Category Archives: Political

I Am A Conservative


Let me begin by saying that, as a conservative, I simply can not vote for any candidate on the national democratic ticket. Period. There was a time when there was such a thing as a “conservative democrat”, but there is no such animal today. The party that brought us John F. Kennedy has changed dramatically, and were he alive today, I do not believe there would be a place for President Kennedy in the democratic party. Therefore, I have no real choice but to vote republican, and regardless of who the eventual republican nominee for president of the United States in 2016 is, that person will get my vote. I simply cannot, in good conscience, cast a ballot for the party that supports partial birth abortions, nor can I simply refuse to vote. So I vote republican, and this time around, for the first time in a very long time, I actually have a candidate who is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. That candidate is Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz went to Washington, not to “make deals’, but to change it. He has fought not only liberal democrats, but members in his own party. I hear people say that makes him the wrong person to be president. That if he can’t work with others, he won’t be able to get things done. Personally, I call what he’s done standing up for one’s principles, and I greatly admire that, but let me ask you this: has President Obama “worked with others”? Has President Obama “reached across the aisle” and made any concessions or compromises with the republicans? I doubt there is anyone who could make a strong argument that he has worked too often with republicans, if ever at all. “Making Deals” has gotten republicans NOTHING with President Obama. “Making Deals” with people who give you nothing but ask you to give in to them isn’t compromising, it’s capitulation. So, we have a president, who, for eight years, hasn’t “made deals”, yet he has gotten a lot done. Indeed, sadly, President Obama has gotten a lot of things done:

  • The Affordable Healthcare Act
  • Complete troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, destabilizing the region and helping contribute to the rise of ISIS control
  • Obama Administration used IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens
  • Obama knowingly lied to Congress and the American people about the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
  • Iran Nuclear Deal
  • President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine the Second Amendment rights of US Citizens, including amending the ObamaCare law to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun, thus allowing the federal government to track and monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.

These are just a sampling of some of President Obama’s so called “accomplishments”. For the past eight years, our country has been traveling down a far left path, and to get us back on the right path, we need a conservative president. We don’t only need a president to stop the damage done by eight years of a far left, liberal progressive, we need someone to UNDO that damage. We need a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. Ted Cruz stands and fights for the following:

  • Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Americans
  • Restoring the Constitution as our governing standard, rolling back the federal government to the functions the Constitution sets out, and giving power back to the states and the people
  • Restoring border security and enforcing immigration laws
  • Restoring American leadership in the world, by, among other things, rebuilding our military, defeating ISIS, and voiding the current Iranian Nuclear Deal
  • Standing alongside Israel once again
  • Defending the rights of religious liberty

Ted Cruz has taken a consistently conservative stance on just about every issue. Take a look at his Presidential Profile on Conservative Review. He is rated 97% by Conservative Review for his voting record as a U.S. Senator. There really is no refuting that he is, in fact, a true conservative candidate. He is, and he is precisely what the republican party, and this country, needs.

The republican party has tried to win elections in the past with centrist candidates, like Sen. Dole, Sen. McCain, and Gov Romney. It failed. It not only failed, but failed miserably. The last republican president was a moderate conservative, G.W. Bush, who was billed as a conservative. Centrist candidates are a bust. It’s time the republican party realizes this. Ronald Reagan was a conservative, and has gone down in history as one of our greatest presidents. We need another conservative. Ted Cruz is that conservative, and that is why he is my first choice for the Republican Party Presidential Candidate for 2016. But hey, I’m just a cop.


Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

They Really Just Don’t Get It

sandersberniegetty3 (1)

It’s really difficult for me to believe that people can be just so ignorant. This from The Hill:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his claim that climate change will lead to terrorism by destabilizing regions affected by droughts, floods, and other natural disasters.

“The reason is pretty obvious: If we are going to see an increase in drought and flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources,” Sanders said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrants of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflict,” he added.

The Democratic presidential hopeful raised eyebrows when he made the claim at the second Democratic primary debate on Saturday.

The self-proclaimed Democratic socialist said on Sunday that the attack on Paris is an early example of this phenomenon playing out.

“Well what happens in, say, Syria… is that when you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities,” Sanders said.

“And when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now,” he added.

“So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”


He also blamed the invasion of Iraq.

No Mr. Sanders, it’s not climate change. It’s not the invasion of Iraq. It’s because Islamic terrorists hate us. They hate us because they follow a warped ideology that is hell bent on destroying us. The solution is not to try and understand them. The solution is not to try and aid them. The solution, the ONLY SOLUTION, is to destroy them. Until people like you comprehend this, they will flourish.

Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.


Facebooktwitterby feather

43 Million Gas Station


USA Today reports:

U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for a $43 million natural-gas filling station in Afghanistan, a boondoggle that should have cost $500,000 and has virtually no value to average Afghans, the government watchdog for reconstruction in Afghanistan announced Monday.

Will anyone be held accountable? Probably not. The least, the very least, that we as American taxpayers should expect is that our tax money be spent for useful things. We don’t, and so it will continue.

Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

Third Republican Debate: My Person Take


I enjoyed last night’s debate. I thought that CNBC did a better job than CNN with the Republicans, but I still think Anderson Cooper was the best moderator in any debate in this election cycle to date. While the moderators last evening didn’t ask many questions of the candidates that lead them to attack each other (it was done), the questions they asked were just ridiculous. It all started with “What is your biggest weakness?”, which is just a moronic question in my opinion. It didn’t end there however.

  1. HARWOOD: Mr. Trump, you’ve done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build a wall and make another country pay for it.  Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. And make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others. Let’s be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?
  2. HARWOOD (to Governor Kasich) : I’m about to ask you about this.
    That is, you had some very strong words to say yesterday about what’s happening in your party and what you’re hearing from the two gentlemen we’ve just heard from. Would you repeat it?
  3. HARWOOD (to Governor Kasich): Well, let’s just get more pointed about it. You said yesterday that you were hearing proposals that were just crazy from your colleagues.
    Who were you talking about?
  4. QUICK: Senator Rubio, you yourself have said that you’ve had issues. You have a lack of bookkeeping skills. You accidentally inter-mingled campaign money with your personal money. You faced (ph) foreclosure on a second home that you bought. And just last year, you liquidated a $68,000 retirement fund. That’s something that cost you thousands of dollars in taxes and penalties.
    In terms of all of that, it raises the question whether you have the maturity and wisdom to lead this $17 trillion economy. What do you say?
  5. QUINTANILLA: Governor Bush, daily fantasy sports has become a phenomenon in this country, will award billions of dollars in prize money this year. But to play you have to assess your odds, put money at risk, wait for an outcome that’s out of your control. Isn’t that the definition of gambling, and should the Federal Government treat it as such?

These are just some of the questions that I believe, more or less, tried to paint them poorly, rather than get them to give their positions. Question one, really? A moderator calling Mr. Trump a “comic book version”? Question two, getting one candidate to attack others. Question three, again, trying to get one candidate to attack other candidates. Question four, again, really? You are questioning a candidate on why he liquidated a personal retirement fund? I’m sorry, I find these questions to be out of line, but as Senator Cruz and Rubio pointed out, it’s all about mainstream media carrying water for the Democratic party. Question five, speaks for itself, and Govenor Christi said it best: “Carl, are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football? We have — wait a second, we have $19 trillion in debt. We have people out of work. We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us. And we’re talking about fantasy football? Can we stop?” Let me move on to how I personally think the candidates did.

In my opinion, I think that Senator Rubio had the best performance last night, followed closely by Senator Cruz. I reluctantly give third place to Governor Christi, with Ben Carson finishing a close fourth.

I think Senator Marco Rubio stood out as being bright, articulate, and well versed. I like his optimistic view of the country. I thought he hit a home run when he said Bob Graham, a Democrat, missed over 30 percent of his votes, John Kerry missed close to 60 to 70 percent of his votes. Barack Obama missed 60 or 70 percent of his votes, and yet the paper that criticized him didn’t criticize any of those other candidates. He said “So this is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservative movement.”, and I believe he was absolutely correct. He hit another home run in my opinion, when defended himself against Jeb Bush by saying “The only reason why you’re doing it now is because we’re running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.” Bush looked like a fool.

Senator Ted Cruz, my personal favorite, also had a very strong performance last night. His comment about his tax plan, of which  said, “These changes to the tax code would increase the incentives to work and invest and would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, leading to higher incomes for taxpayers at all income levels.” They also gave another explanation here It was music to my ears. His comment that “This is not a cage match” explaining how the moderators attacked Republicans was brilliant and spot on. When he said about the Democrat debate, “That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.”, I cheered. He was right.

Governor Christi is not a favorite candidate of mine, which why I said I “reluctantly” give him third place. But he earned it. He did well last night in my view. He didn’t attack his fellow candidates, looked straight into the camera, talking directly to the camera, and his comment showing how ridiculous the questions were when he commented on the fantasy football mimicked what I am sure most people watching the debate were thinking.

