The WHY of the HOW

We see and hear the same thing every election year in television, print and radio advertisement. Don't vote for this or that candidate because he or she voted for this or that law, amendment or package. However, the smart voter knows not to listen to that rhetoric because the devil is in the details. It's not the HOW that is important as to a candidate's vote on certain legislation in the past as is WHY they voted for it.

The House and Senate have this nasty practice of tacking on unrelated items and earmarks to bills that could otherwise be good for the public welfare. These add-on agendas force politicians to have to vote for or against a bill that they might otherwise like or dislike just so they can get the original concept passed or failed. This kind of dirty politics has to change once and for all. Permanent legislation needs to be passed that would eliminate this practice for good.

Everything going to the floor of the House and Senate needs to stand on its own merit and not be tacked on to any other legislation up for a vote. If Senator A wants an earmark that his or her State will benefit from at a cost to the American taxpayer then they must be forced to submit such a bill on its own value and not be able to railroad it into session for a vote by sticking it on the end of some other bill under consideration. Why we have allowed this tricky and disgusting behavior to continue for all these decades is a mystery but there is absolutely no reason to allow it to continue any longer and it has proven to be quite detrimental to how our government functions. If legislation cannot stand on its own then it deserves to fail in an up or down vote. It shouldn't be used to arm twist legislators to vote for or against it by making it part of a package that legislator's might like, forcing them to swallow a giant nasty pill that goes against what they stand for.

This kind of under-the-table wheeling and dealing will continue unless We the People let Washington D.C. know we have finally had enough. Contact your local House and Senate representative by mail, phone, letter & email. Let them know that this practice has run its course and must not continue to be tolerated or they will no longer have to worry about the HOW & WHY of their vote because you will vote them out of that responsibility.

Dependencies - Becoming American Way of Life?

There's an old adage that says you can make numbers mean whatever you want them to. Numbers can be a bit like a religious text, they can take on any meaning if not presented properly and in the correct order.

There is a new set of numbers out there as it relates to the growing dependency of Americans on government for their everyday subsistence and no matter how you cut it these numbers are not lying or being misused in a deceptive way.

The Heritage Foundation's newly released study reveals that average American resident's dependence on federal government spending has dramatically risen to 23% in just two and one-half years that President Obama has served as this nation's leader. That represents the sharpest rise of this kind since the end of World War II and comes to the tune of 67 million people being on at least one type of federal entitlement program (excluding social security, medicare and G.I. assistance). The study shows that the greatest areas of dependence have been in Medicaid, housing and food stamp distribution, therefore making the title "Food Stamp President" an accurate description of Mr. Obama.This is just one more thing on a growing list Mr. Obama can add to his ledger of failures since being elected President in 2008.

Mr. Obama promised to bring "change" and he has done so by changing America from a self-dependent, can-do society to one of lackluster dependence on a government handout. President Obama has overseen the largest generation of dependency on U.S. government handouts since Jimmy Carter back in the 1970's, has spent nearly triple the money in just three years then George W. Bush did in eight (including monies spent on wars after 9/11). In that same time period he has elevated the national debt more than all Presidents before him going all the way back to the first, George Washington. Obama has dealt a deathly blow to individual religious freedom guaranteed by our Constitution with the forcing of religious institutions to a mandate that makes them offer contraceptive, abortive and other practices that force them into what they consider unfaithful and unconscionable behavior. This President has also allowed the government to choose which companies will fail by making the U.S. government the owner of said businesses if they are deemed "too big to fail."

Mr. Obama has accomplished this anti-constitutional, anti-liberty state of affairs in just a little under three years and has turned America into an unknown quantity that resembles less and less of what its founders envisioned. What will we look like if this dangerous democratic czar-appointing despot is given another four where he has nothing to loose? God Forbid!

