Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Chris Christie at The Reagan Library

Governor Christie may not be where I am on every issue, but he is exactly what we currently lack in The White House, and what we are seeking in a replacement – a leader. In one speech, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said what all the other Republican candidates wish they could say.

I, for one, would gladly be part of a write-in movement.

Mrs. Reagan, distinguished guests. It is an honor for me to be here at the Reagan Library to speak to you today. I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for her gracious invitation. I am thrilled to be here.

Ronald Reagan believed in this country. He embodied the strength, perseverance and faith that has propelled immigrants for centuries to embark on dangerous journeys to come here, to give up all that was familiar for all that was possible.

He judged that as good as things were and had been for many Americans, they could and would be better for more Americans in the future.

It is this vision for our country that guided his administration over the course of eight years. His commitment to making America stronger, better and more resilient is what allowed him the freedom to challenge conventional wisdom, reach across party lines and dare to put results ahead of political opportunism.

Everybody in this room and in countless other rooms across this great country has his or her favorite Reagan story. For me, that story happened thirty years ago, in August 1981. The air traffic controllers, in violation of their contracts, went on strike. President Reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refused would be fired. In the end, thousands refused, and thousands were fired.

I cite this incident not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle. Ronald Reagan was a man who said what he meant and meant what he said. Those who thought he was bluffing were sadly mistaken. Reagan’s demand was not an empty political play; it was leadership, pure and simple.

Reagan said it best himself, “I think it convinced people who might have thought otherwise that I meant what I said. Incidentally, I would have been just as forceful if I thought management had been wrong in the dispute.”

I recall this pivotal moment for another reason as well. Most Americans at the time and since no doubt viewed Reagan’s firm handling of the PATCO strike as a domestic matter, a confrontation between the president and a public sector union. But this misses a critical point.

To quote a phrase from another American moment, the whole world was watching. Thanks to newspapers and television – and increasingly the Internet and social media – what happens here doesn’t stay here.

Another way of saying what I have just described is that Americans do not have the luxury of thinking that what we have long viewed as purely domestic matters have no consequences beyond our borders. To the contrary; What we say and what we do here at home affects how others see us and in turn affects what it is they say and do.

America’s role and significance in the world is defined, first and foremost, by who we are at home. It is defined by how we conduct ourselves with each other. It is defined by how we deal with our own problems. It is determined in large measure by how we set an example for the world.

We tend to still understand foreign policy as something designed by officials in the State Department and carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. And to some extent it is. But one of the most powerful forms of foreign policy is the example we set.

This is where it is instructive to harken back to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO affair. President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries.

If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well. Principle would not stop at the water’s edge. The Reagan who challenged Soviet aggression, or who attacked a Libya that supported terror was the same Reagan who stood up years before to PATCO at home for what he believed was right.

All this should and does have meaning for us today. The image of the United States around the world is not what it was, it is not what it can be and it is not what it needs to be. This country pays a price whenever our economy fails to deliver rising living standards to our citizens – which is exactly what has been the case for years now.

We pay a price when our political system cannot come together and agree on the difficult but necessary steps to rein in entitlement spending or reform our tax system.

We pay a price when special interests win out over the collective national interest. We are seeing just this in the partisan divide that has so far made it impossible to reduce our staggering deficits and to create an environment in which there is more job creation than job destruction.

This is where the contrast between what has happened in New Jersey and what is happening in Washington, DC is the most clear.

In New Jersey over the last 20 months, you have actually seen divided government that is working. To be clear, it does not mean that we have no argument or acrimony. There are serious disagreements, sometimes expressed loudly—Jersey style.

Here is what we did. We identified the problems. We proposed specific means to fix them. We educated the public on the dire consequences of inaction. And we compromised, on a bi-partisan basis, to get results. We took action.

How so, you ask? Leadership and compromise.

Leadership and compromise is the only way you can balance two budgets with over $13 billion in deficits without raising taxes while protecting core services.

Leadership and compromise is the only way you reform New Jersey’s pension and health benefits system that was collectively $121 billion underfunded.

