the tea party platform

The Strategy is "Distraction"

The Patriot — Sat, 12 May 2012 12:57:56 GMT

There are significant issues we can and should be discussing this election year. The issues are there and there is no denying the issues will be raised but it also apparent that Obama, the democrats and their friends in the media will do all they can to distract us from those very issues and limit their discussion.

The overriding issue is the economy, of course. After more than three years of failed programs, fear and apprehension, something must be done and only the voters will enable that to happen. The rising National Debt is an albatross around the neck of every citizen, taxpaying or not. Those who do not pay taxes won't miss the misery. They will experience the impact of the disastrous Obama programs through higher costs for energy, food and the other necessities of life. If we have a job we live in fear that the next job to be lost will be our own. Employers refuse to hire because of the uncertainty of what it will cost to employ anyone, the overburdening regulations placed on industry, the time required for government approval of new ventures and the effort required to conform to rules generated as a result of an overriding antagonistic attitude toward business by governmental bureaus like the EPA.

An issue dear to me and that should be important to all citizens is the continuing erosion of our liberty. Government has continually overstepped its Constitutional boundaries. If the Supreme Court does not overturn it; Obama will not repeal Obamacare on his own. The voters must put people in Washington who will do that for us. Americans don't wish to be told where or whether they can obtain medical treatment, what that treatment will be or how much it will cost; not by our government. Neither do we want to be told the kind of light bulb we can buy, whether we should buy electric or gas automobiles, the size of the automobile, how much salt we can use, what we can give our kids to eat, etc.

Despite these overriding issues and the refusal of the media to have vetted the candidacy of Barack Obama the media continues to look back at things Romney did fifty years ago. There are stories of the Romney dog riding in a carrier on top of the family car. There are efforts to demonize the Romney's because they are rich. An attempt was made to rewrite a statement Romney made during a Republican primary debate about the effort taken to kill Osama bin Laden. He did not say he wouldn't have entered Pakistan to get OBL. He said he wouldn't be so stupid as to threaten it or to talk about it. There is a story about Romney bullying a boy in 1965 because he wore his hair long. It doesn't matter that the boy's family has no knowledge that this ever happened. There is no concern for accuracy. There is only a concern for a sensational aspect to a story strong enough to distract the attention of those who are sold on candidates by thirty second sound bites and / or motivated to form an impression about a candidate with minimum effort. Obama is after the vote of the person who doesn't pay attention and what better way to do this than by taking that person's attention off the ball and directing the person toward any individual other than Obama that he / she can be made to hate or blame for whatever their own situation might be. It is despicable. It is dishonest. It is Alinsky. It is Obama.

Richard Lugar

The Patriot — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:55:17 GMT

It was not a surprise. Our side is winning. What greater confirmation than Lugar's not so gracious concession?

We have come to think of entitlement as applying to large groups (seniors, poor, minorities, etc.) but the sense of entitlement is no greater than among those who have enjoyed power for a long period of time. I was startled to hear that with the loss of Richard Lugar goes the loss of compromise in the US Senate.

The problem has been stated before in this blog but it is seen no more clearly than in the record of Richard Lugar. Compromise was never understood by Lugar nor by others of his ilk. Compromise is not to step across the aisle to give the democrats half of what they want. This has always been followed by a rash of new legislation in later sessions to get the other half. In two sessions they have 75% and in three they have nearly 90%. But what did Lugar get in return while he made all these compromises? Did he get legislation to the floor to define the unborn baby as having the same rights as all citizens? Did he get an end to baseline budgeting? Did he get a reduction to the EPA, the Energy or the Education Department? Oops, bad example, Lugar fears the loss of the Education Department.

My point is that Lugar's history is not one of statesmanship and compromise. It is one of capitulation, surrender and playing the role of a chump.

It was demonstrated during the primary that Lugar too often voted with the other side, that his representation ran counter to the attitudes of his constituents and that his relationship as a citizen of Indiana was suspect. His single permanent home since 1977 has been in Washington D.C.

Good work Indiana Republicans! Good work Tea Party friends! This was exactly what Indiana Republicans needed to do. It is conservatives that we need in Washington, not Moderate Republicans.

James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming — and says Al Gore was too.

The Patriot — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:00:06 GMT

Reprinted from http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKORYsSu-OiEoAWeIYHRGn.mzQbztJUAZ

2. Climate Change Alarmist Recants: ‘I Made a Mistake’

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming — and says Al Gore was too.

Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007 Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory.

That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

But in an interview this week with MSNBC, Lovelock said a book he is now writing will reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” he said. “We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time. [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising. Carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit.”

MSNBC reported: “He pointed to Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and Tim Flannery’s ‘The Weather Makers’ as other examples of ‘alarmist’ forecasts of the future.”

Lovelock also declared in the interview that “as an independent and a loner,” he did not mind saying, “All right, I made a mistake,” adding that university or government scientists might fear that admission of such a mistake could jeopardize their funding.

In response to Lovelock’s interview, the Climate Depot website stated: “MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the manmade global warming fear movement.”

The War on Women

The Patriot — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:26:13 GMT

Is there a War on Women? I say yes. After all:

Hilary Rosen took aim and fired a shot at all mothers who choose their kids over a career.

But this was by no means the first shot:

She was later supported on Fox News Channel (on the Hannity show) by Amanda Holden, a female democrat operative who would only credit careers outside the home as work. Rosen was supported until the leaders of the Obama team saw this method to divide was not working.

Barack Obama's policies have left more women than men unemployed.

Democrats continually insult and assault women by treating them as a single voting bloc that cares only about issues like contraception and abortion despite the fact that women are also mature citizens who are affected by and are concerned about the economy, loss of liberty, security and foreign policy.

But it didn't start there:

NOW for many years has discredited women who chose motherhood over careers.

Bill Clinton accosted Kathleen Willy as she approached "her friend" for a job when she and her husband were in financial need.

Bill Clinton used the power of his position to lure Paula Jones to his hotel room for purposes of an indecent proposal. When Paula told her story she was called a liar and worse, "Trailer Trash" by James Carville on Clinton's behalf.

Bill Clinton used the power of the presidency to take advantage of a 21 year old White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky, and used her as his White House toy.

Hillary Clinton, choosing a legal career over "baking cookies" headed a group in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions" to attack the women her husband left in his wake. Their job was to DESTROY any woman who might testify against her husband, Bill. NOW looked the other way multiple times as women massed to report their experiences with Bill Clinton.

Linda Tripp was attacked mercilessly by the press for her willingness to be a witness for Kathleen Willy. Willy lived in fear because of threats from unknown men who warned her against testifying or publishing her experience with Bill. Someone even killed her cat.

Bill Clinton conducted a long term affair with Gennifer Flowers ultimately to discard her like an old shoe.

Juanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of rape only to have her injuries and the charge ignored by NOW as well as the main stream media because his positions on "women's issues" and his overall agenda worked for them.

But this didn't start with Bill Clinton either:

Ted Kennedy was responsible for the death of young Mary Jo Kopechne in a vehicular accident on Chappaquiddick Island. He allowed her to suffocate or drown during the time he failed to report the accident fearing for his political career.

Kennedy and Chris Dodd were known for their lewd behavior with waitresses who were helpless against two powerful US Senators. NOW once again chose to protect these men over the women they might molest.

It was Lyndon Johnson who expanded welfare. We all knew this as his War on Poverty. To qualify a woman had to be a single mother. This chased the man from the home guaranteeing a life of poverty for most of these women and their children.

The aftermath of high illegitimacy rates was a direct result of Johnson's policies which hurts both the girls and the boys but especially the women as they learned to be used.

But this didn't start with Lyndon or Teddy either:

John Kennedy humiliated his wife as he had encounter after encounter with women in and out of the White House. In those days. The press looked the other way when presidents had mistresses.

They didn't tell about Roosevelt's girlfriend either, but he only had one.

Affairs and mistresses are nothing new but the level of disrespect may be. The Democrat Party in particular, whether it is the manner they attack those who decide to kiss and tell or the insulting attitude they demonstrate with regard to how they decide those issues that will be important to women has been conducting a war on women for decades. Their disrespect for women is demonstrated time after time by their repeated attempts to divide them from men, their attempts to make them the same as men in terms of ambition, careers, stature, power and prestige. I am not opposed to women sharing these traits with men, but for gosh sakes, leave women to decide for themselves what is important to them and respect their decisions.

The Bigger Issue

The Patriot — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:19:15 GMT

Economics is a key issue in this year’s presidential campaign but it is not the only issue. You would never know this if you watched This Week on Sunday morning February 26.

