Myths From an Election Night Loss and How to Save the Republican Party

With the election lost, many folks are asking how to save the Republican Party. To which I wonder what exactly they're trying to save. I am not interested in saving the Republican Party. I'm interested in saving America and the ideals that it was founded on - classical liberalism, individual liberty, and all those lofty principles that no longer seem to matter a majority of voters.

I do believe the Republican Party is still the best vehicle to advance these causes, but only because Democrats have abandoned them for a cradle-to-grave nanny state of centralized bureaucracy. When I hear Democrats advising Republicans to be more moderate to save the Republican Party, I hear only their desire to destroy conservatism. That's not a solution. That's suicide. America needs conservatism to survive, because as Margaret Thatcher correctly stated, "the facts of life are conservative." Just ask Greece.

America, like Greece, will live as a failed state if we abandon the principles that made this nation free and prosperous. Our unprecedented prosperity over two centuries is a result of economic freedom and personal liberty that promised fortune for those who worked hard, saved, invested wisely, and lived within their means. The proof of its success is not just in GDP, but in the choice of millions of immigrants to leave the old world for new opportunities and risk everything to come to these shores.

Unfortunately, the new generation wants it all now without the work or responsibility required of adults. In raising the millennials, we have created an On Demand Generation which spends money blindly on leisure and entertainment while demanding others pick up the tab for their necessities - college, housing, health care, and yes, even condoms. It seems everyone loves the sex, but nobody wants to pay for the consequences (so that's what the hippies meant by "free love"). These are adults behaving like children - putting off adulthood until 27 or however long President Obama says you can stay on your parent's health insurance.

I don't point this out to be overly pious or judgmental, certainly we are all at fault for contributing to the current state of our society, but it does end poorly in the long run. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. The future members of society which we are now enabling will only think of themselves when austerity measures are enacted as they must be to avoid bankruptcy at some point. Look no further than Europe to see what the future holds. Our On Demand Generation will riot, burn, and destroy civilization when their demands to keep spending recklessly to support their habits aren't met. Turns out there is no virtue in instant gratification after all.

What's most telling about this election is how Mitt Romney won the vote of those over the age of 35, but overwhelmingly lost the vote of the under 35 crowd. Here you have the bulk of the OD Generation voting for feel-good freebies at the expense of freedom and refusing to look at the credit card balance for which all of this stuff has to be paid. The fact that its borrowed money at high interest never seems to cross their mind until the bank shows up to take it all back, and then the bank or the so-called rich must be the bad guy. In twenty years, the foolish who voted for this fiscally insolvent path will get the bill and look to blame someone else for the mess they inherited. It would be fodder for great satire if the consequences weren't so serious.

You will hear a lot of stupid talk over the next few weeks about saving the Republican Party as if its the Republican Party that needs saving rather than the future of our nation. And almost all the conclusions will be wrong.

Romney wasn't hurt by the pro-Life cause. Last time I checked, just over half of the electorate considered themselves pro-Life and pro-choice Republicans like Scott Brown and Linda McMahon lost their senate races just as badly as foot-in-mouth candidate Republican Richard Murdock. If anything, the lesson learned is the NRSC should pay to put their senatorial candidates through media bootcamp.

It wasn't a firm stance on illegal immigration that cost the Republicans, either. In Texas, Ted Cruz advocated a stronger border and stricter enforcement of the law all the way to an easy victory while Hispanic Congressman Quico Conseco lost supporting some form of the DREAM Act.

For all the talk of the tea party dragging the Republicans too far to the right, there is scant evidence that this is the case. The tea party remains mostly concerned about fiscal issues and the trillion dollar deficits run up by the Obama administration. This was hardly talked about over the election cycle and that was to the detriment of Republicans. We heard far too much about tax rates and wonkish tax policy. Romney also failed to talk enough about freedom and the virtues of being a nation of individuals who have choices and opportunity. These are the principles that elections are won on. The choice isn't between freebies or not having freebies. It's between freebies or freedom.

Where Republicans ran boring establishment types, they got trounced - see George Allen and Tommy Thompson. Fresh faces like Ted Cruz and two years ago, Marco Rubio, were both the result of tea party efforts and the milquetoast Republicans they defeated in their primaries are evidence that the tea party is reinvigorating the party and moving conservatism in the right direction.

Lastly, it wouldn't hurt for old, white Republicans who look like they just arrived for their TV interview from the country club nursing home to cede the media spotlight to a younger, fresher generation of conservative spokespeople. No, there's nothing wrong with being old or white, but when you have a branding problem as the "old white party", it might be time to stop sending Dick Armey and John Sununu out there every day. Sure, Democrats sent out Bill Clinton, but he's our first black president. They don't send out Jimmy Carter.

In the states that mattered, the Romney Ryan ticket came about 400,000 votes short of the presidency. That's not the beat-down that many media pundits are acting like occurred on Election Night. But it is a wake-up call. If not to Republicans, at least to conservatives.

Ramblings on the Eve of an Election (Plus a Prediction)

We live in a strange world made even stranger by politics. This presidential election is no different. Conservatives are solidly behind Mitt Romney despite Romney's ambivalence on many conservative issues and the fact that just four years ago Romney was considered more moderate than John McCain.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to paint Mitt Romney to the right of Sarah Palin, but sneakier (if not smarter), despite his being governor of one of our most liberal states. This has only helped get Republican enthusiasm up. Nothing makes me more sure of my party's guy than to have the other party scream how little they agree with him.

