To those of us in the Carolinas, it has become clear that the Republican Party is counting on the “ABO” Vote in November. The ABO vote is: “Anybody But Obama” meaning, of course, that the GOP expects republicans will vote for anyone they nominate in order to defeat Obama.

Frankly, it’s the only explanation that makes any sense. Even the candidates, themselves, tell us that any one of the GOP candidates would make a better president than Obama. (Like that was really difficult to discern!)

I spoke to a politically astute friend recently who told me he is very afraid that Romney will win the nomination and lose the election to Obama. (I share that opinion.) But, my friend went on to say, I will vote for whoever is on the ticket against Obama.

See, the problem with an Obama vs Romney ballot is – one of them will win!

Maybe it is just yours truly, but I am more than a little tired of the milquetoast candidates the GOP continues to put forward for President. I mean, look at Dole and McCain. And, frankly, I was not impressed with George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism, which was nothing more that another way to say “moderate” or “RINO” (Republican In Name Only).

I’m past ready for a candidate with fire in his or her belly. In my less than humble opinion, the GOP needs a candidate who will get into the gutter where the democrats seem always to take their campaigns. We need a candidate who will trade blow for blow with the Democratic Party candidate — a candidate who will go for the jugular, grasp the throat of the opposition and hang on ‘til the election is won.

Politics is a dirty game. If a candidate is not willing to get dirty to win, then how in the world am I to trust that when he is up against the world’s meanest, toughest, “low-downest” scoundrels, he will be able to trade blow for blow – and – do whatever it takes to destroy America’s enemies.

Nice guys are, well, NICE. I’m tired of nice! It is past time to get mean and throw our weight around.

Look. We have enemies who are in our face proclaiming loudly, and with vigor, that they intend to destroy us, to kill every American they can — at the very first opportunity. Uh-uh. Nope. This is not the time for a nice guy in the White House.

Our current President seems to think that his flowery oratory will placate our enemies and we can have a global group hug, sing a few verses of Cum Ba Ya, and it will be all better. I’ve seen this movie — and it does not end well for the nice guy.

No. We desperately need a leader tough enough that when he speaks, the world stops what it’s doing to listen. We’ve had enough of a President who runs off at the mouth like a broken facet. Nobody’s listening anymore – if they ever were.

We also need a leader who leads from the front. Leading from the rear doesn’t happen. Leading from the rear is NOT leading – period. It should be clear by now that when America does not lead — the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

I am frustrated, and more than a little angry, that the GOP is holding to their practice of nominating the “next in line.” I am tired of limp wrists in the White House. I am tired of my President bowing and scraping to every tin horn tyrant he comes across, asking “permission” of the UN, and sucking up to our sworn enemies. It is embarrassing and deeply humiliating.

Sadly, when I see Romney – I see Al Gore with a GOP bumper sticker on his butt. I get the same uneasy feeling I got when Al Gore was running for President. It’s that feeling that something isn’t right, that something is out of place here. Plainly – it’s the feeing that I am looking at a hypocrite. I feel that I am being sold a bill of goods and that he is reading from a well-prepared script, which he has memorized down to the last dot and tittle.

I once interrupted a very young salesman at my door when he was about 30 seconds into his canned spiel. I asked him a question, which he could not answer. He apologized, and asked my forgiveness as he began his spiel all over again — from the very beginning — because that was the way he had memorized it. Back in the day we called that a “canned pitch.” THAT is the feeling I get when I listen to Romney in a debate or delivering a speech. There is no THERE there.

Barring an act of God, Romney will be the GOP nominee. I have to ask: If Romney wins the election and defeats Obama, short of being rid of Obama, what will America have gained? To me, it is comparable to the cancer patient placing his entire faith in a new miracle cure for cancer only to learn, after weeks of treatment, that it does not work, either.

I do not agree that beating Obama will be a walk in the park, as some of my fellow conservatives have postulated. I continue to have great respect for their opinions – BUT — I am convinced the “ABO” vote will be absolutely necessary in November to evict America’s would-be King, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

J. D. Longstreet
***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

What a let down. Here conservative Republicans were so close to respectability and even acceptance in polite society. In Prince William County, VA where I live,  conservatives convinced themselves we’d come far from that time in the recent past when the WaPost described evangelicals (essentially another word for conservative Republicans, since there is considerable overlap among the two demographic groups) as “poor, undereducated and easily led.”

Then TheAtlantic.com piled on with this description of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, “People are sometimes caught off guard by [his] intellectual competence because of his rural Arkansas habits (he and his wife lived in a trailer while the governor’s mansion was being renovated) and his outspoken evangelical views.”