With regard to the economic issue, Obama has been a miserable failure. Gas costs are double what they were when he took his oath of office and he and his supporters try to pretend that his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf that eliminated 24% of American oil production or his veto of the Keystone Pipeline have nothing to do with this.

His abysmal record on employment has been felt throughout the country and his supporters would like to pretend that Obamacare, his fanatical environmental stances, and his desire to raise taxes on people earning more than $250,000 have nothing to do with this. What employer will want to hire new employees when they do not know the cost of having that employee or whether there will continue to be a market for the product or the service that person might provide?

President Obama has delivered budgets with exorbitant deficits this nation cannot afford. Inflation is coming folks and we are all hurt by inflation. Those who are employed worry about the future and are thus reluctant to buy a new home. No matter, President Obama with the help of Pelosi and Reid built a climate in the banking industry that makes it next to impossible to get a home loan anyway.

Yes, economics will be a big issue in the campaign but it is not the only issue for me. It is not even the biggest issue. For me the biggest issue is loss of liberty. Of what value is economic stability if it comes at the loss of my freedom? Obama has systematically attempted to substitute his decisions for mine and other consumers. Obamacare dictates to us. The First Lady’s programs for school nutrition dictates to parents what their kids should eat for lunch. Obama has violated multiple tenets of Constitutional protections by dictating policy that invades the province of religious liberty. He has violated contract law by his grab of General Motors and Chrysler. His State Department has negotiated a treaty that would attack our Constitutional Protection guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. He refuses to enforce those laws with which he does not personally agree. Witness the effort he has undertaken to avoid enforcing the US border with Mexico. Not only does he disrespect his oath of office but also he openly sides with foreign nations against the interests of individual US states by suing those states that attempt to enforce their laws and those federal laws he refuses to enforce.

To be sure, these actions have their own economic impact but the largest threat Obama presents is to our liberty.

What Do We Sacrifice?

The Patriot — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:38:30 GMT

Answer: It is Liberty.

I am proud to be an American. To me, being an American means that I am a part of a nation that was created under principles that include liberties that no other nation on earth had at our time of creation. We are a part of the great experiment.

Our founders limited the powers of the government. Our founders said that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Our founders also recognized they were not infallible. They understood that the Constitution as ratified contained provisions that were themselves the result of compromise. As such, they provided a means to change our Constitution through a process that protected the rights of the minority by requiring a 2/3 majority of the Congress and 3/4 majority of the states. This distinction is important. We are not a democracy. In a democracy all that is required is the consent of the majority. In America, the majority may not tyrannize the minority.

Among the strongest beliefs of our founders was that American citizens have the right to be secure in their property. As an American they believed that I have the right to determine for myself how I might add to or dispose of my property and how I might use that property. But what is happening?

In my lifetime the government imposed a minimum wage that places them between a prospective employer and a prospective employee. The result was a sharp increase, particularly in teen unemployment.

In my lifetime some cities enacted rent control that prevented landlords from raising rent as they needed to meet the market circumstances in their areas. Immediately the ability to sell rental property disappeared. Immediately the construction of low value rental property ended. The only citizens who “won” when these laws were created were those who already lived in someone else’s home and who remained secure they could continue to live there because of someone else’s sacrifice.

In my lifetime the federal government intervened in the education system. They provided funding for local schools and because of this funding they continue to dictate curriculums and restrict the rights of local school boards to determine how their children will be educated.

Smoking laws tell the proprietors of restaurants and bars what legal activities they may allow in their own establishments.

National security laws dictate who may get on an airplane. Just recently the TSA denied a woman from Rock Springs, WY the ability to board an airplane because no female agent was present to pat her down at the security gate.

Insurance laws dictate terms to private companies who offer products to consumers. Currently this administration is attempting to dictate to insurance companies that they provide free contraceptives to their insured with no co-pay.

Anti-discrimination laws dictate what I may do with my property and more. These laws also dictate what I am able to say and what I may hold in my heart as an approved attitude, as an approved thought, as an approved motivation in my dealings with others who may not look like or be like me.

For a period of time entrance to American universities was controlled by admissions policies based not on qualifications but on quotas to ensure that the demographics of the university were consistent with the demographics of the population at large. Qualified applicants were denied spots they had earned to favor other less qualified applicants who had the appearance that the government regarded as more “equal”. When quotas were determined to be unconstitutional the quotas were abandoned in favor of requirements that registrars prove they did not discriminate in their admissions by reporting results consistent with these same demographics. When someone can explain the distinction between these two methods I would love to have it explained to me.

Certain crimes are now considered worse because of the motivation of the assailant. Was it a crime that occurred because of an irrational hatred for individuals of a particular race or sexual orientation? Why should it matter if someone has committed a crime that his or her motivation was hatred or something else? Is the victim’s injury not the same?

Obamacare dictates that Americans must purchase insurance policies and imposes fines on those who do not.

Obamacare also requires that insurance companies must insure people for pre-existing conditions. Thus we will measure the fines against the cost of insurance and if less, we will pay the fine until we get sick and then buy the insurance. Insurance companies will disappear and leave us even more dependent upon who? Our federal government.

The Obama administration stepped into General Motors, fired its chief executive, demanded that the bondholders subordinate their debt to unsecured creditors and then took control of that company giving a large percentage to their special interest group, the UAW. Under what Constitutional Authority?

The Obama administration has hired czars who determine policy but who bypass the confirmation process that is in the Constitution. Why has our Senate not acted to expel these interlopers?

In New London, CT, the US Supreme Court allowed a local government to confiscate private property from local citizens and give that property to another private party to build a factory. This was justified as an improvement to the city tax base. Was this what our founders had in mind by the power of eminent domain? What would John Jay say about those Supreme Court justices that applied eminent domain to this kind of thievery?

The current administration is delaying the opening of a Boeing manufacturing facility in South Carolina because it has an interest in directing those jobs to union workers who would be employed by the facility if it were to be built in another state.

The federal government was initially created to provide a collective security for our thirteen states, assist in commerce, provide postal services and protect private liberties and personal property rights. Does anyone believe they could have anticipated that rogue jurists might interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with its own words to allow such things as abortion or that the Congress might transfer money from our treasury to organizations who would promote the taking of innocent life?

My question is not which of these laws may or may not be a good idea in your opinion, but what of this is within the authority of the President, the Congress or the Federal Courts to dictate to the American people? Should the president be able to dictate to religious institutions, to commercial businesses or to private individuals? Should our government be able to tell a child where he/she may pray or whether he/she may read his Bible in a school library? Should the government be able to reach into the preceding moments of a high school football game or a graduation ceremony and dictate that a benediction would be an imposition of religion on those in attendance?

Our government is runing amuck and we must do something about it if it is not already too late. We cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama. He would use those four years to further consolidate his power over our government and his control over individual Americans. If this country is to survive we must do more than complain. We must convince those around us who believe they might benefit from these actions and educate them as to the sacrifice they make in accepting those benefits. The time to act is 2012 and it is 2012.

Florida and US

The Patriot — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:53:52 GMT

I just finished watching the January 26, GOP Debate from Jacksonville, FL and it left me with one very large impression. Rick Santorum is the real deal. He stands tall in these debates and he looks people in the eye when he calls them out. He called Mitt Romney out for Romneycare and he landed his punches. He is absolutely right when he says that we don’t want to lose the Obamacare issue and that the GOP does risk doing that if Romney is the nominee. I will support Mitt Romney if he is nominated but I will vote for either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in the Colorado primary.

Tea Party people need to insert themselves in their state conventions and get themselves elected as delegates to the National Convention because this could go all the way. No candidate has demonstrated the ability thus far to win the nomination prior to that convention. What is at stake is more than simply an election of Republican versus Democrat. What is at stake is that we have a unique opportunity to place a true conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan back in the White House where a real reversal of fortune can once again take place.

I continue to believe that Obama is unelectable. Say what pundits will about the electability of Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Romney, the campaign will be about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama ignored the wishes of the American people by pushing Obamacare down the throats of the American people. Games were played that ignored traditional legislative process with the belief that bad legislation was better than no legislation at all and Obama was more than willing to sign any legislation that Pelosi and Reid could lay on his desk.

Barack Obama pushed through a stimulus plan that cost the American taxpayer $800 billion.

Barack Obama increased the 2009 budgets of several federal agencies by as much as 25%.

Barack Obama fired the CEO of an American corporation without any such authority, assumed the reins of that organization and delivered ownership rights to the UAW over the rights of GM bondholders.

