If you’re not with us, you’re against us

As I’ve been scanning the world of conservatives on Twitter and seeing things pop up on facebook, there have been some disturbing things coming from people who claim to stand firm in their conservative values. All over I have been hearing people say things to the effect of, “Well, Romney isn’t conservative enough so I’m not going to vote for anyone this election.” That statement is almost as insulting and absurd as saying that we could fix our energy problems by keeping our car tires properly inflated. There is so much more at stake.

I have done my best to explain to people that not supporting Romney automatically equates to support for Obama. I have seen this pop up so much that I can’t address everyone, so here I am stepping up to my soap box.

Here is an exchange I had on twitter recently:

@RaisedOnReagan: The @GOP will continue to shove #RINOs like @MittRomney down our throats until Conservatives stand & say “no more”. Well, no more!#noMitt

@PPLvI: @RaisedOnReagan at this point if you don’t support #Romney, you support #Obama. It’s as simple as that.

@PPLvI: @RaisedOnReagan #noMitt = #yesBarack

@RaisedonReagan: @PPLvI Saying no to Mitt does NOT equal yes to Obama, & I refuse to debase my beliefs by voting for either.

I understand this user’s frustration. The candidate that he thought was best for the country was not chosen by the people and so he finds excuses for it and passes blame. I know how that feels because four years ago I felt the same way as people didn’t catch the vision of Romney as I thought they should. Now I’m happy because the candidate I support is also the candidate that has more support than any other; Romney is even polling above Obama these days. But there comes a time when you have to put your personal pride behind you and vote for the guy that is going to do the most good for the country, even if you feel he is simply the lesser of two evils.

Four years ago, I didn’t like McCain all that much but I knew that things would be better with him than Obama, so I supported him. Me sitting on my hands and complaining about how nobody seems to see the world quite like I do wasn’t helping anyone. Trying to convince people that Romney was best all along, even after McCain was selected to be the nominee would have only hurt McCain and would have gotten me no where. Four years from now if you want to be able to look back and say, “I told you so,” that’s fine. But you don’t have to sabotage the current candidate to do it.

First off, Romney will be the Republican nominee. If you don’t believe that then we have more serious problems than I thought. Second, the race between Romney and Obama in the Fall is not going to be an easy one. Obama has the home field advantage as the incumbent so Romney is already fighting an uphill battle. What is going to help the least is people taking some ideological stand in protest of “the establishment.” Because, I hate to break it to you, but we live in a two party system. As long as the American political system remains winner-take-all in nature, there can only be two major parties. There aren’t many “laws” in political science, but that’s one of them.

Obama represents one of those parties, Romney the other. You may not like either candidate; that’s fine, you are entitled to your opinion and vetting our candidates is a part of the process. But to say that you simply won’t participate is damaging to your party. In this case, if you are a republican and choosing to protest and not vote for Romney, then you are giving that much more of an edge to the Obama campaign. By choosing to not support Romney, you are making it that much easier for Obama to win. If you are okay with that, if you can sleep well knowing that you contributed to the success of the Obama campaign, then fine, continue your protest and sit at home grumbling. But in general, all republicans, regardless of how they feel about Romney, agree that four more years with Obama is the worst thing for the country right now. And if you want your republican choice to run as an independent then you are effectively handing over the election to Obama, and that’s just the way it is.

So, leave your Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, or Cain bumper stickers on your car if you want, but leave room on your lawn for a Romney sign because if you don’t then you are just as responsible for Obama’s reelection as the people who actually voted for him.

“But I’m sick and tired of the republican establishment picking my candidate!” you may say. First, the establishment didn’t pick your candidate. The millions of intelligent people who voted for Romney over your guy in the primaries did. So if you’re still bent out of shape, write nasty letters to the GOP, register as an independent, leave the party if you want, but don’t make the country suffer for four more years of Obama’s failed leadership because you want to prove a point. It’s not worth it. These are our futures and our children’s futures that you are gambling with.

So swallow your pride, think of the children, do your civic duty and vote for the candidate that will put us in a better place in the four years ahead of us. Because if you don’t, someone else will.

A Better America Begins Tonight

Video

This speech came as Mitt Romney swept 5 state primaries on April 24. Though it has been clear for a couple of weeks now, this speech marks Romney’s commencement of the General Election against Barack H. Obama.

I sat in awe as and even smiled to myself as I listened to this speech. I just look at Mitt Romney and can’t help but think, “Wow, this guy can actually do it. He can become the President of the United States and put us back on course to prosperity.” And I think he will. Romney makes a great point when he mentions that Obama doesn’t really have a record to run off of. Are you better off than you were 3 years ago? What has that extra 6 trillion in debt done for you? Romney get’s it. Romney understands the economy. He understands what the American dream truly is and he’s bringing it back to us.