Not those rural Arkansas habits again! What was Huckabee thinking when he moved into one of those tornado–bait tin cans? I happen to know there’s a Hilton in Little Rock.

Conservatives, who are frequently optimists in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, chose to focus on the progress we’ve made since 2008. Why Gov. Huckabee is currently living in a house that doesn’t require you to check the pressure rotate the foundation every 5,000 miles. And nationally Republicans — if not all conservatives — have an almost–anointed presidential candidate who is articulate, thinks double–wide is an unfortunate term for the overweight and has perfect hair.

Why Mitt Romney looks just as good as that Democrat intellectual giant, John Kerry, without all the annoying French mannerisms.

Then last week all our hope for acceptance came crashing down. In a “news story” wailing about the clout Northern Virginia lost in Richmond when the GOP took control of the Senate, the WaPost complained, “Northern Virginia senators also worry about their ability to block legislation on social issues that play very differently in the more racially diverse, better-educated and liberal Washington suburbs than in more rural parts of the state.

It was only a passing reference that spoke volumes about ingrained, institutional prejudice. The phrase is simply elite shorthand that means we’re back to: Liberals = Smart and Conservatives = Dumb.

I hope to visit the WaPost newsroom one day, because I’m convinced its map of Northern Virginia still manages to leave Prince William County (PWC) out, much like the maps of the Palestinian Authority never seem to include Israel.

This county is in the top ten nationwide when it comes to household income, we boast the satellite campus of George Mason University — where taxpayer–subsidized “arts” groups can perform — and residents frequently shop at our very own Wegmans grocery store; yet we’re still pickin’ on the banjo with the rest of the Deliverance caucus as far as the WaPost is concerned.

And the really ironic element in this assault on the conservative intellect is the bias is based on geography, which I thought was forbidden in elite circles. Here we have an organization, which has never met an illegal alien with a sob story that it wouldn’t put on the front page, denigrating an entire class of human beings because their point of origin is South of Alexandria.

What’s next? The ideological equivalent of E–Verify for conservatives, along with a refusal to issue a Virginia licencia de conducir so they can’t drive in Richmond?
Have a heart. These migrating conservatives are yearning to live the American Dream, too. They just want to cast the votes in the General Assembly that liberals refuse to cast. Besides, they don’t actually want to live in Richmond. I’m sure they will return to their native counties once the job is done.

This current distress of Virginia and DC liberals is the result of something their Dear Leader Obama warned about, “Elections have consequences.”

And as a consequence of last November’s election, Republicans are now in control of both the House and the Senate. So in under four years Virginia has gone from a Democrat in the governor’s office and Democrats in control of the Senate to a Republican governor and Republican control of the entire General Assembly.

I think even a liberal can notice a trend here.

Specifically what this means for Virginia residents is an obstructionist Democrat Senate will no longer be able to block passage of bills that protect the life of unborn babies, defend marriage, eliminate Public Broadcasting subsidies, cut spending, reduce the size of government, prevent the appointment of activist liberal judges, discourage illegal immigration and recognize the Constitutional right of citizen self–defense.

Whew.

It’s time conservatives refuse to be on the defensive regarding intelligence. We used to ask know–it–alls, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Now it’s time to update that and ask liberal Democrats, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you winning elections?

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

An Analysis of the Republican Presidential Debate of 1/16/2012

The “Golden Rule” of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, is that he who has the gold, makes the rules.

As long as the American economy is backed by worthless paper, the international bankers make all the rules and steer our ship of state onto the reef of one world government and one world currency, ruled by oligarchy.

Such a master plan by the banksters, sounds the death knell of the nation-state concept, to deliver this nation unto vassalage and client state status under the United Nations boot.

When Ron Paul talks of “America endlessly bombing other countries,” he is really talking about a nation which is seen as a social pariah by the world, insofar as it comports itself as a neighborhood bully—and we all know what happens to schoolyard bullies in the end; they find themselves prey to an alliance of the many.

What ails America, cannot be solved by an individual, nor can it be ameliorated by a presidential election. It must be addressed by the United States military prosecution of regime change on Capitol Hill.

Immediate banking reform is the prerequisite for survival of the United States of America.

Shall we wait until the last old monarch of the Redwood forest is felled and America the Beautiful becomes a “clear-cut?”

“I am firmly of the opinion that there never was a paper pound; a paper dollar, or a paper promise of any kind, that ever yet obtained a general currency but by force or fraud—generally by both.”

John Adams

“If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper; it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.”

