Tuesday, August 30, 2011
All we want is to reign in government, control spending, and hold on to some traditional American values.
People are being taught to hate, and sadly many people have nothing else to believe in anymore. Times are tough, no matter the color of one's skin.
Hate is going to become the method of the progressive left, in an effort to "energize the base." I have been reading exactly that kind of commentary at Huffington Post. "Ends justify the means" is definitely an accepted thought process by some.
It is good to have a strong belief system, but we are entering dangerous times. All of the racial rhetoric we have witnessed since President Obama became a candidate is coming to a boiling point, and it will only get worse as his popularity implodes.
Think about what you say, and to whom you say it. Do unto others. Be courteous. Be a good citizen, and do the right thing.
Now is our time. America needs us.
Keep up with me on Twitter, and Go Diamondbacks... #WinTheWest!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
And just so there’s no question about the context of the discussion:
Joan Walsh says this type of racism is "Great research, great to have it [...] But you know, this is what we've been saying from the beginning..."
You're correct Joan, this is what you've been saying from the beginning. And no matter how many times you say it, it won't come true.
Shame on Chris Matthews.
This is nothing more than racially charged hyperbole and it needs to stop. When will liberals and the "progressive" left stop the bomb-throwing?
I thought we were in the "New Tone" era of politics, after all. That's what President Obama said in Tucson after the deranged guy shot Congresswoman Giffords.
Oh, that's right. Matthews said that was due to "Old Tone."
Can't we focus on the issues and stop worrying about skin color already?
Screen caption courtesy of AiPolitics.
Keep up with me on Twitter. I've been discussing more baseball then politics for the past few days, but my Diamondbacks are in an August pennant race!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
I, on the other hand, will be looking for the person who best embodies, amongst some other ideas, these simple principles:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Hat tip to Red Head for posting this list of common sense values. You can find her on Twitter @red_red_head or find her blog here.
Follow @wisdomofsoloman on Twitter
Friday, August 12, 2011
I give an A- to Michele Bachmann. I think she did what she had to do and she did it well. Pawlenty’s jabs were below the belt and she called him on it. She seems to really know what she’s talking about. The one issue the liberal media will continue to haunt her with now is the debt ceiling issue. She’s right, yet she’s wrong on that issue. The Tea Party is correct in its core belief that we need to control spending, but the economy would not have liked at all the idea that we were forcing such a hardship so quickly, were we to not raise it then and there. It took a hundred years for the progressive spending agenda to destroy America to the point we are today; we can’t fix it in one motion. I also appreciated the fact that she answered the “submissive” question in a classy way. I see no problem with her marriage and no problem with the answer she gave.
I don’t see why everyone hates Newt Gingrich so much. I give him an A- and actually think he won the debate, to some extent. The only reason he is on the lower side of an A in my mind is because as he consistently lashed out, he did come across as a little angry... but why not? Should we be happy about where we are today? I think Newt had some of the best lines of the night. Nobody has and offers up ideas like Newt does, and his ideas seem very reasonable. He makes everyone else look like polished campaign-stumpers and nothing more.
And regarding the Chris Wallace question: Newt’s campaign left him because he has a new vision for how to run a campaign in the 21st century and they didn't agree with it. He’s said it over and over, in interviews on every network, yet Wallace just had to go there again. Newt was right about the question and FNC is becoming part of the MSM problem in that respect. They are too worried about ratings and becoming too much like what they say they are not. I still give FNC credit for offering a real left-right comparison of opinion on most shows and their straight news team is excellent, but gotcha questions are pathetic and Chris Wallace should be ashamed.
Ron Paul. I want to give the man a B, but I have to give him an F. He just doesn’t get it that Iran can not have nuclear weapons. That’s a total non-starter for anyone with a brain. Regarding fiscal policy Ron Paul is pretty brilliant. I am not sure we should abolish the Federal Reserve, but it definitely needs to be audited, and Paul is correct that the world is best served by free trade. Our issue is that we have a tax policy that fails in the free trade marketplace and it’s beginning to take its toll on us big time. Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.
