nobody at this point. Everyone is either clinically insane or an incompetent presidential candidate. I’m going to list them in order of likelyness of me whole-heartly supporting in the general, to the one I will refuse to vote for in the general (and you already know who that person is).

Let me tell you why I can’t support any of them right now:

Rick Santorum – I can actually see myself canvassing for him in the general election. I would support him except that he’s been up and down Iowa and is still not polling there. This leaves me to believe that no one wants yet another US Senator as President.
Newt Gingrich – Gingrich has completely disappointed me since switching to his side. This whole hauling judges in front of congress has upset even me. He has been slightly incompetent since gaining front-runner status and has thus turned me off of him. Still much better than some below.
Rick Perry – I was going to jump ship from Herman Cain’s camp to Rick Perry when he first joined the race, except he forever lost me with the “You’re Heartless If You Don’t Agree With Me” comment.
Michele Bachmann – Again, another career congressperson seeking the highest office in the land. She was elected to the US House when the first of two purges of Republicans and survive the second one, but she lacks executive office experience. Still, I think she should stay in the House and shoot for Speakership. She also hasn’t gain back the following that she lost to Rick Perry. Do the voters know something I don’t?
Mitt Romney – Massachusetts Moderate. You know I used to be a Moderate, however that has gone out the window since Obama has been elected. The fact he won’t disavow RomneyCare, scares the HELL out of me. I fear he’ll want to fix ObamaCare rather than repeal it and replace it. I also fear he won’t wait until he’s elected to make this known (like, after he’s nominated while shooting the finger to Tea Party Conservatives). He’ll have to pick someone, like for example, Paul Ryan before I will vote for him in the general.
Jon Huntsman – No. Trust him even less than Romney.
Ron Paul – This is the clinically insane one. If you thought Obama’s Apology Tour ’09 was offensive, just you elect Ron Paul. I believe in short order he would make friends with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Five months after taking office Israel will be attacked. The world would fall into chaos because he will refuse to take action to help our allies like South Korea. I fear a Ron Paul Administration more so than Obama’s second term. At least Obama can be controled domestically to a degree if he has a Republican Congress. So I absolutely refuse to vote for Ron Paul. I will also not vote for Obama. I will instead focus on the US Senate race in Florida.

So there you have it. I don’t care for any of the candidates at this moment in time. I can’t even seeing myself getting the energy to vote in the primary on Januray 30th. Maybe things will change and I might get behind a candidate, but right now that seems like a long shot.

Ban me for outright refusing to vote for Ron Paul in the general if that makes you feel better. I really don’t care at this point. I just can’t and won’t vote for the man. I’m just making a stand and statement against him. I want to see Obama defeated in this election, but there has got to be a better way than Ron Paul.

Romney Double Downs On RomneyCare

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:00:40 +0000

(Via Ace Of Spades) Tone-Deaf, completely and hopelessly tone-deaf:

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

…

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

“There were two options in my state,” he said. “One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers.”

“The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that’s, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution,” he said.

There is said that Romney has supporters here, somewhere, in the US. To thoes people: WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE AND WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU??

I wish I can sometimes jump through a TV, throttle Romney, and tell him he’s wrong. When pushed on what exatly is he wrong on, I will simply say “Everthing.” Alright, let’s break this stuff down:

Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

First off, why in gods name are you talking to MSNBC for? They don’t care for your arguement. They see a (R) by your name and they already hate your guts.

Forcing people to buy health insurance, not to mention anything at all, IS NOT CONSERVATIVE! I never got the memo on when the Individual Mandate was a conservative idea. Whose brilliant idea was it to have the Individual Mandate as part of the Republican Platform?

Someone messed up. You know I am all for paying Caesar, which is owed to Caesar, but forcing someone to buy something or they get penalize for it, is beyond wrong.

This isn’t even buying something from the government, it is either buy a private product or pay the government a fine. I believe in a free market, but this is not free market and more like forced market.