Dr. Ben Carson is a brilliant, soft spoken, and decent man. He showed that again last night. His continual insistence on refusing to attack his fellow candidates also demonstrates this. He is passionate about what he believes, and not afraid to speak his true beliefs. I respect that. He really is, in my opinion, the most “unpolitician-like” candidate I’ve ever seen. He comes across as genuine, calm, and resolute. All traits I admire about him. He is the current front runner, and all he needed to do last night was not make mistakes. He accomplished that in my view.

Now, all the rest:

  • Mr. Donald Trump – I thought he handled the comic book reference very well, without going overboard in his retaliation. Perhaps he’s learning how to be more civil. Overall, I am not a big fan of a few of his positions, and generally speaking, I find him extremely Un-Presidential. He lacks charm.
  • Governor Jeb Bush – Had a horrible showing last night, and his attacking of Marco Rubio was just in very poor form. He tossed a soft ball to Rubio, and Rubio hit it out of the park: he is floundering in the polls, and he’s getting desperate.
  • Governor Mike Huckabee – Seems like a very decent man, and had some good things to say last night, but I just don’t see him moving up in the polls.
  • Mrs. Carly Fiorina – Had a strong showing in the second debate, but I don’t think she shined last night. She comes across as a little pushy to me. No where near as pushy as Trump, but many times she just starts speaking when not addressed. She did speak well, and is well spoken.
  • Senator Rand Paul – I think Rand Paul is probably brilliant, and probably has a lot of good ideas. Unfortunately, I think when speaks, people just don’t understand what is saying, hence he makes no connection with most voters. He has a very loyal following of people who do get him, but I don’t see him moving up in the polls.
  • Governor John Kasich – I didn’t like him attacking his fellow Republicans. He seems like a career politician, who seems desperate to show everyone what he has done. While he doesn’t come across as arrogant to me, like Mr. Trump, I don’t like his style.

Senator Cruz, more or less, summed up my opinion perfectly last night, when he said, “The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense than every participant in the Democratic debate.” But hey, I’m just a cop.

Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

Let’s See If CNBC Pits Republican Against Republican, As CNN Did


Third Republican Debate Tonight, 8PM EST, on CNBC

CNN asked questions designed to lead the Republican into attacking one another, like these:

  • Asked Mrs. Fiorina, Would you feel comfortable with Donald trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?
  • Governor Bush, would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?
  • Senator Cruz, Governor Kasich says that anyone who is promising to rip up the Iran deal on day one, as you have promised to do, is, quote, “inexperienced,” and, quote, “playing to a crowd.” Respond to Governor Kasich, please.
  • Asked Governor Kasich, Did Senator Cruz just play to the crowd?
  • Asked Senator Paul, Governor Walker says that President Obama should cancel the state dinner because of China’s currency manipulation, and because of China’s alleged cyber attacks against the United States.Is Governor Walker right?
  • Governor Walker, Senator Paul seemed to suggest…that canceling the state dinner would be rash, and reckless.

And on and on and on. It went on for three hours. Then, of course, for the Democratic debate on the same channel, CNN, Anderson Cooper said, “I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off.” It was fine for CNN’s Jake Tapper to do precisely just that for the Republicans, but for the Democrats, nah.

Can’t wait to see what the questions are like this evening.

Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

Carson Takes Lead In Polls


According o today’s  New York Times:

Ben Carson has taken a narrow lead nationally in the Republican presidential campaign, dislodging Donald J. Trump from the top spot for the first time in months, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey released on Tuesday.

Mr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is the choice of 26 percent of Republican primary voters, the poll found, while Mr. Trump now wins support from 22 percent, although the difference lies within the margin of sampling error.

The survey is the first time that Mr. Trump has not led all candidates since The Times and CBS News began measuring presidential preferences at the end of July.

Discuss in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

‘Make Sure That the Person Who Made That Film Is Arrested and Prosecuted.’


From National Review:

“Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, said Clinton told him when his son’s body returned to Andrews Air Force Base, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

It was not until September 21 that Hillary Clinton uses the words “terrorist attack” to refer to Benghazi. So for the first ten days after the attack, we have a series of private comments from Hillary Clinton sounding quite emphatic that this was a terror attack, and then a series of public comments that blame it on an angry mob reacting to a video.”

Discuss in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

How Is Hillary Clinton Still a Viable Candidate For Some People?


From the Wall Street Journal:

“About two months of emails from the start of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state are missing, and federal officials haven’t been able to recover them.