Rick Santorum did well last night; I give him a B. He’ll never win the General Election and I don’t think he’ll even come close in the primary, but he did well in at least pointing out that there was a room full of people with ideas, not just T-Paw, Bachmann, and Romney.
Hermann Cain is a really smart guy when it comes to running a business, I can see that. He should be Secretary of Treasury, or Commerce, or something along that line. He needs to be recognized for his efforts to expend the discussion and bring ideas to the table. He’s not going to win the nomination because he’s just not ready for prime time, this time. Solid B+.
Jon Huntsman will never win this primary unless he develops a personality and starts answering questions. I don’t know enough about him to say what he stands for and that’s his problem. He kept saying “I stand on my record” but unless there was a turntable underneath him, that statement was meaningless. I don’t live in Utah, didn’t live there when you were governor, and I want to hear you tell me – right now – the answer to the question. I do like that he is knowledgeable about the Chinese, and for that alone he should be considered for a position like Secretary of State. But regarding this night? D-.
Mitt Romney gets a B+. He didn’t come away hurt, and I actually appreciated his explanation of how Massachusetts health care was a Tenth Amendment issue and he sees the national issue differently. I think hardcore right-wingers need to listen to him more and give him a chance on this one. Pride alone would stop a decent man from repeating so many times that he would repeal Obamacare. Mitt Romney seems to be a decent man, and he has definitely said more than once that repeal of Obamacare is on his agenda. My issue with Romney is that he comes across too polished, but what are we to expect of a man who’s been running since 2007 in the age of cable-news sound bytes and endless attacks for every last miscue?
Overall I think the debate was interesting. I learned a couple of new things and that helps, and I think we found out who the real players are. We are yet to hear from Rick Perry who will be an interesting addition, and of course there’s Sarah Palin, who just keeps hanging around. Speaking of Palin, here’s an interesting and very reasonable discussion between her and some reporters, mostly Don Lemon of CNN. Credit to Lemon for a fair and decent line of questions, and I think Palin really hit it out of the park in this discussion. If she could come across like this all the time, even some of her detractors would have trouble putting her down.
A Hat Tip to Kirsten Powers for the link to the video, via @kirstenpowers10 on Twitter.
Follow @wisdomofsoloman on Twitter
Wow, I need this thing to start making me an income… but I digress.
I see things I like about each candidate, and I see things that I don’t care for quite so much. I believe I need to voice these insights and concerns to my friends and family; those who follow politics as I do and care about the future of this great nation. You may agree. You may disagree. All I ask is the same I’ve always asked of anyone who ever read anything I have ever written; open your mind to a perspective you may not have otherwise held, and offer your feedback if you so choose.
As I write this “Squishy Nondescript American" Series I will be, to the best of my ability, an independent mind looking at the field of Republican candidates who wish to be nominated for the 2012 General Election and have the opportunity to defeat President Barack Obama (notice I didn’t put the “Hussein” in there? That’s me being independent *insert laugh track*).
Here, as I feel the desire and have the time, I will put on my best “independent” suit and try to simply break down the good and the bad I see in each candidate. I do not know if I will be able to offer insight into all the candidates in the field. After all, there are now nine Republicans in the field including Rick Perry who apparently will make it official Saturday.
America has a National League baseball team (no DH, better baseball) running against one guy who loves to play basketball.
The first installment in this series is a perspective about the seemingly undesired frontrunner, Mitt Romney.
Right now Romney falls into that “Next-in-line Republican” category as far as the media is concerned. The Republican Party has a documented tradition of nominating the guy who was the “runner-up” last time. Mike Huckabee was said by many to be the early favorite this time around, but once he opted out it became clear Romney was the man to beat.