Should you buy health insurance? Hell yeah! But if you can force people to buy health insurance or face a fine, then you can force people to buy anything!

“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”

Yeah, but you are taking away people’s personal responsibility this way. Think about it, Mit (and in turn, you who support him). We are already forcing ERs to take you regruadless, they should be able to get the money from the services you use.

“There were two options in my state,” he said. “One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers.”

“The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that’s, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution,” he said.

The Tenth Amendment does not give the States the right to use and abuse their citizens with a free reign of terror. In fact, a lot of politicians on both sides often stop reading the amendment before they get to:

“…or to the people.”

If it is a matter of real personal responsibility, then it should be up to the people and not to the government on any level.

This is why I don’t trust Mitt Romney. I think once he gets the nomination he’ll drop his dislike of ObamaCare. In 2010, he even sounded like he supported the individual mandate:

When Obamacare passed in 2010, Mitt Romney didn’t exactly have the same reaction as, say, Tea Party protesters. He was less immediately concerned with what the law represented – that is, a massive overreach by the federal government, a total takeover of health care – than he was with the specifics of the law, with the question of whether they would work. And, on several occasions, he went on record in support of the individual mandate.

And he seems to backup that support now.

So no, I don’t trust him at all. I honestly don’t understand how he is running as a Republican. Why can’t he pull a Charlie Crist and run as an Independant? Oh. Ohhhh…

At this point in time, I am about ready to vote for no one or support no one. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and even Newt Gingrich is starting to get on my nerves. Maybe we deserve another four years of Obama, if all we get are Obama-Lights and an Iran Lover*. We deserve better than this group of people.

This is why I will be focusing on the Florida US Senate race from now on. I can give a flying monkey’s uncle about who are next President is, because they are all bunk.

*Ron Paul is the only person who I will refuse to vote for, at all.

Village Revolt In… China?

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:15:33 +0000

(H/T The Other McCain) It turns out the Wukan Revolution is now well underway:

For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.

The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.

Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.

The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.

This started with the death of Xue Jinbo, who was arrested after protesting some illegal land grab. They even rejected a ransome:

“He came this morning and said that if we tear down our barricades, remove our banners and return to normal life, the government would not make any more arrests, would release its prisoners and release Xue Jinbo’s body,” said Yang Semao, one of the village’s representatives.

However, Mr Yang said the village had turned down the offer, and vowed to fight on, despite only having enough food left for ten more days of the siege.

Major props to the Telegraph’s Malcolm Moore, who is covering this at the risk of his own life. I, for one, will be praying for the people in Wukan and Malcolm.

However I feel that the Wukan Revolution will die in it’s sleep, because people like Obama will fail utterly to speak up. He’ll punt until it is either too late or issue a statement where “both sides need to stop the violence” or something like that. Iran’s Green Revolution could have used our support in 2009, not 894 days later. The rebels in Syria could also use our support, but Obama used up all his goodwill on an illegal war against Libya*.

We can only sadly sit back and watch as Malcolm Moore writes about the destruction of village of Wukan, as they fight the oppressive rule of the Chi-Comms. There is nothing we can do. Our Tone-Deaf leader will also sit this one out.

*Whatever you think about the War Powers Act, we are a nation of LAWS! We are a Republic, not an Oligarchy where the elite chooses to write or follow laws on a whim!

(UPDATE) Glenn Beck’s Reckless Race Card Comment May Re-Elect Obama

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:18:57 +0000

Update: This post is not about Newt Gingrich. This post is about Glenn Beck calling Tea Party supporters of Newt Gingrich, racists, because there is no difference between Obama and Gingrich. While there can be an honest debate if Gingrich is a progressive Republican, there is a clear choice between Obama and Gingrich. Calling those Tea Party people racists who believe that Gingrich is the best close-to-conservative-as-we-can-get to defeat Obama, is also beyond dumb.