Leadership and compromise is the only way you cap the highest property taxes in the nation and cap the interest arbitration awards of some of the most powerful public sector unions in the nation at no greater than a 2% increase.

In New Jersey we have done this, and more, because the Executive Branch has not sat by and waited for others to go first to suggest solutions to our state’s most difficult problems.

Being a mayor, being a governor, being a president means leading by taking risk on the most important issues of the day. It has happened in Trenton.

In New Jersey we have done this with a legislative branch, held by the opposite party, because it is led by two people who have more often put the interests of our state above the partisan politics of their caucuses.

Our bi-partisan accomplishments in New Jersey have helped to set a tone that has taken hold across many other states. It is a simple but powerful message–lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the depth of our challenges. Tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solutions. This is the only effective way to lead in America during these times.

In Washington, on the other hand, we have watched as we drift from conflict to conflict, with little or no resolution.

We watch a president who once talked about the courage of his convictions, but still has yet to find the courage to lead.

We watch a Congress at war with itself because they are unwilling to leave campaign style politics at the Capitol’s door. The result is a debt ceiling limitation debate that made our democracy appear as if we could no longer effectively govern ourselves.

And still we continue to wait and hope that our president will finally stop being a bystander in the Oval Office. We hope that he will shake off the paralysis that has made it impossible for him to take on the really big things that are obvious to all Americans and to a watching and anxious world community.

Yes, we hope. Because each and every time the president lets a moment to act pass him by, his failure is our failure too. The failure to stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson Bowles Commission, a report the president asked for himself…the failure to act on the country’s crushing unemployment…the failure to act on ever expanding and rapidly eroding entitlement programs…the failure to discern pork barrel spending from real infrastructure investment.

The rule for effective governance is simple. It is one Ronald Reagan knew by heart. And one that he successfully employed with Social Security and the Cold War. When there is a problem, you fix it. That is the job you have been sent to do and you cannot wait for someone else to do it for you.

We pay for this failure of leadership many times over. The domestic price is obvious: growth slows, high levels of unemployment persist, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of skittish markets or the political decisions of lenders.

But, there is also a foreign policy price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. There is no better way to persuade other societies around the world to become more democratic and more market-oriented than to show that our democracy and markets work better than any other system.

Why should we care?

We should care because we believe, as President Reagan did, that democracy is the best protector of human dignity and freedom. And we know this because history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against their own people or their neighbors.

We should care because we believe in free and open trade, as exports are the best creators of high-paying jobs here and imports are a means to increase consumer choice and keep prices down.

Around the world– in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa and Latin America—people are debating their own political and economic futures–right now.

We have a stake in the outcome of their debates. For example, a Middle East that is largely democratic and at peace will be a Middle East that accepts Israel, rejects terrorism, and is a dependable source of energy.

There is no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working.

A lot is being said in this election season about American Exceptionalism. Implicit in such statements is that we are different and, yes, better, in the sense that our democracy, our economy and our people have delivered. But for American exceptionalism to truly deliver hope and a sterling example to the rest of the world, it must be demonstrated, not just asserted. If it is demonstrated, it will be seen and appreciated and ultimately emulated by others. They will then be more likely to follow our example and our lead.

At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country’s innovation, our determination, our ingenuity and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, America found a way to come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. And in our system, we did it through strong presidential leadership. We did it through Reagan-like leadership.

Unfortunately, through our own domestic political conduct of late, we have failed to live up to our own tradition of Exceptionalism. Today, our role and ability to affect change has been diminished because of our own problems and our inability to effectively deal with them.

To understand this clearly, one need only look at comments from the recent meeting of the European finance ministers in Poland. Here is what the Finance Minister of Austria had to say:

“I found it peculiar that, even though the Americans have significantly worse fundamental data than the euro zone that they tell us what we should do. I had expected that, when [Secretary Geithner] tells us how he sees the world that he would listen to what we have to say.”