The next few months are not going to be pretty. You can count on mud being thrown by both sides until election day in November. People are going to say things they regret. Candidates will be o so delicately placing their foot in their mouths on multiple occasions. It’s going to get messy. But I firmly believe that Romney will come out on top. He has the winning message and Obama has the failing record.

The general election begins tonight but more importantly, “A Better America Begins Tonight”

Campaigner in Chief

Video

This president has had more than enough time to turn things around. It’s time that we recognize that our country’s current situation is not a result of anything but failed leadership from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mitt Romney doesn’t make excuses but solutions. You want to fix the economy, elect someone who has been there, not someone who has spent their life in politics. We need a Commander in Chief, not a Campaigner in Chief.

Politics Explained: Taxing the Rich

President Obama has been travelling around recently pushing what he has called the Buffett Rule on taxes. This basically is a call to raise taxes on the rich. The name comes from billionaire Warren Buffett who himself thinks it is unfair that he is paying at a lower tax rate than his secretary (though no doubt he is paying exponentially more in total). Obama just latches on to this rhetoric like ant to a sugar encrusted stain on your counter.

Obama will be running a campaign on the issue of economic equality. He feels that the wealth gap is widening and he wants to level the playing field by penalizing the rich (this is labeled by conservatives as class warfare). These sound like good things. I mean, who doesn’t want the poor to be more successful? Who wouldn’t like some more free stuff from the government? And if you want more free stuff, then by all means vote for Obama. But let me tell you, that free stuff comes with a price, and that price is economic hardship for all.

In his most recent State of the Union Address, President Obama called for taxes to be raised to at least 30% on all those who make more than one-million dollars a year. This is part of a campaign to end the Bush Era Tax Cuts. Currently, depending on how the money is acquired, millionaires are paying anywhere as low as 14% to around that 30% in taxes. Obama wants to raise that so every millionaire is paying 30%. But they can afford it right? I mean these guys are filthy rich right? Why not give up some of their money to help us? Why can’t they just be willing to make a little more of a sacrifice which even isn’t that bad in order to benefit the country? Why? Because more money to the government means more money wasted.

Money wasted? What are you talking about? Obama has done good things with our tax dollars!…Umm…consider this. Take a look at this chart:

Politics Explained: The National Debt

I know this image is small, but this is showing just how much money has been added to the national debt by our dear Barack Obama. We were not in good shape when Obama took office and then we were only at $9 trillion. Can you fathom the significance of what was just said. If you told someone 4 years ago, “At least we are only $9 trillion in debt” they would think you’ve gone mad! But now look. In less than one term as president, Barack Obama has close to doubled the national debt. Doubled! But it was worth it, you say. Really? What has Obama done with this six plus trillion dollars? Are your streets paved with gold? Cause mine sure aren’t. Fine, enough with the facetiousness, but what about the economy? Sure the unemployment rate is dropping but here’s a little fact the White House won’t tell you. They stop counting people in the unemployment numbers when they stop looking for work. They don’t count people who have given up because it’s simply too difficult to find a job. Okay, I know some people reading this are going crazy now. Fine, I’ll give it to you that the raw number of jobs has slightly increased as of late. But after 3 years and $7  trillion I would sure hope so! The argument here isn’t that government spending can’t have a positive impact on the economy. The argument here is that government spending is inefficient and money in the hands of individuals would be far better than in the hands of politicians looking to give hand outs.

Let’s think about this. Say we take a wealthy man who makes, let’s say $10 million a year. Okay so this guy is pretty loaded. He’s no Donald Trump, but this guy doesn’t really want for anything. According to Obama’s new plan, this man would pay $3 million in taxes! But now let’s think. What is the government going to do with this $3 million dollars? Well, if it’s anything like the $7 trillion it’s already had to borrow, it’s not going to do much. [Side note: Keep in mind that the national deficit number does not show how much money is spent, just the amount of money borrowed to keep spending. So it spends every penny of your tax dollars PLUS $7 trillion more]. That money would probably go to funding some socialized health care bill, or go to support some green energy plant that goes bankrupt like the rest, or on a less cynical note, maybe it goes to creating another branch of a government agency, thus creating more jobs. Well that’s good right? More jobs? In this case no, because what are people producing in these government agencies? What goes on there that stimulates the economy. Short of providing a pay check, absolutely nothing.

