A Bit of Advice for Democrats

 Thank you, Tim Walz, for your unintentional humor this morning.  When I read the story about Kamala choosing him so he could "code talk to white guys" I laughed out loud.  

Before I retired, I worked for a company that managed the wellness program of a large international oil company.  In my capacity, I came into contact with all levels of the company, from vice presidents to the roughnecks working offshore and everything in between.  There's no secret to communicating with them.  Simply respect them as human beings, treat them kindly and most important, be authentic.  In other words, don't try to pretend to be something you are not.  

Democrats treat white men, especially blue collar guys, as some alien species that has its own language and they must crack the code.  The problem as I see it is that Democrats are always pretending to be something they're not.  Some of them change their accents and the way they speak, depending on the audience which they are addressing.  On the other hand, if Dems honestly showed who they really are, the majority of Americans would never vote for them.  They simply don't understand the vast majority of Americans, and I hope they remain out of power for at least the rest of my life.  

Democrats and American Women

What was the "women's movement" about?  Allegedly, it was to open up previously unavailable choices and options to women and to foster equality with men - socially, sexually and economically.  

Why, then, do so many women look to the government, Democrats specifically, to be their provider?  As you may or may not know, there is a "gender gap" when it comes to the support each political party enjoys.  By and large, men tend to support Republicans, while women tend to support Democrats.  When looking at single vs. married women, this gap narrows, with a larger percentage of married women supporting Republicans than single women.


Perhaps women have bought into the notion pushed by Democrats and reinforced by the compliant liberal media that Republicans have no compassion and are waging a "war on women".  Listening to the Democrats, one might come to the conclusion that Republicans and conservatives are trying to deny access to contraceptives, keep women down and - who knows - maybe even take away the right to vote!

As a woman, I'm embarrassed that so many of my fellow females have fallen for these falsehoods.  The assumption that women need the government to take care of them and provide their most basic needs is insulting and condescending. The policies endorsed and promulgated by Democrats do not arise from compassion.  They originate in the desire to gain and keep political power. After all, if you can keep people dependent on governmental goodies, they're likely to keep voting for the provider of those benefits.  

Conservatives, on the other hand, endorse a smaller governmental footprint in our lives, common-sense regulations and policies that foster economic growth that will benefit all levels of society, while keeping the safety net for those who truly need it. 

I'm appealing to American women:  don't fall for the Democrats' lies about the terrible tragedies that will befall you should Republicans be elected. You're smarter than that! Republicans are the ones who recognize that you are strong and capable of standing on your own two feet.  The policies of the Democrats are patronizing and condescending.  Ask yourself:  who's truly conducting a "war on women"?   

A Radical Idea

Suddenly, Republicans are in a panic about passing immigration reform legislation.  Why?  We've been rolling along with things the way they are for years now, so why all at once does this have to be done?  Why, also, does it have to be done in one big piece of comprehensive legislation?  The answer is simple:  votes. The Republican leaders seem to think this is the only way to win Latino votes.   I believe Latinos will still, by and large, vote for Democrats no matter what legislation passes. Republicans will never be able to outdo Dems with the freebies, so why try?

Representative Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposes the Senate's comprehensive bill and plans instead to advance a series of more narrowly focused immigration bills.  This is the best way, in my opinion, to accomplish true reform and come up with good legislation.  The Senate always seems to want to come up with huge, sweeping legislation; unfortunately, what we usually end up with is a 2,000 page bill that is incomprehensible and causes more problems than it solves.  

I believe there is a way to win Latinos over to the Republican side, and it involves what some Republican leaders may consider to be radical.  How about actually going into predominantly Latino areas and talking to them?!  Hispanics are like the rest of us:  they want financial security and freedom to pursue it.  Republicans should conduct an enthusiastic outreach to Hispanic communities and explain to them why conservative policies offer them what government handouts cannot:  the best opportunity to take care of their families and become financially stable and secure.  People who are dependent on the government for their income and care are in a very vulnerable position, and dependence on the government will keep people poor forever.  Once Latinos understand that, Republicans can win them over.  

