The Stamp act of 2012

Supreme court justice Roberts found the Mandate constitutional as a tax and so the mandate stands.  Will this be the 'stamp act' tax of our day that finally wakes up Americans to what is happening in our country?  Will they finally wake up to the fact that we no longer enjoy the freedoms we once had, that our President is governing like a King, ignoring Congress, the constitution and the obligations of his position?
I'm praying Americans will finally turn off their TV's, unplug their ipods, stop the endless pursuit of entertainment and aquisition and see what has happened to their rights and liberties as Americans.

 I'm hoping this unfair 'tax' will have the same effect as the one passed over 200 years ago that caused our ancestors to take a stand against a King who had overstepped his bounds. I hope Americans will be true to their roots and take a stand against a President who has violated his 'subjects' rights as well.
June 28, 2012

Healthcare Law a violation of 'Right to Privacy'

It's Monday morning, June 25th and I'm waiting; hoping the Supreme court will give us their decision on the Healthcare Law.  My own feeling is that the Supreme Court should strike it down because it violates the 'Right To Privacy' which the court has, a number of times before, found in the Constitution.  If I am forced to buy health insurance, I am also forced to give up my private medical information to an insurance company. I am also forced to be under their jurisdiction for how I will be treated in my medical conditions.  I think I should have the right to the privacy of my own body and my own medical treatment and allowing the govt. to regulate it violates that privacy.
I hope-- however they consider the law; the Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion-the law is over reaching and puts restraints on Americans' liberty to be a free people.
I hope we won't have too much longer to wait, to find out.

Is it time to Impeach our President?

President Obama announced his administration will no longer enforce our immigration laws in regards to certain illegal immigrants who reside within our country.
From a news story:
 "For years the administration had said it didn’t have the authority to make such a move, saying it couldn’t decide to stop deporting wide categories of people on its own without approval from Congress.  But on Friday President Obama says administration now interprets the law to give it the discretion."
From the White House's own website it states clearly what Pres. Obama has sworn under oath do to: "Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress." When a President refuses to fulfill the responsibilities he swore to fill, it is time for Congress to take action. But will they?  Or will they continue to complain about his outrageous flaunting of the rule of law, but allow him to continue to pick and choose what laws he will enforce.  I hope Congress will do what they must to uphold the Constitution and warn the President that if he continues to refuse to enforce laws passed by them, he has abdicated his responsibilities and must be removed from office.  Any President, no matter his party affiliation, must abide by the constraints of our Constitution, otherwise he is setting himself to be a Dictator and my hope and prayer is that Americans will not stand for that. We shall see.

New strategy from the left

The voters won last night when Scott Walker and other Republican officials in Wisconsin managed to win re-election against the recall challenge.  But we'd better not think this is over.  Leftists have figured out a new way to subvert the will of the people.  If your Democrat candidate doesn't win, just prevent the Republican winner from actually being able to govern by keeping them distracted with recalls, lawsuits, and charges of impropriety, fraud, scandal--whatever works to keep them from being able to do the job they were elected to do.
Hopefully the voters will wake up and see the game that is being played and the fact that it's costing them a ton of tax payer money to fight these challenges and once again, subverting the will of the people.

Breaking down Societal Taboos, one magazine cover at a time..

Time Magazine's controversial cover showing a woman breastfeeding her son was meant to do more than just sell magazines.  That in itself is not controversial, but what made it so was the subtle sexual undertones in the layout.  The mother, a beautiful woman, dressed scantily, baring her breast with a boy who looks to be six (though apparently three) latched on, both looking at the camera.
We've seen too much of the relentless attacks on Judeo-Christian values by the media and those they service to not see right through this.
It is a clear attempt to break down the strong taboo against incest.  Now, I'm not saying this is incestuous.  What I'm saying is that they wanted to make regular people uncomfortable--they wanted them to feel bad about the feelings they have at the image, chastising themselves for being 'judgmental'.

'This is just another choice.  Breastfeeding is natural.  We shouldn't judge'.  Well, I'm a mother who breastfed my three children, though I stopped when they were between a year and a year and a half.  I don't have any problems with breastfeeding and I feel that most mothers know when it's time to stop or it could cause unhealthy attachment issues.  I also know that in some cultures children are breastfed a lot longer than in our culture with no problems.  I don't have a problem with any of those things.  I don't even care if the woman on Time's cover wants to breastfeed her three year old, though I seriously question her judgment in setting her son up for ridicule by peers as he gets older.
But I really am annoyed when I see I'm being manipulated by a magazine cover to make me associate breastfeeding with sexuality and I see it as an effort to break down the strong revulsions society carries toward incest.  The media may have been able to break down many long held taboos in this society--and they're efforts seem to be working, but in this case, I think they will find it a harder sell. I sure hope so.

A very 'transparent' President

Pres. Obama claimed that his administration was going to be the most transparent. Well, he's right about one thing--his motives are pretty transparent with his 'evolved' position on Gay Marriage.

