Reasons to Vote for Trump for President in 2020

Reuters

I'd like to talk today about President Trump's accomplishments and why I'm going to vote for him for president in 2020. 

(1.) First of all, he has pushed for an improved trade deal with Canada and Mexico and he promised that he would get rid of NAFTA and replace it. He did that and signed the treaty between the three countries.

(2.) President Trump is addressing illegal immigration. Do you know that there are 20,000,000 people in this country who should not be here, who have come here illegally? Previous presidents have promised that they would build a wall on the border between Mexico and the United States and President Trump has actually started that. I think he said the other day that they are building 10 miles of wall a week on the border right now. 

(3.) Supreme Court. President Trump has committed to appointing constitutional originalists to the Supreme Court and he has not disappointed in this respect.

(4.) President Trump pushed for federal Prison Reform. That's something other presidents have promised but President Trump delivered on. 

(5.) President Trump has pushed for "right to try" concerning drugs that are still under testing. So, pharmaceutical companies develop drugs and there's a long process to develop them and get them to market and when something looks promising and someone with a disease wants to take it, now they can try it because of this legislation. The legislation protects the companies and government from litigation and gives the patient a possible cure or relief from their deadly disease.

(6.) President Trump has overseen the lowest unemployment numbers in history through the beginning of 2020. The United States had the lowest unemployment overall in history up through February 2020. This includes the lowest minority unemployment in history and the lowest unemployment for women in decades. 

(7.) The stock market has risen almost consistently since November 2016 when President Trump was elected. Just the fact that he was elected was good for the stock market and overall since he's been elected the stock market has been going up.

(8.) President Trump has initiated a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and he has even received a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for this work that he and his administration have done. 

(9.) President Trump tried vigorously for a peace deal between North Korea and South Korea and North Korea and the U.S. and just because he hasn't succeeded yet doesn't mean he didn't try very hard, and because of what he's done so far I think the future looks bright for eventual peace between those two countries. 

(10.) President Trump is the only president to stand against China's unfair trade policies against the U.S. His tariffs on China (which are in response to China's tariffs on U.S. goods) have caused China to make deals with the U.S., particularly in their increased purchase of our agricultural products. U.S. steel companies have also benefitted from Trump's actions.

(11.) President Trump fights climate change extremism and the climate change hoax. He stopped the economically disastrous Paris climate accord and has been a vocal critic of this climate change lie. Do you know that the United States has reduced its carbon output (as if it matters) where countries like China and India have increased theirs. We have among the cleanest air of any industrial nation (overall). Reminder forest fires are caused by lightning, electrical sparks, and humans with lighters; hurricanes are not caused by or made worse by carbon emissions, polar bear populations are not decreasing, ocean water levels have not inundated any major coastal cities. The ice caps have not disappeared. It is all hysteria.

(12.) President Trump has put resources towards defeating ISIS and he and the military in conjunction with their military partners did defeat ISIS and that is something that President Obama did not do. 

(13.) President Trump pushed for and signed into law the tax reform bill lowering your taxes. 

(14.) President Trump beefed up the military which had become weak under Obama, even while he reduces U.S. forces presence overseas. He also loves the military and he shows it.

(15.) President Trump talks straight like a normal person and not like a politician. It's very refreshing to hear the truth that comes out of this person, saying things that politicians have never said because they were worried about being reelected.

(16.) Trump loves the United States of America and he shows it.

(17.) President Trump loves law enforcement and believes in the rule of law and keeping all Americans safe.

(18.) President Trump respects the Second Amendment and the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

(19.) President Trump is pro life (anti-abortion). 

(20.) President Trump supports religious freedom. 

(21.) President Trump mobilized the government and corporations to quickly produce needed PPE and respirators in the wake of COVID-19.

(22.) President Trump mobilized a speeded-up process for developing and testing vaccines to combat COVID-19. 

(23.) President Trump convened an economic council of leading business and economic leaders to advise the administration on how to bring the U.S. economy out of the depressive effects of COVID-19.