Barack Obama has demonstrated a callous disregard for our Constitution and continues to violate his oath of office. He refuses to enforce immigration laws. He and his attorney general refuse to enforce election laws. He has hired multiple czars without Senate advice and consent to enact White House policy. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. The fact that Congress allows him to get away with this is a mystery we will discuss another day.

The results of his failed leadership have been an almost constant 9.9 – 10.1% Unemployment Rate. The housing market has not recovered because people are without jobs and they cannot afford to buy homes. Those already in homes are losing them to foreclosure left and right.

The value of the dollar can be seen against other world currencies. Only a few years ago, just prior to Obama’s election, the Canadian dollar could be purchased with $.84 USD. Today this purchase would require $1.00 USD. This is a loss of almost 25% of the buying power of our currency when we trade with our closest neighbor.

Obama has added more than $4 Trillion to the National Debt and he demonstrates an unwillingness to do anything to curb his appetite for spending. He pits American against American by pointing to those who have been successful and pretending to believe they haven’t paid their fair share. His attempts to make people dependent on government to enable him to buy their votes is blatant and despicable.

This list isn’t exhaustive. I saw one in an e-mail the other day that was exhaustive and it took more room than I want to devote in this article. The point is that Barack Obama has ushered in four years of calamity. The change people hoped for in 2008 has been a change like no one would have wished on their neighbors or themselves.

Look at the electoral map. What reason has Obama given any of the states that voted for John McCain to vote for him in 2012? Those states have to be regarded as safely in the hands of the Republican nominee. Thus the Republican nominee will begin with 173 votes and must get 97 more.

Let us look at some of the larger states that Obama won in 2008. Let’s look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey. Are things going so well in these states that the margin of victory won by Obama in 2008 will place these states in his corner again? I don’t believe so. Look at these results from 2008:

Indiana - 11 Electoral Votes – Obama 50, McCain 49 – Since this election Indiana has elected a Republican governor and traditionally this is a Republican state.

N Carolina – 15 Electoral Votes – Obama 50, McCain 50 – The N Carolina governor is unpopular and will likely be replaced in 2012 with a Republican. N Carolina is traditionally a Republican state.

Michigan – 17 Electoral Votes – Obama 57, McCain 41 – Since this election Michigan has experienced an exodus of its citizens leaving to find jobs in other states Michigan now has a Republican governor.

Virginia – 13 Electoral Votes – Obama 53, McCain 46 – Since this election Virginia has elected a Republican governor and legislature. Expect Virginia to go GOP.

Pennsylvania – 21 Electoral Votes – Obama 55, McCain 44 – Since this election Pennsylvanians elected a Republican governor. Expect Pennsylvania to go GOP

Ohio – 20 Electoral Votes – Obama 51, McCain 47 – Since this election Ohio has elected a Republican governor. Expect Ohio to go GOP.

Florida – 27 Electoral Votes – Obama 51, McCain 48 – Retired people and those associated with the Space Program have been hurt by Obama’s policies. Expect Florida to go GOP

Wisconsin – 10 Electoral Votes – Obama 56, McCain 42 – Wisconsin has since elected a Republican governor who is supported by the electorate and is taking control of the Wisconsin budget with positive results.

New Jersey – 15 Electoral Votes – Obama 57, McCain 42 – Since this election, New Jersey elected a Republican governor who is popular with the taxpayers of New Jersey. Expect New Jersey to go GOP.

These states will provide 149 Electoral Votes that I expect the GOP to take from Obama in 2012. The GOP candidate may not get all of these but I expect that we will get far more than the 97 McCain needed and there could be more. I have hopes for Colorado and Iowa. I even have hopes for some of the New England states but call me an optimist.

I expect a landslide election similar to 1980 which spelled the end of the Carter Administration. For this to happen we must all continue to do our part and be sure we keep people aware of the consequences of re-electing Barack Obama. Remember Keystone, the moratorium in the Gulf and the refusal to allow energy production that have driven the cost of gasoline to more than twice what it was four years ago. Remind everyone why this has happened. They will vote their pocketbooks.

After Iowa

The Patriot — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:29:07 GMT

Here we are on January 4 and finally, the long awaited Iowa caucuses are over. Michelle Bachmann has ended her campaign. I am disappointed. Rick Perry gives indications that he may pull out of the race. This does not disappoint me.

As we look forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina, who are the true contenders?

Iowa says Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the big guns right now. New Hampshire will likely give Mitt Romney an additional lift. South Carolina will likely say the opposite. The strategy for some time has been for Mitt Romney to run against multiple conservatives who will logically split the vote among each other. The elimination of Bachmann from the campaign helps the other conservatives. If Perry will withdraw, it will help even further.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum seem to be the two who will work to earn the opportunity to challenge Romney for this eventual nomination. Paul remains in the race but Paul is no more able to expand his base than is Romney. I do not believe either man is able to grow beyond a small minority of the Republican population. Magnify the differences between Romney and the remainder of the candidates and the telling argument is that Romney will likely draw no more Republican votes because of a crowd that does not regard Romney as sufficiently conservative. As a member of the Tea Party count me among those who will not support Romney in the primaries but who would find him acceptable in a general election against Barack Obama. To me, Obama is no better than Mussolini was. I understand that Mussolini at least made the trains run on time.

Paul is unlikely to gain much support beyond 20 or 25% of the Republican population because of his Libertarian policies, particularly his very dangerous foreign policy. I regard Paul as being almost as dangerous as another four years of Obama. The only difference is that I could support Paul's fiscal policies and Paul would restrict himself to remain within the confines of his Constitutional powers. I have yet to support any policy of Obama. Obama continues to ignore our Constitution in favor of expediency. One might ask why Congress allows him to get away with this but then the problem is not only Barack Obama, it is Harry Reid as well.

All indications are that Newt Gingrich may concentrate on the destruction of Mitt Romney. Some regard this as a problem. I do not. As long as Rick Santorum remains unscathed by such attacks, I worry not that Newt Gingrich might take his case against Mitt Romney to the GOP electorate.

So, who can still be nominated? I see Santorum as sitting in the best seat with Gingrich as a strong possibility as well. Something that makes this incredible is the manner in which Santorum was ignored by the media in countless debates. He had minimal exposure yet he demonstrated an ability to work Iowa and get the support he needed for a first place tie. I will look forward to future movements in other states. I expect Romney to do well in New Hampshire. This is to be expected, as New Hampshire is his back yard. I also expect Santorum and Gingrich to do well in South Carolina. We will have to assess what remains after that.

As for Huntsman, he should have dropped out weeks ago.

GOP Presidential Race

The Patriot — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:29:42 GMT

Yes, I have been missing from the battlefield for the last six weeks. I must extend my apologies to those who have enjoyed reading my blog. I will reluctantly admit that I will have future absences as well. I have taken a foreign assignment that is in a remote location without reliable Internet reception. I will return to that assignment next week. In the meantime, I think it necessary to evaluate what has happened with the GOP candidates who were in the race at the time of my November departure.

Herman Cain - I was tremendously disappointed to see Herman Cain remove himself from the race. In my opinion, this demonstrates the worst traits of American politics. It is not until someone becomes prominent that suddenly people come from the woodwork and claim the candidate committed human atrocities. The news is all too eager to concentrate on the accusations regardless of available proof or even demonstrations of something greater than he said- she said statements. It is the accusation of wrongdoing that is important, not whether there is proof that it actually occurred. There were multiple accusations, not just one. Similarly, there were multiple accusations trumpeted against William Jefferson Clinton. The only difference was that in the case of Clinton, there was evidence, there was substantiating testimony from people like Arkansas troopers and Linda Tripp but somehow the press chose not to trumpet that evidence and it wasn't until the stained blue dress was submitted that any of the evidence of Clinton's dalliances with one Monica Lewinsky were accepted as fact. Contrast this to a prominent GOP candidate who has had apparently multiple women come forward and talk about his advances and flirtations. Suddenly Herman Cain was among the most evil men in the world. He had flirted with a woman. No, we cannot have that. Suddenly Cain's message, 9 - 9 - 9 was lost forever to the remaining candidates in the GOP debates.

Newt Gingrich - From all indications, Republicans are savaging Newt Gingrich. From the beginning, Newt entered the race with a philosophy of fighting fair. It is his ideas that are resonating with the Republicans and Independents of America. All evidence remains that he is a brilliant man, entirely capable of becoming President of the United States. His personal life has included some infidelity and acts that Gingrich admits he is not proud of. Whose life doesn't include circumstances we would rather no one ever remember? I continue to regard Gingrich a viable candidate that I can easily support however I am not yet willing to endorse.