If you follow conservative media, you know it is obvious that many in “conservative” circles do not want Romney to win the nomination. My ideological side wants to agree in some cases, but my practical side keeps telling me to stop being such the ideologue and look at this thing like the average “independent.” That’s literally what prompted the decision to create the “Squishy Non-Descript American Series,” so kudos to Mitt Romney for that one. If he can inspire people to create jobs like he inspired me here, then I’ll vote for him. Again, no endorsement here.
Part of the issue that some on the political right have with Romney is that he chooses a faith they do not understand. Yet do they make the effort to learn more about him and his Faith? People living in glass houses will always throw stones, I suppose.
All I know of the Mormon Faith is good. Mormons seem to have deep family values, and their neighborhoods seem to be tightly knit communities. It seems that they practice solid conservative principles in their daily lives. They look after each other through Church and community as well as (or better than) any other denomination. Every Mormon I have ever met has been polite, well-spoken, and decent. Mormons are typically pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and obviously pro-First Amendment.
Sure, you may have had (especially if you live in the Southwest) Mormon teenagers knock at your door and ask you about your relationship with God. But if you politely (or impolitely if you’re a jerk) say “No, thank you” that person will be on their way and think nothing less of you. In some nations you’ll be executed for not following a certain “Faith” and there are groups of people dedicated to killing Americans and Israelis simply because we do not follow their “Faith.” So what’s so bad about a kid knocking at your door?
Mormons’ love of America seems abundantly clear; I know in the areas around here, every Memorial Day and 4th of July there appears on every lawn an American Flag. Go see if that kind of thing happens on the South Side of Chicago, or in Hyde Park from where our current President hails. I’m just sayin’.
I grew up in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, where we had a community parade in our subdivision on these holidays. What I see in Mormon communities reminds me tremendously of the feeling I had as a kid. Good people, love of country. The flags on the lawn may appear to be a superficial statement, but it shows me dedication to America like no other.
If you as a Christian believe that a man was conceived without a human father’s participation, then parted seas, healed the sick, turned water into wine, and ultimately died on a Cross and was reborn in order to save your soul, can’t you just open your mind a little bit to someone else having their own belief system, as long as they are not blowing us up for believing differently? I mean really. Freedom from religious persecution, and the right to practice your own beliefs; I think our founders kind of had something about it somewhere. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
What America does not need right now is this litmus test for the presidency. After all, we didn’t even have a reasonable background check done on the last guy we elected, and he was known to have hung out with (and have the political support of) people who tried to blow up police stations and Federal Buildings.
I do not follow a specific Faith, but I believe in God. My understanding of God’s wishes for us is that we do unto others as we would ask that they do unto us. So if Christians of any denomination want to be allowed to practice their belief in God freely as is protected by our First Amendment, why do they not treat Mitt Romney the same? Is there some honest issue within that particular Faith that is truly harmful to America? If so, I wish someone would bring it to the table so we can discuss it.
Unfortunately Mitt Romney also has this record of changing positions that’s kind of lingering, and it's all happened during his public life. Some say it appears he has changed his positions for political expediency.
I can not know what is in another man’s heart unless he tells me, and everything Romney has said indicates these changes were due to personal growth rather than politics. Everything I have to work with tells me that Romney's current beliefs are true and he will stand by them, and so I must believe him unless someone can prove otherwise.
What I do know is that in every instance Romney has grown more conservative. The political "right" in America should accept this graciously, yet they don't. My question is simple: why not? They say, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain," so in that regard at least Mitt’s headed in the right direction.
Ten years ago I had more liberal views regarding abortion than I have today, believing that it truly was about a “woman’s right to choose.” Now I recognize that to choose life first is the most important choice, and that there are other viable “choices” available. Ten years ago I didn't understand the 2nd Amendment and its importance as a foundation of our freedoms as well as I understand it today. Ten years ago I might have believed that everyone “deserved” “free health care,”’ but today I recognize that there truly is not such thing as “free” health care. What there is in politics at the national level is an effort to use the guise of “free health care” to gain votes from those who have not lifted themselves, eventually to put more tax burden on the earning class, to build government largesse.