These are just some of the reasons that I'm voting for President Trump and I hope you will too. If you want a president who keeps his promises, a president who's all about action, a president who loves this country, a president who is a patriot in the style of Ronald Reagan, then please vote Donald Trump on election day (in person if you can because paper ballots can be so easily voided by pollworkers and lost in the mail). It would also be great for the country if you would vote for Republicans for the House of Representatives and Republicans for Senate on Election Day so that the stonewalling that goes on in the House of Representatives will come to an end. Vote Donald Trump for president on Election Day. Thank you.

It's an Elephant's Job

Vote Republican in 2020 to get the United States' economy back on track.

(cartoon political ad circa 1928)

The Trump Witch Hunt

Many of the people who voted for Donald Trump for President love the man, they don't just like him. They voted for him in the general election of 2016 because he said he was going to do things that they wanted done. Fix health care insurance, don't let people in the
country who shouldn't be here, don't lead from behind in the world but show true world leadership, reform the tax system, stop the U.S. from committing billions of dollars toward the manmade climate change hoax, show resolve in the fight against radical Islam, and many other things good for this country. There is also an image of him kissing the American flag. I don't remember President Obama ever doing that. He wanted to fundamentally change the U.S. Additionally, Obama wouldn't wear a flag lapel until pressured to do so. Donald Trump clearly respects and thanks the military and the police for protecting us. Obama did not clearly do so.


So Donald Trump has already made good on many of his promises, whereas other Republicans, other politicians, make promises and never come through. That's why people love him. He is a fighter. Mr. Bush wasn't a fighter. Romney wasn't much of a fighter. McCain wasn't a fighter. That's why people love Trump. And he defends himself.


If it ever turns out that Donald Trump did something wrong enough to warrant his removal from office, the people who voted for him aren't going to blindly continue to support him. They will be disappointed in him as they have been disappointed in other Republicans and Democrats before him. They wanted a leader and someone they could trust. If President Trump ever turned out to be found guilty of a PROVABLE criminal offense his base would drop him like a hot potato. Why not? Mike Pence would be a great President too!


But there is no fire here, and the smoke is all created by the media and Democrat smoke machine. The poor, helpless media, which Trump bashed throughout the campaign because they bashed him, that poor, helpless media has a mission to destroy him. It is so clear that that's all that is going on here and the Dems are just on the bandwagon, willing partners with the media. They print stories that have no verification to create the smoke based on hearsay or that's attributed to unnamed sources.


The leaders of both parties in Congress need to call off the dogs that are hounding the president, say there is no "there" there, and let
him and the Congress get down to real business. Disagreements can be worked out through the political process as they should be rather than trying to get your way by destroying a man. If you have an argument against Trump's stance on, say, illegal immigration then put forward the argument -- don't try to win by trumping up phony charges against your opponent. It's no different than a figure skater hiring a hitman to break your opponent's leg.


The political dysfunction in the United States is married to hate right now and you can see where the hate takes us after the shooting of the U.S. Congressmen, aides and Capital police at the baseball field on Wednesday, June 14.


Let's hope that, moving forward, the virulence and the violence abates. But leaders on both sides of the aisle need to make it happen.

Vote to Make America Great Again

The U.S. election is just days away and there are very few people who won't be happy to see the whole spectacle put behind us. The presidential race has sucked up the news cycle like a Dyson in a sawdust factory.

The last eight years are another spectacle that many will be glad to put behind us starting with a disrespectful, haughty, petulant, campaigner-in-chief/golfer-in-chief who took more vacation and played more golf than any servant of the people should, except that he was not a servant but really more like a lord. He was the first president of half of the people of the country, continuously expressing disdain for Republicans and conservatives. Race relations didn't improve under Obama in his eight years - they got worse. I don't want to go through the laundry list of his ill-conceived policies but in relation to this election we are going to just get more of them with Hillary Clinton. The reason not to elect Hillary isn't the 33,000 emails she deleted, or the thousands (including secret) that she let fall into foreign hands. It also isn't the fact that she lied about Benghazi to the American public and didn't protect her embassy staff. It also isn't her failed foreign policy where much of the world is now at odds with us and where ISIS was allowed to grow and prosper. And it isn't her gathering of money from overseas power brokers for the Clinton Foundation.