George Washington

Patrick J. Buchanan should serve as president during the military interregnum, while terms of Mexican surrender—in this Second Mexican War– are being ironed- out and banking reform is initiated, which outlaws usury.

Mr. Buchanan deserves this high honor, for being a Guardian Spirit of the United States of America.

Only then can the concession of a guest worker program be granted to Mexico, which is strictly confined to the agricultural sector.

Mexico will be responsible for housing its citizens, while they are guests here and that nation will also pay healthcare costs and social security benefits for its citizens as part of a “comprehensive immigration reform.”

The Mexican government will pay for the welfare of its own citizens with Mexican oil monies. Mexico is fantastically wealthy in natural resources.

There is NO SUCH THING, as a “dual-citizen.”

The days of Mexican children bathing in pesticide-laden run-off from the fields will come to an end. So too, the squatting of itinerant, poverty-stricken Mexican people in canyons below million dollar homes in America, where they build their campfires.

Better bilateral relations between our two nations, will then be established with Mexico’s clear understanding that it has no claim here.

The host/parasite arrangement between our two nations has come to an end.

The Mexican occupation army will self-deport back to from whence it came– just like it did when faced with the firm resolve of citizens from the great state of Oklahoma.

This will winnow-out the foreign “Latinos” in our midst, who subvert the American electoral process and it will also serve to distinguish them from Americans of Hispanic heritage.

All discussions of alleged “racism” will end with the buck, which stops in the Oval Office.

It is Mexico, which has prosecuted a race war against the United States of America, utilizing the “anchor baby” strategy of stealth warfare.

The Mexican nationals who break into our country to claim “La Reconquista,” are hardly “illegal immigrants,” as they were referred to by one presidential candidate.

The nation cannot afford such naivete, nor can it confuse the meaning of words.

Once the illegal alien invaders self-deport; the people’s purse is reclaimed by the military and the rigged voting machines are thrown into the scrap pile; we can then have an honest presidential election, based on paper ballots.

The discussion among the presidential candidates last night, vividly illustrates the lack of a true grasp of “comprehensive reform” (save for Ron Paul) among those who vie for the most prestigious job on the planet.

It has nothing to do with solving Mexico’s social problems, nor adopting the fiction whereby Mexico imagines it is self-entitled to American territory and concessions, such as surrender to a scarecrow/ peasant army.

There can be NO “civil rights” for a hostile foreign power—bent on conquest of American territory.

There was talk during the presidential debate, of “borrowing more money from China” and “leaving no space between the United States and Israel”—as if this nation were a Siamese twin to that sovereign nation.

Israel is NOT America’s Child, nor does it serve our national interest to support such a fantastic notion.

The survival of this nation will pivot on who wins the contest between the people and the central molesting bank, which has been in control of our national destiny since 1913.

This nation cannot prosper, by continuing to dine on its own liver, nor can it depend on a poor “steward” of its economy.

Free men of the “Free World,” are NOT debt slaves. There is no such thing as paying one’s “fair share” of slavery.

America has been dreaming nightmares of poverty, when it is rich beyond any Croesus– or “credit,” produced out of thin air.

It is time to remove the Ghost of Christmas Want from the stage and restore this nation to that “Shining City on the Hill.”

Wake up America, to the Second American Revolution in 2012!

Even the Mayans will bow!

© Thor H. Asgardson

 

WesternFront America

It’s a dream come true for hysterical liberals and their fellow travelers in the ‘unbiased’ media. Pesky Republicans ARE actively working to discourage voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential election!

Unfortunately, in typical GOP fashion, the party is busy suppressing its own vote.
Thanks to a decision by the Virginia Republican State Central Committee, voters who may want to participate in the Commonwealth’s Republican Presidential Primary will be forced to sign a loyalty oath before the commissars allow them to cast a ballot.

Members of the Electoral College, who actually choose the President, are not Constitutionally required to swear a similar oath, but the committee — like Southern Baptists who frequently add qualifications for church office not found in the Bible — feel this is a vital improvement to the system.

The oath is brief and to the point: “I, the under​signed, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Prince William County Virginia’s redoubtable conservative Republican, Del. Bob Marshall strongly objects to requiring an oath, “Virginia’s Republican leadership wants to mandate a loyalty oath when Virginia’s Republican officials are in court fighting the Obamacare mandate? This sends the wrong message.”

I’m not sure I’m in agreement with Marshall’s analogy, since Obamacare is mandatory, while voting for the GOP is optional. (An option I fear many will choose not to exercise if it means signing this pledge.)