I am personally against the idea of governmental intervention in our health care system at any level, but I must agree with Romney regarding his “States’ Rights” position. The right of State budgeting is not left to the Federal government, and therefore it is indeed the Right of each state to determine the best solution to their individual concern. This is a perfect example of where Romney’s system in Massachusetts may be undesirable but is definitely legal, and Obama’s national legislation is clearly unconstitutional.
Mitt Romney is definitely wise to the business world. He has a strong record regarding the 2002 Winter Olympics, for which he is credited for working through politically corrupt goings-on between the IOC and local Salt Lake City officials, revamping an extremely disorganized budget and chaotic situation, hiring knowledgeable people,and using that team to bring success to what looked like a disastrous situation.
Romney’s personal fortune was made through investment strategies, under the name Bain Capital. Believed to be worth between $190-390 million, his investments in Sealy (mattresses), Domino’s Pizza, Staples, and Sports Authority have proven that he is capable of putting together a team that can take a questionable economic situation and bring it to fruitful results.
Mitt Romney has a stellar education; liberal elites can not question his intelligence even by their own standards, unlike the mean-spirited attacks they throw upon George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and others. He graduated with honors from BYU, received a Masters Degree in business from Harvard, and has a Law Degree from Harvard, where he graduated cum laude.
As I mentioned earlier this is not an endorsement. I am absolutely endorsing whatever candidate (or ham sandwich) runs against President Obama in 2012 because we can not take another four years of misguided handling of our great nation. I welcome your feedback and hope I have offered some perspective you may not have otherwise found before today.
Follow @wisdomofsoloman on Twitter
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
I had always assumed the competition would really have to impress me to win me over enough to stop me from buying a Sony. They have always been innovative, and in my opinion they offer the best quality available for the price.
And although Sony Entertainment” is a different division than Sony Electronics, it was with a heavy heart that I read the article as it was linked on The Drudge Report this evening.
This article is not some World Net Daily or Andrew Breitbart piece that can be somewhat easily dismissed by the “Mainstream Media” and the left as a hatchet-job. This piece is provided by Reuters, a reputable news organization that is considered a straight source.
The article behind the link “WHITE HOUSE REJECTS FAVORS CLAIM” is about the fact that The Pentagon is helping Sony Entertainment create and produce a clearly biased film, aimed at benefitting their political desires over being objective about a story of historical context.
Quite honestly I might not otherwise feel this way, but according to the Reuters article the planned release date for the film is October 2012.
I do not know if any classified information was given Sony by The Pentagon; that will be for Congressional hearings to determine. All I know is that something smells fishy about a film about the one specific high point of President Obama’s time in office being released the month before he is up for re-election.
Call me a cynic.
Monday afternoon President Obama stood before a very concerned nation and once again, at a time when he absolutely needed to to look Americans in the eye and offer some comfort, read from the teleprompter.
He was 45 minutes late to the press conference he called, at which he was to discuss the future of our once seemingly indestructible economy.
He used partisan rhetoric to dismiss newly elected conservative Congressional Representatives as the reason for the problems we face today.
In that moment, he essentially scolded the people who metaphorically “called 911” so the fire department might have a chance to “put out the fire and save the burning building.”
It has been said that President Obama seems more concerned with being President than acting Presidential. I used to not want to believe this, but how can we not?
Yesterday morning my local radio talk show host Barry Young brought forward the question that many do not want to ask, but which I believe is worthy of discussion.
I’ll use my own words, from a ““Tweet” I posted Wednesday morning: Too little, too late: Taliban Insurgents Behind Afghan Chopper Crash Killed in Airstrike.