Mitt Romney - Mitt has been solid, almost stoic in his rise to 25%. Could I accept him as President of the United States? Yes. As a conservative, tea party activist, I could accept Mitt Romney. I care not about Romneycare because he supported this in Massachusetts and he recognizes Obamacare as an unauthorized intrusion against the civil liberties of all Americans. I care not about his Mormon faith. I would certainly trust the LDS Church over the church of Jeremiah Wright that swings so far to the left that they have made Communism a faith. Mitt's demonstrated leadership in the Salt Lake Olympics and his success in other business ventures indicate he would be friendly to the business world, remove onerous regulations, and return this economy to work and remove the disease that now plagues Washington D.C.

Michele Bachmann - I was sad to see that Michele Bachmann has not done well since the Iowa Straw Poll. I largely blame the entry of Rick Perry into the race for this failure to gain momentum. I regard Michele as high among the candidates I am still considering.

Rick Perry - Perry disappointed me too many times before I went on assignment and it appears he has not regained any of the strength he had when he initially entered the race. I did not like his early cheap shots against other candidates. I will not vote for Perry in the primary. Of course, I would vote for him if the choice were he or Obama.

Ron Paul - He apparently can boast of recent gains in the polls in Iowa as others like me seek a more conservative alternative to the constantly hailed front-runner, Romney. I do not regard him as a viable candidate. No matter how much I love his domestic and fiscal policies, his foreign policy would deal a crippling blow to national security. I would vote for him over Obama only because my choice would be Obama who is bad on foreign and domestic policy and worse on fiscal policy versus Paul who is bad on foreign policy but good on domestic policy and fiscal affairs.

Rick Santorum - I am pleased to see Santorum is finally showing some strength in the polls. I do not know yet that he has the horsepower to gain the nomination but I could easily support Rick Santorum.

John Huntsman - I cannot take Huntsman seriously. Any person who would endorse Cap and Trade legislation or who regards Global Warming as a legitimate science simply has no credibility with me.

As we look forward to the Iowa caucuses, I hope we can all keep our eye on the ball. Although I continue to believe that more than one of these candidates, perhaps all except Ron Paul could defeat Obama in a national election as citizens we cannot let our guards down. If you live in Iowa or one of the early primary states like New Hampshire or South Carolina, work to get just one more person to the poll who believes in conservatism. Remember, Democrats win elections the old-fashioned way, by cheating. Democrats oppose Voter Identification initiatives for one reason only; Voter ID Laws make it harder for them to cheat. ACORN did not send hundreds of its minions out in the world to create voter registration cards that would never be used. Registering the Dallas Cowboys and Donald Duck was a ruse in my opinion. When people find these kinds of names, they eliminate them as they should eliminate them from the voter rolls. However, what about Mary Smith or John Carpenter? Henry Farmer or John Doe? How many fake names that do not immediately draw the eye were hiding behind those obvious fakes that went unnoticed and then actually voted? This is my concern, this and the ability that some states still provide their citizens to cross over and vote in a party primary that is not theirs? Therefore, it is important. If you are an Iowa citizen, do not simply sit in front of the TV, watch the caucus reports, and scream how they did not get it right. If you want this to be done right, go to your caucus. Give up one evening out of 365 and be involved in this election. Involve yourself and involve a neighbor. Ask your neighbor to ask a friend and get yourself and your neighbors to the caucuses and to the polls.

Disappointment

The Patriot — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:03:49 GMT

For a time I was excited at the thought of Herman Cain becoming President. I was not encouraged because he is black but because he spent his life building a business career from nothing to CEO. I watched Greta Van Susteren interview his wife, Gloria, on November 15 and we were able to meet his family. They demonstrate a level of class that has been absent for the last three years in the White House. I have nothing against the President’s daughters but Michelle Obama on the other hand has for more than three years appeared to me as an angry and very bitter woman who disrespects the values of the majority of her fellow citizens. She is extravagant with other people’s money while in the middle of a deep recession and she is a demonstration of narcissism at its worst. Gloria Cain seems to be a wonderful, dignified woman who loves her husband and nurtures her family. The entire Cain family appears to be the opposite of the Obamas.

Despite this, upon watching the tapes of the interview of Herman Cain by the Milwaukee Journal I see no reason for Mr. Cain to continue his candidacy. Mr. Cain made two serious errors as he sought my vote. He then compounded these errors in what seemed a stressful interview as he grasped for a thought and tried to recall from memory what his position was on foreign policy subjects.

Mr. Cain struggled with whether he agreed with President Obama and his strategy related to Libya. President Obama provided support for an incursion to oust one of the world’s greatest terrorists. No person who enjoys peace can regret the loss of Qaddafi. This was not the problem. The problem was the complete lack of concern regarding whom Obama was supporting. A sound strategy would have included recognition of who the replacement for Qaddafi would be. Were we supporting the muslim brotherhood? Were we supporting al qaeda? No one knew who controlled the rebels and no American dollars should have gone to overthrow Qaddafi without knowing whom it was we were supporting. Will it be someone worse than Qaddafi? No one truly knows. That is insane. Does Herman Cain not know this?

Mr. Cain also stumbled on the issue of collective bargaining by federal employees. The answer is no. In one of his first acts as President, John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order that allowed federal employees to organize. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against federal employees organizing to bargain collectively. He is the icon of the labor movement yet Kennedy ignored his warnings. There is a conflict of interest between those unions and those who aspire for Congress. Can you imagine the price of Kleenex if the union elected the executives of Kimberley Clark?

I have defended Herman Cain from the claims of sexual harassment because I do not believe this kind of character attack is morally acceptable in the middle of a political campaign. If a woman has a problem regarding an unwanted and persistent approach by any man, she must bring that charge right away. If valid, Cain's detractors could have and should have charged Cain with harassment fourteen years ago, not today. It is far more important that a Presidential candidate be aware of both domestic and foreign issues they logically may be required to deal with during their term in office. Libya and labor unions will logically be issues that a President Cain would need to prepare for and I believe these were fair questions as posed by the Journal.

SC Debate – Foreign Policy

The Patriot — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:43:54 GMT

To some this debate may have been uneventful but candidates provided a tremendous amount of insight into their values and how they would manage the presidency if elected to that office. As I continue to follow many of these debates I am constantly reminded of the fact that all of them would be superior to the current occupant of the office but others are week by week helping me to define who I believe to be the superior choice for 2012. Moderators included Scott Pelley and Major Garrett.

Newt Gingrich provided his standard excellent performance as he once again had to explain the facts of life to the CBS moderator, Scott Pelley. The subject was Torture and the question surrounded whether President Obama had the power or the authority to target another American for assassination as he did with the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki. Pelley had called al-Awlaki a terrorist suspect and Gingrich hopefully set him straight. Al-Awlaki was not a suspect. He pointed to the fact that there was no relevant rule of law as it might pertain to an American waging war against the United States. Such a person waging war against the US has none of the civil liberties of the US. Newt also took a hard line on Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and completely satisfied me with his position on both Water Boarding and Torture. Water Boarding is not Torture.

John Huntsman disagreed with Gingrich and described Water Boarding to be torture. He also told us he would bring the troops home from Afghanistan immediately and that he would not favor challenging China on its currency manipulation.

Ron Paul also disagreed with Gingrich and he also described Water Boarding as torture. He indicated an unwillingness to use military power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Michele Bachman agreed with Newt Gingrich. She does not believe Water Boarding is Torture and she emphatically stated that she would reinstitute the method as a necessary interrogation method.

Herman Cain also agreed with Gingrich. He does not believe Water Boarding is torture. Cain was not in his element in this debate. I agree with Herman that a good President will surround himself with good people, listen to all points of view and make a decision but I believe we need more in these debates than a process. I want to also know his position and what goals he will set for the good people he will hire.

Mitt Romney seemed at home discussing foreign policy. After exhausting every peaceful method he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He was solid in his criticism of the methods China has used to compete in the world economy. At present he said, “We have a president who thinks America is just another nation.” Romney believes the opposite and would work to protect Americans and our world interests.

Rick Perry helped himself tremendously by the manner in which he referenced his failure to remember the Energy Department in the last debate. He did so with humor and self deprecation. Despite a weak answer concerning the ground situation in Afghanistan and a horrible transition he made from a conversation about the status of Afghanistan to foreign aid, his points on foreign aid were well made and this was Perry’s best debate.

Rick Santorum demanded equal time in this debate and gave good answers demonstrating his prowess in the area of foreign policy. He demonstrated strength and accuracy in his analysis of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I might also add that despite his demand, he did not get equal time.

