Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Herman Cain's Smokin' New Ad Has Pundits All Fired Up

The political world is all fired up today about this new web advertisement by Republican candidate Herman Cain, starring his Chief of Staff Mark Block and a cigarette. Seems the cigarette has caused quite an uproar. Here is the clip:

I think this ad is genius, and draws an incredibly stark contrast between Herman Cain and the status quo. In my opinion, this ad represents the essence of Herman Cain’s candidacy for President.

This ad reeks of freedom, individual responsibility, and honesty. No more Presidents sneaking off to the back patio to have a cigarette that will be denied if anyone should ask; this campaign is telling you right up front what it is about. You may or may not like it, but it’s going to put it out there and let you decide.

I'd like to put forward a little bit about Herman Cain and his "putting it out there" attitude that has impressed me so far.

First and foremost, Cain put forward the first bold proposal for a plan to restructure the tax code. He has sent every other candidate scrambling to come up with their own, hopefully more impressive plan. "9-9-9" may not be perfect, but it brought to the forefront an extremely important topic that the current administration refuses to discuss. A flatter tax code with lower rates across the board is considered by most economists not named Krugman to be the best way to jump-start the economy and create a wider revenue base.

Cain spoke of and never should have backed away from the idea of a real border fence. For decades we have been hearing from both sides "We must first secure the border," yet nothing has been done. Sure there’s a little bit of hyperbole there with the whole electrocution thing, but at least he is willing to say what nobody in politics really seems to be willing to say; that we have a security issue in this nation, and until we address it forcefully it will never be solved.

Cain has made in-your-face statements to the Black community about himself and his belief system as compared to affirmative action and entitlement bound belief system of President Obama. He calls himself a Black American, and has said ultimately he prefers to be called an American, with no hyphenated anything. Regarding opportunity for success in America, Cain takes a position most Americans can truly believe in. He discards the race card and will not allow himself to be called a victim due to the color of his skin. Cain came from humble beginnings to become the CEO of a major corporation, and never received any government assistance along the way. He truly is a self-made man, and has the background and success to speak to the true American Dream.

Herman Cain may not be perfect, but what he shows in potential tells me that he is much better at this moment than anything our current President has to offer - even after President Obama’s almost three years in office. Herman Cain is a leader, and he is a manager. Cain has acknowledged that he doesn’t know everything, which is a refreshing change from the man who was proclaimed by the media to know it all, acted like he knew it all, and has ultimately proven he really doesn’t know much at all.

Cain has said that if he does not know, he will find someone who does know and employ that person’s wisdom. That is real leadership and management.

The one specific I would like to hear Cain address is President Obama’s appointment of “Czars,” as opposed to what I hope would be Cain’s request for counsel without the need for title and salary.

The “Czar” idea is not exclusive to President Obama. If we are to move this nation forward in a dignified manner, we all need to recognize and admit that President Obama and his outrageous power grab is a culmination of decades of “progressive” ideals, and that politicians from both parties have participated in the excesses allowed by the system created by "progressive" politicians. What has taken nearly a century to create will not be disassembled overnight, but anyone offering to change the course in a principled manner should be applauded.

President Obama appointed people based on personal favoritism, perhaps influenced by a little Soros cronyism. He put them on the government payroll, and gave then free reign. Rather than seeking their advice, he allowed them to shape policy. Under this system, we have more unnecessary environmental regulation than ever before which is ruining business development and growth. We also have the most radical “progressive” policies ever regarding the ideas being taught in our schools. And most importantly, the balance of power between the three branches of government is less than at any time in our nation’s history.

Regarding Cain, I would hope (based on his behavior to date) that his choices would always be founded in principle, not in political expediency.

Cain’s biggest weakness seems to be foreign policy, but he is a quick study, and he has the right belief system. Peace through strength and clarity is a lot better than “Every nation is exceptional.” Telling the world that Israel and England are our most staunch allies, that Iran is the most known source of proxy terrorism in the world today, and that Pakistan had better mind its manners are all good policy statements.

Regarding Cain’s recent abortion comments, I understand and agree with Cain’s ability to separate a personal belief system from government intervention into our lives. While I firmly stand on the side of life and would hope no life ever be aborted, it is not the responsibility of government to make that decision for adults. Prohibitive laws regarding minors should be in place and should be strict, but adults in a free society should take personal responsibility for their own actions and should have the right to do what they believe is best. If we truly believe in small government, we must understand that while we may vehemently disagree, abortion is a decision that should be left to the individual. That is a decision the individual will make between themselves and their God, and they will have to live with that decision. I also believe that it is better to have legal and safe clinics for such procedures than to have them take place in an underground, back-alley environment.