The oath manages to offend two groups that are key to winning in November: the conservative base and the independent. Longtime Republicans will be insulted by the presumption they are so fickle an oath is required to remind them of their loyalty.

Besides, as Marshall points out, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Speaker of the House William Howell, have not always voted for the Republican nominee in November. Both supported an independent in an earlier race for Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney.

Equally important, the Presidential election in November will be won among the 40 percent that considers themselves independent — voting for the man and not the party. What a shock it will be to the commitment–phobic independent who decides to participate in the GOP primary, only to be hit with a contract that requires him to swear an oath to a November candidate who might not even be on the March 6th primary ballot.

Which brings us to another problem. Although nationally we currently have a fluctuating total of approximately ten GOP candidates, in the Virginia primary the ballot will resemble the inventory of a Soviet supermarket with only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul to choose from.

It seems that organizing a petition drive to get his name on the ballot is the latest entry on the lengthening list of things Rick Perry can’t do.

Perry, who does have someone on staff who can file a lawsuit, and Virginia resident Newt Gingrich are attempting to gain access by judicial means — a particularly ironic move for Gingrich who blasted federal judges last week proclaiming “Judicial supremacy is factually wrong. It is morally wrong, and it is an affront to the American system of self–government.”

Unless, of course, you can find a judge who will overturn Republican rules and get you on the ballot.

The fact is if the yang and yin of presidential politics can get on the ballot under the existing rules, then the rest of the candidates should be able to clear the same hurdle, too.

This whole affair reeks of Paulophobia. Evidently the fear is that Ron Paul voters can’t be relied upon in November to support the Republican nominee if it’s not Ron Paul. It would make more sense to have Paul himself sign the oath as a condition of appearing on the ballot, since a third–party run on his behalf would only serve to re–elect Obama.

So naïve central committee members believe signing this worthless piece of paper is going to persuade a herd of black–helicopter Libertarian paranoids that they have to toe the line in November.

Fors Fortis, as the Romans say.

The other fear is wily Democrats voting for Paul in an effort to sow dissention in Republican ranks. The way to prevent this is to post a large sign informing Democrats their name will appear on Republican mailing lists and their mailboxes stuffed full of GOP direct mail and fund–raising appeals for the next four years.

My wife, Janet, still rues the day she voted for Hillary Clinton in one of those fruitless crossover voting schemes.

In the meantime, GOP Chairman Pat Mullins has scheduled a special meeting on January 21st. The only agenda item is the “loyalty oath.”

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

There’s nothing like spending 43 months in prison for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy in connection with Congressional influence–peddling to make you an advocate of political contribution reform.

Notorious Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is back on what the late Watergate scandal participant, John Ehrlichman might term a “modified limited hang out” book tour.

Abramoff contends that Washington equals swamp and the only reason he went to jail, for what he claims is standard operating procedure, is Jack made the mistake of raising his head too far above the scum line.

Jack’s obvious continuing pride in his accomplishments on behalf of his clients is cause to doubt sincere contrition on his part. And Abramoff appears blissfully unaware that the reputation he earned and scandal he created are in large part responsible for the GOP losing the House in 2006 — or if not unaware, he’s certainly unrepentant.

Still, Jack took advantage of the “me time” the feds gave him in Cumberland Prison to propose two reforms to clean up some of the mess he reveled in before his unfortunate incarceration.

First, he recommends that lobbyists, recipients of federal contracts and anyone who benefits from public funds be prohibited from making contributions or providing gifts to those in power. This alone covers everyone from General Dynamics to residents of Section 8 housing. Then he adds to his impossible dream by calling for a lifetime ban on lobbying by Members of Congress and their staff.

Conservatives automatically suspect any contribution prohibition because contributions are a form of speech. Yet I’ve never been entirely sold on the idea that semi–Socialist George Soros’ speech should forever be exponentially louder than mine, given the disparity in our bank accounts.

Counter–balancing conservatives like the Koch brothers grant what little peace of mind I have. (For conservatives the best of an uncertain situation would probably be to return to the unlimited contributions regime that existed before the “reforms” with the addition of unlimited and immediate disclosure of the donor.)

Campaign contributions from companies and individuals that take government money are inherently incestuous. It’s quite possible that most of the money that comprises the contribution originated as tax dollars before it was washed through the contractor’s accounts.

That’s one reason I like the idea. The other is the restriction is voluntary: don’t take the government check and you can contribute to your heart’s content. Even those affected by the ban face only a limited imposition on political speech. They can still give to state and local candidates, they can give to parties and they can spend their money on independent expenditures.