You see, without strong leadership at home—without our domestic house in order—we are taking ourselves out of the equation. Over and over, we are allowing the rest of the world to set the tone without American influence.

I understand full well that succeeding at home, setting an example, is not enough. The United States must be prepared to act. We must be prepared to lead. This takes resources—resources for defense, for intelligence, for homeland security, for diplomacy. The United States will only be able to sustain a leadership position around the world if the resources are there—but the necessary resources will only be there if the foundations of the American economy are healthy. So our economic health is a national security issue as well.

Without the authority that comes from that Exceptionalism—earned American Exceptionalism—we cannot do good for other countries, we cannot continue to be a beacon of hope for the world to aspire to for their future generations.

If Ronald Reagan faced today’s challenges we know what he would do. He would face our domestic problems directly, with leadership and without political calculation.

We would take an honest and tough approach to solving our long-term debt and deficit problem through reforming our entitlement programs and our tax code.

We would confront our unemployment crisis by giving certainty to business about our tax and regulatory future.

We would unleash American entrepreneurship through long-term tax reform, not short-term tax gimmickry.

And we would reform our K-12 education system by applying free market reform principles to education—rewarding outstanding teachers; demanding accountability from everyone in the system; increasing competition through choice and charters; and making the American free public education system once again the envy of the world.

The guiding principle should be simple and powerful—the educational interests of children must always be put ahead of the comfort of the status quo for adults.

The United States must also become more discriminating in what we try to accomplish abroad. We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion. Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home – foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come.

The argument for getting our own house in order is not an argument for turning our back on the world.

We cannot and should not do that. First of all, our economy is dependent on what we export and import. And as we learned the hard way a decade ago, we as a country and a people are vulnerable to terrorists armed with box cutters, bombs, and viruses, be they computer generated or man-made. We need to remain vigilant, and be prepared to act with our friends and allies, to discourage, deter or defend against traditional aggression; to stop the spread of nuclear materials and weapons and the means to deliver them; and to continue to deprive terrorists of the ways, means and opportunity to succeed.

I realize that what I am calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and a lot of our people. I plead guilty. But I also plead guilty to optimism.

Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish if they understand what is being asked of them and how we all will benefit if they meet the challenge.

There is no doubt in my mind that we, as a country and as a people, are up for the challenge. Our democracy is strong; our economy is the world’s largest. Innovation and risk-taking is in our collective DNA. There is no better place for investment. Above all, we have a demonstrated record as a people and a nation of rising up to meet challenges.

Today, the biggest challenge we must meet is the one we present to ourselves. To not become a nation that places entitlement ahead of accomplishment. To not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths. To not become a people that thinks so little of ourselves that we demand no sacrifice from each other. We are a better people than that; and we must demand a better nation than that.

The America I speak of is the America Ronald Reagan challenged us to be every day. Frankly, it is the America his leadership helped us to be. Through our conduct, our deeds, our demonstrated principles and our sacrifice for each other and for the greater good of the nation, we became a country emulated throughout the world. Not just because of what we said, but because of what we did both at home and abroad.

If we are to reach real American Exceptionalism, American Exceptionalism that can set an example for freedom around the world, we must lead with purpose and unity.

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama gave us a window into his vision for American leadership. He said, “Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of ‘anything goes.’ Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.”

Now, seven years later, President Obama prepares to divide our nation to achieve re-election. This is not a leadership style, this is a re-election strategy. Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream. That may turn out to be a good re-election strategy for President Obama, but is a demoralizing message for America. What happened to State Senator Obama? When did he decide to become one of the “dividers” he spoke of so eloquently in 2004? There is, of course, a different choice.

That choice is the way Ronald Reagan led America in the 1980’s. That approach to leadership is best embodied in the words he spoke to the nation during his farewell address in 1989. He made clear he was not there just marking time. That he was there to make a difference. Then he spoke of the city on the hill and how he had made it stronger. He said, “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.”

That is American Exceptionalism. Not a punch line in a political speech, but a vision followed by a set of principled actions that made us the envy of the world. Not a re-election strategy, but an American revitalization strategy.