I don't know if Herman Cain will win the nomination, but he is definitely changing the conversation - and I would say for the better.

And to those who think Herman Cain’s smile at the end of the clip is odd, if not creepy? Herman Cain said it himself - lighten up, America. Get a sense of humor.

#iamthe53, are you? Keep up with me on Twitter. Tuesday night I live tweeted Michael Moore's appearance on Piers Morgan. What a facepalm that event was!

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Groupthink In Effect: Sheeple at "Occupy Atlanta" Silence Civil Rights Era Hero

This is some of the strangest behavior I have ever seen. This crowd consistently repeats - or parrots, if you will - every single thing said by whomever has the "floor."

I would not say I have a completely thorough understanding of Marxism, but this video definitely represents the most secular / collectivist mentality I have ever seen in America. The closest thing I can imagine as I watch this video is Jim Jones and his followers at Jonestown, or David Koresh and his followers at Waco.

From the YouTube description:

What we saw at the "revolution":

Many curious citizens and media outlets came to the first Occupy Atlanta event, and were visible shocked and confused by the consistent Marxism employed by the group. People abandoned their individuality and liberty to be absorbed into a hypnotizing collective. The facilitator made it clear that he was not a "leader" and that everyone was completely equal; words often spoken by leftists, but in this case they actually applied their philosophy. Into this surreal and oppressive environment, Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights hero and icon of American leftism, came to speak as has so often done at left-wing rallies and events in Atlanta. He is practically worshiped in Democrat circles, and was visibly stunned to see these Marxists turn him away. It was reminiscent of previous Marxist revolutions in history when those who ignorantly supported the revolutionaries are, over time, purged and rejected for the "good of the collective", when their usefulness has expired.

Keep up with me on Twitter.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011


Today we lost the man many would say is the Thomas Edison of our era. Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, has passed away.

I don’t own an Apple product. I know many who do, and they love them. All of them.

But the products themselves are not the story; the story is the man, and his vision. Steve Jobs had dreams, and his vision allowed him to turn those dreams into reality.

Steve Jobs lived his dream, and in doing so he made the world a better place. May he rest in peace.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Arizona Diamondbacks Honor Fallen Fan

The Arizona Diamondbacks have renamed their season-ticket scholarship program in honor of Michael Wogan, a 22-year-old Scottsdale, Arizona man killed in the Reno air-show crash last month.

Wogan was one of four brothers, three of whom have muscular dystrophy, and the brothers have been recipients of the ticket scholarship for the past four years. Watching baseball together was one of their traditions.

Tonight, Wogan’s mother, Anne, will throw out the first pitch in the Diamondbacks-Brewers game, and her three other sons will join her on the field.

Read more here.

Keep up with me on Twitter, and Go Diamondbacks!

Monday, October 3, 2011

State Run Sports Media Network ESPN Removes Hank Williams Jr. Song From Monday Night Football Opening

Editor's Note: I understand the position taken by ESPN; I am simply here to point out the media hypocrisy. I hope this issue is resolved and Williams' song returned to its appropriate place next Monday.

ESPN, the network that has brought you President Barack Obama’s “March Madness” brackets every year since his inauguration, decided that Hank Williams Jr. went too far.

After 20 years of opening Monday Night Football on ABC or ESPN, Williams’ well-known pigskin-revised rendition of “All My Rowdy Friends” was replaced by The Star Spangled Banner, as performed by "Sister Hazel."

During an interview with Fox News Channel “Fox and Friends” Monday morning, Williams made a comparison that did not sit well with management at the Connecticut based sports network, which is known by many to have an “East-Coast bias” in its reporting and broadcasting.

The Disney / ABC owned network did not take kindly to Williams’ statement that he thought Speaker of the House John Boehner playing golf with President Obama "would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu ... In the shape this country is in?"

Told by anchor Brian Kilmeade that he (Kilmeade) didn't understand the analogy, Williams said: "I'm glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do. They're the enemy." Asked who, Williams said: "Obama. And Biden. Are you kidding? The Three Stooges."

Boehner played golf with Obama in June at the height of the national budget debate in Washington, D.C.

Williams, from Tennessee, has said he would run as a Republican for the U.S. Senate in 2012.

Later in the Fox interview with Williams, anchor Gretchen Carlson told Williams he used the name of one of history's most hated men to describe the President. "Well that's true. But I'm telling you like it is," Williams said.