Anyway, I was just listening to Glenn Beck and he is completely unapologetic. He is also blaming the GOP Establishment for this story, taking no personal responsibility whatsoever. I am far from the GOP Establishment as I can be. Beck has gone completely over the deep end and I will no longer listen to him on the radio. Whoever called it first, gets 15 Trillion Internets.

(Via TheRightScoop) Wow. And here we are told Gingrich’s big mouth might cost us the election. Who ever thought it would be Glenn Beck?

Talk about your all time dumb comments. I mean, it is one thing to say this and that about Gingrich. This whole Republican love of Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon also escapes me, these were not conservative presidents. However I just normally roll my eyes when I see or hear conservatives name them as their “conservative” heroes. I just don’t get it. My favorite conservative hero is George Washington.

However I am currently supporting Newt Gingrich because I think he’s the best conservative to carry the banner for us in 2012 since Herman Cain dropped out. Does that make me less of a conservative? Or, in Beck’s newest opinion, a racist?

Steve Flesher at Conservatives4Palin.com breaks this down for us:

Glenn Beck decided to “challenge” the Tea Party. Calling the GOP frontrunner a “progressive,” Beck then asserted that if faced with a choice between two “progressives” (Obama and Gingrich), the only difference then becomes the race of the candidate.

So basically, if Tea Party members vote for Newt Gingrich instead of Obama in 2012, it’s because they must have a problem with Obama’s race.

The left has been dying for someone on the right to make such a remark. This is the type of thing that will show up ten months from now on the eve of the most important election of our lifetimes to prove that Tea Party members are racists — especially if Obama is down in the polls and our candidate just happens to be Newt Gingrich.

I can see the ad now:

Glenn Beck: -ask yourself this Tea Party. Is it about Obama’s race, because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him [Obama] but you’re for this guy [Newt], it must be about race.

I don’t care if it is out of context, they can still use it. Hell, I’d use it if I was making ads for Obama. I’m not dumb. It is bad enough that they have Newt Gingrich’s “Right-wing Social Engineering” comment, now this comment from Beck?

I’ve been a defender of Glenn Beck for some time now. However this is indefensible. Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama can’t be further apart. Steve Flesher also notes that they are nothing a like:

I realize … that Newt Gingrich has a checkered past. But to infer there being no difference between Obama and Gingrich is a bit of a stretch.

Despite noted concerns and policy statements which are concerning, Newt’s record shows that he passed welfare reform and got the Democrats on board to do it. Obama on the other hand rolled that reform back with the failed stimulus. Newt’s policies helped to give us 4.2% unemployment. Under Newt’s leadership, he gave us the first balanced budget since 1969 and did it for four years. Obama’s policies have skyrocketed unemployment with job-killers like Obamacare and continue to grow our budget.

Further, and most importantly, Gingrich was able to get bipartisan support from a liberal White House because he knew how to articulate the proposals in a way that works. I believe this a very authentic quality he has which is lacking among some of the others. … It’s a quality that only a very few possess. Reagan had it as well. As we see, Obama does not.

Ladd Ehlinger Jr. also takes excetion to Glenn Beck along the same line of thought as Andrew Breitbart:

Don’t ever call people racist unless you have cold hard facts. That’s what progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists do.

David Duke? He’s a racist. I know, because as a kid I fought hard to help keep him out of the Louisiana Governor’s mansion (and got my car trashed as a result).

Ma and Pa in Iowa who supported Herman Cain, then went to Newt Gringrich? Not racist.

But those progressives, liberals, socialists, and marxists are already taking full advantage:

Glenn Beck: Newt Gingrich Supporters Who Oppose Obama Are Racist

And that was just the headline from the Puffington Host.

Glenn Beck has just made every Tea Party person’s life, and the 2012 election, that much more difficult. I hope he is happy with himself.

I still can’t believe he leveled such a personal attack. I will be tuning into Beck’s show tomorrow for a personal apology to that personal attack on my character. If I don’t get it, I will call the local station that carries him and ask if they could take him off the air.