But Clint Eastwood was right. Barack Obama has failed and we've got to let him go. He inherited the equivalent of a 6-10 NFL team a couple years removed from the playoffs and couldn't get them above .500, let alone back into contention, despite spending on "all the right free agents."

In the end, Barack Obama's biggest failure was not just an ability to get the economy going again, but his decision to ignore the economy altogether and focus on left wing pet projects, otherwise called "never let a crisis go to waste." He did so by increasing welfare spending and government oversight of more sectors of the economy, piling trillions of debt on top of a trillion dollar government transformation of health care that will eventually break this nation's back.

You want to borrow $6 trillion, fine, but at least show me something for your efforts. There is nothing but debt and deficits and meager economic news as far as the eye can see thanks to the failed policies of the past four years. Even if Barack Obama loses, the going will be tough, but it will be tougher if he wins.

President Obama has no record to run on other than pivoting at the 11th hour on gay marriage, ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell", and providing free contraception for women. Hooray. This is closer to a student body president's platform for re-election than the leader of the free world. "Hey, kids, vote for me and I'll put free condoms in the Recreation Center."

The president has failed to outline a vision for the next four years that gives Americans any hope. And this is his campaign's other problem. His slogan is Forward, which is less of an idea than it is a promise to keep pressing ahead in the spend-and-borrow direction he's been taking us, consequences be damned and nevermind the headwinds.

America's economic situation needs a u-turn and if you're an independent, there's no reason to believe a Romney Presidency would be worse than the past four years. Which is why the Romney Ryan ticket is winning independents despite the scare tactics being used by Democrats; over-the-top rhetoric from "the war on women" to "they're gonna put you back in chains."

It all shapes up or at least points toward a Republican victory on Election Night. For all the talk of Romney having to win Ohio, no one is counting on a victory there more than Barack Obama. Romney can still get to 270 with New Hampshire and Wisconsin or Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa. Of these, Nevada seems the least likely. Compare that with Obama, who has no other state where things are trending up. Every other state is either tightening or if Romney has a lead, its widening (see Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Missouri for example).

The truth of the matter is Barack Obama has been losing independents, undecideds, newspaper endorsements, enthusiasm, and substantial leads in battleground polls for the past 2 months now. That's a lot to overcome with a so-called "ground game" unless they're stuffing ballot boxes. Obama's is a campaign of attrition, much like he has left our economy, and it's going to take everything to hang on against the surge that nobody expected a Romney Ryan ticket to have.

Finally, consider that in states where Democrats are voting early in solid numbers, party affiliation may not equal an Obama vote. There are certainly plenty of white, blue collar workers in coal states who may usually vote Democratic, but have had enough of Barack Obama, Solyndra, and green energy czars.

I'm no numbers geek, but the trend lines sure to seem to be flashing a warning sign at President Obama. Last time he ran on hope. This time he hopes he barely hangs on.

Even Mainstream Media Now Admitting Enthusiastic Crowds for Mitt Romney

They have done just about everything to tilt the race in President Obama's favor, but the facts on the ground have forced the mainstream media to acknowledge Mitt Romney's surge. Not that they won't put as many caveats behind it as possible.

Yahoo News, who were already forced to fire their Washington bureau chief due to unprofessional comments he made during the Republican National Convention, show how its done:

"Rising enthusiasm and declining anxiety mark an energy boost among Mitt Romney's supporters since he prevailed in the first presidential debate. But a persistent sense he'd favor the wealthy, combined with easing discontent with the nation's direction, provide a retort for President Obama, raising the stakes for their second showdown this week.

Romney now numerically leads Obama in strong enthusiasm and trails him in anxiety among potential voters, both firsts this season. At the same time, the number of registered voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll who say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track has eased to its lowest in nearly three years, 56 percent - a level incumbents can survive."

If there is a persistent sense that Mitt Romney would favor the wealthy, that's only because the Obama campaign keeps telling us that. To suggest it comes from anywhere outside a Democratic Talking Point is laughable. There's also a persistent sense that President Obama has offered more excuses than answers for the struggling economy. But you'll never see that sentence in the mainstream media.

So here we have a news story about Romney's lead in voter enthusiasm and in avoiding lingering anxiety that is for some reason - Yahoo will never say - plaguing the Obama camp. Gee, that sounds like an incredible amount of momentum for Mitt Romney, but the media couches it in mysterious, "things are looking up for both candidates" language.

Baghdad Bob would be proud. For all we know, he replaced David Chalian at Yahoo.

Krugman's Keynesian Fail

Paul Krugman has an insanely stupid article in the New York Times today that tries to draw a correlation between the success of Apple's iphone and government spending. Krugman proposes that if new iphones can convince consumers to part ways with their hard-earned money, thus giving the economy a small boost, then think of what more money spent on teachers and bridges will do! Seriously. I'm not making this stupid argument up. It's a Krugman original.

Nevermind that government money is not behind the success of Apple's iphone. If it were, the gadget would cost four times as much and work half as well, but don't worry because there would be a government subsidy to help you purchase one if you made below a certain income. In other words, shares of Apple would be worth about the same as shares of GM.

What Keynesians like Krugman fail to realize in all their economic models is the difference betweeen money spent and money well spent. In their world all spending is equal, or if anything government spending is given added importance. This is more a mask for Krugman's statist tendencies than an argument for Keynesian economics.

