Ronald Reagan's Question still resonates...

On October 28, 1980, the final presidential debate between then-President Jimmy Carter (D) and Republican candidate Ronald Reagan was held.  The state of the economy at that time was in what is called "stagflation", meaning stagnant growth and high inflation/interest rates/unemployment.  Reagan asked a simple question during his closing remarks that hit home with voters then:  "I think when you make that decision (who to vote for president), it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last 4 years is what you would like to see us follow for the next 4, then I could suggest another choice that you have."  In 2012, that same question is before us, and I will interject a little personal stuff in relation to this:  In 2008 we lived in South Carolina, I had a great job making a great wage, our house was in a nice subdivision, family and friends visited regularly, we were only 10 minutes from the beach, and our life seemed set.  After Obama's election, I lost my job, house, and had to relocate back to my home state of West Virginia, living with my in-laws while I tried to find a job here.  I had heard whispers that companies were planning layoffs if Obama was elected due to the radical change in the economic environment that was to follow but never thought it would hit me.  

Yes, I collected unemployment during that time, but it's a slap in the face for me to have to live with family when we should have our own place and I should have a job instead of depending on family or anyone else.  It took me eight months, but I finally found a job that I am still at, but making less than half of my previous salary, and missing South Carolina everyday.  Am I better off now than four years ago...NO!  And I have heard countless stories of others in the same boat as myself over these past few years.  So why would anyone want to have four more years of this crap?   I will now take Reagan's question and apply it to today's world:  Is it easier to buy things in the stores and gasoline than it was four years ago?  (Gasoline was less than $2 a gallon when Obama took office, it's now nearly double that)  Is there more or less unemployment than there was four years ago? (Unemployment was 5.8% in 2008, it's been over 8% continuously since 2009, and 8.4% in July)  Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? (No, especially since Obama bows to every leader and apologizes for our country every chance he gets) Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago? (Bin Laden is dead, but soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan, Iran is building nuclear weapons, the Arab Spring in 2011 has brought extremist Muslims into power instead of democratically elected governments like in Iraq)  I hope the American people make the right decision for our country...choose someone who's policies have all failed and the only thing he has to offer is character attacks, lies, coverups, or someone who has a vision to help get America out of the funk it's been in the past four years...the choice is yours.

Chick-Fil-A...

Disclaimer:  I have visited Chick-Fil-A restaurants since they began in my location in the 80's, and continue to visit them today.

That being said, I can't be anything other than outraged about all this vitriol and hate being sent from the gay community and their leftist allies towards Chick-Fil-A, a company that has been in existence since 1966, closes on Sundays, has the most friendly and hard-working employees out there, has very appetizing meals, contributes to the communities where they are (just ask the Aurora, CO, police who received free meals from the restaurant while they handled the theater shootings there) and just happens to have a founder who has Christian beliefs, and who expressed his favor of traditional male-female marriage vs. same-sex marriage, exercising his First Amendment rights.

I thought the message from the left (which includes most, but not all of, the so-called gay movement) was tolerance for all, but after reading some of the Twitter comments to Chick-Fil-A and former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, they are the exact opposite...some of the most vile utterances I have ever heard from the so-called "tolerant" people, and if you disagree with their points of view, you are automatically branded a "homophobe".  Well, to quote John Wayne:  "Mister, I haven't got a bigoted bone in my body"...and I do disagree with the hatred being slung toward a private-sector restaurant, does that make me a homophobe?

Cities like Boston and Chicago (who happen to have high unemployment and high crime rates to match) are now planning to ban new Chick-Fil-A locations because Chick-Fil-A's values "do not reflect 's values".  What values?  High murder rates?  High unemployment? I would think the citizens of these cities are more interested in available jobs and more businesses (meaning more tax dollars) than the left-wing agenda being carried out there.  Also, Jim Henson's company pulled their toys from Chick-Fil-A, and other Hollywood left-wingers like Eliza Dushku want the restaurants banned altogether and Roseanne Barr hopes patrons of Chick-Fil-A "get cancer"...so much for Hollywood's "tolerance"...and I have another question, just like Rush Limbaugh's battle with Sandra Fluke earlier this year (where most people calling for "boycotts" had never even listened to the show before the controversy hit) how many of the people who are wanting to boycott Chick-Fil-A actually eat at the restaurants so they know the whole story about the business? 

Bottom line is, Chick-Fil-A's business will survive despite the so-called "outrage" of the left, but serves as a reminder of the double-standard among the left regarding certain issues...they forget their leader, Obama, was against same-sex marriage before he was for it (for political expediency) and not a word was said until his flip-flop, while businesses and individuals who do not share the left's views and express their First Amendment right to freedom of speech are pummelled with hate emails, tweets, and worse.

ObamaCare and the election...