A word about Torture: We all have our own definitions of this word and this is a problem. We cannot continue to debate the subject of Water Boarding with some considering this a method of torture and others not. There are obvious differences between Water Boarding and those methods I consider torture. My point of view is that torture involves extreme physical pain. It includes breaking of bones, breaking of skin, stretching, injuring an individual physically, so much so that often irreparable physical or mental damage is done to the victim. Water Boarding is not among these methods. While using Water Boarding as a means of enhanced interrogation the victim is merely deceived. The victim is made to believe he may drown. No permanent physical or mental damage is involved and no extreme pain or physical abuse is involved. I understand this settles nothing as far as Huntsman or Paul followers are concerned however I would also like to say the following. The President of the United States must accept responsibility for the safety of over 300 million Americans. If the President knows that an individual possesses information that might save the lives of multiple hundreds, thousands or millions of these Americans then he should not only be willing to Water Board but he should be willing to use any method, including torture to obtain that information. For the President to do anything else would be immoral. Were I President, I would not want to tell the families of millions of victims that I might have saved the lives of their loved ones but I chose instead to stand on principle and not pursue that information that might have saved those lives. So, when John Huntsman speaks of diminishing our values by torturing under any circumstance, it matters little to me whether he is including Water Boarding in that definition or not. I would expect him to get that information using any means that might be at his disposal.

Michigan Republican Debate

The Patriot — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:31:30 GMT

First let me discuss the moderators. A successful format would make them inconsequential but unfortunately this debate was not a successful debate from the perspective of the concentration of attention. I believe CNBC failed miserably. Two primary moderators, John Harwood, Maria Bartiromo, asked questions and they periodically called in reinforcements. Jim Cramer was totally obnoxious in the way he asked every question as though he could only talk at the highest level decibel and emotionally shout questions that required no such emphasis. Even the friendliest question sounded like the response to an argument. The other periodic visitors to ask questions included Steve Liesman, Rick Santelli and Sharon Epperson. I admit to having heard of Rick Santelli prior to this debate but I had no idea who the other personalities were. I didn’t find any of them particularly impressive.

Too many questions were posed as an attempt to suggest a moral answer. Would you allow this industry to fail? Would you allow student loans to be pulled out from under young men and women? Would you allow people to lose their homes? This type of leading question is unfortunate in a serious debate. No one wants to see someone lose their home or experience hard times as a result of a program ending but we have to look at this from a completely different perspective as we seek a the long term solution to the problems of this country. The solution as with all solutions will involve pain and some will feel that pain more than others. I have confidence from statements already made that even Ron Paul who accurately cites the lack of federal authority to do many of those things it currently does would transition programs out and try to cause the least pain for everyone.

Other questions are best described as cheap shots. Issues on their own will divide candidates where there is a disagreement. There is no need for the moderator to try to create that controversy. There is no need for the moderator to try to get one candidate to call another candidate a name or accuse the other candidate of “pandering” for votes. There is no need for one candidate to be asked to judge another candidate. I find this unprofessional from people I must depend upon to gain insight to the mind of each candidate.

Rick Santorum

Santorum drew one of the short straws. As usual, Santorum was asked fewer questions. He did answer most questions well but Santorum has not yet caught on. One might ask whether the reason Santorum isn’t doing any better might be because he is not being given the opportunity but one must recognize that he isn’t getting more opportunity because he isn’t doing well. The only thing that will apparently make Santorum a candidate will be if he does well in Iowa. The questions he did answer, he answered well. Most significant perhaps was his response to the call for government to help N. Dakota ramp up their energy industry to help them access and retrieve the energy located below the ground. Santorum said he would not involve government in this. Let the market work.

He also defended his position that manufacturing needs to be lured back to America by zero tax rates. More significantly perhaps was that he pointed to his level of involvement in the legislative achievements that dealt with issues now being discussed. He wrote the bill that provided for Health Savings Accounts. He reformed Welfare. He suggested block grants to states for Medicaid. The list is impressive. I don’t believe there is any doubt about it. Santorum has spent many years on the right side of economic and fiscal issues.

Michele Bachmann

I can’t help it. Beat me up for making this “sexist statement” but I do not consider it a slight to Congresswoman Bachmann for me to say she really looked great tonight. She was a definite rose among a lot of thorns on that stage. Now that I have said that let me also say that Michele Bachmann also demonstrated herself to be a strong, intelligent and able woman equal to any of the men on that stage. Can she not be that and be pleasantly attractive too?

Michele also drew a short straw and didn’t seem to get as many questions as did Romney, Cain, Perry and Gingrich. She hit the nail on the head many times despite this. Capital is fluid. When the government over- regulates and over-taxes capital will move to other more friendly markets. She emphasized the need to lower taxes, reduce the regulatory burden, repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and once again legalize American energy. She also emphasized the need to control immigration.

She accused Obama of going to “General Axelrod” for ideas of how to cure the economy when he should be going to the Job Creators of America. She wants to make the tax code more fair and one of her means of doing this would be to return everyone to the tax rolls. Every adult in this country has a responsibility to participate in financing this government. I agree.

Her comments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accurate and also to the point. Fannie and Freddie have collectively asked for another $13 billion in bailout money from the treasury yet in this environment the company is paying $13 million in bonuses to its top executives. How does one justify this from a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise)? I agree with Congresswoman Bachmann. This is not only ridiculous but in this economy it is an unconscionable slap in the face to every taxpayer. This is as Michele described crony capitalism at its worst.

In the area of healthcare Michele described how Obamacare made the cost of healthcare even more expensive. Its goal was cost containment but from the beginning she knew as did many others among us, including myself, that Obamacare adds an artificial stimulus to the market and simply will not work. Congresswoman Bachmann also called for Medical Malpractice reform. She didn’t have time to go more deeply into this but this could come in the form of tort reform, especially a loser pays rule in the court system.

When the conversation moved to China she talked of national security issues. Apparently we allowed the Chinese to dump computer chips into our market that provide potential for hurting our weapons systems. Why on earth would the DOD purchase equipment to be used in sensitive military assets from the Chinese? Perhaps of greatest significance is that our interest costs will be enough to soon finance the Chinese Army. I find this appalling and I emphatically agree with Mrs. Bachmann that we must stop the madness and stop borrowing from the Chinese. We must retire this debt as soon as practically possible.

Newt Gingrich

I really can’t say anything more about Newt than I have already said in prior columns. He is the brightest light on that stage.

His first sentence on question one about the economy was his call to fire Bernanke. He called for an audit of the Federal Reserve and he asked to see the Decision Documents for 2009 and 2010. We need to see who the Federal Reserve has bailed out, who they refused to bail out and why. He pointed to the fact that the reason for the tax policies promoted by Republicans is to get industry working again recognizing this will create a greater likelihood of someone earning a paycheck and thus cause welfare to be left behind.

In Newt’s characteristic way he once again slammed the media. At one point the moderator, Maria Bartiromo took umbrage. He asked why it is that most of the media and certainly the Wall Street Occupiers do not try to understand history. He asked the media to ask those Wall Street Occupiers the simple question, “Who will pay for this park if you cause these businesses to fail?” He pointed to Henry Ford and Bill Gates. Neither began as wealthy people but both developed ideas into huge employers and profit generators. It is because of profits and the desire for more profits that jobs are created. When the job has value a person will be hired. He emphasized that a growing economy produces both profits and jobs, something that still seemed lost on Maria Bartiromo.

Newt agreed with Romney regarding the need to allow the market to play itself out and eliminate the foreclosures. Until this happens, the housing market will not be able to recover and the values of existing homes will not rise. Newt called for the repeal of Dodd-Frank as did others this evening. It kills small banks and small businesses. Because of Dodd-Frank, banks profit more from foreclosures than they do from short sales. In direct response to the questioner as to how to save the housing market, Newt said that when jobs come back, the housing market will come back.

One moderator attempted to catch Newt in a Gotcha Moment. He pointed out that Newt was paid a sum of money by Freddie and Fannie and he was asked what he did for that money. Newt immediately responded that he was not a lobbyist. That he was hired as a historian. He gave them advice and they did the opposite.

When all the participants were asked to respond in thirty seconds as to what they would do upon repealing Obamacare, Newt told the moderator, it was Maria again, that the question itself was absurd. She was asking that he provide a response in thirty seconds as to what he would do with 18% of the country’s GDP. He pointed to his suggestion for Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Barack Obama. He suggests seven of them. As to the general answer Gingrich favors restoring the Doctor-Patient relationship. Send Medicaid back to the states with block grants. Focus on brain science and fix healthcare rather than fixing the bureaucracy.

