Thursday, November 6, 2014

What next

After a devastating repudiation of Barack Obama and his policies, Republicans need to get to work in January, repairing America.
First, put America back to work.
Get the Keystone pipeline built. There is substantial Democrat agreement. Pass the bill out of Congress and throw it on Obama's desk and see if he has the audacity to veto it.
Get the IRS under control. Also the EPA. Repeal the unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to agencies in the executive branch.
Repeal the corporate income tax. There is no point in having corporations collect taxes for the government.
Repeal the capital gains tax. This would produce investment, jobs and wealth.
Repeal the marginal income tax rates and place a 10 percent flat tax on everyone who is employed.
Everyone should be able to participate in funding the government, since everyone benefits from the things government does that it is supposed to do.
When everyone is participating, everyone has a stake. Those with lower incomes than average may suddenly discover that they can with less government spending.
Finally, repeal the withholding tax. This was a pernicious development, devised during World War II as taxes soared in an effort to mask the impact.
The ideal way to pay taxes would be the way it was done in the military until fairly recently. A soldier would be paid in cash, then move to the next table where he would fork over his tax payment, in cash. What he had left in his hand was his "share" of what he had earned.
Let people pay their taxes the way they pay for other things like rent and groceries, and there would be more awareness and interest in what the politicians in Washington are doing.
There is plenty more to do after that, such as health care reform and saving entitlement programs from bankruptcy.
If you want hope and change for the better instead of the worse, these are ways to make it happen.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

The trade

If he were a Major League Baseball team owner, Obama would have traded Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Joe Dimaggio for Bob Uecker, (one of the worst players ever).
This is what we know about the latest Obama scandal:
He traded five of the most dangerous Muslim terrorists in the world for an American soldier, against the recommendations of the military and intelligence community.
The guy he "rescued" left behind his rifle, climbed under a barbed wire fence and departed his post in Afghanistan without leave. According to one report he left a letter saying he wanted to join the Taliban.
He was captured and kept for five years. He now speaks Pashto. He has made a number of statements derogatory about America and the army.
Members of his unit say he was a weirdo and a deserter.
They also say at least six soldiers were killed searching for the captured soldier because the Taliban knew they would search and set up ambushes for them.
His father wants to free all Gitmo prisoners and praised Allah in Pashto when he spoke at the White House.
We don't know yet whether Obama also paid cash ransom.
But we do know that the White House sent its designated liar, Susan Rice, out to the Sunday talk shows -- where she had lied about Benghazi -- and she said the soldier had served "with honor and distinction."
This was done by a president who was raised in Muslim countries, educated in Muslim schools and speaks reverently about "the holy Qu-uran." He also has pledged to close Gitmo.
This is either the worst-reported story in history or it cries out for a special prosecutor.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Don't argue; vote

There is no point in conservatives having  “dialogues” with liberals over public policy.
A recent exchange with a liberal on Facebook over education policy has reinforced this conclusion.
In a long tirade, he ranted about school choice, and asserted that charter schools and vouchers were a terrible blow to education.
After weeding through the inaccuracy, irrelevancy and illogic, it appeared his solution was two-fold: “fair wages” for those in the public schools and convening liberals and conservatives to sit down, examine the problems in the public schools and “fix them.”
Sheer genius!
In 1983 a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission examined the public schools at the national level and concluded that it was being swamped by “a rising tide of mediocrity.”
That was more than 30 years ago so we didn’t wake up yesterday and discover a problem no one had noticed before – one easily fixed if we just talked it over.
The commission didn’t find a lack of “resources” to be the cause of the problems. It suggested higher standards and more accountability.
Florida began on that course in the late 1990s, combining it with choice, and this commonsense approach has produced improvement in the public schools.
Even liberals who fought the reforms are beginning to buy into the program, realizing that they are in an untenable position by opposing an education for poor children. Not all have gotten the memo, unfortunately.
Vouchers – first suggested in the mid-1950s by Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman – allow poor students in failing schools to escape to a good school and get a good education, and a route out of poverty as well.
The liberal who condemned choice could not explain why it was evil to save money for taxpayers, improve the public schools and help poor children get an education.
Apparently it never occurred to him that if they could be “fixed” some brilliant minds would have found a way to fix them. Nor did it occur to him that choice may be part of the solution.
Not all liberals are this obtuse, but enough are, so the best course is to elect conservatives to government. Then, when problems that government is capable of solving or improving present themselves, the  elected representatives will do something that makes sense, rather than assuming that throwing more money at the problem is the only solution.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Science marches on

When I was in high school I recall being bombarded with health information about diet.
Each day's menu should include juicy steak, eggs, milk, butter, cream and the like, we were told.
In the interim I was shocked to learn that all those things would kill you, according to the newest, latest, up-to-date, most scientific information.
Now: the scientific consensus is that those things do no harm.
That's fine. I'm just wondering if all the "deniers" who doubted that they were in mortal peril from eating at the nearest steakhouse will be exonerated.
I'm also wondering if all those who have survived for decades on nuts and berries still feel morally superior and consider themselves healthier than the rest of us.
Lastly, I'm wondering what will happen to the alarmist community if science finds that -- for certain, according to their latest Excel spreadsheet -- that a new Ice Age is coming and we desperately need more CO2 to warm up the planet.

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.