5 Questions for Black Voters

In the wake of the November 6 election, some questions continue to come to mind.  Approximately 93% of black voters supported Obama, so with that statistic in mind, I pose the following questions:

1.  Do you honestly believe that Republicans want to take away your right to vote?  
The very idea that Republicans seek to suppress or eliminate the black vote is absurd to reasonable people, yet that's what Barack Obama, Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats were saying publicly, and apparently the more gullible folks believed them.  Using fear and resentment, the Obama campaign shamelessly riled up black voters to ensure their turnout, a tactic that is unconscionable.

2.  Do you really believe that everyone who opposes President Obama does so because of racism?
Racism, the "R word", is thrown about freely by Democrats in regard to anyone who doesn't agree with Obama.  Are there racists out here who don't like the president because of his skin color?  Certainly - I've seen examples of it firsthand.  However, the majority of people who oppose this president do so because of his liberal policies, not because of his racial background.  It's just so easy to throw out the racism charge instead of engaging in a rational debate, isn't it?  

3.  Why aren't you angry about the unholy alliance between Democrats and the teachers' unions that doom many black children to failure and poverty?
Many urban children are stuck in schools that are failing to provide a decent education.  Republicans support charter schools and school vouchers that would give disadvantaged children the option of attending the school of their choice, thus enabling them to get a high quality education. Democrats, beholden to the teachers' unions, oppose school vouchers and charter schools.  These same Democrats send their own children to exclusive private schools, yet want to deny inner city children the same opportunity.  

4.  For decades, blacks have been voting almost exclusively for Democrats, yet more and more black people are falling into poverty.  What are you getting for your vote?
Let's be brutally frank here: Democrats have been bribing people to vote for them with various social programs.  Since the 1960s, the government's welfare policies have been been decimating black families and keeping people mired in poverty and misery.  Furthermore, Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people poor and powerless so they can continue to offer them "goodies" in exchange for their votes.  How does it feel to know your vote is being bought and you're being taken for granted?  

5.  Although you vilify rich people, don't you really want to be wealthy too?
There's nothing wrong with seeking comfort and security; it's human nature to want those things.  The harsh reality is that the only way to achieve financial stability is through a good education or vocational training and hard work.  We must find a way to offer the opportunities that lead to success to as many people as possible, but make no mistake about it:  ultimately, traveling the road to financial security requires taking personal responsibility for your life.  We need a "safety net" for those who truly are unable to take care of themselves and lack family support, but being dependent on government puts you in a very vulnerable position, and as long as you are dependent on government, you will be poor, not prosperous.  

Polls: True or Skewed?

Many of the current polls are indicating that President Obama is significantly ahead of Mitt Romney.  I wade into the area of polling with great trepidation, but here goes.

Rasmussen, which historically has been the most accurate poll, currently has the candidates tied. They also show that Republicans have a 4 percentage point advantage over Democrats in terms of party affiliation.  

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, Democratic pollsters, have both expressed the belief that the polls are skewed against Romney.  Pollsters are basing their samples on voter turnout from 2008, when Democratic turnout was greater than Republican.  However, they are ignoring the elections of 2010, when Republicans turned out en masse to repudiate the Obama agenda. Does anyone really believe Democrats will turn out in bigger numbers than Republicans this year?  

It is my belief that pollsters are attempting to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.  It is a pathetic attempt to discourage Republican voters, but it is not going to work.  In fact, I suspect it may actually backfire on them.  It is my hope that people who plan to vote for Obama see these polls and believe that he has it wrapped up and therefore won't feel the need to actually go cast their votes.   

Emotions and the Polls

Obama has gotten a bounce in the  polls since the Democratic convention.  Hopefully, it will be, as Peggy Noonan called it, a "dead-cat bounce", similar to what happened after the Navy SEALS killed bin Laden.  

How can anyone with even half a brain vote for Obama?  According to the polls, Obama is viewed as more empathetic than Romney.  Is that a good reason to vote for someone?  A disturbing number of people appear to believe that Obama really cares more for people than Obama.  Yeah, right.   How can Obama care for people he doesn't know when he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya, who lives in utter poverty?  

I fear that ignorance and downright stupidity will get Obama re-elected.  There are too many people in this country who operate on emotion and willfully ignore facts. There's nothing inherently wrong with emotions - we all have them - but they are a poor foundation on which to base important decisions.

I'm beginning to think that potential voters should have to demonstrate at least some rudimentary knowledge and understanding of current events before they are allowed to vote.  Would that be unconstitutional?

Jobs?

Obama and the congressional Democrats are trying to convince us that they're focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.  They complain that Republicans aren't interested in "creating jobs".  