Because Apple is a private company, it goes wihout saying that their success is profit-driven, not politically-driven. That means innovating their products to meet the demands of the consumer. Efficiency is rewarded. If they fail to innovate, they lose customers. If they succeed, demand increases and they hire more workers in a desire to increase market share. This is why free enterprise is such a successful economic model.

Krugman argues for increased spending for politically-driven interests. This makes them grossly inefficient. There is no risk of failure so long as the government is providing the backing, meaning there is no incentive to innovate. Increased government spending in this case doesn't meet the demands of the consumer, it ignores the consumer to meet the demands of the special interests. This is the opposite of Apple's model.

Take into account all the debt that comes with more government spending, and what you are creating isn't a robust economy, it's an economy that will ultimately crash due to myopic splurging.

Krugman quotes Keynes, saying "we are all dead in the long run" so better borrow and spend today. Yet what we leave behind matters. Do we leave behind successful and growing businesses free to hire workers and invest in products that can change humanity? Or is our legacy that of failed government programs that cost so much businesses like Apple are burdened with higher taxes and regulations until they can no longer operate for society's benefit?

America's economy isn't failing because we lack teachers and bridges. It's failing because we have invested so much in government that political interests impede us from holding anyone accountable anymore. Instead, we get more teachers educating dumber students, green energy companies that never produce a kilowatt of energy, and bridges to nowhere. All of which Krugman argues are somehow great for our economy.

Some days I think President Obama's Nobel Prize was more deserved than Krugman's.

Jennifer Granholm: High Priestess of Hopenchange

When I think of today's Democratic Party, I think of a faith-based religion where even the current 11.7% unemployment rate (as measured using the same standards as the Bush administration) isn't enough to deter the moonbats from voting for a leftist president. Heck, the unemployment rate could be 20% and they would be clamoring for more Obama-style hopenchange. It's a moral issue with these types and they worship at the alter of Big Government

Want to know why there's always more enthusiasm by the Democratic delegates? Because government is their savior. Republicans are more likely to have a healthy skepticism of government - even the governments they elect. A healthy distrust of authority used to be considered a good thing. Not so in the left-wing of the Democratic Party anymore, where it's considered racist to question President Obama.

Nothing against Democrats. But they sold their souls for a false religion based on creating a utopia on earth without any acknowledgement of traditional rights and values. Which is probably why they removed mention of God from their party platform only to reinsert Him back in (to boos) at the eleventh hour.

In case you think I'm overstating it, here's video of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm delivering what I can only describe as a Big Gov Sermon at yesterday's convention (sober, one hopes). The delegates at the Democratic Party eat up every word, of course, giving pause to the more reasonable among us.

If this is what your political party's convention looks like, you're living a lot closer to Scientology on the cult spectrum than you probably realize.

The Clinton Flop

Let's assume Bill Clinton gave a rousing speech at the Democratic Convention. I don't believe he did, but the talking heads on the cable stations keep trying to tell me otherwise. Timing out at just short of an HBO miniseries, the speech was one long stuttering, meandering, hypothesizing, self-aggrandizing, rambling mess that only Chris Matthews could love. It kept going and going and going until even the Energizer Bunny must have felt like committing suicide.

Mercifully, most Americans changed the channel and watched the NFL Kickoff between the Cowboys and Giants, which means they most certainly missed the Patriots vs. Fauxcahontas, as Elizabeth Warren reminded us why charisma matters in a candidate.

Michelle Obama's speech the previous night grated on my last nerve given the over-the-top rhetoric, but at least it was well-crafted. It would have made a great testimonial except that it made actual testimonials of people who have accepted Christ as their Savior seem small by comparison. And Barack has enough image problems without being compared to the Messiah.

But Clinton's speech, with its faint praise and convoluted excuses for Obama's presidential challenges, couldn't have been effective even if it was the smashing success Washington insiders and media elites claim it to be. Why? Because it wasn't going to move independents to Obama, and that's the point at this point in the game.

We are down to just a handful of undecided voters, six to eight percent really, who have yet to make up their minds in this election. So appealing to them is crucial. And when a cheater who was impeached for lying under oath steps in as your character witness, you know your campaign is in trouble.

As it turns out, Clinton presents a Catch-22 for independents. Either they liked him and miss him or they recall his extracurricular activities, Monica, the blue dress, the big lie, etc. For those in the latter group, Slick Willie was just that, and he lacks the credibility to sell Obama's policies. For those in the former group, Bill Clinton is nostalgia for the economic heyday of the 90s when deficits were one trillion dollars less and Congress actually came together and passed laws. Standing next to each other, our current president is found wanting. Clinton reminds us of all Obama's faults and failures.

Alex Castellanos, a GOP "strategist" who spends most of his time on CNN gushing over Democrats, claimed Clinton's speech by itself was strong enough to "re-elect Obama." I won't ask what medication Mr. Castellanos is on or which winning conservative politician he's given advice to recently, but I will point out the flaw in his analysis.

"Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going too far left, he came in, and the new Democrats took it to the center," Alex summarized. "He did it again tonight."

I disagree. What Bill Clinton actually did was remind independent voters that the Democratic Party has gone too far left, that we don't have a centrist in the White House. Obama's campaign slogan is "Forward" but the Clinton years are "Backwards." And backwards in the Democratic Party sounds a lot saner than forward, where fights break out over honoring God on the convention floor.

The Democrats put Bill Clinton on stage as a measuring stick Wednesday night and proved Obama doesn't measure up.