The Pres. came out in support of Gay Marriage--after years of claiming he was not for it.  Why now?  Simple; He needs money and the LGBT groups have the money.  Once again he's exploiting a hot-button, emotionally charged issue to get people to open their wallets for him, at a time when his fundraising is worrisomely down. He couldn't come out in support during the first election because Blacks and Hispanics are consistently against redefining marriage and he didn't want to alienate those voters, but now, he'll take that chance for a short while in order to fill his coffers with much needed campaign funds as well as tie those voters to him.

And using his new 'enlightened' position in the future, we can be sure he'll try and polarize voters by pointing out Mitt Romney's support of Prop 8 and his support of marriage being between a man and a woman, which in turn, will bring the LGBT group firmly under his control.

I'm just hoping it backfires on him and he'll find it may give him the money he craves, but it won't bring him the votes--which is what actually counts come November.

Liberal Insanity Here and Abroad

Insanity has sometimes been defined as 'continuing to do the same thing, yet expect a different outcome'.  If we use this definition then Europe is insane and so are all Liberals who think that Socialism is the answer to creating prosperity and security for all.

If one looks at history, you'll find that when Socialism/Communism has been tried, it has failed and those countries who haven't failed yet are mired in misery.  Socialism does not work, yet we just witnessed Europeans throw a tantrum at facing the reality that their system will soon collapse and vote Socialist parties in to allow them to continue on their road to disaster.  I feel sorry for the people because I understand why they did it, but I also shake my head at their ignorance and the grief they are bringing upon themselves.

Let's hope Americans will not fall for the 'pie in the sky' fantasy that Socialism is and has always been.  Sooner or later reality sets in and the bottom falls out. I hope Europe's 'bottom' will fall out before America follows their same foolish path.

Santorum at a crossroads;

Now that Mitt Romney has won Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C., the momentum will most likely propel him to win the GOP nomination. Who will be his running mate? I can tell you who it won't be; Rick Santorum. Up until a couple of weeks ago, he was still under consideration but not now. He took himself out of the running when he made that unfortunate remark about Romney being the 'worst republican' in America anyone could vote for. I've heard his explanations and I understand and accept them but the damage is insurmountable. Romney could never put him on the ticket because that ONE soundbite would be replayed over and over and thrown up in his face at every turn. There is absolutely no way he can walk that one back and be able to stand by Romney's side as his running mate.

My own feeling is that Santorum is at a crossroads. He's a young man and if he bows out now, gracefully(as Romney did four years ago when he ran against McCain), and puts the Republican party and the desire to defeat Obama in November first, he stands a good chance of being the Party's pick in four or eight years. But...if he continues this campaign by double teaming Romney with Gingrich's help (which will end badly to be sure) both will lose their power within the party as well as any reputation they enjoy at this time.

And if Santorum chooses to stay in the race till the Pennsylvania primary, He MUST win it, because if he loses, I predict he loses his political career as well. Santorum has managed to make voters forget that he had that huge, devastating and historic loss in Pennsylvania and if he loses again, this time, it will damage him beyond repair.

It's up to him; does he let his ego and pride be his downfall or does he humble himself and accept the 'will of the people'? We'll see.

Rising Gas prices fueled by inflation

Gas prices are skyrocketing and I've heard too many say that Pres. Obama is not responsible and has no control over the rising prices. I've even heard the President claim this himself. But he is wrong. He is responsible because the gas prices are rising partly because of inflation--inflation which he is directly responsible for because his governing is what caused it!

The President and his administration were warned repeatedly that if we continued to spend and print money (as they did with the stimulus packages) it would bring on inflation. That's exactly what is happening now. We are seeing the price of Gas go up much more than it should have because the dollar is weak. We are also seeing prices of energy and food go up.

The President thinks the solution is for us to drive electric cars, but once again he is out of touch. Most of us drive gasoline cars and old ones at that--we don't have 40,000.00 to spend on a car and there are no charging stations to 'gas' these cars at anyway. By forcing the issue rather than helping us ease slowly into alternate forms of energy, he's causing a crisis.

Voters need to realize that if they vote the President back into office, they will get more of the same--at an even fast rate of loss. I sure hope they will think very carefully about that.

'Romneycare' would be a moot argument if Romney is the Nominee

The Republican debates spend a lot of time on Obamacare and Romneycare, but this isn't even going to be a topic of discussion if Romney gets the nomination.

In order for Pres. Obama to attack Romney about Romneycare, he has to attack from the standpoint that Obamacare is BAD, which is how all the Republicans see it. Unlike the other candidates, Pres. Obama LOVES his healthcare program, he's even claimed they used Romneycare as the model for it, so how can he use criticism of 'Romneycare' against Romney in an ad, a debate or anything else?