Shameful: Hot Air Dismisses And Attacks Tim Tebow

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:20:12 +0000

Please Note: The following post is of my own opinion on an article written and posted on the main page of HotAir.com. The owners and moderators of RedState.com may not share my views on the following subject. Thank you very much.

I am shocked at HotAir.com for publishing this article. I’m sure Michelle Malkin’s head would spin if she was still in charged of Hot Air.

The author asks the question “Is ‘Tebowing’ an attack on Christianity?” then he answers with a resounding “No” and then personally attacks Tim Tebow and his fans (bolding mine):

Foster may be right that for some people, the problem isn’t Tebow’s religiosity but the fact that professional sports are “so filled with cliched Jesus praise that” fans doubt his sincerity. But I submit that for many who prefer to spend their Sundays watching the exquisite choreography of a perfectly executed screen pass, the problem is Tebow’s self-absorption.

Tebow is free to give “mad respect” to his lord, but I’d rather he do it on his own time. A number of players cross themselves on every play, but they do it discreetly — and expeditiously. Tebow’s prayer timeouts, by contrast, are as gratuitously in-your-face as the most flagrant end zone dance. And they last as long. Yet, according to his supporters, all of footballdom is supposed to give him a pass because his purpose is holy. Isn’t that what churches are for?

Another, subtler, ingredient in the widespread antipathy toward Tebow is that he is an anomaly. His success as an NFL quarterback (he is 4 and 1 since replacing Kyle Orton at the helm of the Broncos offense) doesn’t make sense to diehard football fans. His passing numbers — he has a 45% completion rate — are awful. His team is winning through a combination of razzle-dazzle and offensive schemes that haven’t been used by college, let alone NFL, coaches in two decades.

I am predicting that “this too shall pass” (to cite a proverb that Tebow should appreciate because of its religious roots). Sooner or later all 31 remaining teams in the league will develop defensive strategies to counter Denver’s pre-Knute Rockne offense, and Tebow — and Tebowing — will be gone.

Let me first come out and say that I don’t know if I am still an Atheist anymore. I’ve been going to a local nondenominational church recently. I don’t know if I have been hanging around Tea Party people too much and if their spirituality has been rubbing off on me, or if it is the call to run for local office that is also calling me back to church. I don’t know. All I know is that I’ve been going to church for the last six weeks now and I want to keep going. I know it is cliche, but I am looking for a sign.

Ok, let me respond to Howard’s post one part at a time:

Honestly, I don’t see Tim Tebow as being narcissistic. I just don’t get that vibe from him. Everytime I see him speak, he seems humble to me. He seems excited, but not self-absorbed. He loves football, life, and God, what is there not to be excited about? Sure Tebow will calm down, but he’s young and full of energy. Let him have his fun.

Now wait just a cotton-picken minute here. Why can’t he publicly give “mad respect” to God? When did this stop being a Free Country? It is almost like you are offended. Why is that? I find it refreshing. If you don’t like it, you have a remote. Stop being lazy and move your thumb a little.

I don’t think Tebow’s purpose is holy. This is a FOOTBALL GAME dude. You seem to have your priorities mixed up my friend. I, and I think Tebow would agree, that in the end, if football ended tomorrow, the world would not come to an end. Sure economically we would hurt a little, but the world does not end and begin with football. I thought Jesus was the Alpha and the Omega and not football?

So Tebow is still playing college football. Why do you care so much? This fact is between him and the Denver Broncos. If he doesn’t grow, that is his problem. Granted I hope he grows as a player and becomes a NFL quarterback that he can become. However your rooting for one single football player’s failure comes across as shallow and petty. Sure I root for Tampa Bay Buccaneers to win, not nessitiarly someone’s failure. This is, after all, JUST A GAME.