Fictional Obama vs. Real Obama

President Obama criticized Mitt Romney recently for trying to run against a fictional Obama, but if any candidate has a chance of winning this election, who better than a fictional Obama? The real Obama, after all, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Oh well, he wanted to be compared to FDR. Favorably, one assumes, but we'll just leave it to the sycophants in the media to make up the difference.

Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!

Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.

The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."

The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.

Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).

Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.

It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.

My head is spinning.

Illegally Yours

President Obama's lawless executive order to extend visas (or defer deportation) for some illegal immigrants went into effect yesterday, and media outlets were quick to rush down and interview the applying non-citizens. Most of them seemed nice enough and I don't know a soul who would suggest they don't bleed like the rest of us. It's not hard to feel sympathy for an individual who through no fault of their own was brought here illegally, has since assimilated, attends school or holds full-time employment, and feels American down to their very core.

Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.

For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.

Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?

There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?

This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.

Where Obama Fails, Curiosity Succeeds

'Curiosity' touched down on Mars without incident in the wee hours Monday morning, a 2.5 billion dollar NASA success story, and President Obama was one of the first to take credit. "The successful landing of Curiosity... marks an unprecedented feat of technology that will stand as a point of national pride far into the future," noted the president.

For once, the president was understated, maybe because he has been cutting funding for the space program significantly. A point of national pride? This wasn't just another Olympic moment for Team USA on the balance beam. This landing represents a far greater achievement that will pay huge dividends in terms of both territorial exploration (think Lewis and Clark) and national security (dominance in space when the Chinese are trying to overtake us).

Too bad President Obama plans to slash the Mars program's budget from $587 million to just $188 million by 2015, proving he's willing to spend more on failed boondoggles like Solyndra than programs with proven track records. If only NASA was founded by one of his campaign bundlers.

It illustrates a serious problem. Barack Obama lacks the creative vision we usually demand of our leaders. We all know he's a big spender. He's been borrowing, printing, and spending money like there's no tomorrow. But he has been far too unwilling to invest in endeavors that truly illustrate the best of man's potential.

How can a successful program that has so many future implications for advancing American interests get left behind by a president whose campaign slogan is "Forward"? How does a bloated and ever expanding budget somehow cut one of the few programs that improves lives with technology, demonstrates defense capabilities, and captures the world's imagination?

With decisions like these, no wonder our nation has lost its moxy.

Look at where Barack Obama is interested in moving us away from and what he is interested in moving us towards, and you see a leader seriously lacking in intellectual curiosity.

Space is supposed to be the final frontier, where nations dream to soar. Barack Obama has turned NASA's attention away from space exploration and towards more earthly endeavors like Muslim outreach and Al Gore's global warming alarmism.

If President Obama doesn't have a passing interest in new frontiers, maybe it's because he's been molded by a dogma mostly concerned with controlling old ones. Or perhaps outer space is just too vast to redistribute.

Frontiers, by their very definition, are places unbridled by man. They are the unknown, the unsettled, the wild and the free, places of unlimited potential and possibilty. Is there any place a centralized planner would find less appealing?

America has always worked as a nation because we attract the dreamers and explorers, the risk takers, those willing to give up the banality of the old world for new opportunities. It has always been the place where you proved yourself through ingenuity and independent spirit. Throughout his life experience, President Obama has demonstrated neither.

We are a nation of Frontiers, first the east coast and then the west, and when all that land was settled - space, computers, technology, and beyond. An America that doesn't encourage pursuit of new frontiers and doesn't celebrate going boldly where no man or woman's gone before is hardly America at all. For all the problems Barack Obama complains about inheriting, they were at least American ideals. But they don't seem to suit him and so he's going to leave us with less.

This is how a nation built on hard work and imagination is left only to imagine its once great potential while a naval-gazing president tells us to keep dreaming smaller. You want free contraception and food stamps, no problem. You want to discover new worlds, break boundaries, and explore new horizons? Forget about it.

Curiosity killed the cat, but President Obama has done his best to kill curiosity.

What the Colorado Shooting Says About Us

Absolutely nothing. It says only that one individual living behind a mask, secretly in contempt of society, was sick and deranged enough to premeditate a mass murder of innocent children and adults. He deserves the death penalty.

Certainly, there will be handwringing and political discussions about what his means about American society, as if his lone act of craziness can be seen in some larger context. It can't.

There will be groups that will call for less violence in movies and video games, seeing how the mass murderer seemed to be emulating the Joker from the Batman movies. Yet in most cities, there is more violence on the nightly news. There will be calls for more money to address mental health issues, although the low-profile killer studying medicine would have never been eligible for it.

There will be groups calling for gun laws, more restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing ammunition. Keep in mind, though, that some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. See Chicago, for example, where the number wounded in a weekend can reach as high as the Aurora, Colorado theater count did early Friday morning.

The Unabomber never needed a gun. Nor did Timothy McVeigh to devastate that community. Sick individuals, isolated from their neighbors and peers, will always be a threat to society. There are no politics behind it. There is no reason behind it. There is no protection from it. There is just evil.

It would be nice for once if the media chose not to sensationalize this story and moved forward without another word of the shooter's "motivation" or "family life" until it's time to report on his trial. For now, there are only victims -lives cut tragically short - and that's where the focus should be.

I, for once, find myself agreeing with the president. Let's focus on the precious moments we all have together with our loved ones. I'm pretty sure it's the one thing the victims would tell us is most important after all.

