Victory in Defeat

Read a fascinating article this morning about a Republican defeat in NY that was actually a victory. Read it here.

In a nutshell - the GOP chose a candidate that was decidedly left of center and supported her throughout the whole cycle. Conservatives were unhappy with the GOP candidate so they supported an independent candidate. At the last minute, the Republicans pulled their support from their candidate and backed the independent.

The Republican party needs to understand that if they want to matter then they will need to matter to conservatives.

Vote Today

I hope you had an opportunity to vote today - vote smart and keep informed. Be diligent and watchful.

"If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers – normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free, Americans who have been lulled away into a false security."

Ezra Taft Benson

Revenge?

Saw an article today about Republicans plotting "revenge" against Democratic candidates for President Obama winning last November. They say that this is the blowback from all of the different policies that President Obama is trying to foist upon this country in his first 10 months in office.

I hate the idea of revenge and that the Republican party is considering the idea of victory in the polls this week as such.

We are not keeping score, this isn't sports. War is not a good analogy for politics. We are talking about the lives of the citizens of this nation. It can be a win-win situation, there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser when it comes to elections - the American people should be the winner of every election. When good men and women come together to properly govern themselves everybody is better. When personal agendas and greed govern men then they need to be replaced.

The Republicans are losers if they think that they win by defeating Obama-endorsed candidates this November.

Czars Are Not Good

The czars that the Obama administration has appointed are undertaking tasks that they are not Constitutionally able to enforce and it is troubling that this administration and Congress believe there is nothing wrong with the idea. Appointed advisers, or czars, are not new with President Obama, they were in place long before him. However, he has taken the position to new levels.

The problems with the czars? They are not approved, like other cabinet and administration appointments, by the Senate. So they are not vetted or is there investigation and discussion on their merits and their shortcomings before a panel. They are simply appointed.

This week, companies that received TARP funds were told by the "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg that he was cutting executive compensation by an average of 50%. Read about it in the Wall Street Journal here.

Two different thoughts on this -

1. If you are a company that accepted bailout TARP money then you know that you had just sold your soul to the devil. In an open market you would have folded but you effectively gave up your control to the federal government. You had to know that something like this would come. Brilliant PR strategy by the White House on this move but with a good chance at backfiring on them.
2. This position of this czar is so ripe for corruption due to the large amounts of money involved not only in the compensation of these executives but the fortune of many mega companies that are affected when talent leaves the firm if they don't feel like they are being rewarded for their hard-work. You could be on the side of the affected company and watch your talented executives leave - so you do anything you can to stop that, including making donations to certain campaign funds. Or you could be on the side of the competition - you would love to see the brain drain from your competitor. So you make deals and contributions. This administration has shown a propensity for having more skeletons in their closet in the first year than the previous 6 administrations combined.

Nowhere is the idea of a czar considered Constitutionally sound, it is independent of any branch and has no oversight.

Get rid of the czars.

So 13,000 people die last year from the regular flu and nothing is ever mentioned but 1,000 people die this year from "the swine flu" and the Obama administration feels like it needs to declare an emergency? 120 million vaccinations promised by mid-October but only 12 million (10%) delivered?

When a state of emergency, like war, is declared by a government then it gains extra powers that it would not normally be granted in times of peace to become the "protector" of the people. A prime example of this is the Patriot Act that is still around that a all-Democratic Congress renewed this year. The Patriot Act is perhaps the most un-Constitutional piece of legislation since the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Why isn't this state of emergency being considered at the state level? A central government with this much power is so dangerous.

Two other notes, why don't the Obama children get the vaccination? It's not available to them? Come on, give me a break. (Update 10/29/2009 - the Obama girls did get their shot, thanks to Christina for the story link). And a Democratic Congress and Democratic President are cowards for attaching an incredibly short-sighted hate crimes bill to the Defense bill that was signed today. It couldn't stand on its own so these cowards put it with legislation that they knew would pass. These men and women do not deserve to represent their people and if they are representative of their constituency, so help us God.

A Slave Currency

This is the Amero, it is the proposed monetary unit that will take the place of the dollar and the peso if President Obama and his friends have their way. There has been several mentions of a new global currency this week at the UN and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. It is the same concept as the Euro, the currency of those countries that are part of the European Union.

So why is this so important? And why do we care?

If we lose the dollar, which we are currently in the process of doing as China continues to buy up American debt at an astounding rate, then we lose our national sovereignty. We lose our identity. We lose any independence we have and tie ourselves unwillingly to the fortunes of Mexico, Canada, and other Latin American countries that have nowhere near the economy, infrastructure, or freedoms that you and I enjoy here in America.

We may as well burn the Constitution as its rights will be superseded by those in some form of a union treaty. When the EU became a reality, all member countries agreed to be governed by EU laws that trumped those of the individual country. Now any law that is made in an EU country is subject to laws made by the EU. Court judgments that are made in the country can be overturned by the EU courts. Are our interests and situations the same as Mexico's? No, not at all.

The global currency is another step on the way to allowing the UN to be the world government and the US losing everything that it has. Please elect leaders this fall who will follow the Constitution.

Solutions to Health Care

I read the transcript of Ron Paul's comments to Congress yesterday and I loved them. They made so much sense in the health care debate.

Forget the public option. Forget the awful plans put forth by Max Baucus and my very own Bob Bennett. They don't solve the problem, they only further government control of aspects of our lives that should be left up to the patient and free market.

Like Congressman Paul states, health care is not a right, just as education is not a right nor is a job a right. Those things shouldn't be provided by the government but by the free market. The federal government needs to get out of the way.

Read the article here.