Jimmy Johnson once said: “Treat a person as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat him as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

Think he’s an aweful football player? Fine, that is an honest critique. I personally hope he gets better as a player, because I am a Florida Gator fan and I would like to see a Gator quarterback succeed finally in the NFL. Sue me. Is Tebow narcissistic? I could be wrong, but judging from I see I just don’t see it. We will have to wait and see if the NFL corrupts him (and I sure hope not). And again, I think your priorities are mixed up. After all, football is just a game. Grow up.

If you want to contact Howard Portnoy and tell him that his attack on a private citizen (and his fans/supporters) for his public display of faith was unseemly, his Twitter, Facebook, and Email are all listed in the post. Please do not personally attack him or threaten him, I do not sanction such behavior.

To the people running Hot Air: You people should be ashamed that you promoted this article. It is nothing but hate and spite. If it is your policy to promote Green Room articles that attacks private citizens (and their fans/supporters) for their public display of faith, then you need to review said policy. You’re just lucky I don’t believe in boycotts.

Mitt Romney: A Case Study In Being Tone-Deaf

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:15:52 +0000

If we ever accuse Barack Obama of being Tone-Deaf, Mitt Romney should be mention in the same breath (H/T Ace of Spades):

[Bret] Bair asked Romney about his changing positions on climate change, abortion, immigration, and gay rights, and asked him how the American people could trust him on the important issues.

“Your list is just not accurate,” replied Romney to an visibly surprised Baier, “So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues.”

Baier pointed out video ads released by Romney’s opponents attacking Romney as a flip-flopper.

“I’m glad to see that the Democrat ads are breaking through,” Romney said cynically adding that most videos took “only snippets of his remarks, taking them out of context.”

The only problem with the Democrat’s video, is that it is painfully true*. I can’t find any fault with that video except that it was made by Democrats. Now it will be there though the general election. And Ace is right, at least Gingrich is not insulting us by offering delusional denials. I mean, Mitt Romney called Newt Gingrich a ‘lifelong politician’. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Look, even I am running for public office and sometimes I have to face facts. I went to a Tea Party meeting one day and made a campaign pledge that I will now have to take back. I will own up to my Mea Culpa and let the cards fall were they may. It’s not a flip-flop, it is something I just can’t do. I have also lost maybe a hundred signatures on my candidate petition, because I am honest with people that I am a Conservative Republican. I RATHER LOSE MY ELECTION, THAN BE SOMEONE THAT I AM NOT!

I hate to use the term RINO, but Mitt Romney is not a conservative. He’s a poll-tested politician. That right there makes him a Flip-Flopper. Look, I also used to be more moderate in the past myself. However I’ve become more conservative since Obama has ran for office. Talk to Moe Lane**, he used to be a card-carrying Union Democrat before he finally saw the truth.

It all comes down to trust. I just don’t trust Mitt Romney to stay a conservative once the primary is over any more than I can throw him. I also do not trust him to help in repealing ObamaCare once elected. I do not trust him on any issue.

However I do trust Herman Cain to be the conservative voice we need in the White House. Win or lose, my conscience will be clear and I will sleep good that night after that vote.

*I hate to link it, but you need to see what I, Bair, and Romney is talking about. Please don’t edit it out or ban me. Thank you.

**Sorry if I am crossing some kind of line Moe, but you’ve kept no secert your conversion.

Finally: The Herman Cain TV Ad We’ve Been Waiting For

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:00:06 +0000

I say it’s about time (Via Jammie Wearing Fools):

People have been waiting for a Herman Cain TV Ad, well here it is people.

I honestly don’t know if this is planed to be a tv ad, but it should be in any case. Any Cain campaign stuff reading this should think it over and send the suggestion to the top. It is simple and to the point.

So the URL of that video takes you here and to this video:

But don’t take my word for it. Art Laffer, a real economist, has this to say about Herman Cain’s 999 Plan:

It used to be that the sole purpose of the tax code was to raise the necessary funds to run government. But in today’s world the tax mandate has many more facets. These include income redistribution, encouraging favored industries, and discouraging unfavorable behavior.