I then added the hashtag “#DidObamaWagTheDog. If you are not familiar with Twitter, a # is a “hashtag,” and when you use that symbol it creates a hyperlink to all the “tweets” that have used the same word or phrase as a search keyword. If enough people use the same hashtags they can create discussions, and Twitter shows you what discussions are "trending" on their website. It’s quite interesting to this novice, and I am learning to use it for both fun and information.
The one thing this President has done that we can all agree was successful was to give the order to kill Osama bin Laden. That one moment gave him an opportunity to unite the nation like nothing else he has done, including and even more than the blatantly dishonest and partisan “New Tone of Civility” speech In Tucson.
I do not believe for one minute that the troops who died in that helicopter crash were knowingly sent to their demise.
However, I do believe it is worth asking whether or not this administration would attempt a “heroic” military conquest at a time they obviously needed a diversion.
The media is focused on the debt issue and President Obama's leadership skills are finally being called into question, and what better to distract the entire nation than a major Taliban figure or organization being taken out, with the heroes once again being Seal Team Six?
And if that question is even being considered, then certainly it is reasonable to ask if there is collusion between Sony and the Obama administration in an effort to gain reelection.
@wisdomofsoloman on Twitter
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Will ANYONE please tell me where the Barack Obama cover was that has this "tone?" I didn't see him portrayed as "Angry" which certainly might be fitting for a "Community Organizer."
Here is the article that cover represents.
From that article:
"But far more damaging than the charge of double standards may be the growing realization among Americans of just how radical the Tea Party movement really is. The willingness of its most committed members to risk national default for the sake of achieving its political goals has no doubt contributed to the dramatic rise in the number of Americans who view the movement unfavorably."Nope... no media bias.
Props to @JedediahBila for the link to @thedailybeast, which it seems has sold its soul. And Meghan McCain writes there.... who'd have thunk it?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Congrats, President Obama.
You're correct - you inherited a mess. Thirty years of bad policy and mismanagement... check that - one hundred years of bad policy and mismanagement, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson and his "progressive" tax system. Yep... you inherited a mess. I agree.
Those of us who didn't see it clearly a few years ago have come full circle and admitted we were wrong.
And through all that self-reflection,we've really had hope. We had hope that you really would be "change." We hoped that when it all came to a head you would step up and do the right thing.
But when the going got tough, you hid behind closed doors. You showed us that you are more concerned with being President than acting Presidential, because to be a leader... to act like the "Leader of the Free World," would have meant sucking it up and going against your beliefs, knowing that every credible independent source told you to do so.
Now we've been downgraded. First time in history. Ever.
You are indeed historic, President Obama.
I hope you're historic for another reason, though. I hope it is you who helps America finally wake up to the perils of "progressive" politics.
A nation simply can not tax people more and expect the government to successfully redistribute that taxation in a way that creates more wealth. All that redistribution will ever create is a dependence on more government.
Look to our public school system for proof positive. Look to the inner cities. Look to Wall Street, for that matter.
Even the "rich" on Wall Street are now used to being propped up by the government, which is why when they didn't see more taxes from the "debt ceiling deal" they went crazy, and we have now seen the market lose five percent of its value within the past week.
From the Washington Post article:
Standard & Poor’s has warned Washington several times this year that, unless the federal government took steps to tame its debt, its credit rating could be lowered.So... S&P says that "Cut, Cap and Balance" had it right, and therefore by The White House's own admission with this statement Paul Ryan had it right. And by generally supporting them both, The Tea Party has been right all along.
I saw this on Huffington Post and thought it was the perfect insight regarding how dysfunctional the conversation has become, in large part due to the horrible messaging from the media:
Seriously, people really believe this kind of thing.
The media and the Democrats in Congress have run around calling their fellow Americans "terrorists," "teabaggers," "jihadists," and more.
Why wouldn't young, gullible college students believe this to be true?
