Why conservatives should vote for whomever the Republican candidate is

Everyone has heard it--"I'm not voting for anyone except Ron Paul." "He's the only one who supports the Constitution". It might be helpful for some of you to take a look at this article: Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

Yeah, I've heard a lot of folks saying that. Another common comment is, "Romney is not any different than Obama." "I'm not voting for Romney if he's the candidate--no way."

Those are the two basic comments I hear or read all the time. Now, let me tell you just a couple of ways in which the latter (the part about Romney) is wrong.

If we are so unlucky, or so stupid, as to re-elect Obama, he will have the opportunity to replace perhaps two Supreme Court Justices, and will do so with people whose values do not reflect strict Constitutionality. These will be judges who believe in legislating from the bench.

Now, people should vote their conscience, and my conscience tells me that having two such members of the Supreme Court will swing the balance of power much more than electing someone like Mitt Romney. Remember, in this day and age, the Court has had much more influence than the President on the way things happen in America for generations. So, I don't see how anyone of conscience can do anything other than try to defeat Obama--no matter who the Republican candidate is.

Just as an additional response to the idea that Romney is a carbon copy of Obama. Romney has fixed companies, and was responsible for fixing the Olympics. Obama has nearly broken America in just three years. Romney knows economics far better than Obama. As for his Constitutional acumen, Mitt appears weak, but there are a lot of Tea Party congressmen and senators to help keep him on the right course when it comes to the Constitution.

As for Paul, and his Constitutional approach, I suggest you read the article linked above, and also take a look at this video: Ron Paul is a Hypocrite

Breitbart's take on Hollywood and John Wayne

I just watched a couple of youtube videos in which Andrew Breitbart was interviewed. The last one I watched was about Hollywood. Here's the link: Clickety-click

One thing that stuck out at me was when he mentioned that the flood of leftism came from Hollywood about the time of the end of John Wayne's career. That made me think about the influence of Duke Wayne on Hollywood, and on America for that matter. Flawed though he was, his gigantic charisma and huge fan following would not allow any kind of overriding of his influence, pretty much while he was still alive. Amazing the power of one man to influence a nation, and Wayne's undying belief in America swayed generations of Americans into believing that America was a source for good in the world. Today in Hollywood, those who dare to express their conservative beliefs are ostracized--many of them unable to work again in that business. Not so during Wayne's time. He was too powerful of an entity. Oh sure, there was a huge lefty movement in Hollywood, all during Wayne's career. But the man was just too much larger than life for them to bring down.

It's something to think about.

Andrew Breitbart

I admire the work that Andrew Breitbart did. He died all too young for sure. Here is a great interview with him that shows a great deal about the man: Andrew Breitbart - Media War

New e-book authors to try

I've gone into the business of giving free publicity to authors I know. Some of them will be associates and friends from Hatrack River Writers, and some are going to be people I know personally--like Robin Lythgoe who has been my neighbor for years. If you're going to be buying some e-books from someone you've never heard of, why not try these people? Anyway, here's the list. I'll be adding more as I get them.

Works of P.D. Blake

Works of Dustin Hurley

Works of Robin Lythgoe

Novel to be published soon

In the near future, my book, which has the working title of Gateway to Fear, will be out in e-book format. I'm starting the process, going through it for a final edit, formatting it, trying to come up with a title I like a bit better, getting some cover art lined up, etc. I think it's time. And as I've been reading through it, making some minor changes and fixing a few grammar mistakes, I don't think I've done a bad job at all with the book. I'll let you know when it's up and running.

What am I writing today?

What am I writing today? I should also ask, am I writing today?

I’ve always wondered if posting on blogs was considered writing. In some peoples’ worlds, it’s a definite “yes”, but in my world, I’m not sure. I’m the kind of guy who sometimes procrastinates the real stuff, with visits to websites etc.

So, is blogging writing? And if so, should I be doing it instead of other writing, like working on my novel?

I’m thinking about it. One thought that is  going through my head is that, yes, it’s writing. At least it’s keeping me writing something, instead of visiting Facebook, news sites, or other distractions from the task at hand. At least I’m learning how to put coherent sentences together.

And, if I’m going to delay going back to my novel while my sub-conscious stew simmers, and my storyline progresses in micro increments, well then, I’d just as well be writing a blog post.

So, in answer to my first questions, I’m writing about writing. And to my second question I respond, “a blog post that his helping me keep writing, even when I don’t know what to write.”

The bottom line is to keep moving, in all things. If I’m not working on my novel, at least I’m working on my grammar, and working to improve putting words together on a page. That’s worth something, isn’t it?