To make matters worse there are millions and millions of taxpayers who are highly motivated to reduce their tax liabilities. And, as those taxpayers finagle and connive to find ways around the tax code, government responds by propagating new rules, new interpretations of the code, and new taxes in a never-ending chase. In the process, we create ever-more arcane tax codes that do a poor job of achieving any of their mandates. …

(Crunching The Numbers) In the recent past, federal tax revenues from the personal and business income taxes, all payroll taxes, and the capital gains, gift and estate taxes have averaged $2.3 trillion, while gross domestic product has averaged about $14.5 trillion. The total revenue from these taxes as a share of gross domestic product averages around 16%. Sometimes it’s a good deal higher, as in the boom of the late 1990s, and sometimes its lower, as in today’s “Great Recession.” But a number in the 16%-19% range is as good as you’ll get under our current tax code.

By contrast, the three tax bases for Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased. …

This is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support. I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.

While the 9-9-9 plan has captured people’s imaginations at this moment, it’s not all that different from California Gov. Jerry Brown’s 13% flat tax when he ran for president in 1992. As you may recall, he came in second behind Bill Clinton in the Democratic Party primary.

In 1986, President Reagan passed a major tax-reform bill that lowered to 28% from 50% the top marginal personal income tax rate. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 also raised the lowest marginal income tax rate to 15% from 11% and closed many loopholes, making for a flatter tax structure. Reagan’s bill passed the Senate in a landslide 97-to-3 vote. Who says a flat tax can’t be a bipartisan proposal?

If this video and Art Laffer’s endorsement doesn’t get you excited about the 999 Plan, I honestly don’t know what will. If the 999 Plan was passed, there will not be seas big enough for all the business coming our way. I even have a business idea myself.

I support Herman Cain. I have been since he announced that he would be running. I’m on the CainTrian until it reaches the White House. I will then be a tireless supporter of the 999 Plan. Herman Cain might not be a polished politician, but that is what I love about him. Cain is a man who makes mistakes, like me. Personally, he is the only person running right now that I would love to sit down with a beer. The 999 Plan shows he is also bold and thinks out of the mainsteam box.

Some of us is waiting for the second coming of Ronald Reagan. I am not one of those people, for he is not coming. Leave Reagan where he is, resting in peace. We should be instead looking forward to the future and for a new kind of leader. I believe Herman Cain is that leader. Climb aboard this train with me, and we will the conductors of our own future.

Oakland PD Getting Sued Over It’s Own Dumb Policy

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:00:35 +0000

This is what happens when you lack a spine.

When I first saw this article, I was outraged. Then I actually read said article:

Police repeatedly fired teargas, “less-lethal” projectiles and flash-bang grenades into a sea of protesters, actions they later claimed were justified because their officers were being hit by objects thrown by a few individuals in the crowd.

But the guidelines clearly state that less-lethal munitions “may never be used indiscriminately against a crowd or group of persons, even if some members of the crowd or group are violent or disruptive.”

If all of this is true, then they deserved to be hit with this lawsuit. They were sued in 2003 for using this stuff and they settled by agreeing to these terms.

I mean, who agrees to stuff like that? People and groups are too quick to settle these days. That is why we need “Loser-Pay” Tort Reform.

I normally give police officers the benefit of the doubt. They have to deal with mean jerks all day long. I’ve dealt with cops before. While they were jerks (even to me), they were fair jerks. If you want someone who will punish you to also be sensative to your needs, run to your mommy. This is the real world people. Grow up.

But if true, I can’t defend the Oakland PD or the city over this nonsense. No wonder Oakland, California is a mess. If you live there and have nothing but complaints, then I honestly don’t have any sympathy for you. Your city government is leaderless and spineless. I have only one advice for you: MOVE.

