Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Out of the frying pan?

I'm still puzzled by the thinking of well-intentioned conservatives regarding incumbents.
They are, justifiably, angered about Republicans who are not very conservative.
So, they vote to oust incumbents in the primary and replace them with more conservative people.
In some case, that works out. Cliff Stearns got dumped after 20 plus years in the House even though he had a pretty conservative record. Ted Yoho, arguably more conservative, replaced him and kept the seat in the Republican Party.
But in a number of other cases it has resulted in a Democrat winning the general election and claiming a seat formerly held by a Republican.
That makes no sense. Especially if the net result is to return a liberal majority in the House with Nancy Pelosi as speaker.
The first thing conservatives should do is make a good case against an incumbent. In some cases that is pretty easy. But some resort to "throw out everybody and start over."
Again, that makes no sense.
Ander Crenshaw has represented the congressional district I live in for 14 years.  He gets token opposition every year but this year there appears to be a more determined effort to unseat him.
Crenshaw is a former president of the Florida Senate and, as far as I can tell, as conservative as anyone needs to be.
He has a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 86.75 percent.
Detractors cite lower ratings from groups such as the Club for Growth.
This is a good organization, but they look at a specific set of fiscal policy votes.
Crenshaw's lifetime rating with Club for Growth is 66 percent. That is one percent higher than the legendary conservative congressman C.W. "Bill" Young.
It also places Crenshaw in the top 40 percent of Congress, well above many other Republicans.
More importantly, it only rates him on certain fiscal policy issues. What about the many other issues, such as health care, immigration, and defense?
Does anyone think a Democrat who replaced him would vote with conservatives on those issues?
No Democrat can defeat Crenshaw. Anyone who votes against him in the GOP primary should follow the Buckley rule.
William F. Buckley said conservatives should vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.
Rush Limbaugh would modify that rule and he's right to the extent that if you have a Republican who is acting like a Democrat he should be replaced.
But be sure.
Voting on emotion is a liberal thing. Conservatives should get the facts and weigh the alternatives before voting.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Yes and no

It is time, past time, to address the constant refrain from the socialists that the Republicans are the party of "no."
Bull Shiite.
Republicans have presented many plans that would help restore the economy. Just this week three of them put forth a viable healthcare plan.
But they have no power to do anything.
Republicans have a majority in the House. Liberals control the Senate and the White House. No Republican plan that would be good for America will pass the Senate or get anything but a veto from the president if it did.
Thus, it is futile for Republicans to propose anything.
The most they can do -- and what they should do -- is vote against any socialist bill that increases the size of the government or the debt that is swamping future generations of Americans.
Only a fool in the media would even repeat this nonsense. There is no Party of No except the Democrat Party, which says "no" to anything that would help Americans recover from the liberal attack on our nation.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The decline and fall of America

It should be abundantly clear to all by now why Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Barack Obama would fail.
Libs tried to twist his meaning and make it appear that Limbaugh was hoping Obama would fail to bring about world peace, halt the alleged rise of the oceans and create prosperity throughout the land, as he had promised.
In fact, Limbaugh was hoping Obama would fail in his hidden agenda.
In truth, it wasn't hidden -- except by the liberal media.
Obama, who is so hedonistic that he had written two books about himself before he ever achieved anything, had made his agenda clear. (Unless you are among those who believe getting elected to political office is an achievement, he still hasn't achieved anything.)
That agenda was revealed in a best-selling book by Dinesh D-Souza, later made into a movie.
Obama is imbued with an obsessive hated for "colonialism." That would be fine, except that he believes the United States is guilty of colonialism.
Raised and mentored by communists and clearly disapproving of capitalism, Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" America.
Why would anyone want to fundamentally transform the most powerful, prosperous and compassionate nation in history?
And what would that mean if it did not mean to make America less powerful, less prosperous and less compassionate?
What has happened since Obama got elected?
The nation is less prosperous. The economic "recovery" is the most listless ever experienced. The Obamacare train wreck will ensure continued economic stress.
The nation is less powerful. Our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no longer trust us.
As we pull back, communists, islamofascists and others who are not friends of freedom move forward, emboldened toward aggression and tyranny.
According to a new book, Obama never believed in the strategy he pursued in Afghanistan. Having called it "the right war," he made a half-hearted effort for political reasons, ordering a surge that was insufficient to do the job. He imposed rules of engagement that are getting troops killed in record number. Three-fourths of all deaths in Afghanistan have been on his watch -- with liberals silent throughout.
Charles Krauthammer called this political prosecution of a war the worst thing Obama has done. Worse than Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS persecution of political opponents and all the rest.
It is too bad that Limbaugh's hopes were not realized. 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Libs never give up when they are wrong

Let's go over this again.
Saddam Hussein invaded two countries and started two wars, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people.
He had and used weapons of mass destruction, killing thousands, and his victims included Iraqi citizens.
Saddam and his two sons all were homicidal maniacs who would kill anyone who displeased them. The sons took pleasure in raping brides on their wedding nights, and killing grooms who complained.
Saddam refused to allow inspectors to verify that he was complying with United Nations demands to dismantle his WMD arsenal.
So, with the consent of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress, and with a coalition of other nations, George Bush sent troops into Iraq. Saddam was deposed, captured and executed.
At the time Bush acted, there was a great similarity to the situation the world faced in 1939. At that time, no one acted and World War II began.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Liberals are among those who do not learn. They constantly, even today, insist it was wrong and "immoral" to stop Saddam from attempting to conquer the Mideast.
We know that libs are stubbornly opposed to facts and reason, but there are times when it is necessary to face them.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Obamacare meltdown