True Liberalism Stolen by Marxist Elites

As an avid student of history for over 50 years the one thing I try never to do is be a modern revisionist, as is the case with many who espouse a historical viewpoint today. I stand by my statements concerning the original definition of Liberalism. In the last half of the 19th Century and for the first 60 years of of the 20th Century liberalism was defined as an ideology that generally favoured legislation restricting the civil authority and political power of a centralized governing body. It espoused such unique ideas as constitutionalism, a democractic republic with free and fair elections, human civil rights, free enterprise capitalism, and freedom of religious expression. This is a simple fact of the times. Those times changed dramatically under the auspices of Lyndon Baines Johnson when the ideology of true liberalism was yanked away from its moarings and stolen by those with leanings that favored a more European-marxist ideology of the State knowing what's best for society - an idea that says the constitution given by this country's founders is no longer valid, capitalism is bad and religion has negative value and is nothing more than an opiate for the masses. I do not believe those who think today's Johnson-liberalism are bad people, they are just wrong-thinking individuals who have either lost the vision of the founders or never really knew, understood or accepted them in the first place.

Little Minds of No Consequence Man the Gates of Power

Former Speaker of the House and now candidate for President of the United States Newt Gingrich said in a speech on the stump in Florida that by the end of his second term American presence on the Moon would again be realized with a permanent lunar base. The Speaker was lambasted by fellow Republicans like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and even Rick Santorum for having big, unrealizable ideas and promising something he couldn't possibly deliver on. The media also got onboard the bash grandiose Newt train as well mocking the Speaker for being a blowhard and thinking bigger than our pocket-book could afford.

I don't understand why thinking big is considered crazy or wacky these days. The U.S. has always been a nation of grandiose plans and big ideas that seemed "out there" at the time they were spoken but, as a nation, we never shrank from seeing the possibilities or potentials in those "big" ideas.

I remember another crazy, big thinker, who on his inauguration day in 1960 said that we would place a man on the moon before the end of that decade. I'm sure there where plenty of small-minded people then who were naysayers, throwing up objections like, "how we suppose to pay for these big, overblown ideas?" How can we possibly do this in less then 10 years?; etc, etc. I know there were those who thought and said these things because I was there and heard these little minds blab on with their negativity, lack of insight and inspiration. But we did do it before the end of that decade and we succeeded with technology that had less computing power then a commodore 64 gaming computer. Have we lost our greatness, our ability to think big? To some degree I think so because we are being brainwashed by a media and left-winged government that instead of saying "We Can" slobbers out "We Dare Not Even Think It." Sad, very, very sad.

Ron Paul Has Proven to be Ineffectual to Stop Liberty's Erosion in America

Our freedoms have been trampled on over the years since our Republic was founded. I'm no fool to the sad reality of our current state of eroding liberties in this country. To those who think otherwise, what I'm saying is that, in my humble opinion, Ron Paul is not the answer to staving off those eroding values and freedoms. If he were then his 24 years of public service in Congress (the law making body of our government) should have made some kind of significant inroads into curbing what some believe to be the inevitabilty of the fall of the American Empire.

I'm not yet convinced that that day has arrived just yet, but if we don't wake up and move soon to regain what has been lost, stolen and given away by our ignorance, laziness and entitlement mentality then this great historical experiment called The United States of America could be gone for centuries. If that were to happen then the world would be driven into another Dark Ages, and I for one, am not ready to accept that scenario.

Romney's Tax Returns - the short & sweet of it.

Regarding Mitt's tax return: While I'm not gaga over Romney as the likely Republican nominee - I prefer rough & gruff Newt - I think it is unwise for Mitt to reveal his tax return at this time.

Traditionally, candidates don't make their tax records known until sometime after the April 15th tax deadline of the voting year, and for my guy Newt and others to try and pressure him to do so is pure dirty politics and gist for the media hotplate. I also think it is totally foolish and unnecessary to reveal such information to the general public before there is more assurance of your party's nomination.

The former Governor is under no obligation to reveal his tax information at this time and he shouldn't bow to the political or media pressure to do so. If he is wanting to show he can be tough on principal this is a pretty safe and legal issue to do it on...show he has the cajones to stand up against his political foes and those forth estate rivals.