Why I support the Tea Party, and why you should too

I support the Tea Party movement. It was riding high for a while, but now, due to misinformation promulgated by the media, has become anathema to many people. Once supported by a majority of people, the movement is now looked at as negative by the majority. Why is that? My take is that the media has done a good job of blaming the Tea Party elected members of Congress for the stalemate that has stymied any laws from coming forth from Congress. True, there have been some stalwart Tea Party members of Congress who have resolutely stood by the decision to pass no laws that would raise taxes. So it boils down to this: they are being blamed for doing what is necessary to stop out of control spending and taxation, and to control the budget–to keep your children and grandchildren from having to pay tomorrow, the debts we are incurring today. I find that worthy of commendation, not worthy of condemnation.

This is what the Tea Party believes: they believe in the Constitution, limited government, and liberty. For a good description of what the Tea Party movement stands for, go here: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

The left-leaning  media has done a good job of making the Tea Party folks look like a bunch of racist throwbacks to the stone age. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but those who pay little attention to what goes on around them, other than sound bites, buy into the propaganda that the Tea Party is bad for America. I am a typical member of the Tea Party group. I support all of the tenets mentioned in the link I provided above. So I ask those of you who know me to think about it. Do you consider me to be racist? Do you consider me to be a neanderthal? If not, then why think of the other members of the Tea Party in this way? I urge all of you to do some investigation into what made this country great, and why now, we are on the road to ruin, such as Greece and other nations are traveling down. You will find that our ruin is because government has been drifting from the Constitution. Instead of guaranteeing rights that are specifically mentioned within that document, government is creating new rights that never existed, and that truly don’t exist.

Our government was never meant as a means to ensure that no one would ever go hungry, or go without a job. It was designed to protect the rights of the citizens, and to not interfere in their daily lives. Sadly, the role government plays in the lives of American citizens has increased tremendously. This is one reason Barack Obama must not be re-elected. His policies, including, but not limited to Obamacare, have intruded tremendously into the lives of Americans. His czars he's appointed are clearly unconstitutional, and he has issued decrees when he couldn't get his way with Congress. Clearly he is operating more as a dictator in certain aspects than he is acting as a president.

Why is it wrong for government to help out the citizens with handouts and freebies?

One reason is, because that is going against our great Constitution. Our Constitution which is the law of the land was designed for one purpose only: to make sure the rights of the citizens were protected. And there are only certain rights that are contained therein. There is a list here: http://constitution.org/powright.htm. Notably, there is no right in the Constitution for a person’s access to healthcare or housing. Also notably, there is no right to marry, neither straight nor same sex. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to acquire healthcare, housing, nor be married, but what it means is, those things are not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Another reason why it’s wrong for the government to handout freebies etc., is because they are doing it with our money. The Founders knew that there would need to be some taxes raised at times for such things as national defense. But what they didn’t want is a growing monstrosity of government which would raise taxes for anything that Congress deemed necessary. They knew that there would be people in Congress that would try to buy votes, that would feel the need to help anyone (as long as it was help for one of the Congressman’s pet causes) who needed it, all with money that wasn’t their own.

The Constitution was meant to be changed from time to time. This is why the amendment process was designed into it. It has been modified over the years through this process, in fact, since its inception, 27 amendments have been added. But the process is difficult. That’s why there has only been 27 added. The framers made it deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution because it only should be changed for important reasons, and not for “light or transient causes” as Thomas Jefferson put it. For a basic summation of the Constitution, read here: http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids.html

All that being said, there are ways and means to help people who need help. Private citizens can help out any time they’d like. And it doesn’t have to be people like Bill Gates, who have large sums of money at their disposal. Frankly, the government does a horrible job of managing money, and why should we be surprised? It’s very easy to take someone else's money and spend it, which the government does with abandon. But this is the same outfit that paid $400 for a hammer and $640 for a toilet seat. Are they really the group we want taxing and spending our money? Far better for us to do it ourselves, or to combine with others in charitable giving to help those in need.

At this point maybe it would help to define those in need. Those in need are those who can’t help themselves, not those who won’t help themselves. I believe there should be a basic safety net in place to help those who would help themselves if they could, but who through life's circumstances are unable to do so. This is the way Benjamin Franklin put it: “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

The question could be asked, if we give handouts to the poor, are we really helping them? In order for mankind to grow, to become stronger, sometimes it is best for them to have to figure out how to help themselves, as Franklin suggests. For the most part, the safety net should come via family members, or members of societal groups, such as church’s or other charitable organizations. This isn’t the federal government’s job, but I can see where there might not be a family available that can help, or the person in need might not be a member of any charitable group.