Gingrich provided some history on Social Security. He pointed to 1968 when Lyndon Johnson put the Social Security Trust Fund into the General Fund. It was an advantage in that it hid his huge deficits. Now, more than forty years later it is no longer an advantage to have that Social Security Trust be a part of the General Fund. He wants to separate it and deal with the trust as a separate issue. The country should pay back what it has taken from this fund. I might add, with interest!

Everyone was asked what to do about the high student loan debt. Gingrich told us this began as a $15 million program by Lyndon Johnson and the unintended consequences include the likelihood that students will stay in college longer. Detachment from the immediate monetary obligation has allowed students to tolerate tuition increases they would not tolerate otherwise. He emphasized that students need to go to class, study, graduate, and emerge from college debt free. He spoke of a program that allows students to do this without incurring debt.

On the issue as to why Governor Schwarzenegger of California contracted with a Chinese firm to build a bridge, Newt asked the $64,000 question. What is it about American regulations that make it cheaper for the State of California to go to China to build a bridge than to build it here in the United States? He favors raising the pain level when the Chinese steal technology but he also admitted that no one on that stage really has yet identified the best way to do this.

Mitt Romney

One of the first questions of the evening went to Romney and it concerned the cause for a drop in the Stock Market today; Italy is in dire financial trouble. Should the US help? What can it do to avoid this impacting the US? Romney’s answer was to allow Europe to take care of its own problems. We cannot support a TARP for Europe.

While there in Michigan Romney pointed to the damage CAFÉ standards have done to the auto industry. Those in Michigan should already know but Romney reminded them anyway that government gave GM to the UAW and gave Chrysler to FIAT. What should have happened is that these companies should have proceeded normally through the bankruptcy process. We have laws that deal with these issues that the Obama Administration chose to ignore.

Romney was asked whether he would keep a CEO burdened by the charges against Herman Cain. It was a cheap shot and totally inappropriate. Romney demonstrated his poise by deflecting the question as not belonging to him.

With regard to the conflict that the CNBC moderators tried to create between profits and jobs Romney tried to teach the moderators that profits allow businesses to grow and then hire people. Obama doesn’t like business. Romney wants to see business expand and be profitable.

On China Romney said China is cheating. They are stealing intellectual property. They are manipulating their currency to hold down the price of their goods. He would label them a currency manipulator and if necessary he would apply tariffs on goods they sell us. Romney emphasized his love for free trade. Predatory pricing is no good. The strategy is to drive others out of business with the plan that at some later date when competitors are gone they will increase those prices. Currencies should be allowed to float.

Herman Cain

Herman Cain had a strong evening. His first question was about character issues and sadly about the accusations that have surrounded this last week and wasted all our time. Cain responded that the American people deserve better than someone being tried in the court of public opinion based on unfounded accusations. Cain values his character and integrity. This was a good, strong answer!

With regard to 9-9-9, Cain indicated this is more fair than the current structure. As to how this would not become 19-19-19 he responded that tax codes do not raise taxes, politicians do. People will hold their feet to the fire because all the taxes will be seen and no longer hidden within the prices of goods they purchase.

With regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Cain would privatize all GSEs. He wants to unload these two organizations to allow the market to determine the future of the housing market. Another good strong solution!

With regard to Obamacare and what Cain would do if the GOP was successful in its repeal, Cain pointed to HR3000 as already written. It allows decisions to be with the doctors and the patients.

On the question of whether the government should stop Boeing from opening its plant in South Carolina Cain emphatically said open the plant. Government has no role in this controversy.

One humorous note on overregulation was his reference to the need to repeal Dodd-Frank. The other two things wrong with Dodd-Frank are Dodd and Frank.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry failed again in this debate. His largest gaff was his failure to remember the names of all three departments he would eliminate after telling us there were three. We all have been caught in moments like this and as such I was embarrassed for him. At the same time, Perry was on a stage debating other competitors for the GOP Nomination for President.

Another of the foolish questions was asked of Perry. Do you believe businesses can be profitable and still hire people? This was probably the most ridiculous questions asked all evening. Face it, this was a stupid question. Perry’s response was, “Better be.” I really don’t know what more he could have said to anyone who would ask that kind of question.

In an attempt to have the horse push the cart Perry was asked whether a housing recovery wouldn’t create jobs. Perry said, pull back the regulations, and get people into jobs and then the demand for housing will return.

Perry had one of his more effective moments when he responded to a question via video from the CEO of Caterpillar. There is a reason why Caterpillar moved two of its divisions to Texas. It had nothing to do with their being Republicans or Democrats, job creators wanted an environment in which they would be able to keep more of what they create. But then he stepped into a hole by saying his tax plan among all those presented by candidates on that stage was the only one that would work. Then he told us he would eliminate three departments and couldn’t name all three. He did later tell us the third he could not remember was the Department of Energy and he had previously named the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce.

Perry emphasized, as all need to remember to do, that when discussing Social Security, no one currently dependent or soon to be dependent upon their entitlement would be affected. Other candidates would do well to remind themselves to always remind seniors this is true.

Ron Paul

Had I never heard Ron Paul before I would be a supporter because of this debate. He shines on economic issues and the impact of government involvement in markets. It isn’t that Paul wants to hurt people by allowing foreclosure to take their home. It is simply that he recognizes that until the government gets out of the way the market cannot correct itself by weeding the bad loans from the banks’ portfolios. The market must determine what this paper is worth, not the government.

Paul said the disease is spending. In year one he would cut $1 Trillion from five departments. He would get rid of the price fixing done on interest rates by the Federal Reserve. He pointed to M1 being up 30% and he warned of coming inflation. Love him or hate him, Paul is right.

In response to that question as to what he would do after he repealed Obamacare, Paul said he simply wanted government out of the healthcare business. Republicans have this natural propensity to replace something they don’t want with a program that addresses the same issue but in a different way. Wouldn’t it be nice if they would simply say, “Nothing, nothing at all?” At the same time Paul said he would transition Medicaid away from government and not simply allow those dependent on it today to fall.

Paul favors elimination of the Department of Education (as do I). How would he make education more affordable? Paul tried to teach the moderator something about economics. The reason these costs are so high right now is that government is involved. The current situation couldn’t do a better job of demonstrating the failure of current policy. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to loan people money. Students would pay for education the same way they pay for cell phones or computers. The price of college will decrease when government gets out.

There was another example of cheap shots from the moderators when Paul was asked whether he believed Perry was guilty of crony capitalism as governor in Texas. Paul deflected the question. I would have liked it better had he simply told the moderator that the question was inappropriate.

John Huntsman

Huntsman responded to a question regarding the structure of the economy and the belief some have that the rewards of capitalism are not shared more equally between the top one percent and the bottom ninety-nine percent. His response was that he wanted to be president of the ninety-nine percent and the one percent. He pointed to how Obama is working to divide the country and he wants to bring it together. People are tired of seeing their money go toward bailouts.

He demonstrated empathy in that candidates have lost sight of the fact that there are people who tuned into tonight’s debate who are upside down on their homes and will suffer as a result of any potential solution. He favored a means of right-sizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and removing the risk from the taxpayers and placing the risk back on the banks.

Huntsman favors repeal of Obamacare as does everyone else. He would like to address questions of cost containment with fifty governors and do a better job of harmonizing medical records and close the gap on the uninsured with affordable insurance.

With regard to the flat tax Huntsman pointed out that everyone on the stage was a theoretician but he instituted a flat tax in Utah and this makes him a practitioner.

In a last desperate gasp the moderator tried to get Huntsman to accuse Romney of pandering for votes. I do not object when controversial issues cause candidates to expose differences in opinion but I do object to a moderator who would overtly try to create controversy on their own.

All candidates get good grades for tonight’s debate. If I were to pick winners I would say Gingrich, Romney, Paul and Cain get A’s but no candidate gets less than a B. CNBC gets a D- for their part this evening.

Justice in Politics

The Patriot — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:52:41 GMT

Is Justice in Politics possible? How is it possible within the confines of America today?

How does one prove a negative? How do I prove that I was not where someone wants to place me or that I did not do that of which I am accused? When I am not in that location where I am accused of being, I do not leave evidence that I was not there.

Why are we so quick to believe the premise? Herman Cain denies having harassed this woman at this conference fourteen years ago. She has him upgrading her room. She has him with her in his car. She has him sliding his hand up her skirt and pulling her head to his crotch. The immediate question is not,”Were you in the car?" It is, "What really happened in the car?" How is Mr. Cain supposed to answer that if he was never in the car?

Premises:

There is no shortage of men who when placed in a power position would not take advantage of a woman.
There is no shortage of women who would falsely or unfairly accuse a man of dastardly deeds if scorned or if provided some advantage.