The Democrats have it bass-ackwards, as usual.  We need jobs in the private sector and the government cannot create those jobs.  Employers don't hire people to get tax credits, as the president seems to think.  They hire people because their business is growing and they need more employees to handle it.  Likewise, jobs don't grow the economy; it's the other way around.  The growth of the economy is what creates jobs.  

The best thing the government can do at this point is to just get out of the way. Quit trying to regulate the life out of businesses, ease the tax burdens on employers and watch the economy grow.  In other words, butt out!

The Democrats' 4H Club

There is certainly a lot of heated rhetoric flying about these days.  While this occurs on both ends of the political spectrum, the Democrats have taken it to new heights.  


The 4H club of the Democrats consists of four prongs:  hyperbole, histrionics, hypocrisy and hatefulness.  Some of the Democrats seem completely out of their minds, as they recklessly throw charges of racism and murderous intent around.   The tea party seems to have driven them crazy and as they see their power slipping away, the Dems have responded with over-the-top accusations that simply diminish their credibility. Mad Maxine Waters and crazed congressman Carson are but two of the more prominent Democrats out there spewing their demented rants while trying to stir up passion in their constituents.  So much for civility.  


President Obama, if he were any kind of leader, could and would put the damper on all this nonsense.  I believe these people are spewing their ridiculous rants because they have the tacit approval of the president.  Barack Obama - the most divisive president of my lifetime.    

The Mean Season

With the election nearing, the political ads and rhetoric are often over the top.  In a recent debate, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas accused her Republican opponent, John Boozman, of having voted in Congress to allow a father who had raped his daughter to sue the doctor who performed an abortion on the daughter he had raped.  The only problem is that Mr. Boozman had no idea what she was talking about and when challenged, she couldn't back up her ugly accusation. 

The ad by Florida Democratic representative Alan Grayson is one of the most shameful, despicable things I've ever seen a politician do.  This is the ad that takes a quotation from his opponent, Daniel Webster, completely out of context, which makes it seem totally different from the original quotation in its entirety. He then compares Mr. Webster to the  Taliban!  No, nothing over the top about that.  Mr. Grayson should be ashamed, but he seems to have no sense of shame at all and I can't imagine why anyone would consider voting for someone so devoid of character. 

The Democrats can't really run on their legislative "accomplishments".  They managed to pass a lot of new laws, but the only problem is that the majority of Americans didn't want those laws.  They now can do nothing but resort to name-calling and outright lies to divert attention from the damage they're doing to the economy and the country as a whole. 

Blame Time - Yet Again

Will Obama ever stop blaming Republicans for "obstructing" progress?  Now he's saying that Republicans are hurting the unemployed by their filibuster of a broad economic bill that would bloat the deficit even more. 

Someone should point out to the president that Democrats currently enjoy a majority in the Senate and House, so the "obstruction" is not coming from Republicans alone.  Perhaps if Obama were more skillful in negotiating with the opposition, he could get more things done.  There have been many presidents who worked with a Congress dominated by the opposite party, yet they managed to negotiate and compromise to make progress in solving problems.  This president seems to lack the flexibility and/or the "know-how" to do this. 

Obama's devotion to his political ideology and his habit of falling into the same pattern over and over are hurting him politically.  Is he smart?  I don't think so, but one thing is certain:  wise he is not. 

Better for Republicans Not to Win the House in November?

Republicans are expected to make significant gains in the House and Senate in November.  Is it possible that it would be better for the Republicans if they don't take over the House after the election?

I admit that this is something I hadn't considered.  However, I read a rather provocative article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by columnist Gerald F. Seib.  As put forth by Mr. Seib, it would very likely benefit the Republicans not to take over the House after the election, especially since it's unlikely that they will take over the Senate as well. He argues that even if they win control of the House, it will be by such a small margin that they won't be able to control anything.  But being the majority party in the House would put them in the forefront and force them to absorb blame for much of what goes wrong in Washington.  On the other hand, one must take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. 

In addition, Mr. Seib argues that if the Republicans take over the House, this will give Obama an excuse to move to the political middle, which is where he probably needs to be in order to win re-election in 2012. 