June 28, 2012, is a day people will remember as "the day America died" or similar hyperbole, since the Supreme Court decided to allow the unpopular (and rammed down the people's throats) ObamaCare law to stand, basing the "individual mandate" as a TAX, not a fee (and therefore limiting the power of Congress in the use of Article I, Section 8's "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" clause (aka Commerce Clause) and substituting that with Article I, section 8's "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." clause.  Yes, Chief Justice Roberts' ruling has some unintended consequences, like opening the door wide-open for what Congress can decide to tax on (and not just for incomes or products but behaviors too), but it also has the consequence of imposing 21 new taxes on Americans totalling over $800 billion dollars...12 of these directly impact Americans making less than $250,000...exactly what Obama promised over-and-over he would NOT do...as well as insisting that the "mandate" is not a tax but a fee...therefore meaning that Obama lied to the American people as well as the Congress. 

What does this mean for the election?  If Mitt Romney can pound away on Obama's lack of an economic record (yes, he did inherit a deficit from George W. Bush, but what did he do to resolve it...he doubled the debt to way more than Bush and his 42 predecessors combined), that Obama lied to the people about the ObamaCare tax, "Fast and Furious" and Obama covering for Eric Holder in "Fast and Furious", and about how Obama has consistently abused his power in appointing "czars" and ruling by fiat with regard to immigration, he can win the election.  Remember, when it comes to ObamaCare, he cannot blame the Republicans for it, as not a single Repub voted for ObamaCare, it was all Democrats, and this whole thing reminds me of a quote from the Watergate era:  "Whether our nation is a nation of laws and not of men is for Congress and ultimately, the American People (to decide)".  As a Washington Times reporter said, "Romney is appealing the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision to the American people...", and the people will decide to remove from power all those responsible--the President and those in Congress who agreed to the largest tax increase in American history.  If the people are angry enough to actually do it, there may be fewer Democrats in Congress than there are states in the union.

Obama's Power Grab

President Obama has proven during his term that he is not above directly and blatantly disregarding the Constitution to get his way (see ObamaCare, choosing not to uphold duly passed statutes like DOMA, installing "czars" not subject to Senate "advice and consent", etc.), now with his re-election on the line, he imposes immigration rules similar to the "DREAM" act that was defeated in Congress by fiat.  With one stroke of the pen he just granted (by conservative estimates, there are likely more) around one million illegal immigrants "backdoor amnesty" with vague assurances of getting work permits if they entered the US before age 16 and are under age 30, attended school or served in the military.  Now military service and school attendance can be independently verified, but what about the others?  Of course, this gives the Democrats another million potential registered voters (if that Voter ID rule wasn't in effect, which Holder's DOJ is working on getting thrown out) and is blatantly unconstitutional, as the president does not have the power under Article II to choose not to enforce laws he didn't like.  While acknowledging President George W. Bush used "signing statements" to not enforce things he didn't want to do (and not making them less constitutional), the media frenzy was crazy, calling for his impeachment, etc., but do you hear anything from Obama's media about his actions...NO!  And if he wins re-election...since he cannot be elected for a third time, he will have no accountability and therefore will be free to do what he wants, further damaging the country, yet there are still 40+% of people who want him back in office...of course, most of them are probably seeing the fruits of his presidency (massively extended unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc.) and don't want the gravy train to end.  I am still confident the country will make the right decision in November, but with Obama proving he will do ANYTHING (legal, illegal or otherwise, as he has no morals) to win a second term he doesn't deserve, his opponent (Romney) had better be prepared for whatever the left throws at him.

The Democrat Diversion

I have decided to reactivate my blog for awhile because I am disgusted as to the goings-on around us.

First, we'll discuss the current issue:  What commentator Rush Limbaugh said about Georgetown law student (and real-life political activist) Sandra Fluke was inappropriate and should be condemned.  There is no place in public or in private for these terms to describe a woman.  In my entire life I have NEVER denigrated or said such terms toward any women.  Unfortunately, there are those on the left who love to use even harsher terms than what Rush used, and nothing is said or "token apologies" accepted, not the twitter-bombing of their advertisers to drop them like there was with Rush.  Other conservative talkers like Hannity, Savage, Levin, and others better take heed and be careful what you say, as you are held to a totally different standard like your left-wing counterparts such as Schultz, Maddow, and others, and this will continue regardless of what you do.  As for the advertisers who left Rush during this...it's your decision but you may find it to be a negative one on the balance sheet, because Rush has 15-20 million listeners per day, more than who watch most TV shows and more than the entire viewership of left-wing news channels CNN and MSNBC combined.  Plus, he has many more businesses willing to be advertised on his show and will see business pick up because of it.

This whole discussion should be summed up like this:  No one in government, including Obama, has the right to force private companies to cover anything.  Fluke was another example of a political activist used by the Democrats to shift the nation's conversation from the economy to social issues like sex and contraception.  She will be cast aside just like all of Herman Cain's accusers, Nikki Diaz, and others who were used for political gain, and are cast aside when the topic changes and they find another person to shove out in public to fan the next political flame. I don't think the millions of unemployed really care if Fluke needs insurance coverage of contraception for her personal choices, they need jobs with benefits, not friends with benefits.