The bottom line: The Tea Party movement has been trying to hold the line and get back to the original intent of the government–to preserve rights and liberty by not interfering in the lives of America’s citizens. Here’s that link again: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ . I urge you all to study it and decide for yourselves what kind of a country you’d like to have.

Need any help in deciding whether or not to re-elect Obama?

In the remote case that some of you reading this have departed from reality, have spent too much time reading Twilight and not enough time looking at the world, have indulged in Dancing with the Stars and other programs, instead of reading news reports–here’s how I would analyze whether or not anyone in their right mind would vote to retain Barack Obama as president.

First I would analyze his foreign policy. In order to do so, I’d look at our relations with other countries and see how they’ve progressed, regressed, or remained unchanged during the President’s term of office. Here’s a partial list of what has happened:

Israel: Regressed. With our strongest ally in the Middle-east, Obama has been a scolding stepfather, and has not supported them with rhetoric in any way, shape or form.

Saudi Arabia: Regressed. Though Obama bowed to a Saudi King, they don’t like the fact that we are doing nothing to dissuade Iran in its nuclear acquisition. The bowing itself was a sign of weakness and not respected by Muslims.

Russia: Regressed. Though Bush had a meager relationship with the Russians, their relationship with us has slipped during the Obama administration, causing them to form an alliance with China in the U.N. against us.

China: Regressed. Our relationship with China continues to deteriorate, largely because there are no talks between us and them.

Egypt: Regressed. Though Mubarak was a dictator who the citizens opposed, he kept the zealots in check. Now, under the Arab Spring--which Obama originally said nothing about, but only later when the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be gaining the upper hand did he say anything in support of the movement--we have American hostages.

Iran: Regressed. Though Bush called them part of the “Axis of Evil”, the relationship has continued to deteriorate under the Great Uniter.

Pakistan: Regressed. Once tepid allies, Obama’s lack of skill in dealing with other nations has made a simmering cauldron heat up to the boiling point.

Afghanistan: Regressed. Obama’s policies have made the situation worse in that country, not better.

Venezuela: Progressed: Obama has said nice things about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Cuba: Progressed: Obama has indicated a willingness to remove travel restrictions on many people who wish to travel to Cuba. His willingness to work with nightmarish regimes should be looked upon with a great degree of suspicion.

That’s just a small sampling of the many countries around the world. If I were to grade the man on his foreign policy decisions, he’d be pretty close to an F.
Now, let’s take a look at domestic issues.  The question one must always ask at election time, is the traditional “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” I think that most of us can breathe out a collective “No!” in response to that query.

Economics: Regressed. Though Obama inherited a recession, we are stuck in a quagmire, largely fueled by the Federal government’s overreach in regulations. Our economy is tanking, largely on the national debt which reached $15 trillion in November. The president has failed to provide leadership to get the government spending in check and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. He has wasted billions in supporting green energy companies, singling them out for government aid, only to see them go bankrupt. He has failed to act positively in promoting energy in America, keeping the Keystone Pipeline from being built to please his left-wing base, thus keeping an estimated 20,000 new jobs from happening.

He's dedicated though.He has spent countless hours working on his golf game, or world traveling while millions of Americans are out of work and while Congress has failed to come to agreement on policies that would help. He has been out of the loop, decreeing this or that, issuing edicts because his power of working together to come to common agreement is nil. His way of reaching across the aisle, is to expect everyone to agree with him. He has been an ineffectual failure that has done more harm than perhaps any other president in U.S. history. He has alienated our allies, while strengthening our enemies. He has pushed through Obamacare when the majority of Americans were against it. He is an agenda driven idealogue who cares little for the desires of Americans, only enough that he’ll say what he needs to say to get elected. And then there's the little problem with following the Constitution. He hasn't seemed all that favorable towards doing so, and he will have the opportunity in his second term, should we be so stupid, to nominate as many as three Supreme Court Justices. Don't think he won't nominate more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has no respect for the Constitution--at least the U.S. Constitution. Two peas in a pod--like Ginsburg, Obama doesn't have much respect for it either. (Note: I inadvertently on Facebook said that Ginsburg had be nominated by the second worst president ever, thinking that Jimmy Carter had been the one. I was in error--it was actually Clinton). Anyway, that’s my analysis. You can agree or not, it is after all, one man's opinion.