Speech bans already exist without undermining the Constitution. For example, individuals with a Top Secret clearance are prohibited from discussing the secrets in public, which is a limit on speech. Judges aren’t allowed to discuss cases while the trial is in progress, which is another voluntary limit on speech. So how does the prohibition on contributions differ?

Precedent for the equally voluntary lobby ban already exists in a limited form. Congressmen, Senators and staff are currently required to wait one year before they can board the lobby gravy train. Abramoff’s idea just extends the time limit to forever.
Politicians become lobbyists after leaving office because they’ve been captured by Washington and joining the permanent political class just seems like the thing to do. The constituents, who were fine as long as they were providing votes, are no longer up to snuff when it comes to being neighbors.

This voluntary rule — combined with term limits, which has also has a new supporter in Abramoff — would do much toward ridding us of the professional politician who’s only goal in life is serving in big government where he can “be a positive force for change.”
Three good ideas, regardless of the source, that have as much chance of being enacted as Ron Paul does of being President.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice

 

WesternFront America

We’re neck deep in the run-up to Primary Season.  On the national scene, the Republican horse-race for the presidential nomination has been something of a circus.  No less than half the field of candidates have had a turn carrying the banner of “front-runner”.  This “flavor of the week” elevation and deflation of the candidates is exhausting both to the voters and the office-seekers!   Voters are confused, and “undecided” garners more votes than any single candidate!  Primary contests for House and Senate seats and even some lesser state and local offices have been no less contentious and chaotic.  There must be a way to make sense of it all and select the best choice of candidate to represent our viewpoints!

In today’s educational and political paradigm, where certain people propose to indoctrinate you with what to think rather than train you how to think – and encourage you to do so; it is difficult to even set a criterion by which to analyze and evaluate the various options.

Therefore, I propose to do just that.  I will not promote any particular idea or candidate over another here.  This method will work for everyone regardless of your political ideology.  It will help you analyze how well a candidate represents YOUR views and interestes – not mine.  And it can apply outside of politics.  It can, for example, be used in hiring decisions when selecting between candidates for a job!

The candidate should be evaluated against the “6 Ps”:  Platform, Positions, Policy, Plan,Past Performance and Personal Integrity and Character.

This will help quantify the major questions you need asked and answered:  What are his guiding principles?  What’s his philosophy?  How will he approach implementing it?  How’s he done in the past?  Can I trust him?  (Please assign gender neutrality to the male pronouns – it’s tedious to keep specifying him/her)

You want to understand the candidate’s philosophy, his strategic plan, and his tactical plan.

First, you want to understand where the candidate’s coming from.  What’s his philosophy?  His core values.  What are the non-negotiables for him?  What’s his motivation?  Understanding his Platform and Positions will give insight here.  What is he FIRM on, and where is he “squishy”?  Is he uncompromising or pragmatic, and in his pragmatism, will he negotiate away YOUR non-negotiables?

Next, you want to understand what he intends to do with that philosophy!  What are the Policies he seeks to pursue and what is his Plan to implement them?  Does it make sense to you?  Does it seem workable to you.  Can you support it?  Can you understand it?

What’s the candidate’s track record?  How’s he done at what he’s attempted before?  As any investment’s prospectus will tell you “past performance is not a guarantee of future results”… however it is a pretty good indicator – especially when used to compare between the various choices!

Finally, character counts!  As we learned from the Clinton Era, there are those who will support and defend an individual no matter what he does, as long as he espouses their political view.  But if we, as a people, don’t hold our leaders to a certain standard of integrity and character, we will all reap the consequences.  No matter how rhetorically “pure” a candidate is on the political issues of the day – if he will compromise his personal integrity, there is no reason to believe he’ll hold fast to a political philosophy and not sell it out for self-interest.  Therefore, we must demand from our elected officials a higher standard of character.

Will there be a perfect candidate for you?  Only if you yourself are running!  Everyone has their own warts.  Everyone will have some area of disagreement, whether philosophically, strategically or tactically.  But you can analyze the field and put your support with the candidate who most closely represents your views and interests.  This method will simply help you logically determine which of the available candidates is closest.

Once you make that determination, go all in.  Support your candidate.  Remember, however, that once the primaries are over and one candidate has prevailed, he may or may not be your first choice.  If your candidate fails to win the nomination, don’t  be a “sour grapes” voter and sit out the general election.  Your second, third or even fourth choice in the primary still probably represents your interests and values better than the opposition in the general election.