Stupid Yahoo Headline of the Day

FREE VOTER ID STILL BURDENSOME FOR POOR PEOPLE

Don't get me wrong. I don't expect much from the barely employed yahoo headline writer, stuck between living at home and trying to find permanent work with a journalism degree in the Obama economy. But I do expect better arguments from so-called left-wing advocacy groups.

From the article:

Nearly 500,000 eligible voters in these 10 states do not have access to a vehicle and live over 10 miles from the closest office where they can obtain the type of identification required to vote in their state, according to the center's study, which came out this week.

Of course, signing up for free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free cell phones, and other assorted handouts doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. Meanwhile, under Obamacare every American is required to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, but you won't hear about that burden from left-wing groups - probably because it's mostly a burden faced by the self-employed middle class.


It's also worth mentioning that most states with voter ID laws allow seniors and the disabled to request mail-in ballots so they don't have to leave their homes. Does anyone else really have an excuse?

Just so we've got this straight now: Taxes on middle class families and small businesses = not a burden. Free IDs for the poor = huge burden. That's the nonsense the Left preaches today. And yet they seem surprised when they're ridiculed.

American Liberty on its Death Bed?

Welcome to Obamaland, where the rule of law is so upside-down that the lawless are increasingly protected (see illegal immigrants, fast and furious, black panther voter intimidation, etc.) while law-abiding citizens find Uncle Sam's jackboot on their neck, their lives regulated to death. The United States of America still exists by name, but Obama's capture of free enterprise means a whole differnet country than Americans have ever know.

Sure, the motto is still the same, still fifty stars on the flag, and people still act as if nothing's changed. But just as when your favorite microbrew or independent winery gets bought out and mass produced by a megabrand with cheaper ingredients, what you once revered in the first place is suddenly missing and it never quite goes down smooth again.

ObamaCare was a massive government overreach, still is, whether one Supreme Court justice found the mechanism to call it constitutional or not. Such a radical takeover of one-sixth of the economy should require more than a razor thin margin of one party rule pushing it through in the dead of night. If you can't win one single vote from the other party, that's not obstructionism. It's a complete rejection of your idea on its merits, and such skepticism by over half of the population should be treated with deep concern and caution, not political force and name-calling.

Ah, but when you want to ram government into every facet of the individual's life, what is each decision if not political? So that now your health care decisions are political, the car you drive is political, how much energy you use is political, owning a gun is political, what your kids are taught is political, diet is political, marriage is political, etc., etc., ad nausea until there's not a free space left to stand and make a decision on your own without being judged by some nanny-statist. Obama has managed to make even following the law political, abandoning that whole quaint John Adams "Nation of laws rather than men" theory on what constitutes a free republic.

Leftists like Obama can't help but make everything the government's business except how to actually run an efficient government (say by passing a budget). Which is none of your business so don't hold him accountable, or so he hopes you won't. Thus, 100 plus rounds of golf while he bans forks at fundraisers and expands the IRS exponentially to peer into your medicine cabinet. And now the Supreme Court has legitimized this the same way the Oscars once legitimized Cher's acting. It's really too horrible for words.

There's no getting around the awful SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but perhaps even more damaging is what it means for personal property rights in this country. Guess what? Nothing is rightfully yours anymore, because this ruling gives the government the power to tell you exactly how to spend every dollar you earn. Not just the wages they tax, which they have always taken and spent as they desired (see Solyndra, Porkulus, National Endowment of the Arts). But thanks to Justice Roberts, two dyed-in-the-wool liberals (one who has admitted to not admiring the U.S. Constitution), and two Obama-appointed stooges, the government now has permission to reach their hand into your pocket or under your mattress and tell you exactly how to spend the money they didn't tax. Or face another tax. And you foolishly thought it was yours.

Our federal government can now lay claim to every dollar in your bank account. If you don't spend it in a way that they approve, well there's a tax for that. And if you can't choose to spend your hard-earned wages the way in which you desire, do you have economic freedom? Does anything really belong to you? Or does it belong to Obama's regime?

This is a crucial point and the defining reason every individual who cherishes their freedom should be outraged by the court's ruling. And further outraged that Democrats cheered and celebrated it. Our liberty was just stolen from us. No wonder progressives were tickled pink. The Supreme Court practically gave their stamp of approval to move towards Communism.

Down at the National Archives, they've replaced the helium in the hermetically-sealed case that protects our Constitution with laughing gas. Now we can finally move in the direction of Red China as Thomas Friedman always dreamed.

Mark June 28th on your calendar as the day of 'The Ruling', a day historians will look back to as the turning point from America as the land of opportunity to America as the land of tyranny. Before 'The Ruling' the individual was protected by a federal government of enumerated powers. After 'The Ruling' the state has been granted unlimited power. And the man who made the ultimate decision was appointed by a Republican president.

I have written about every wrong direction this administration has taken us for the past three years, but this is worse than even my worst-case scenarios. We can repeal ObamaCare. We can't repeal the Supreme Court's precedent. Unbelievable. What now?

Supreme Disappointment: Did SCOTUS Just Approve the Mafia's Model of Doing Business?

There isn't much to be said about Thursday's disappointing Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare that hasn't already been said. Less than one week away from celebrating our independence on the 4th of July, we have in essence lost our independence. Fittingly, the Obama campaign will be celebrating this treasured holiday with fundraisers in France, who must be delighted at our nouveau vogue socialism.