Here in Lake County, Florida, our police have a spine and will stand up for itself. The ACLU is suing our sheriff over arresting an illegal immigrant and handing her over to ICE. Lake County Sheriff is fighting this and the rest of the county is behind him 100%. We also just gave a Georgia man 7years jail for coming to pick up what he thought was a 13-year-old girl.

Without law, there can be no freedom. In Oakland, California, law is weak and spineless. Police can’t even crack down on a roit with non-lethal means without being sued. It is a joke there. I thought in my last post about Oakland that it was time for Republicans to maybe move to cature leadership in that city, but I am not so sure now. Maybe it is too far gone. Time to cut your losses and call it a day.

The Cain Project: Opportunity To Volunteer For Herman Cain

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:00:01 +0000

Are you a Herman Cain supporter and are willing to help him win the early Florida Primary? Then you have come to the right blog post!

Patricia Sullivan, on her own with the help of her campaign-for-congress-turn-grassroots-group The Patriot Army, has choosen to lunch a boots-on-the-ground precinct walking effort here in Central Florida.

Opportunity

If given the opportunity, would you put your time and energy in helping Herman Cain win Florida?

What would happen if Herman Cain won the Florida GOP Primary on January 31st?

Could he sweep the Nation with that kind of momentum?

We’ve seen what happened after he won Florida’s Presidency 5 straw poll. He surged. Enthusiasm is contagious.

What are you willing to do to get out the vote for Herman Cain? Is it worth three full days of walking door to door with friends and a day of sign waving? If you can commit your time and energy, then you need to be part of the Cain Project. Even if you can’t walk, we will need drivers, navigators, volunteers to serve meals and more.

The Cain Project is an intense volunteer event taking place January 26-31 in Central Florida. We’re inviting volunteers from across Florida and the Southeast to come and help us win Florida.

I know I would and I have. I was at the kick-off event a little over two weeks ago and boy do they have their stuff together! They even made a video:

The Cain Project

How are they going to get out the vote? They explain here and you can sign-up as well:

The Cain Project is an intense volunteer event taking place January 26-31 in Central Florida.

Why a fee to volunteer?

The registration fee covers the cost of two t-shirts, six dinners and precinct walking materials.

The agenda is as follows:
Thursday … 4pm-8pm Registration, Education, Team Assignments and Dinner
Friday … 9am-8pm Precinct Walking, Rendezvous and Dinner
Saturday … 9am-8pm: Precinct Walking, Rendezvous and Dinner
Sunday: … Day of Rest. 10am Worship Opportunity 5pm Dinner
Monday: … 9am-8pm: Precinct Walking, Rendezvous and Dinner
Tuesday: … 7am-11pm: Sign Waving at Polls, Dinner and Watch Party! WhooHoo!

They are going to be hitting Orange, Seminole, and (South) Lake Counties in their precinct walking.

I precinct walked for Patricia Sullivan in the 2010 election and I have to say that they know their stuff. They were highly organized, had lots of precinct walking materials (maps and such), and focused. I say it is worth the $20 to get the t-shirts and meals, alone.

If you got some vacation time saved up, now’s the time to use it. You can join us for one day or all six days.

Now I am just a volunteer like everyone else. I am not an event organizer. However I’d like to get the word out to those who would like to make a difference. Herman Cain doesn’t need a large campaign staff when he has people like us willing to help in any way we can. I am answering the call, will you?

Blue Vs. Blue: Left Screaming Bloody Murder Over Zuccotti Park

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:31:09 +0000

I honestly dream of moments like this, I really do:

Left-leaning bloggers erupted in outrage Tuesday morning as they awoke to news that Mayor Bloomberg had cleared the Occupy Wall Street demonstration site in Zuccotti Park overnight.

Liberal activists decried the move online, and accused the mayor of silencing the press and violating the right to peaceful assembly.

“Bloomberg’s NY is no place for the 1st amendment. Bloomberg serves Wall Street, now and forever. And Wall Street cannot handle free speech,” tweeted liberal actor Alec Baldwin.

