Why Did He Do It?

As almost everyone knows by now, Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP yesterday in Houston.  He had a mixed reception and predictably drew some booing when he stated he would repeal Obamacare.  


Some politicians and pundits are wondering aloud why Romney did this, as he had to know what the reaction would be.  Nancy Pelosi, that sage of San Francisco, even voiced the opinion that he did it for the purpose of drawing boos.  


What purpose could Romney possibly have to want to draw boos from a crowd?  For Nancy Pelosi, everything is a political calculation, so this is a total mystery to her.  I have my own opinion about why Romney spoke in such a straightforward manner:  he respected his audience enough to be honest with them instead of lying and pandering like so many other politicians do.  


Mitt Romney deserves our admiration for having the courage to appear before this audience and say the hard truths that they didn't want to hear. The elites of the NAACP won't be swayed, but ordinary black Americans may just decide that Romney said something of value.  

Declaration of Independence vs. the Constitution

Happy 4th of July, everyone!  There was an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning that was written by a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.  You can see it here:  http://www.chron.com/default/article/Why-Independence-Day-is-more-important-than-3682689.php

Below is a letter that I wrote to the editor of the Chronicle.  Please let me know what you think.


The letter is as follows: 


I seem to remember that in the past, the Chronicle printed the Declaration of Independence in its entirety on the 4th of July.  For some reason, you chose not to do that this year and instead published an article by UT Professor Sanford Levinson about the flaws of our Constitution.

Professor Levinson opines that "the Framers created a system that was fundamentally designed to make it difficult for government to respond effectively to the great issues of the day."  I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that our founders, being acutely aware of the dangers of an over-reaching, intrusive government, sought to limit the government to those things that only government can provide, e.g., national security. The problem is that some people have come to believe that the government should address and solve every problem encountered by the populace.  It's clear that those who politically are left of center view the Constitution not as a protection against aggressive government, but as an impingement on their wish to expand governmental reach.  This was demonstrated clearly with President Obama's remark that he viewed the Constitution as a set of "negative liberties".  That's such an odd phrase to me.

The problem with having a Constitution that is a "living, breathing document" is that it then becomes vulnerable to passing fads and ideologies.  Social and political trends tend to be cyclical:  we go a little to the left, we go a little to the right, back and forth.  Do we constantly want to be reinventing the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment?  

I would compare the Constitution to the foundation of a house.  It might need a little repair once in a while, but if you tinker with it too much, you risk undermining its integrity and the soundness of the structure which it supports.  Thus it is with our Constitution and government.  

Something to Really Look Forward To

I look forward to the day, which hopefully will occur in January, 2013, when Obama is no longer president.  I dream of being free of seeing his face and hearing his voice on a daily basis.  I long to have Michelle Obama retire so I no longer have to see her tacky outfits or hear her preach about our eating habits.    


Mychal Massie is a conservative blogger who also happens to be black.  He has written eloquently about this very thing today and you can see it here:

When He Is No Longer President

Happy reading!

The Blame Game and Ineptitude

President Obama, who, as we all know by now, is responsible for nothing, continues his assault on the "do-nothing" Congress (actually, it would be far more accurate to say "the do-nothing Senate", but I digress).  On the campaign trail, he has berated Congress for failing to act on a number of measures that Obama claims would help the economy and jobs market.


I doubt that Obama will see it this way, but to me this is indicative of the president's lack of leadership.  There have been many presidents who have had to work with a Congress dominated by the other party, but the good presidents manage to get things done anyway.  Obama's constant harping on Congress' inaction in reality highlights his ineptitude in dealing with them.  A better president would know how to work with Congress to get things done.  

Falling or Climbing?

Words have power:  the power to inform and the power to deceive.  The Obama administration is adept at using words to mislead.  Sometimes, they cross the line into outright lies.


As printed in the Wall Street Journal's main editorial today, the Obama campaign is running an ad "blitz" trumpeting that during Romney's tenure as governor, Massachusetts "fell" to 47th place in the country for job creation.  The truth is that when Mr. Romney became governor, Massachusetts was 50th in job creation, at the bottom of the barrel.  So, when Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts actually climbed to 47th place.  This is a distinction the Obama campaign doesn't want to make and, unfortunately, many people won't look any further to discern the truth.


Mr. Obama doesn't want to put his own record out there as justification for a second administration, so he's trying to make his opponent look bad, taking the focus off his own pathetic record.  So far, it hasn't seemed to work.  I think many people now know that Mr. Obama's figures are, at best, half-truths, if that. 

Where are You, Rick?

Newt Gingrich has ended his campaign and endorsed Romney, as he should.  Republicans seem to be coalescing behind Romney, although there are a few pockets of resistance.  

It's time to face reality, folks.  Romney is all but certain to be the Republican nominee and it's imperative that we rally behind him, even if he wasn't your first choice.

My question is:  where are Rick Santorum and Ron Paul?  Ron Paul is kind of like a foot fungus - you just can't seem to get rid of him.  Rick Santorum dropped out awhile ago, but has yet to voice support for Romney.  Still licking his wounds from the primary, I guess.  Hey, Rick - it's time to end your snit and encourage your supporters to get behind Mitt Romney.  The same is true for Ron Paul.  This country is more important than your personal grudges and beliefs and the reality is that Romney is the only one who has a chance to beat Obama in November.  Get off your high horses and encourage your supporters to vote for Romney.  

Utter Hypocrisy

Liberal groups have been vociferously demonizing voter ID laws that have recently been passed in several states.  They agonize that these laws will disenfranchise minority voters and wail that Republicans are trying to suppress voter turnout.  


Would anyone be surprised to find that hypocrisy is rearing its ugly head in this debate?  Turns out that very liberal groups such as Center for American Progress and the Advancement Project actually require photo IDs to enter their buildings!


Aren't they afraid they're going to "disenfranchise" minorities who might want to come in and say hello?  Would someone please notify Eric Holder about this "unnecessary" and discriminatory practice (oh, and if you're planning to go to the Justice Deparment building in person, be sure to bring your photo ID!).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf25pmgR4c&feature=youtu.be