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

Why are the GOP frontrunners talking about “getting in line,” for the forty million Mexican nationals  who have invaded America, in an active bid of annexation of American territory by Mexico, called “La Reconquista?”

Should American politicians be allowed to commit treason against the nation, by promoting the dangerous attitude of a tolerance romantic, toward the massive third world invasion of industrialized nations seen in both hemispheres of the planet?

Concessions should never be granted to burglars who break into our national house and there certainly should NOT be a so-called “line” for the gang-rape of our republic, under the Second Mexican War.

Mexico has full intent to make a baby, in prosecuting its “politically correct” rape of America.

Are these GOP frontrunners as insane as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

These sappy and sentimental politicians of the GOP, are the ones who need to “get in line,” lest they find themselves fresh-out of constituents.

 

WesternFront America

I am not a debater… never have been. Although I have been speaking publicly since the age of nine, I hate debates.

You may have noticed that I DO tend to favor commentaries. In a commentary I am allowed to express my views completely, without interruption, and then sit back and wait for the fur to fly.

I have no interest in arguing my positions or opinions. Once stated — that’s it! I don’t argue. Its not worth the time and effort necessary to sway someone else’s opinion my way. I simply don’t care if you disagree with me. Once my personal deliberations are complete and I make my opinions known, I am finished. (I know the shrinks would have a field day with this!)

All this leads me to the so-called debates between the GOP candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. Only a child would confuse the debates with a press conference … for that is all they are … press conferences. They are “gotcha” sessions. Little is learned from them though they make for grand spectacle.

We Americans have a strange way of choosing whom we send to Washington to represent us on The Hill and in the Oval Office. It is more than “passing strange.”

One quality we Americans demand from a candidate that I see nowhere else in the free world is… “purity.” We conservatives absolutely demand purity in our conservative belief. We never really get it – but we continue to demand it anyway.

Election cycle after election cycle we swear we will never “settle” – never choose the lesser of two evils – then we go right ahead and do it anyway.

The debates are really just theatre. Most conservatives already know whom they want as the nominee long before the first debate. But we watch and we listen and we wince when the candidates stumble and fumble and make ridiculous mistakes while under the tremendous pressure of millions of viewers – not to mention well-versed questioners (with notes from weeks of research) making every effort possible to trip them up or, in a myriad of ways, make them look foolish.

Then there is this: Why are there so many candidates on the stage, anyway? It is ridiculous. We all know there are maybe two or three candidates who have even a prayer of a chance at the nomination. Why not have only those two or three candidates and allow for a more relaxed atmosphere and more time for the candidates to formulate answers in their minds before responding to a question. It would certainly give the viewers and listeners a bit more insight into the way a candidate thinks.

As a former broadcaster, I have to tell you, in my view; the debates are more for the broadcasters and press than for the electorate. Its sort of like the Oscars — Hollywood stars salivating and honoring themselves while preening before the cameras assuring us all of their deep concern for their fellowman. Malarkey! Hogwash!

Never, ever, believe the Mainstream Media doesn’t do the very same thing. They are “stars” in their own right. If you don’t believe it – ask them!

I’ve done pressers and news conferences. I have been the guy with the pad and pencil furiously taking notes as the center of attention babbles on. I’ve been the guy trying desperately to shove his microphone into the face of some politician, or other, in hopes of catching some rare pearls of wisdom dripping from those esteemed lips. I have been there. I know a little about how news folks work. I also know what a bit of public adulation can do to the egos of a few very insecure news personalities.

The whole debate thing really ought to be dumped. Rather, a roundtable discussion between the candidates and a few members of the electorate would be far more informative to the public.

The debates, as they are staged today, are more about entertainment and the star quality of the press corp than they are about genuinely informing the American electorate.

It is a shame, really. Much COULD be learned — important stuff, too. But so long as we stick with the current format of the “debates” the electorate will have to glean their information elsewhere.

And then – there is this: The GOP debates are the best weapon Obama and the Democratic Party have … at the moment. There are no Democratic Party debates because Obama has no democratic challenger. So all the screw-ups, all the mistakes, all the brain freezes, all the “space-outs” are happening to the republican candidates. It makes them look weak, confused, even a little, well, dumb. The Mainstream Media, which is in the tank for Obama and the Democratic Party, will play all the screw-ups and glitches of the Republicans to the hilt in order to make their extraordinarily weak President look better. Obama is SOOO bad, it doesn’t take much to make him look better.

In light of all this — even more debates are in the offing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to STOP DEBATING? But, hey, this is politics. Who said it is supposed to make sense?