I do have a problem with his second argument, however.  Mr. Seib notes that Bill Clinton moved to the political center after Democrats lost the house in 1994.  There are a couple of important differences between Clinton and Obama though.  Bill Clinton is a liberal, but not an ideologue, and he is capable of moderation in some matters.  Obama, however, is a dedicated ideologue, even though he argues that he's not.  He can say "I'm not an ideologue" until the cows come home, but the fact is that he behaves like an ideologue.  He has shown us his true colors and he has no credibility as a centrist (I admit he has no credibility with me in any realm).  If he attempts to maneuver to the political center, it will be obvious to everyone that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy.  I rather doubt that Obama would do this.  I suspect he would rather move his agenda forward and be a one term president than be a two-termer with a watered-down agenda. 

Voter Suppression

Let the voting season begin.  Democrats, facing potentially catastrophic losses in the November elections, are already ramping up charges that Republicans have in the past, and will in the future, attempt to suppress voting among minorities. 

This is very tired rhetoric.  I challenge Democrats to put forth concrete examples of voter suppression and/or intimidation aimed at minorities.  Come on - you've made the accusation; back it up with facts.  If you can't, then please at least come up with some new lines.  I'm sick of the old ones.

The only example I can remember in recent history of a naked attempt to intimidate voters was the "security" posted at polling places in Philadelphia in 2008 by the New Black Panthers.  That was a not so subtle attempt to intimidate white voters, but I guess that's OK with Dems.  What a bunch of lying hypocrites!

A Precarious Position

Liberals like to think that they are the only compassionate people around and that conservatives care only about the wealthy.  There is plenty of evidence to refute that, which I won't go into now, but the Republicans have not, in my opinion, effectively dispelled that notion.   This could possibly have repercussions for the upcoming elections.

It's obvious to anyone who has even half a brain that we cannot continue on the current spending spree if we want to survive as a prosperous nation.  Cuts, some of them painful, are going to have to be made, if politicians can find their spines.  Of course, the Democrats will cry foul and make it sound as if Republicans are cruel and cold.  How can Republicans counteract this?

It's human nature to want to get something for nothing.  Those of us in touch with reality know that happens very seldom.  It's comforting to think that someone will take care of you too, but what's the downside of all this?

Aside from the obvious economic implications of a welfare state, people who are dependent on others for their care and upkeep are in a vulnerable position.  I believe that Democrats have a vested interest in keeping more and more people poor and dependent on the government because, after all, they count on their votes to keep them in office.  What's a Republican to do?

Let me say clearly and unequivocally that I recognize there are people who truly are unable to take care of themselves because of physical or mental limitations.  As a Christian, I feel a moral obligation to help people in need.  I have no problem with that.  However there are too many families in our society that have been on welfare for generations and way too many people who think the country owes them something.  I definitely do have a problem with my tax dollars being used to promote learned helplessness and/or laziness.

This brings me back to my original question:  what can Republicans do to counteract this trend?  Well, it's time that we had some politicians who talk to us like adults.  First, they should outline in a clear and concise fashion how being dependent on the government makes you vulnerable so people understand that having the government take care of you is not a free ride.  It actually decreases personal freedom; the dependency makes the government feel as it it has the right to make certain demands. 

Second, Republicans should make it very clear that the more people we have in this society of all races and ethnicities who are educated and self-sufficient, the better off our society will be for everyone.  If a person receives welfare, then perhaps we should put a limit on how long they may receive it and make it contingent on their getting educated or trained so they can get a good job (assuming they're able-bodied, of course).

Republicans should explain that being independent and self-sufficient produces a variety of benefits.  By facing challenges and mastering them we discover true self-esteem and confidence and are free to enjoy the satisfaction that comes with a job well done. 

What Are You Sick Of?

Admittedly, I'm rather exhausted by things today.  I'm just sick and tired of some of the insanity that's rampant today and I need a breather in fighting it. 