Now let’s continue our hypothetical and look at our millionaire. What could he do with that $3 million? Well he could put it directly into the economy. First off, if this guy is making lots of money, it is likely that he owns some sort of company. With $3 million, he could expand his business, open up new branches in new places. Do you know who then runs those new branches? New employees! And what are they doing? Well a lot more than wrapping us up in red tape at the DMV. They are coming up with some sort of product or service that people want and will pay for. People get their product or service, new employees get a nice pay check, rich man gets even more rich! Wait a minute, why do we care about the rich guy getting more rich? Because then he can go and spend it! You know all of those specialty products that are made by small business but are too expensive to buy? You know, those like gourmet cheese, or engraved crystal glass ware, or strawberries dipped in 50 types of chocolate. Well, rich people buy that stuff. But why do I care if the rich people can eat weird looking cheese?! Because when they buy it, the small business owner who makes it gets money, then small business owners can become big business owners and guess what, open a new store and hire new people. Do you see the cycle here?

So next time Obama cites Warren Buffett’s poor secretary (and believe me he will) think about this. Instead of raising the taxes on the rich, let’s cut useless government spending and lower taxes on everyone. Let’s put money in the hands of the people, not the government.

Mitt Romney, in a Wisconsin campaign speech said, “The Declaration of Independence guarentees the pursuit of happiness, not the outcome… this is a land of opportunities, [not handouts]” You would be amazed what things we could accomplish if we didn’t have the government trying to dictate our lives.

For more politics explained on this issue, see an earlier blog post called The Specter of Success.” Also, for more information presented in plain, clear English, be sure to “like” our Facebook page by clicking this convenient link. You can also follow me on Twitter @PPLvI.

Politics Explained: Obama’s Absurd View on Judicial Activism

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is always engaged in setting important precedent that shapes our judicial system and in preserving the integrity of the Constitution – or so we hope. In comparison to the number of cases that the Supreme Court chooses to take, it is rare that it gets more than passing mention in the media. When the highest court in the land does get as much media attention as it’s getting, you know that something important is going on.

Last week, oral arguments were heard before the court in the case National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, or more commonly known as the case against Obamacare. The main issue in this case, though there are a few, is the idea of an individual mandate and the governments ability to regulate health care. Basically, is it within the power of the national government to force people to either buy government regulated health insurance or pay a fine.

Though we may not get a final decision for months from the Supreme Court, many political commentators have pointed out the likelihood that the individual mandate will be deemed unconstitutional. The real question in everyone’s mind is that if the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional, will that be enough for the Supreme Court to overturn the entire 2,700 page bill or do they also need to make a ruling against the government regulation of health care. This is where it gets tricky. But anyway, that’s just the background. This is not meant to be an analysis of the case itself but peoples’ reactions to it, especially that of our President.

Earlier today, President Obama made this statement. Quoting from an article from USA Today:

“In his first comments on the court’s historic oral arguments last week, Obama said a decision to reverse the actions of Congress would be “judicial activism,” which conservatives usually oppose.

‘I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ the president said.”

I’ve read that quote a dozen times and it astonishes me more and more each time. President Obama was even a self proclaimed professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (self proclaimed because he was technically just a “Senior Lecturer”). Of all people, he should know what constitutes judicial activism, and this outcome would not fall under that classification. Judicial activism refers to judges letting personal politics affect their decisions and even legislating from the bench. As seen from his absurd comment, Obama feels that overturning any part of Obamacare would be unconstitutional because it was voted upon by the congress. There are many things wrong with that statement. I’ll try to briefly sum up my main points.

Of all people, a senior lecturer of constitutional law at such a well respected law school should understand the principle of separation of powers. There’s a reason why the judicial branch is separated from the other two branches, and not subject to election. It is so that they don’t have to worry about being pushed around by sly Chicago politicians as was the case earlier today. Their whole purpose on the Supreme Court is to keep the legislative and executive branches from passing things like this that erode our constitutional liberties. To top it off, to call such an action “unprecedented” is simply laughable.

Now, there are cases in which, by overturning a law, the Supreme Court is practicing judicial activism. These are the cases in which the law for all intents and purposes is constitutional but the court decides to “interpret” the constitution in such a way that they create a whole new precedent. This could not be further from the truth in this case. To suggest that somehow, by overturning this particular law, the judicial branch would be overstepping their bounds is completely absurd and even embarrassing to hear from our country’s executive leader.

Then why make this unfounded comment? Because Obama wants to make this political. He’s scared that his claim to infamy will be thrown out and then he will have to explain his way around this come the Fall when the general election is in full swing. He hopes that if he can perpetuate the idea now that the justices are a bunch of rouge activists out to get him, then the public will look past that the authorities in the land on the constitution have deemed his precious legislation unconstitutional.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) summed this all up quite nicely when he said, “It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist,’ ”

But the truth is, when he was inaugurated, the President swore to uphold the constitution and he has made more attempts since F.D.R. to rip it to shreds for his own political gain. It’s time for this to come to an end.