I know when I was young I thought Ronald Reagan was a horrible president. During the Clinton impeachment era, I believed he was not guilty of anything more than having a very casual affair with some chubby chick, and the Republican Party was out to get him simply because they hated him. Why? The media told me so, that's why.
So why would this not be the opinion of many people who will not have the intellectual integrity to check what another source of information might say about things?
Eat your peas, America. It ain't going to get any easier.
Follow me on Twitter
Monday, August 1, 2011
He spoke about what was “won” from the conservative perspective and what comes next if you’re a person who believes, as do I, that spending is out-of-control and that the growth of government must be stopped.
Essentially, everything that happened comes down to the fact that conservatives only control one half of one chamber of Congress (The House). Therefore conservatives really only control one-third of the legislative process of government, if you include The House, The Senate, and The White House in control of the legislative process since The President must always sign off on any legislature.
And really, conservatives don't even really control The House, even though the media and the liberals – including, it seems, our Vice-President - will tell you America is “being held hostage by terrorists.” The Republican Party controls The House, and therefore the “progressive” agenda still has something to say about what happens in The House.
It is my humble opinion that the representatives who were elected to to the “Tea Party” uprising should be very proud of themselves. Whether or not you agree with everything they’ve done, they were elected to go to Washington D. C. and draw a line in the sand on behalf of their constituents, and with the exception of a few they did just that.
These Congressional Freshman did exactly what they were asked to do. They didn’t go make an issue of abortion or gay marriage; they went and made an issue about the size and scope of government, which is what really needs to be dealt with at the federal level. Our political system worked, and some people don’t like the results. So be it.
When it is all analyzed, however, the truth is that right now the “progressive” establishment holds most of the cards in the District of Criminals, and the progs are more interested in government maintaining the status quo than they are interested in creating real change, which is why in the end Boehner got the votes he needed to get this “deal” done. This deal allows government to continue to grow, spend, and destroy our future.
This is not Boehner's fault; this is the system we have to work within until we can really effect change.
I believe Boehner was an honest broker on the behalf of the conservative agenda. I believe Boehner, like McConnell, had a “leadership” role to play, because as McConnell said during this interview, if not for the 2010 election the progressive establishment would still have ultimate control and we’d be in worse shape than we are in today.
McConnell and Boehner had to do what they did, in order to gain a small victory.
Small victories give inspiration, and small victories gain momentum. Momentum helps win future victories, and eventually the side that wins enough small victories will win a few big battles and eventually win the war.
The Republican leadership got what they could get right now given what they have to work with.
We have a radical leftist in The White House and his lackeys Reid, Durbin, and Schumer in The Senate, and they all answer to George Soros.
Until we conservatives can vote ourselves into The White House and have control of The Senate, this is the best Boehner and McConnell could do. And for that I give them credit, because although we'll still be spending more after this deal, by voting in the group that we voted in during the 2010 midterms we definitely changed the discussion.
And that is change you can believe in.
Most people watching MSNBC are watching that network because they agree with the politics of the pundits. A "typical" MSNBC viewer will watch this in full context and completely miss the words "Not particularly this case."
What the viewers of MSNBC will walk away with is "Gun," "Violence level of the right-wing in this country," and "Shot down in a political act."
Truth is, the "right-wing" of this nation is no more and no less violent than the "left-wing."
There are abortion-clinic bombers who can be associated with the "right-wing," and they should be condemned. And sure, it's possible and even likely that there were some arguments during the Obamacare debates that were instigated by "right-wingers."
However, there are also those union thugs who beat down "Tea-party" people at town halls during the Obamacare debates. There was a man who had his finger bitten off by a "left-winger" at an Obamacare protest. There was the militant environmentalist who held a bunch of people hostage in front of The Discovery Channel building.
Political discourse is heated. Anger is at an all-time high. But one thing is for sure, and that is the truth. The truth is, Gabby Giffords was not shot by a "Violent right-winger," and for Chris Matthews to continue insinuate such is just plain dishonest.