True, the Affordable Care Act is chock full of taxes. Give Chief Justice John Roberts bonus points for noticing - even though he failed the test. How do you allow the government to tax someone for simply existing? How do you tax someone for their choice to not enter into a contract to participate in an activity? It's as if a painter shows up at your house and you say, "I don't want my house painted." And the painter says, "okay, we don't have to paint your house, but you'll have to pay the tax for us not painting your house."

Did America just adopt the Mafia's model of doing business?! It certainly appears that way.

This is more than a slippery slope towards state-controlled behavior; it's a steep cliff to tyranny. The fundamental balance between the government and the people just shifted dramatically - and its not in the favor of freedom.

A few ways progressive liberals may choose to apply the "non-compliance tax" in the future:

HOME SCHOOLING: If you choose to educate your child at home, the government could impose a tax for not participating in public education (on top of the taxes you already pay that end up in public schools). After all, they are writing these global warming curriculums and building new God-free schools to indoctrinate good little citizens. Who are you to think you know better? 

PRE-K EDUCATION: Don't want to send your three or four year old to a government accredited pre-school? Fine, that's your choice as long as you don't mind paying the tax. But it's worth it, because you could never properly teach your child the values and skills they need at home - just ask Time Magazine.

NOT PARTICIPATING IN GREEN ENERGY: Don't have energy efficient appliances? Have yet to install new weatherstripping? Should they choose, the government can tax you now for not complying. Have you bought carbon offsets to make up for the amount of energy you use/waste? If you haven't and you aren't investing in solar panels (already subsidized by tax dollars), the government might impose a tax on you there, too. Do you have a thermostat that can be controlled by Al Gore's busybody bureaucrats from outside your home? Well then, I'm afraid we're going to have to tax you for non-compliance.

DRIVING A HYBRID: You don't have to buy a Chevy Volt or other money-sucking lemon called an electric car, but if you don't there could be a tax for that. Then when charging it in your garage starts to overload the electric grid, which will certainly be a taxable offense, the government can turn your "smart-energy" thermostat up to 84 degrees. Enjoy the summer because it's never been more enjoyable now that the government is looking out for you!

EXERCISE/DIET: Pandora's box is wide open. Every behavior you partake in is now being measured and controlled by the government to see how it affects health care costs, because let's face it, the government hates wasting money (sarcasm). They can tax literally everything they deem "unhealthy" - whether its activity or inactivity. So, for example, greasy foods and cheeseburgers get taxed. So does tobacco and alcohol - yes, even more than the current taxes. Don't exercise once a week or have a gym membership? The government can tax you for being a couch potato. And they can tax your TV, because TV leads to inactivity. Everything you do is now taxable under the guise of "protecting the common welfare."

Are these examples extreme or far fetched? Not at all. None of them will happen this year, but with tax-and-spend Democrats in control, it doesn't take a wild imagination to envision these type of taxes being implemented in the next decade. They reflect real policies that are the goals of lefty statists, which is pretty much ALL Democrats these days, and the Supreme Court did just allow health care tyranny to stand. The "Tax Door" to compel behavior favored by nanny-state do-gooders has just been flung wide open. There is no escape.

To quote C.S. Lewis, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."


The Supreme Court had a chance to stop this oppression on Thursday, to draw a clear line in the sand protecting individual sovereignty from a government that has grown far beyond its use or purpose. Justice Roberts blinked (or acquiesced to the Chicago Way) and they blew it. Soon, we will far outpace Europe in government expansion. Liberals are thrilled, since they wanted to be Europe all along. And it will bring with it European-style taxes, regulations, and crushing debt.

This week Americans learned, sadly, that there is no judicial branch willing to hold overreaching government in check, and as such there is no U.S. Constitution serving as a firewall to protect the people from lying, deceitful, power hungry tyrants. Of course we should defeat these statists at the ballot box. But sometimes we don't, sometimes foolish electorates fall for hopey-dopey sleight of hand and elect lawless politicians. In response, the Supreme Court has said,"Go pound sand."

History will not write favorably of this day when economic liberty was crushed and the Pursuit of Happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence was determined to only be a non-taxable, worthwhile pursuit if it was government-approved. Carry on then. Nothing to see here except a dying Republic.

10 Reasons to Vote for Donna Campbell: UPDATED FOR RUN-OFF

I am a conservative who has lived in the senate district for most of my life. I believe we need a state senator who better reflects our values and isn't beholden to big money lobbyists. Here are ten reasons why I'm supporting Dr. Donna Campbell in the Republican Primary for Texas Senate. If you support Donna, I encourage you to copy and paste these to your blog and Get Out the Vote!

1. Dr. Donna Campbell is NOT a career politician. While her opponent has spent the past three decades in government, Dr. Campbell has spent the past 20 years in the emergency room and will bring that type of critical thinking to solve our state's challenges.

2. Donna Campbell is Pro-Life. She is the only candidate in this race endorsed by three Pro-Life groups. Her opponent received an F from Texas Right to Life and has repeatedly favored abortion-on-demand, including voting AGAINST the sonogram bill and AGAINST requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.

3. Donna Campbell is a constitutional conservative with an 'A' rating from the NRA. She will stand up for the first, second, and tenth amendment and against unconstitutional Washington D.C. power grabs. Her opponent once described himself as "a part-time constitutionalist."

4. Donna Campbell will fight for lower taxes and is the only candidate in this race who has signed a pledge NOT to raise taxes. She has also promised to reduce or eliminate the Margins Tax which penalizes Texas businesses. Her opponent voted for the Margins Tax and favors raising the gas tax to .50 cents per gallon and beyond (by tying it to inflation).