Remember, it's the economy, stupid!  We need to get back to the economy and how Obama's destructive policies (Keystone pipeline, stimulus, ObamaCare, etc.) are ruining this economy, and let's see him try to blame Bush for the $5/gallon gas prices we will be seeing soon (not to mention the hyper-inflation that's looming at the door due to all this money-printing Obama's Fed Chief has done during QE1 and QE2).  Remember, Bush has been out of office for three years now; this is all Obama's show, and needs to be defeated, otherwise, it will take generations for this country to get out of the mess it's in now.

"High-Tech Lynching"

Several weeks past, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain commented that he feared what he called a "high-tech lynching" because he was running for this country's highest office, remembering a similar incident involving another African-American conservative, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and what he went through during his confirmation hearings.  Like Thomas, Cain is besieged by claims of sexual harassment, this time by unidentified women during his term as National Restaurant Association (NRA) chair.  On October 30, 2011, the Politico website brought these allegations forward, but with no names, no specifics, just quoting "unidentified sources" and ran it as news.  Many people in "responsible journalism"--as rare as a spotted owl--felt the site went public too soon with a hollow story.  Despite Cain's bumbling of the situation, many people ignored the story (just as they did in the 90's when it was then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton who had many women--more than the number that has come forward in Cain's case--claiming he harassed them).  Not withstanding, the liberals continued to trot out these unidentified women, a third one came forward last Thursday, then on Monday, November 7, a woman with a name and a face, Sharon Bialek, held a show press conference announcing Cain had went beyond just words, but went into actions, claiming groping took place in 1997.  There are several holes in this woman's argument, however:

• She is from Chicago, conveniently the home-base of the current president and most of his staff.
• Why did it take 14 years to come forward, and only then because Cain is a presidential candidate?  The statute of limitations has long expired on any criminal or civil complaint, and nothing was reported to the NRA, so there appears to be no other motive than personal destruction.
• Gloria Allred (who according to her, likes to be groped by the TSA) was at her side.  The only time Allred appears is for political gain/expediency...just ask Meg Whitman (by the way, where is Nicky Diaz, the illegal alien maid she trotted out with during that campaign, you haven't seen or heard from her since Whitman lost to Dianne Feinstein in the Senate race there...)

I have not declared support for any candidate in this race yet, but I get sick and tired of the media's hypocrisy in their handling of Obama and Cain.  Clarence Thomas said it best:

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

Thomas was exactly right.  Liberals do not want African Americans to become better off, they want them as perpetual victims from whom they can prey and get their votes each election (and through whom figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton depend on for their "power"), and when one dares to make something of themselves, they destroy them by any means necessary because they will blow up the liberal beliefs about minorities being nothing more than victims.  Can you imagine these four women if they were claiming Obama did the same thing?  These women's personal lives would be displayed, sex lives exposed, and their reputations would be destroyed.  Sexual harassment is a crime and should not be tolerated, but when you use it for political and/or personal gain, it destroys the intent of what it was meant to protect, as Allred, Bialek, and the other three women claiming Cain harassed them are doing right now.  If Cain survives this, he should be at the top of the list for the Republican nomination, because he has already went through more vetting in a week than anyone else, including Obama, has in three years.

Occupy

All of a sudden it feels like we're back in the 1960s with the recent waves of protests from ideologically motivated young people against the "ivory tower" that is Wall Street.  The feeling amongst these young people is that they are the "99%" of those who aren't "rich" and that they should have a piece of the pie.  These sound like the same protests that occurred in the Arab countries and Greece in the spring...people wanting a handout, a.k.a. "distribution of wealth". 

On the surface, this sounds like a group of spoiled kids who think they should have immediate access to money, position, and power without earning it, "just because"--a recent trend among our youth egged on by their equally spoiled parents, who coddled them every step of the way to avoid being the "bad parent".  Look deeper, and you see the evidence of cracks in the country generated by class warfare, stoked by the Democratic party and their allies.  Note to the protestors:  A lot of so-called "backers" are starting to join your ranks, these are members of the labor movement (SEIU, etc.).  These people will eventually elbow you aside and take over your protests, as their dying movement needs a spark from something like this to make them relevant again.

Glenn Beck predicted the US would have protests similar in nature to the Greek and Arab Spring ones earlier this year, and he is right on the money, and while I agree with their right to peaceably assemble (granted in the first amendment), it's the other elements that make me a little concerned about these protests, and remind those who are dismissing these as a bunch of college kids with nothing more to do than "cause trouble", their numbers are growing, and their message (flawed that it is), is resonating with more and more people, and we need to watch this carefully.