We will be that again, but not until we demand that our leaders stand tall by telling the truth, confronting our shortcomings, celebrating our successes and, once again leading the world because of what we have been able to actually accomplish.

Only when we do that will we finally ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in a second American century. We owe them, as well as ourselves and those who came before us, nothing less.

Thank you again for inviting me—God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

Hat tip to National Review Online for the transcript.

Here is the video, courtesy of Real Clear Politics Video:

Keep up with me on Twitter.

Congratulations to the 2011 National League West Champion Arizona Diamondbacks!

Monday, September 12, 2011

My Five-Minute Debate Summary

CNN did very well at “spreading the wealth around” and letting all the candidates have their “fair share” of the time, which is what really should be happening right now. This debate was much better than was the offering by MSNBC. I liked the questions being asked by people instead of by media-types, and credit to Wolf for not taking too much of the spotlight upon himself.

I thought Rick Perry was an epic FAIL tonight and was shown for a lot of "progressive" tendencies. He was shown to be horrible on immigration, and Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum cleaned his clock on the human papillomavirus shot issue. There’s a lot to learn about Rick Perry, and he’s not off to a great start.

I really liked Mrs. Bachmann's firm stand on Obamacare. She laid out there for all to understand just how knowledgeable she is on the subject, and that must be seen as valuable. I thought she had a much better night than she had the other night on MSNBC, which has largely to do with that networks effort to make it a two-man boxing match. If you didn’t see it, her interview with CNN’s John King immediately after the debate was strong as well. King, being the flaming lib he is, just couldn’t understand how forcing children to be vaccinated for human papillomavirus was an offense to individual liberties and more of a Statist position.

Mitt Romney's "Churchill" moment was epic. Romney is getting hammered on Romneycare but he is doing a decent job of defining it as a Tenth Amendment issue, and I believe he is correct in that respect. He did his usual decent job of not taking too many sharp jabs or strong body-blows, and should come out polling much better against Perry.

Herman Cain is awesome at running a business, I can see that. We all can see that. Unfortunately I suspect he is just not quite refined enough, and just not quite ready for prime time. Having said that; I definitely believe Mr. Cain needs to be listened to as the process moves forward, and should definitely be given a cabinet position or perhaps be made the authority on deregulating all the regulation, as he discussed tonight.

Rick Santorum had a couple of good moments. He is definitely tried and true conservatism in a “blue” state, and must be given credit for holding his core principles. He has said some things that will never play in the general, though, and that’s too bad. Like Cain, Santorum is a strong voice as the process moves forward, and deserves to be listened to, but I suspect he just can’t win.

Newt Gingrich keeps giving a solid answer to every question asked of him. Newt is definitely the smartest guy in the room. He has the most and perhaps the best ideas, and he has a world of experience. It’s a shame he has a ton of personal baggage and in the opinion of some comes across as angry (I don’t see it). I think he is working on the “angry” thing, and I think it is helping him get more questions and more time in the debates. Newt just might surprise us before all is said and done.

Ron Paul really lost it tonight. He is even going to lose credibility on his fiscal smarts as this thing moves forward if he isn’t careful, because you just don’t lecture Americans about terrorism by parroting the excuses put forward by terrorists. Being able to tell us what Osama bin Laden said tells me you listened to your enemy but it doesn’t make your enemy’s words true, nor does it make those words a view around which you build foreign policy. While I agree we should not have a $1billion embassy in Iraq, I find Ron Paul’s overall stance ineffective and in some cases downright frightening. America is not a completely isolationist nation, and can never be. I did appreciate Dr. Paul’s position on individual responsibility when asked about the person on life support. That’s a tough question and he handled it as well as it could have been handled.

Jon Huntsman was there too. I wonder how long that experiment will last. Mr. Huntsman seems like a very nice man. He has a beautiful family. He is not going to win the Republican nomination, nor should he. Huntsman is far too liberal, so much so that I wonder if he will run as a Democrat in 2016. He is the Charlie Crist of this election, except that he hasn’t literally repudiated his party in order to win office. Yet.