5. Donna Campbell will end the practice of taxpayer funded in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

6. Donna Campbell is the only anti-toll candidate in the race and the only Republican who has talked about auditing TxDOT so that taxdollars from Texas drivers actually go to fix our highways; not for trains and bike lanes. Jeff Wentworth voted to toll 281 and Loop 1604 as recently as June.

7. Dr. Donna Campbell is the only candidate with the medical qualifications to address ballooning health care costs and reform Medicaid, projected to eat up almost a third of the state's budget by 2030.

8. Donna Campbell received an A+ rating from the conservative Heritage Alliance. Incumbent Sen. Jeff Wentworth earned an 'F'.

9. Donna Campbell's donors are everyday citizens like you and me, while her opponent is funded by big money trial lawyers who have given money to Barack Obama. One group, TIR-PAC, has spent over $800,000 trying to buy this election for Jeff Wentworth.

10. Donna Campbell has run a positive, issues oriented campaign, as she promised. Jeff Wentworth broke his promise and has run negative attacks ads that even PolitiFact calls "ridiculous" and designates as "Pants on Fire" on their Truth-o-Meter.

On July 31st, I hope you will join me and other conservative neighbors who have endorsed Dr. Donna Campbell for her dedication to core conservative principles. If you are looking to vote your values, you won't find a better candidate. It has been an honor to volunteer for her campaign.

10 Things I Learned This Week: 4/23/2012

10. There's nothing the president can do about high gas prices, but he's the only one who can fix healthcare.
9.   Knowing whether cookies come from a local bakery or a store chain is a really BIG DEAL,  but naming the wrong islands geographically (by a good 4000 miles) in a presidential foreign policy speech isn't.
8.   That whole Lin-sanity thing was fun while it lasted, wasn't it?
7.   Earth Day barely got mentioned this year, although some lefties did celebrate by watching their Chevy Volts catch fire.
6.   Most hotel ice dispensers only have two settings: ice cube trickle of torture and disaster movie avalanche.
5.   I'm over The Killing on AMC. It's 42 minutes of suspenseful whispering and 3 minutes of heavy percussion music like something's about to happen. But it never does.
4.   Farmer's Insurance has the worst commercials on TV. It's not even close. And now they're pairing up with Marvel Comics? If that movie didn't blow, it does now.
3.   There are white Hispanics and non-white Hispanics. Does this also mean there are white blacks and non-white blacks? If so, President Obama is a white black as much as Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.
2.   Metta World Peace is about as peaceful as the Affordable Care Act is affordable. He should change his name to Metta World Least.
1.   "As The Eagle Flies" by Traffic is a vastly overlooked album. Dream Gerrard is one of Steve Winwood's greatest contributions to music. Go download it now.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Buffett Rule

Of course it's phony. Does anyone expect this president to really demand that the millionaires and billionaires who show up at $40,000 per plate dinners to stop funding his campaign, accept the idea of attaining less wealth, and fork over more taxes with no expectation of a return on their investment?

Don't be silly. It's the same reason Warren Buffett is fighting his tax bill while claiming he doesn't pay his fair share - optics to make Big Government grifters seem like do-good, generous grandparents. In fact, everything you need to know about the "Buffett Rule" has already been covered in last year's post, Brother Obama's Wealthy Traveling Salvation Show. Since the administration's class warfare strategy doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, it's worth rereading.

Never Let a Eucharist Go to Waste

Didn't ballerina and former chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel say something to that effect? Regardless, the president's Easter Egg Roll Festivities at the White House this year contained a lot of him, and as far as that other Messiah, well not so much. Okay, so they wanted a secular Easter Egg Roll. I don't have a problem with that per se. But when you branch off into yoga gardens, well, I think Easter at the White House has officially jumped the shark.

The theme of this year's festivities was "Let's Go, Let's Play, Let's Move," encouraging physical activity as part of Michelle Obama's war against obesity, which has literally led to an uptick in fat kids being bullied.

Eggs were decorated with images of Obama the Great, an idea he must have stolen from Kim Jong the Second. Oh, my bad. Not the eggs. The basketballs. Because who doesn't want to leave an Easter Egg hunt with a rubber souvenir of our new deity in tow? You can just imagine some eight year old growing up and hanging onto that basketball until one day he realizes, oh, that's what we went $5 trillion in the hole for. Rock me, Obamadeus!

This is what liberals do. Destroy traditional religious institutions that have proven their worth and replace them with false idols who have proven that they can only perform miracles with other people's money. And even then, they're left explaining failed stimulus bills, failed auto bailouts, failed economies, and mountains of debt.

Hat tip: The greatest coverage of this administration on the planet next to Mark Steyn, the excellent Pundit and Pundette.

Elizabeth Ames Jones's Failure to Stand Up for Texas

Elizabeth Ames Jones likes to brag about her success as Railroad Commissioner, but her record as an outspoken advocate fighting for Texas against the federal overreach of the Obama administration is overstated to say the least, a whisper few Texans have even noticed.

When the EPA threatened Texas jobs by suggesting strict carbon regulations, when the Obama administration issued a drilling moratorium in the Gulf, and even as the Keystone XL Pipeline (which some claim could boost the Texas economy by $2 billion) has been repeatedly rejected by President Obama, Commissioner Jones has either been the quietest spokesperson ever or just not that effective at championing state's rights.