ESPN issued the following statement regarding their decision to pull Williams’ fan-favorite from their broadcast:

"While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight's telecast."

Through his publicist, Williams issued the following statement regarding the situation:

"Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme -- but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me -- how ludicrous that pairing was. They're polar opposites and it made no sense. They don't see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the president."

This is (no pun intended) an interesting position for the sports network, given its lack of condemnation of former Heavyweight Boxing champion and convicted rapist Mike Tyson.

Like Williams, Tyson is not an ESPN employee.

Tyson recently made his feelings about former Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin known during an appearance on ESPN radio’s “Gridlock. When asked about the allegations put forward in an unauthorized biography that Palin had once had an affair with basketball player Glenn Rice (a Black man), Tyson went on an obscene rant [parental advisory] that can be heard here .

In a completely unrelated story, ESPN Paul Azinger was recently reprimanded by ESPN for his Twitter comments regarding President Obama’s golf outings, most specifically his aforementioned outing with Speaker John Boehner during the “Debt Ceiling” talks.

In the wake of Azinger’s social media commentary, ESPN ‘reminded” the golf analyst that his venture into political punditry violated the company’s updated social network policy for on-air talent and reporters. “Paul’s tweet was not consistent with our social media policy, and he has been reminded that political commentary is best left to those in that field,” spokesman Andy Hall said in a statement.

This blogger did an independent search on YouTube for “george w bush espn brackets” and found no worthwhile results. I do not recall the network ever taking interest in the former President’s opinion on March Madness as much as it has requested that of our current President.

To be fair, President Bush is known to be an avid baseball fan, so I did a search for “espn george w bush baseball” and found this interview the network did with Mr. Bush regarding the state of baseball affairs.

Keep up with me on Twitter

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

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

I Don't Need Your Civil War

This is what is being said about you and I, our families and our friends:

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


As seen on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Wednesday August 17, 2011:

And just so there’s no question about the context of the discussion:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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

What To Watch For in 2012

If you like where things are today then you're welcome to vote for Barack Obama in 2012.

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

My Grade Card For The GOP Debate

Tim Pawlenty gets an F. He tried to be snarky and raise his level of rhetoric and it didn’t work. He’s just too milquetoast and it’s killing him. I think the same would happen in the general election. Someone with real ability to raise his tone is going to have to be ready for the onslaught the progressives and Obama are going to bring, and T-Paw just isn’t the guy. Bob Dole thinks Pawlenty might have beaten Bob Dole in ’96, but this ain’t ’96.

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

Soloman’s “Squishy Nondescript American" Series: Mitt Romney

This is not an endorsement. I do not believe I will be endorsing any specific candidate for the Republican nomination until the day I walk in the polling booth for the Republican Primary in Arizona. Of course, I reserve the right to change that position. This is my blog, and I’ll do what I want to.

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

Wagging The Dog?

Sony is my favorite electronics company. I own a Sony home audio system that I absolutely love. My car stereo is a Sony. My televisions – the ones I have loved – have been Sony. Right now due to economic circumstances I have not done so, but when life affords me the opportunity I plan to purchase a nice over-sized LED flat-screen.

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

Newsweek (Obama) Cover

Might as well be, looking at the way they portray Mrs. Bachmann on the cover.

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?

Follow @wisdomofsoloman

Friday, August 5, 2011

Eat Your Peas, America

So we've been downgraded.

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:

"President Obama should be impeached because he didn't put the Tea Party into internment camps when he had the chance and protect the US from such a destructiv­e domestic threat."

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

Change You Can Believe In

During an interview – I believe it was on On The Record, I heard a good argument from Senator Mitch McConnell about how this whole “debt ceiling” deal went down.

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.

The "Truth" According to Chris Matthews

It's not that a person is allowed to be on TV and say things this stupid. It's that he is given credibility and people actually believe he speaks the truth.

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.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Out Of Control Government

File this one under "Are you kidding me?"

According to this article from The Washington Times, Vice-President Biden is somehow able to get away with charging rent of The Secret Service, who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping him safe.

From the article:

Since April, Mr. Biden has collected more than $13,000 from the agency charged with protecting the lives of he and his family, for use of a rental cottage adjacent to the waterfront home he owns in a Wilmington, Del., neighborhood.

Mr. Biden, listed not as vice president in federal purchasing documents but as “vendor,” is eligible for up to $66,000 by the time the government contract expires in the fall of 2013, the records show.

So we pay them, and they pay him, and we pay him...