Why do we so often forget that second premise but we never fail to forget the first?

How many have warned that this political campaign was going to be dirty and ugly? The president must deflect attention from his abysmal record and the only way to do this will be through negative attacks on the candidates. If we know this, why at the first sign of mudslinging are we prepared to dismiss a candidate? If anything this proves to me that Cain has become too much of a possible competitor. Obama cannot levy charges of racism against a candidate like Cain. Cain is more of an authentic black according to the NAACP than Obama. Cain was the descendent of slaves. Cain was the son of a man burdened by the irrational hatred of Jim Crow America. Obama was neither.

This really needs to stop. How can the public assure honest elections when the media jumps on an accusation and treats it as a certain truth? I do not care that Gloria Allred has found a woman who is willing to step forward and accuse Herman Cain of assaulting her because 1) I do not trust Gloria Allred and 2) the introduction of this woman and her story is what I predicted in my earlier article on the relevance of what were once anonymous accusations. If the grievance was real, the woman should have brought charges of assault against Cain when it happened. The insertion of these comments now only serves to cloud a political campaign with a "he said - she said" barrage of charges. People, as you review all the "what if's," do not lose track of the "what if" Cain may be telling us the truth. If this is true, those of you who supported him or could have supported him before but who now may not support him are being manipulated by people whose motivations are contrary to yours. It is just as possible that Gloria Allred is trying to play you for suckers.

Too many pundits and too many citizens are prepared to write Cain off because of these charges. Why? We did not know this woman before November 7. We have no idea whether she is credible or not. We have no idea whether Cain is guilty of these charges or not. Yet, we are prepared to call Cain a cad because of the mere accusation of impropriety. Would we be as willing to call this woman a whore? Probably not. However, if not, why not? Is it not possible that she is receiving some windfall from her new celebrity status or some political payoff? Could she not be said to be whoring herself for political advantage? Yet we probably wouldn't say that would we? Despite the fact that Herman Cain heretofore has had an unblemished record and no evidence has surfaced prior to a political campaign that would impugn his character many are prepared to accept the charges this woman has levied against him as accurate.

She is only one person. There is no one person whom I know that I would allow having that much power over my political decisions. Why would I allow some woman I do not know to have this same power?

Republicans cry "foul" when Democrats manipulate the system, use ACORN to register Donald Duck and circle the wagons around candidates to protect them from legitimate questionable circumstances surrounding their own candidates. Why then do we not also circle the wagons and demand proof when charges are levied against Republican candidates? Why are we always so quick to throw a candidate under the bus for the mere presence of an allegation that is years old and for which there is no proof? We had proof about Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davies, etc. Some cried for proof of Obama's collegiate records and even his birth certificate questioning his eligibility to serve as president. In all these instances, Obama was protected. Yet, levy an unprovable and inconsequential allegation against Herman Cain and suddenly some treat him like bad meat. This is ridiculous. It is small wonder so few are willing to run for political office.

Harassment and Herman Cain

The Patriot — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:08:37 GMT

America, let’s get a grip.

Look at our priorities. Our country is nearly $15 trillion in debt; our economy has been in a deep recession for 3 years; 9.1% of us are unemployed; we have men and women of our military in harm’s way in Afghanistan; foreclosures are up; the stock market is down; oil prices are up; middle income is down; fear is up; confidence in our future is down. Then we have a president who at best is incompetent and at worst has malevolent motivations based upon racial hatred for the oppression he believes was laid upon “his people” despite the fact that his mother was white and his father was from Kenya and had no ancestors who were themselves slaves.

Relative to all these circumstances, what dominates the news this week? It is whether Herman Cain more than one dozen years ago made some woman feel “uncomfortable.” What man didn’t make some woman feel uncomfortable a dozen years ago? Men were only just beginning to understand the boundaries that were just then being set. When does a compliment become a remark that makes a woman uncomfortable? What is the difference between sexual harassment and a man simply being flirtatious? Remarks that women laughed at in 1970 were cause for complaint in 1990 but this all depended upon the woman and her regard for the man making the remark. Talk about subjectivity! Men successfully able to navigate around the waters of the hostile work environment deserve medals. Either they were extremely good looking and women found them desirable, or they were able to leave all their previously taught behavior at home and kept their remarks and in some instances, their masculinity out of the workplace.

What it all came down to ultimately was whether one individual woman might be offended. It didn’t matter who she was. It didn’t matter if the same remark that offended her had not offended fifteen others on that same day. What mattered was that one woman was offended. This ended the careers of some males and had a sad effect on the camaraderie of the workforce.

We made a mistake when we allowed this to happen. No woman should have to endure a truly hostile work environment but neither should any woman have a right to define what this means all by herself. When any woman by a mere accusation can place a man’s career in jeopardy, we have gone too far.

Is this what is now happening to Herman Cain? The circumstances are old. There are no other previously documented situations where women cried harassment against Cain, regardless of where he worked. Oh, we can expect because of the political consequences that women will now step forward but these cries must be discounted as a matter of politics. It is Herman Cain who is likely being harassed.

I don’t know the facts in this situation and because of the lack of significance of these charges when compared to those matters listed earlier, I place the fact that some woman in the last century was made to feel uncomfortable on one occasion by a man who had not reportedly made any other woman uncomfortable in his lifetime holds little consequence in the overall scheme of things.

Unless some woman can come forward with others who can corroborate her story as a witness at the time of her alleged victimhood, I have to regard it as of no consequence. To Herman Cain’s detractors I say, prove it. Prove that some woman was groped; prove that Herman Cain dropped his pants and told his subordinate to “kiss it;” prove that some woman had been raped; find a woman with a stained blue dress who had been dragged through the mud by Herman Cain’s people. Then we’ll talk, and only then. Unless this occurs, I still regard Herman Cain as viable. I haven’t made a selection yet but Cain remains among those who I highly regard as a possible candidate.

Platform Item 37: Taxpayer Funded Presidential Visits

The Patriot — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:42:38 GMT

The political party or political candidate who benefits from the president's participation shall fully fund presidential campaign visits.

Argument

Historically, every President of the United States has made campaign visits to communities to assist himself or herself or another candidate. It is always difficult to prove whether the visit to that city was a matter consistent with the President's duties as POTUS or more simply, a campaign stop.

Premises:

The POTUS deserves to travel on Air Force One with full Secret Service Protection.

The POTUS must be completely secure whenever and wherever he or she travels. The country benefits from this protection.

Solution

Every presidential visit with the public, every rally, convention, or visit with a candidate seeking state or federal office, every fundraiser (including charitable events), shall be considered a campaign visit. The US Treasury shall recover the full cost of Air Force One, other direct transportation costs, and all costs of secret service protection. This shall include all related travel expenses including advance trips by Secret Service personnel. The election campaign of the individual candidate or the President's political party shall reimburse the US Treasury for all costs incurred and enumerated herein. Money shall first be recovered from the individual campaign coffers of the candidate, including the President himself or herself. If the campaign lacks the ability to reimburse the government, the President's political party shall reimburse the Treasury. Approvals shall be made in advance. Alternatively, the President shall not attend.

If the POTUS attends a dinner those sponsoring that dinner shall be required to reimburse the US Treasury.

If the POTUS attends a State Fair, a Convention, or any other public activity, the political party of the President shall reimburse the US Treasury.

If the POTUS attends an event in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles or any other domestic venue en route to or from an international summit or state visit, the government shall prorate the cost with the President's political party. At no time shall the charge to the party be less than one day of the cost of Air Force One including normal round trip transportation using Air Force One standards to estimate the cost from Washington to that destination and back. Economies of combining trips shall accrue to the benefit of the taxpayer, not the politician.

Impact

Our current president exacerbates a continuing problem by traveling around the country to attend campaign events and push for his Jobs Bill. I can certainly make a case for his promotion of legislation as being in the normal course of business for the POTUS, however it is also apparent to even the most casual observer and supporter that Obama is pandering to crowds to gain support for his reelection. This legislation would remove the subjectivity in making such a judgment. The very fact that he is attending a public event or attending a $7,500 per plate event to raise campaign funds is evidence enough to interpret the trips as having a political purpose and to require the Democrat Party or the Campaign to Reelect the President to be responsible for all costs incurred.

Why Men Are In Trouble

The Patriot — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:00:00 GMT

Why Men Are in Trouble by William J Bennett

This Bill Bennett article is thought provoking. As I read it I thought about how the feminist movement began when I was coming of age and thank God not before. Many women asked and many others demanded things from men that caused me to scratch my head in wonder.