While Governor Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott, Senator John Cornyn, and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams have repeatedly made appearances at tea party rallies and openly criticized the Obama administration’s unconstitutional overreach, galvanizing conservatives and strengthening the cause for a stronger Texas, EAJ has mostly been MIA.

In fact, a google search of Elizabeth Ames Jones and “drilling moratorium” only produces 755 results.  That’s a pretty poor showing for one of the highest oil and gas officials in the state on a key issue affecting thousands of Texas jobs. By comparison, searching Greg Abbott and “drilling moratorium” produces 11,000 results and searching John Cornyn produces twice that amount or around 28,000.

Google “Railroad Commissioner” with “EPA” and you will be just as hard-pressed to find many stories about EAJ standing firm against Big Government. The majority of results instead mention Railroad Commissioners Barry Smitherman and Michael Williams, both more effective and vocal proponents than former commissioner Jones, despite her 7 year tenure.

Perhaps Jones has been too busy running for office recently to pay attention to the duties she was actually elected by taxpayers to do. She spent the better part of 2011 running for U.S. Senate, which was one of the few campaigns last year to rival the Chevy Volt for most underwhelming launch. Failing to gain traction in a crowded field and seeking to save her political career, EAJ shifted races at the last minute to Texas Senate, all the while collecting a government paycheck while she ran.

On February 13, 2012, Elizabeth Ames Jones reluctantly resigned from the Texas Railroad Commission to run full time for office without pay after her opponent, incumbent Sen. Jeff Wentworth, pointed out that she was in violation of the Texas Constitution for claiming two permanent residences. She has refused Senator Wentworth’s request to return $30,000 in “unqualified salary”, which he asserts she still owes Texas taxpayers.

One wonders why former commissioner Jones wouldn't stay put in a job that demands strong advocacy against Washington power grabs if that's really her priority in running. As a state senator, she will have fewer opportunities to do the poor job she's done vocalizing support for the tenth amendment.

Whatever you think of Elizabeth Ames Jones, her claim to be a strong vocal advocate for state’s rights who has tirelessly stood up against the Obama regime just doesn’t pass the test. It is, I’m afraid, mostly a myth of her campaign’s own creation.

In the interest of disclosure, I volunteered for Dr. Donna Campbell's campaign when she was narrowly defeated by Rep. Lloyd Doggett for U.S. Congress in 2010, and I am happy to support her again for Texas Senator. I encourage you to take a look at the candidate’s records in this race and the special interests groups backing them before making up your own mind.

The Contraception Mandate: Debbie Does D.C.

First, we were told to focus on the 99%, as evidenced by the people with "I am the 99%" painted in shoe polish on the windshields of their BMWs parked in the garages of their downtown lofts, where they snuggled up to watch Rachel Maddow on their 60" plasma TVs. If only Rachel's demographics looked anything like the 99%, she might have more than a fraction of the viewers. But there's a reason you don't see MSNBC piped into the TVs on display at Wal-Mart or Sears. MSNBC targets a much, much narrower audience who can afford to advocate for costlier energy, plastic bag bans, and $6 per gallon gas.

But the 99% is yesterday's news. Now, it's the 98% we are supposed to get worked up about, at least according to the Obama apologists who insist contraception is a right and its time for employers and insurers to provide it free of charge, nevermind your deeply held beliefs and religious freedom. Apparently, a survey of Catholic women commissioned by Planned Parenthood claims 98% of Catholic women who aren't trying to have children have used birth control at least once during their lifetimes.

What does this mean exactly? Well, apparently birth control use is common, so common in fact that 98% of the women polled had no problem gaining access to it. This is not news. Nor is it news that there are plenty of organizations and even government assistance to help the women who can't afford birth control. No, what's new is that the federal government under ObamaCare thinks that we should subsidize every women's birth control, regardless of how much she makes, even if she's in the top 1%. Nary a soul is begging to limit contraception, but this administration is so extreme they are willing to impose a mandate that tells nuns and priests who have sworn vows of celibacy to pay up for other's recreational sex.

As for feminists, well, this is hardly an empowering message. We are now supposed to believe that women don't have the capacity to be in charge of their decision-making when it comes to procreating, as if there's sex-crazed, feverish lasses wandering the streets (sadly not in my neighborhood) who need a Nanny State to control their urges for them. Wonderful. So now Debbie not only does Dallas, she does D.C. with the help of D.C.

It's hard to believe that in a little under 250 years we have traded our dearest liberties protected under the first amendment for simple, er, protection. We have ditched our freedom for the promise of freebies and quickies  - and hopefully lots of em. If only we didn't treat our rights as casually as we treated sex, we could have avoided this position in the first place. And other contorted, more compromising positions that are sure to follow as Democrats toss out the Constitution like a used prophylactic.

Meanwhile, the more easily and accessible birth control has become, the more women that are having children out of wedlock. We are now at a point where the majority of moms under 30 are single. And so the men really do come and go with no intention of getting any closer to a relationship or responsibility than the fifteen minutes they need to get their pants off, making traditional families a relic of the past.

America minus family. Minus God. Minus responsibility and morality. Who knew feminists were such cheap dates?

Oh Big Brother, Where Aren't Thou? ObamaCare Turns Two

This week marks two years since the passage of ObamaCare. According to Wikipedia, the suggested gift for second anniversaries is china. I guess we're all socialists now.

Let's do everything we can to make sure there isn't a third anniversary.