An archive of records that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential front-runner, turned over to the State Department doesn’t begin until March 18, 2009, though she took office as secretary of state in late January of that year. The missing emails raise more questions about her stewardship of official documents during her tenure and whether there is a complete record of the early diplomatic efforts of President Barack Obama’s administration.”

Yet, when I converse with supports of Mrs Clinton, they simply just don’t care. Not only do they not seem to care, many are convinced that it’s “all a vast right wing conspiracy”. I am truly befuddled by this.

Discuss this in the forums by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterby feather

Netanyahu Speaks, People Cry Foul! State Department Meets With Muslim Brotherhood, Lies About It: Silence.

NetanyahuBoehnerOThe hypocrisy of the left is almost unbearable. Everyone who screams about the “inappropriateness” of  Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking before Congress, appears to have no problem overlooking the fact that the Obama State Department met with the Muslim Brotherhood, and then mislead reporters about the meeting.

State Dept. Misled Reporters About Meeting with Muslim Brotherhood

Discuss this post in the forums.

Facebooktwitterby feather

Net Neutrality: Passed By The Unaccountable Bureaucrats Of A Lame Duck President

Let me tell you this. Yesterday, the FCC voted to enact “Net Neutrality”. It is really a case of snake oil sold to the American people under the guise of “fairness”. In reality, it’s very far from that. The following article is an excellent take on what net neutrality is really about.

Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class

A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are?

It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.

All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.

This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to Amazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.

The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on.

Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to lock down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.

What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison.

Let’s back up and grasp the position of the large content providers. Here we see the obvious special interests at work. Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision. It’s very clear how getting the government to make price discrimination illegal is in their interest. It means no threats to their business model.

By analogy, let’s imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this “furniture neutrality” and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry.

But that leaves the question about why the opposition from the ISPs themselves (the truckers by analogy) would either be silent or quietly in favor of such a rule change. Here is where matters get complicated. After many years of experimentation in the provision of Internet services — times when we went from telephone dial-up to landlines to T1 connections to experimenting with 4G data coverage — the winner in the market (for now) has been the cable companies. Consumers prefer the speed and bandwidth over all existing options.

But what about the future? What kind of services are going to replace the cable services, which are by-and-large monopolies due to special privileges from states and localities? It’s hard to know for sure but there are some impressive ideas out there. Costs are falling for all kinds of wireless and even distributed systems.

If you are a dominant player in the market — an incumbent firm like Comcast and Verizon — you really face two threats to your business model. You have to keep your existing consumer base onboard and you have to protect against upstarts seeking to poach consumers from you. A rule like net neutrality can raise the costs of doing business but there is a wonderful upside to this: your future potential competitors face the same costs. As an established player in the market, you are in a much better position to absorb higher costs than those barking at your heels. This means that you can slow down development, cool it on your investments in fiber optics, and generally rest on your laurels more.

But how can you sell such a nefarious plan? You get in good with the regulators. You support the idea in general, with some reservations, while tweaking the legislation in your favor. You know full well that this raises the costs to new competitors. When it passes, call it a vote for the “open internet” that will “preserve the right to communicate freely online.”

But when you look closely at the effects, the reality is exactly the opposite. It closes down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erects massive new barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers.

So what are the costs to the rest of us? It means absolutely no price reductions in internet service. It could mean the opposite. Watch your bills. I predict that it is not going to be pretty. It also means a slowing down in the pace of technological development due to the reduction in competition that will immediately follow the imposition of this rule. In other words, it will be like all government regulation: most of the costs will be unseen but the benefits will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

There is an additional threat to how to the FCC has reclassified the internet as a public utility. It means a blank check for government control across the board. Think of the medical marketplace, which is now entirely owned by a non competitive cartel of industry insiders. This is the future of the internet under net neutrality.

If you look at how all this shakes out, this is really no different from how most every other sector in life has come to be regulated by the state, from food to money to medicine to education. It always shakes out this way, with a sleepy public believing the propaganda, an elite group of insiders manipulating the regulations for their own benefits, a left-wing intelligentsia that is naive enough to believe platitudes about fairness, and a right wing that is mostly ignorant and for sale to the highest bidder.

No, I don’t believe that this ruling means the end of times for the internet. But it does mean that progress going forward in the digital age will be slowed compared with what it would otherwise be. Future generations will laugh in bemusement: it was the dawn of a new age and yet they believed it could be controlled the same as all that came before. Fools.

This is also an EXCELLENT article about the myths of “Net Neutrality”.

Buy hey, I’m just a cop.

Discuss this post in the forums.

Facebooktwitterby feather
0 visitors online now
0 guests, 0 members