I searched for reasons why women began to celebrate stars like Leonardo Dicaprio, Mathew McConaughey, Johnny Depp, and Brad Pitt. These men were not masculine. They were pretty. What might a woman today see in pretty men when their prior generation was attracted to handsome, masculine men like Clark Gable, Cary Grant, John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Jimmy Stewart?

I also tried to understand why women stopped asking men to be gentlemen. I am certain I am not the only man who was sneered at by a woman for opening a door for her or for otherwise treating her like a lady. One woman demanded that I not refer to her as a lady. She insisted that I had no way of knowing whether she was a lady or not. I asked her, "Wouldn't you like the benefit of the doubt?" However, she was adamant. She considered it improper etiquette for a man to refer to a woman as a lady. Whose etiquette? Hers perhaps but not mine.

I watched as some women denigrated other women for choosing to marry and stay at home to raise children over joining the corporate world or a profession. Somehow, the existence of women who nurtured and cherished their families when they could be furthering a movement to break through the corporate glass ceiling threatened feminists.

Many women attempted to do both. They married. They had children. They had a career. Their children were raised by nannies or placed in day care. Where then was the loving hand to nurture these children as they matured? I understand not all of this was by choice, that it was sometimes a matter of circumstance. However, all women were not in the workforce as a matter of necessity. Many were there for reasons that were more selfish.

I watched as women and many authors encouraged men to get in touch with their feminine side. I have no doubt but that many young men were confused and worse, emasculated trying to be what some women wanted them to be in order to gain their favor.

I watched in awe as a television character portrayed by Candace Bergen encouraged young women to have babies without a husband. I watched her belittle the Vice President of the United States because of his clarion warning that statistically women who raise children alone were far more likely to live in poverty and destine their children for the same.

I watched as women entered relationships with men that required no commitment. Living together and worse, living together while having children with no formal commitment between the partners denied their children the security of a strong family and an emotionally secure home. The motivation appeared to be selfishness on the part of the women and as for the men; they were given the key to the candy store without any need to accept even a modicum of responsibility.

Bill Bennett's article speaks well of the outcome of all this. He speaks of boys who have not matured into men. He speaks of men who have not been taught to accept responsibility. He speaks of men who have dropped out or at the very least have been robbed of their ambition. In the end, I have to wonder what those original feminists believe they might have gained from all of this. As a man taught the virtues of life as a dominant male I have to say nothing at all of value has come from this and I am aware of many women who believe this as well.

Platform Item 36: The Employee Rights Act

The Patriot — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:11:46 GMT

The Tea Party supports the Employee Rights Act as authored by Senator Orrin Hatch and Representative Tim Scott.

Argument

The Employee Rights Act

Orrin Hatch

Note: Co-authored by Rep. Tim Scott

America's laws have long recognized the need to protect workers from abuse. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which ensured that employees would have the right join a union or to refrain from doing so -- free of harassment or intimidation.

Full article...

CNN Republican Debate

The Patriot — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:13:08 GMT

What happened to the Reagan 11th Commandment? Republicans went after each other tonight with inappropriate or dishonest charges. A few spoke over the top of their opponent when it was not their turn to speak and demonstrated a rudeness not before seen in these Republican debates.

I am disappointed. If Rick Santorum wishes to ask Mitt Romney a question then he owes Romney the opportunity to answer. The same was true of Rick Perry. He levied a charge against Romney about his having employed an illegal immigrant and spoke over the top of Romney when he tried to explain those circumstances. It was boorish. It was not becoming of anyone engaged in any debate and it colored my attitude further about a few of these candidates.

It has long been known that Mitt Romney hired a lawn service. That lawn service hired illegal immigrants. When the Boston Globe disclosed that some employees were illegal, Romney contacted the lawn service and told them he would not allow this. The service dismissed those workers. Later, another illegal immigrant falsified documents and his lawn service did not know they had hired an illegal immigrant. Again, the man was dismissed. How could Perry levy a charge against Romney like this for a matter so benign? Has politics succumbed to a flurry of gotcha moments? Are there no more important issues to discuss than Romney's lawn service? Is it improper to expect that Rick Santorum behave himself with a certain amount of decorum when participating in these debates?

Who won the debate? It certainly was not me except I did get to see another side of a few candidates that was not impressive. Candidates, the way to elevate yourself is not to destroy those above you in the polls. Your economic arguments support the belief that you do not pull yourself up by dragging someone else down. You do not make yourself rich by making a rich man poor. How is this any different? If you want my vote, you will earn it by demonstrating that you offer something beyond your opponent, not by attempting to destroy your opponent. That opponent, no matter how disconcerting it may be to you, could well be our candidate and all you have done is to arm everyone's opponent, Barack Obama, with sound bites that he will use in the national election. Knock it off!!!!!

Some did impress me. Despite the fact that Romney is not as conservative as I might like, he continues to impress. He aptly defended himself tonight against the unfairness of Santorum and Perry. He has made it clear that he will work to repeal Obamacare. Opponents, find something new. We understand the issues surrounding Massachusetts and the other 49 states. Give it a rest. Tell us something new about yourself instead of something old about Romney.

Michele Bachmann was impressive tonight. She blended some humor into her introduction by stating that in this case, what happens in Vegas will not stay in Vegas. She was clear, articulate and her position on the change in tax laws proposed by Herman Cain was a criticism of the policy not a criticism of Herman Cain. Michele also made an impassioned statement to women affected by the Obama economy by asking them to hold on, to do everything they can to hold onto their homes and that help was coming in 2013.

Newt Gingrich expressed reservations about 9-9-9 but he did so reasonably. He praised Herman Cain for his boldness in putting forth the effort to introduce a brand new idea. Newt was concerned whether anything so radical could be done quickly. He prefers a focused effort to eliminate many regulations and improve the existing tax code. I also liked the way Newt responded to a question about the Latino Community and whether the Republican position on illegal immigration did not adversely affect that voting bloc. Newt explained very well the need we have as a nation to respond to different races and ethnicities with a vibrant economy that will provide opportunity to all. He disfavors programs that help specific groups and as a result penalize others. I agree.

Newt also took a swipe at the super committee in the Congress and described them as responding to a dysfunctional model. A committee of individuals trying to hit an arbitrary budget target should not adversely affect our national security.

Ron Paul scored points when he spoke to this same issue. He spoke of the Constitutional protections for individuals, not groups. In a later comment he defended his position by stating that rights do not come in bunches. They belong to individuals. He is right. Unfortunately, Paul also made a statement late in the debate about the residents of Guantanamo. He railed against their being considered terrorists because none has been convicted of anything. I am sorry Ron Paul but if you were on the battlefield fighting American soldiers on behalf of Al Qaeda you do not belong in our nation's court system. You have no right to a jury trial to determine your guilt or association as a terrorist. You are an enemy of our government and because of your association with the terrorist enemy we are fighting; you are fairly assumed a terrorist yourself.

Herman Cain acquitted himself well once again. He stayed out of the shouting match that consumed Perry, Romney, and Santorum. This was easier for him as the critics of 9-9-9 were critical of a policy. They were not declaring Herman to be a hypocrite nor trying to catch him in a gotcha moment. His response regarding protesters in Occupy Wall Street demonstrations was excellent. They are protesting the wrong people. Wall Street did not spend a trillion dollars without positive effect. Government forced the banks to make bad loans. The Government forced TARP. It was not Wall Street. Their demonstrations need to be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Rick Santorum spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in our election. We should be concerned with the candidate's values. Does the candidate possess a faith that Newt described as at the core of their judgment? Santorum redeemed himself by pointing to his Catholicism as being different from Romney or Perry's religion. The manner in which a person exercises their faith is personal and should not be a part of any campaign.

Perry was limited in his statement concerning the Reverend Jeffers who had made the offensive statement about Romney's religion at a Perry campaign event. He does not agree with the Reverend. However, he was bellicose when he described his conservatism as genuine and encouraged voters to judge Romney by his past. He called Romney a failure as Governor of Massachusetts. Romney then nailed Perry as the former campaign manager for Al Gore in the State of Texas. If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword, Governor Perry. Perry was also rude to Anderson Cooper, the moderator when he told Cooper that he has to ask the questions and "I get to answer as I want to." I found Perry's tactics to be over the top, to resemble bullying and to be nonpresidential.

Newt summed it all up in the end by stating that formats designed to maximize bickering are not helpful. If nominated Gingrich would challenge Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. I would love to see those debates and I have no doubt, who would win going away. Gingrich is certainly the brightest star on that stage whether he ultimately proves to be my choice or not. Week after week, he brings reason, humor, and analysis in a way unmatched by the other candidates.

Any of them would make a better President than Barack Obama.