That sound you hear is New York City’s darling mayor to liberals nation-wide, career in politics crashing before him. Any thought of him running for US President is over.

*pulls out a bag of popcorn and puts on 3-D Goggles*

Anyone want any popcorn?

“People who were part of a dynamic civic process were beaten and pepper-sprayed, their personal property destroyed,” said a posting on OccupyWallSt.org, a website for the demonstrators.

Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy. [licks the tears off the hippies's face]

“When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided to stage a middle of the night raid on the Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park, there was one thing he didn’t want … media coverage. So Bloomberg said screw the First Amendment,” reads a posting on the Daily Kos.

“We’ll just hold off on all those pesky rights until it’s more convenient. Or not,” said the blog’s Barbara Morrill sarcastically.

Liberal blogs especially seized upon one incident, in which Village Voice writer Rosie Gray apparently told a police officer, “I’m press,” to which the officer responded, “not tonight.”

“This was real police state stuff,” wrote FireDogLake’s David Dayden after noting the incident involving Gray. “I know that the First Amendment comes with that addendum, “Operative 6am-11pm M-F,” but absolutely nothing about this raid seems justified.”

Whatever. The First Amendment does not give you the right to squat. Zuccotti Park is a privately owned park. I know, tell that to the socialists there the concept of Private Property. It is define as:

1) Title
2) Control
3) Use
4) Ability To Dispose

If Brookfield Properties loses control or the use of Zuccotti Park, then they have loss their property. Granted it is a public park, but it is own privately. So they tossed out some bloody squatters. But I digress.

Mayor Quan of Oakland, CA isn’t getting any love because she, horrors of horrors, talked to other mayors accross the nation. Really people, let them kill themselves (metaphorically, of course) over this.

Here’s your chance New York and Oakland Republicans. Time to elect a few good conservative mayors in these cities. Do not waste it.

Die Hippie, Die: South Park Took Down #OWS, YEARS AGO!

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:00:15 +0000

My goodness. Before the 2008 elections, I used to be a moderate Republican. I look back on those years and think to myself: What was I smoking?

But I digress.

I was hoping for a Occupy Wall Street episode from South Park the other week. I was disappointed when they did not do so. I mean, there is a lot there they can make fun of here. I could create an entire season of episodes based off of Occupy Wall Street and the dirty hippies that are there. The Drum Circles, filty tent living, drug use, railing agaisnt corperations (but not doing much to stop them), and the commune living that would evolved into an actual society if given enough time.

Oh wait, they already did all of that in Die Hippie, Die.

We all love to hate Cartman. If you don’t hate him, then you haven’t been paying attention to his character. His only redeemable character trait is that he’s a capitalist. It normally overrides his other lazy, spoiled, and racist’s traits. However to the casual watcher of the show, Cartman is a completely unsympathetic even if he is one of the four lead characters.

In “Die Hippie, Die”, Cartman starts off as a kind of ‘Hippie Pest Control’ and realizes they are about to start a music festival in South Park. His attempts to warn the town go unheard and he is even arrested when 63 hippies are found locked in his basement. Of course Kyle, Stan, and Kenny are seduce and become hippies themselves. The mayor is behind this music festival.

The festival quickly spins out of control, drawing more hippies than ever before into one place. Soon the town people seek advice from Cartman on how to rid of the massive hippie group. Kyle, Stan, and Kenny finally realize that the hippies are full of themselves and just want to get high and listen to music.

South Park builds a giant drill (called “Hippie Digger”) and bores though the mass of hippies. They upload death metal into the stage and the hippies disperse, saving the other kids and South Park.

My friends, replace “music festival” with “Occupy Wall Street” and you pretty much have your South Park Occupy Wall Street episode. Everything from the drum circles to the town mayor embracing the hippies.

In fact, South Park has pretty much written the end game for us: Death Metal!

Police Departments need to pack their sound systems with death metal music and blast the public squares where the dirty hippies are squatting for a couple of days. That will clear them out.