Overall, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Romney won the night, with Santorum and Cain close behind. Ron Paul and Rick Perry have issues, from which Perry might recover and Paul will not. And there’s Huntsman.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

America the Beautiful

We all know how horrific the images are. We’ve all seen the footage on cable news and on the internet. September 11th, 2001 was the most horrifying and tragic day most of us have ever seen.

Many of you may remember, in the wake of the tragedy, the spectacle that was the 2001 World Series. At a time when Americans desperately needed a diversion, "America's Pastime" came through with flying colors. Many say it was the greatest World Series of all time.

If you watched that series, you may remember this rendition of “America the Beautiful” performed by Ray Charles at Game Two in Arizona. It was one of the most amazing performances of any song I have ever seen, by any performer. If anyone might understand the wonder that is America, a blind Black man from the Deep South who fought the odds to become one of the most successful and most admired in his profession just might be that person. The passion and soul he poured into this performance was simply amazing.

I wish I could find better quality footage of this, because this is one of my most prominent memories of the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It is a beautiful memory; unfortunately this video doesn’t do it justice, but I share it all the same. There must be some incredible copyright restrictions held by someone, which is unfortunate. For all the sad, horrific, and tragic images and memories we will always see, the one thing we should I wish more of us would remember is how we all came together as one in that time of crisis.

The 2001 World Series and this electric performance from that magnificent sporting event exemplify that very emotion in my mind.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Tea Party Zombies Must Die - The Video Game

In case you’ve not been to Drudge Report tonight, or visited fellow bloggers such as Just a Conservative Girl, and therefore have not seen the new standard in “Civility” from the left, I bring you this gem:

More here.

The past few posts I have done have dealt with “New Tone” and “Civility” in terms put forward by President Obama in the wake of the tragedy that took place in Tucson last January. In all these instances, the discussion was about rhetoric.

It was said in the immediate aftermath of the Tucson shooting that the "alleged" shooter, a paranoid schizophrenic madman as diagnosed by the courts, was influenced by the words and images put forward by the Tea Party and their titular leader Sarah Palin. Nothing could be further from the truth, but by the time any facts came out regarding the true mental state of Loughner it was too late. The New York Times had already put together their smear campaign, and the line was toed by CNN, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, and even The DNC’s current Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

This is different. Our Armed Forces use video games to train soldiers. There is literally violent and deadly imagery in this “Video Game.”

I am a strong believer in individual responsibility, but I also know you can’t yell “Fire’ in a crowded theater without there being a fire. This is what has been done by the left in this instance. Hopefully soon they will be compared to “The boy who cried wolf,” because between racist, violent, extremist, and other smears, it’s just getting a bit tired and Americans are going to see right through it.

One comment I saw somewhere asked what if this were a ‘game’ that featured targets such as San Fran Nan, Hillary, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Brian Williams amongst others. I believe we know the answer to that question; the creator of such would likely be getting a visit from Secret Service and perhaps being taken to a nice long vacation at Club Gitmo.

I will be waiting for condemnation from President Obama. Not really, but it sounds good anyway.

Go Diamondbacks!

Keep up with me on Twitter

Monday, September 5, 2011

Rick Perry on Congressional Term Limits

Rick Perry does not support term limits for Congressional Representatives. He says it is up to the voter to pay more attention, and that if we elect people who do not represent us then we need to vote them out.

I disagree.

We know that without term limits we end up with Charlie Wrangel, Maxine Waters, San Fran Nan, John McCain, and a bunch of other lifers in Congress.

I will agree that Perry is correct in saying more people need to pay more attention. It is true that there may have been a time in America when people paying more attention was the solution to the problem.

However, today we live in the era of MTV and the iPod. Instant gratification is everything to many Americans today.So to expect people to pay enough attention over a period of time is to understand what their Congressional representative and Senator are doing? While certainly commendable, this is just not realistic. Some people today are so busy texting they don’t even look up as they walk across busy streets. Why on Earth should we think people are going to pay attention to politics?