J. D. Longstreet

VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

There are few opportunities for legislation that holds the prospect of gain for EVERYONE who supports it, regardless of party or ideology – but amazingly, the repeal of ObamaCare offers that very opportunity, if our elected officials would but examine the possibilities!!

First and foremost, the majority of America rejects ObamaCare and supports its repeal.  So you’ve got popular support.  For the Democrats, that majority thing ought to be a biggie.  After all, they’re all about direct democracy, aren’t they?  Majority rules, right?

But as I’ve been quick to point out on many occasions, not everything that’s popular is right, and not everything that’s right is popular, so let’s look at some other motivations that might move our members of Congress to action.

Dems should consider that ObamaCare is about to undergo a major review by the Supreme Court.  Even with Kagan participating and not (properly) recusing herself from the case – there is a very strong possibility that at least some part of ObamaCare will be struck down – if not in its entirety!  This would deal a major blow to the party that rammed it through without a single GOP vote, after arm twisting and bribery by Pelosi, generally UNREAD, which had to be PASSED so we could know what’s in it!  Not only was it bad law, passed in an unscrupulous manner against the will of the people, but SCOTUS will also give the slap of unconstitutionality to at least part of it.  That stings.

Why not get out in front of this and defuse it by repealing ObamaCare and making a SCOTUS review moot?

And likewise, GOP, what if SCOTUS only finds PART of ObamaCare unconstitutional?  Do you want to HAVE to live with any part they find legit enough not to strike down?  Are you confident that Kennedy will hang tough with the conservatives on the Court ENOUGH to do away with ObamaCare?  What kind of mixed bag of upheld and struck down provisions might we have to contend with?

But hey, Republicans, here’s the BEST reason to move on repeal.  YOU PROMISED TO!  You were ELECTED to!  The whole point of the Mid-Term Elections was to put you in a position to.  And you’ve forgotten all about it.  That will not sit well come primary season!

Back to the Dems.  Since you took the reins of Congress in January 2007, we watched the deficit climb from 120 Billion at the end of GOP control of Congress, to nearly 15 times that amount at 1.7 Trillion.  We watched the National debt climb from 6 Trillion after 6 years of Bush and 2 wars to nearly 14 Trillion in 4 years of Pelosi/Reid.  So whatever Bush Bashing you may do, and however much you seek to blame Bush and say Obama INHERITED his problems… the American People understand that you are the party of spending with reckless abandon.  A reality, and a perception you may do well to strive to reverse!

The Super-Committee is charged with finding a Trillion in cuts over 10 years.  A pittance!  That’s really only 100 Billion a year… and they can’t do it!  If the automatic cuts kick in, the military will be slashed, and lefty ideologues aside (as they represent only around 20% of the population) the people of America DO NOT want to see the military slashed by 500 Billion!

Repealing ObamaCare will save TRILLIONS over a decade.  All by itself.  Your precious spending programs don’t even have to be touched, and you can claim victory in achieving the spending reduction!

For the GOP, repealing ObamaCare is a victory fiscally, and ideologically, protecting individual rights, reigning in an egregious over-reach by the federal oligarchy.

For all of you.  Repeal would result in an economic recovery far exceeding the wildest dreams or expectations of any program or stimulus the Administration has considered, offered or implemented!  Companies, freed from the shackles of ObamaCare, would loosen the hiring constraints.  Jobs, production, GDP and tax revenues would all climb – and true to Reagan’s quote… a rising tide does indeed lift all boats.  And you could all claim credit for stimulating the economy out of the worst “recession” (depression) in our lifetimes at least!

Back to the Dems.  Are you REALLY supportive of affordable healthcare for people?  Then realize how many companies are ready to ABANDON providing care when ObamaCare is fully implemented!!  I know many of you are idealogically committed to Single-Payer healthcare, and such a collapse of the private and employer provided market would leave a vacuum that you’d feel compelled to fill with Government care… but America resoundingly doesn’t want it!  Given the choice between the private enterprise Hospitals like Barnes, Mayo, Mt Sinai, or Hopkins, and government care like say, a VA hospital, which do you think most Americans would opt for?  Even if they pay for private insurance?

If ObamaCare is SO GOOD for people, why the waivers for so many FOD’s (Friends of Democrats)?  And why is Congress exempt?

ObamaCare is a boondoggle.  It’s an embarrassment to the Dems and CAUSED the massacre of 2010.  It’s impractical.  It’s unsustainable.  And eliminating it will save TRILLIONS.