Can it get any weirder?
Obamacare was sacrosanct, liberals argued. It could not be changed by Congress, which is the only body with authority to pass a law, change a law or repeal a law.
Yet Obama, who has no such authority, has now changed the sacrosanct law for the 14th time!
This time he is waiving the individual mandate for millions of Americans.
This, his mob had argued before the Supreme Court, was the heart and soul of the law. It was essential. It could not be tampered with under any circumstances.
So, you can go without insurance, under a plan that was going to insure everyone, or you can buy catastrophic insurance, which is less expensive.
Having health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance would have solved much of the problem with health insurance in the first place, but libs have made health savings accounts less useful, not more.
Instead they steadfastly have pursued a single-payer system and Obamacare, as they have admitted, was but the first step.
Now it is unravelling quickly and among the victims will be the insurance companies, who jumped in bed with the libs. It was in hope of self-preservation, I understand, and perhaps resistance would have been futile, but it also could have made a difference. Even with the trickery and deception it was a close vote.
Even members of Congress got hornswoggled. One congressman told me his mandatory Obamacare policy cost three times as much as the previous one he had, and is not as good.
However, libs are not going to admit that it is an unmitigated disaster. They will double down and ram it down the throats of Americans, no matter what the cost.
However, there is a good chance that it will cost them the U.S. Senate next year.
Maybe then, the Reconstruction can begin.

Monday, November 25, 2013

What is he really up to?

At some point you have to wonder.
President Obama, as everyone knows from the book The Roots of Obama's Rage by Dinest D-Souza, Obama is an anti-colonialist with a deep hatred for western civilization in general and the United States in particular.
He absorbed this from his communist father and mother and his many socialist/communist friends and mentors.
His twin agenda is to bring down the United States economically and reduce its standing in the word from a superpower to an also-ran.
So far, he is making progress.
The economy is crippled, perhaps permanently if liberals remain in power.
Obamacare, enacted by fraud and trickery against the wishes of the American people, remains in place and new revelations as to its potential harm appear almost every day.
But the world stage is where he may be doing the most damage.
We now pretend that weapons of mass distraction don't matter. This, after the mass hysteria on the left about previous efforts to stop their use.
It also follows more than a half-century of angst by the left over the fact that America had nuclear weapons.
Now, Obama is seeking to reduce our nuclear stockpile, while winking at efforts by our enemies to build their nuclear arsenal.
Syria began building up chemical weapons, and Obama declared a victory by pretending to halt their effort.
Iran is building a nuclear weapon and over the weekend Obama declared he would allow them to proceed, and even to lift sanctions against them that were intended to hamper the effort.
Does he actually hope for war to break out in the Mideast, perhaps to spread worldwide?
That certainly could be one outcome. If Israel acts against Iran in order to protect its own interests, another Arab/Persian-Jewish conflict probably would soon follow.
Whatever he is doing, it is not in the best interest of the United States. In the event of catastrophe, it would not matter whether the result was from incompetence or intent.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Liberal idol worship

No one ranks higher in the liberal pantheon than St. Franklin of Roosevelt.
They think of FDR as the savior of America. The main evidence of his wonderfulness appears to be the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Why an ordinary two-lane road that wanders through the mountain is worthy of such reverence is beyond me. It is scenic, granted, and I have driven most of it for the view.
But as proof of the New Deal's effectiveness, it falls woefully short.
Let's consider some facts.
Roosevelt's main advisers, laughably called "the brain trust," made a trip to Russia and were awed by what they saw as great achievements by the communists. (This was at a time when Stalin was murdering millions, and the New York Times was lying about it.)
Roosevelt and Mussolini had a mutual admiration society, exchanging congratulatory letters.
At a time when millions of Americans were unemployed and hungry, the New Deal was destroying food and putting people in prison for lowering food prices.
One unconstitutional action was to prohibit employers from offering lower wages so they could afford to hire people who would have been glad to get the work and get out of the breadlines.
The cynical FDR used the jobs programs he created as political weapons. Little help went to areas that needed it the most, but already voted Democrat. Instead, most went to areas in the West and other places where FDR needed votes.
In the Northeast, Republicans who applied for make-work New Deal jobs were stiffed. It was a Democrat program.
The Depression began as an ordinary recession. The Smoot-Hawley tariff helped turn it into a depression, worldwide. FDR, who had promised not to raise taxes, raised them, and that further worsened the problem.
After a similar recession in the early '20s, taxes were lowered and the economy quickly recovered.
It took America's entry in World War II, which FDR also had promised he would not allow, to bring the economy back.
Even then, New Deal policies continued to cause misery. It was wage and price controls during the war that brought on employer-provided health insurance, which helped exacerbate the current problem in that realm.
FDR's other accomplishment, according to liberals was Social Security. Again, Roosevelt's vision was that it would be a supplement to retirement that only a few would receive. It was constructed so that half of the population would die before receiving benefits.
Politicians after FDR continued to pile on costs and benefits to the Ponzi scheme and today it faces bankruptcy. But that's another story.
The bottom line is that FDR was no hero. He was a politician.