Fact is, he can't. If he did, he'd only be hurting his own plan, which hasn't even been implemented and needs to be propped up by his administration, not questioned or criticized.

One more 'negative' against Romney as the GOP nominee fizzles.

2012 Iowa caucus result

Iowa reversed itself and 'officially' declared Rick Santorum the winner. Sooo, did they find those lost ballots from those precincts that they LOST? I'm not sure how one actually goes about certifying a winner when the ballots are lost and there's no way to re-count them. A minor detail to Iowa election officials, I guess.
So, we are supposed to believe that with the recount, THIS TIME, they got it right and Santorum really is the winner...by 34 votes. Okaayyy.
Maybe I'm being hard on them, but it seems to me if you are going to take on the responsibility of an election, you ought to try really hard to count the votes correctly and not lose or misplace them until at least AFTER the election is over and certified. And, if the election is really close, it might be a good idea to actually EXPECT to do a recount--just to make sure, before you tell everyone the outcome. If Iowa had done that, they wouldn't look so incompetent, or worse, fraudulent.
Has Iowa gotten too complacent, thinking they will always get to go first? After botching the results this way, I think the rest of the 49 states should seriously rethink allowing Iowa to keep the first place position in the primaries. Maybe we should let a more responsible state have a shot at it. We can hold a vote...but we'll let someone else count the ballots:)

Politics 2012; Picking candidates the American Idol way.

If South Carolina picks Newt Gingrich in the Primary tomorrow, I'll be praying that their streak of picking the nominee ends. If the Republican Party chooses Gingrich as their nominee, I'm betting he'll lose and we'll have four more years of Pres. Obama.

Here's why; Putting aside excuses and making allowances for Gingrich and looking at him with a clear eye at how he will fair as a candidate running against President Obama is necessary to understand why I say this. From the wild racing from candidate to candidate we've witnessed and the pick of Pres. Obama three years ago, it's clear that voters today vote by emotion, not by studying the issues, the candidate's character and positions and how they will govern. Instead, they decide with their feelings; how it makes them feel to support their candidate.

We've been influenced by the 'American Idol' or 'Dancing with the Stars' way of choosing a winner. It doesn't have as much to do with talent and ability. Winners are chosen for emotional reasons, especially if it makes them 'feel good' to vote for a person. Many voted for Pres. Obama because he made them feel like they were doing something special, being part of a movement. It made them feel good about themselves. Another reason people vote for a candidate is because they've been made to feel 'fear' about the opposing candidate. This is a method that is often used in trying to get voters to vote a certain way.

And that brings me back to why I believe Gingrich would lose against the President. His negatives would be very easy to trump up to make voters 'fear' a Gingrich Presidency. Just like the media scared voters at the thought that Sarah Palin might be 'a heartbeat away from the Presidency', they'll do their best to frighten voters that Gingrich in the White House will be like putting the Taliban in the White House.

Republicans must remember that they are not just running against President Obama, but against the Dominant News Media organizations. They have proven they are solidly behind the President and will do everything possible to help him win re-election.

If the Republicans want to have ANY chance of winning, they must recognize how voters choose their candidates. Given the President's inability to turn the economy around, his mistakes in foreign policy and the fact that he can't work within the constitutional system, but seeks to circumvent it whenever possible, it would be wise to choose a nominee who can instill a sense that a capable 'adult' is in charge, who makes people feel 'safe' and hopeful about our future.

Pres. Obama's explanation for his failure is that the economy mess was worse than he thought. But a smart candidate can show the voters that it was the President's bumbling attempts to fix the problem which made it worse(this is much better than telling voters that the President is a Marxist and wants to turn the US into a Socialist Democracy. It may be true, but saying this will bring out a defensive posture that might very well push sympathetic voters into the President's corner. Also, the Republican candidate needs voters who voted for Obama last time to vote for them and pointing out that they chose a Marxist doesn't win them over--it makes them feel dumb and defensive and causes many to slip into denial rather than admit they were wrong and partially responsible for the mess).

Voters don't want more excuses, they want action. A candidate who can make a strong case for why we need someone else to try to fix the problem can deflate the media's attempts to prop the President up by pointing out things as they really are and not allow people to fall for the emotional manipulation which will give us four more years of the same, if not much worse. Heaven help us.

"Romney couldn't beat McCain so he can't beat Obama???"

Why do I keep hearing this lame attack against Romney that since he couldn't beat McCain for the nomination in 2008, why would we want to pick him as our nominee--he's got no chance against Pres. Obama.

Okay people, let's think this through carefully. This is NOT a salient argument and here's why. Ronald Reagan ran for the nomination in 1976 and LOST--to Gerald Ford...who then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in the general election. By some people's way of thinking, the voters were fools to choose Reagan in 1980 as their nominee, since he couldn't even beat Ford---who couldn't beat Jimmy Carter. But what happened? They didn't listen to this silly argument and Reagan went on to beat Carter in 1980 by a landslide.