And to think people will hold their representative accountable, especially when politicians are offering them everything they want, and offering it “free?” Quite to the contrary, I suspect the opposite would tend to unfold over time. Accountability in Congress in America's future equals "What have you done for me lately?"

We also know the power of incumbency, and therein lies much of the problem.

For example:

I'm an Arizonan, but I know I can't run for Senate against John McCain or for The House against Ben Quayle. Even if I have better ideas and more “practical” experience, money and brand name equals power. I contend that Ben Quayle never should have been elected to Congress in AZ-3 but he has name recognition due to his father’s years in Congress and term as Vice President. And McCain… enough said.

To be clear; this was for a moment a struggle in my mind between the conservative concept of individual responsibility versus the idea that government looks out best for people. However, I believe that this all falls back on the idea that our Constitution is designed so that We, The People may amend it when it is not working correctly. Congressional term limits is an instance for which it needs to be amended.

Not only that, I believe this needs to become a focal point of this election cycle, because the longer we wait, the more difficult it may become to elect and convince enough representatives that limits on their own free ride is the right thing to do. This is an instance when our Founding Fathers intended us to be responsible, and in doing so amend our Constitution to look out for our best interests moving forward.

In doing so, we will not be asking the government to look out for us, for we will have taken responsibility for ourselves, each individual adding to the collective. E Pluribus Unum.

You can see video of the statements Perry made at The Right Scoop.

Go Diamondbacks!

Keep up with me on Twitter

Jimmy Hoffa Jr. Gives President Obama's Opening Speech, Labor Day 2011 in Detroit

"We gotta keep an eye on the battle we face; the war on workers. You see it everywhere.

"It is The Tea Party.

"And you know there's only one way to beat, and win that war. You know the one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war. They've got a war with us and there's only gonna be one winner - it's gonna be the workers of Michigan and America. We're gonna win that war!"

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to America where we belong."

{please excuse the video quality, i did this with my camera on the fly}

{Better quality video can be seen here, Hat Tip to Right Scoop.}

{Hat Tip also to TCL for her longer video with a bit more content}

In the wake of the Gabby Giffords speech in Tucson, I'd like to note that there was no call for "New Tone" from President Obama in the speech he gave shortly after Hoffa's call for violence.

President Obama did, however, say "No more manufactured crises."

I shall hold him to that, since it has been him and his side of the political discussion that has manufactured all the crises to date, including the crisis that would have had 'Grandma not getting her social security check.'

He also discussed at length the idea that "Republicans are saying you [union members] are the problem with America."

We all know this second statement couldn't be further from the truth. It is not union members that are the problem, it is union management and the system of unions that create the problem. Unions create situations that are essentially like a ponzi scheme. They continually need more funds from the private sector, that which creates goods and services and therefore creates the wealth in the economy, in order to feed their ever-growing public sector.

He also tried to play the sympathy card by discussing the teachers who buy crayons and other supplies for their kids, "Because we are all in this together."

I credit the individual teacher, no doubt. The idea, however, that the individual teacher should be pulling from their own paycheck for supplies shows a great fault in the system that is public education. Either parents should be requested / required to provide ample supplies, or the system inside the public school system needs to be altered so there is sufficent funding for all activities.

This, like the upcoming Joint Session speech on Thursday, was nothing more than partisan rhetoric intended to divide. As he cries out that "Wea are all one America," he offered no ideas for all of America to move forward together.

Keep up with me on Twitter

Sunday, September 4, 2011

But Will They Listen?

Last week I posted the video showing the Congressional Black Caucus tour of Racism, during which they claimed that anyone who subscribes to the concept of smaller government and fiscal conservatism is a racist, would like to see Blacks hanging from trees, and can go “Straight to Hell.”

Today I offer the answer, from a man named Kevin Jackson.

Hat Tip to Mike Broomhead of KFYI.

Go DBacks!! Magic number is 18!

Keep up with me on Twitter