Truly.  WHAT are y’all waiting for?  How about a nice Christmas present THIS year?  America said THANK YOU for Pelosi’s Christmas Present of 2009 with the November 2010 elections.  Repeal for Christmas 2011 would be a present America would TRULY appreciate!

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

Generally overlooked in the midst of the many debates and the usual competition between Republican candidates for the Party’s nomination is the fact that a rather impressive number have thrown their hats in the ring. It is testimony to the health, depth, and diversity of the Party. Compare that with the Democratic Party’s lone candidate, a President already ceded the title of worst ever.

As campaigns proceed toward the on-rushing primaries, Republicans are increasingly focused beyond the usual circus atmosphere, including the latest problems encountered by Herman Cain and Rick Perry’s gaffs. Selecting the GOP candidate has now reached the critical stage.

That is why a lengthy editorial in a recent Wall Street Journal is noteworthy. “Romney’s Fiscal Awakening” was a thorough analysis of a November 4th Romney speech on the subject of reversing the nation’s economic problems. The Journal said “his remarks deserve more attention than they’ve received as a guide to how he might govern.”

Romney has run a smart campaign to this point, not attacking the other candidates and waiting for them to exhaust themselves while he maintained a fairly constant 25% of support to this point. Unlike the boxer who spends all his energy in the first or third round, Romney has tended to the grassroots kind of effort necessary to succeed in the early primaries.

He’s been here before–losing the nomination to John McCain the last time and it is likely that many Republicans have some very serious regrets about that. He learned from that effort, probably in the same way Ronald Reagan did when he challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination. McCain was an updated version of Bob Dole, the kind of GOP candidate who gets the nod because he was judged to have earned it even if he couldn’t campaign is way out of a paper bag.

Increasingly, Republicans are asking themselves, “If not Romney, who?”

While many believe that almost any GOP candidate could beat Obama that kind of optimism is unwise because an incumbent president has a lot of resources to draw on between now and Election Day. That said, Republicans have seen their own incumbents, George H.W. Bush and the aforementioned Gerald Ford defeated.

On Saturday, November 12th, Rasmussen Reports reviewed the week’s polling results. “Poll after poll shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential contender voters are most comfortable with and the GOP hopeful who continues to run most competitively with President Obama. But that’s not enough for a lot of Republican voters.”

“Just this past week, new surveying found that Romney is the GOP candidate viewed most favorably by all voters. This parallels other recent findings that voters see Romney as the GOP hopeful most qualified to be president and the candidate for the White House closest to the mainstream in a group that includes Obama.”

I would recommend reading “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics” by R. B. Scott (Lyons Press) because it is not an authorized biographical profile, the author has excellent journalistic credentials, and he provides useful insights regarding the Mormon Church you are not likely to read elsewhere.

I have concluded that Romney’s religion is not going to play that much of a role in the forthcoming election. Consider that he won the governorship of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states and a Democratic stronghold. Romney knows how to win elections.

In saying that, I am also saying he is a very skilled politician. In addition, he has also a proven record in the world of business and finance. These are two elements that are going to be vital to his election in 2012. Yes, I think he will get the GOP nomination. Yes, I would vote for him.

The highest hurdle Romney must overcome is his reputation as a “flip-flopper.” There is no question that he has changed his views over the years on many topics, but that can be easily countered by merely listing the many times that Obama has done the same or, in his case, voted “present.”

Whether it’s been about abortion and choice, stem cell research, gun control, immigration, or taxes, Romney has been on one side of the issue or the other over the years. What is called “flip-flopping” can also been seen as a process of growth, of examining his positions on these issues and—yes—changing them.

Here’s where Romney’s religion really plays a role. The Mormon Church, in which he has been an active leader, is famous for its moral code. They don’t drink. They don’t smoke. And they have positions on major moral issues that are not dissimilar from the Roman Catholic Church.

As R.B. Scott says in his book, Mormons have values that include “veneration for the experience, wisdom, and caution of the elderly; respect for the talents and pragmatism of skilled tradesmen; honor and gratitude for those who perform heavy labor; deep admiration for poets, musicians, writers, entertainers, and athletes; and veneration for religious, academic, and secular achievements.”

Romney has diverged from the church’s positions on occasion, but Mormons also hold to a fundamental tenet, the doctrine of free agency. “Regardless of existing laws, faithful Mormons had the obligation to make moral judgments for themselves”, says Scott. Romney has done that.

Romney has been the clear winner of the recent debates. Rick Perry was the biggest loser and the rest of the candidates increasingly look like window dressing.

Romney has been successful at almost everything he has ever put his hand to. He is the right man at the right time to defeat Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America