What are some of the things that comprise this insanity we're seeing?  The things that I am most fed up with include, but are not limited to:

• A president who seems hell-bent on growing the government and extending its reach into our lives, all the while denying that that's what he wants to do
• Violence on both sides of the political spectrum.  While I understand the impulse, the lack of self-control is appalling (and just for the record, I believe the violence is more prevalent on the left).
• The double standard that exists among Democrats; they accuse Republicans of actions that they themselves indulge in regularly.
• The corruption in the "sideline" media (can't really call them mainstream anymore).  Note to the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, et al.:  you're supposed to be the watchdog of government, not the lap dog, and that  includes reporting Democrat scandals and misdeeds.
• Demonizing Tea Party attendees.  For these reporters calling us extremists,  you might have a little more credibility if you'd actually attend a tea party or two and talk to some of the people there.
• An administration that is grossly immature, thin-skinned, and arrogant
• A president who bows and scrapes to our enemies and insults and alienates our allies and friends

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the picture.  By the way, as a final note to Obama and his fellow Democrats:  I don't believe what you say.  I am not listening to you - I'm simply watching what you do.

What are some of the things that bother you most?

The Set-Up for November

"If Congress decides we're not going to do it . . . then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that's how democracy works, with the elections coming up. " - Barack Obama
    
With that statement, Obama is setting the stage for shifting the blame away from himself for the health-care debacle.  First, note that he's putting the onus on Congress, not himself or his lack of leadership.  Second, he undoubtedly knows the Democrats are going to suffer losses, possibly of catastrophic dimensions, in the November elections.  It should be obvious to everyone, with the exception of those who still blindly hang on to the delusion that Obama is doing a great job, that after November, BO is going to say that the Dems lost votes because they failed to pass health-care reform. 

Will anyone believe that?  Some hardcore lefties probably will; the rest of America, not so much.  What many on the left will never understand is that Democrats will be voted out of office not because they failed to pass health-care reform, but because they attempted a governmental take-over of health-care, all the while ignoring our protests. 

Irresponsibility on Steroids

Just when you think things can't possibly be worse with the pending health-care bill, you learn they are indeed going from bad to worse.  According to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, the Democratic leadership has been privately crafting a bill in the Majority Leader's conference room that is different from the bill that's currently on the Senate floor.  They are attempting to rush this bill through and are going to ask the Senate to vote on a bill that no one outside the conference room has even seen! 

This is absolutely reprehensible.  They are attempting to rush passage of a bill of historical significance.  It has ramifications for our economy, our ability to deliver high-quality health-care, and the prosperity of our country, yet they don't want to allow time for debate. 

This has been a dream of Democrats for decades and they are not about to forego this opportunity.  Dems, political pundits, and newscasters who are in bed with the Democrats keep reminding us that this is "historical".  Well, so were Pearl Harbor and 9/11; historical and good are two different things.

True Colors

Who would've thought town hall meetings could get so ugly? I guess this is to be expected when Obama calls in his union thugs to knock a few heads together.

A black conservative was attacked in St. Louis as he handed out yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Citizens were not allowed to enter the hall where the meeting was being held, yet union members were escorted in through a side door.

What's new here? Unions have always played hardball, but what's different about this is that it's the first time, in my memory anyway, that these thugs have been called out by our government to rough up ordinary citizens who happen to disagree with the president. This may be acceptable in Chicago, but it's totally unacceptable in a president.

I never thought I'd see the day when citizens were attacked, both verbally and physically, for disagreeing with the president and his henchmen. I believe this will not intimidate people; on the contrary, it will strengthen the resolve of citizens who happen to oppose this health care bill. These "compassionate", "inclusive", "post racial" Democrats have shown their true colors and have damaged themselves in the process. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group.

The Mob

The Democrats are characterizing the citizens who are speaking out at Town Hall meetings as a "mob" which has been recruited and agitated by lobbyists who oppose the proposed health care "reform". Nancy Pelosi has gone so far as to say some were carrying swastikas.

The DNC's newsletter says that these people are just attempting to stifle reasoned debate and press secretary Dilbert, er, Robert Gibbs says these protests are manufactured. Could the Democrats BE any more out of touch?

Ordinary people are angry and frustrated because our so-called representatives are ignoring our comments and our wishes. The DNC is disingenuous when they say the protestors are trying to stifle debate. It has been the Dems themselves who have refused to have a discussion about this and the people are gagging from having this shoved down their throats. They have chosen to ignore us and we have had to resort to shouting just to get their attention.

Now, to top off everything, Obama has called for those who receive "fishy" e-mails to report them to the White House. Why? What on earth are you planning to do about these, Obama? Believe it or not, people DO have a right to disagree with you; check out the Constitution since you apparently have not done so recently.

I think people have reached a point where many are determined to fight this and these obnoxious tactics of the Obama administration will not intimidate them. Hang in there, protestors!