The reason not to elect Hillary Clinton as president of the United States is that she will continue Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of the U.S. and on some issues shifting into high gear while doing it.

She will continue to weaken our economy and our safety by drastically increasing the flow of illegal aliens into the country, legalizing all those who reside here and came here illegally, and by increasing the numbers of refugees from the middle east who will harbor among them hundreds of terrorists. She has promised to raise taxes which will harm the economy. She will continue to make poor deals with other governments and lead from behind. Terrorism will not decline because it won't be met with a firm response.

A Hillary Clinton presidency will be four more years of the messy Obama world we live in now and even worse. We are really on the wrong track and your vote will make a difference in the most important election in the country's history.

Vote for Donald Trump for president of the United States and we will have a stronger economy, reduced debt, a safer country, a safer world, more friends and better partnerships in the world. Vote for the outsider - not the Washington insider.

The Demonization Machine

Conservative talk radio and Republican PACs have sabotaged the last two U.S. presidential elections and as a result gave us a President Barack Obama in both of them - the most liberal, divisive and constitutionally destructive president in U.S. history. A number of these radio shows continually bashed McCain and Romney during those two primaries and damaged their reputations so much that they could not recover for the general election, and many talk show hosts are again in the process of sabotaging the 2016 election. The PACs (political action committees) are just as bad and if they had held their fire and their tens of millions of dollars during the primaries of the 2008 and 2012 elections we may never have had Obamacare, and Libya, and ISIS, just to name a few. As for radio, I am speaking particularly of Glenn Beck and Mark Levin who are doing the kneecapping and who have very large audiences, but it is certainly not limited to just them.

What the intraparty destruction of other candidates does is make some Republicans and Independents so hate or fear the other candidate that once their guy or gal loses and it comes down to the general election, they just can't see themselves voting for the Republican candidate because they have been painted as so flawed and so evil that they don't vote or vote for a third-party candidate in protest. What we then end up with is a liberal Democrat president in the last two presidential elections. That alone should have been enough to motivate Republicans and conservative independents to vote for the Republican nominee, but as I say, the Republican nominee was seen as damaged goods by such a wide majority of Republican voters (due to the Demonization Machine) that they didn't feel like they wanted to have to vote for the lesser of two evils yet again and so didn't. The result of this is Obamacare, a lower standard of living, a lawless president with a weak foreign policy, etc, etc.

Of course the candidates in this 2016 election year are no better. It is ugly the tactics they use to destroy the other guy. Citizenship has been brought up, accusations of lies and financial mismanagement, character assassination, mocking.

What happens after all of this is that the supporters of each candidate get on Twitter and Facebook and double down on the trash talk. Twitter is the place where ridiculous claims about the candidates go to fester and metastasize into viral slander and unsupported lies.

So whether it is Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio who ends up as the Republican nominee for President, the dirty fight leading up to the nomination is already souring voters in regards to the other candidates. Beck says he won't vote for Trump if he is nominated. What if a couple million of his listeners follow suit? Levin is clearly pro-Cruz and quite anti-Rubio and anti-everyone else. If the nominee is someone other than Ted Cruz will his support for that nominee be like it was when the fight had settled on a Romney nomination after months of kneecapping? Tepid at best? Will his listeners again not bother to vote because they have been schooled in all that is wrong with the nominee?

An Obama presidency would never have occurred if Republicans and independents had held their noses and voted for the "lesser of two evils" because the U.S. certainly has had the GREATER of two evils for the last seven years. The lesson to be learned is first, that there is no perfect candidate. The second lesson is that talk radio hosts (and PACs) have a huge impact on their listeners and ought to consider their culpability when it comes to that influence. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh seem to have had the right tone in 2016. Though one knows who they might favor to be the nominee they don't bring the weight of their influence like a hammer onto the candidates, saving the brunt of their attacks for the Democrat challengers.

Unfortunately, the same thing seems to be happening this time around, but we may just be lucky that the present Democrat candidates will cause the same sort of voter apathy in 2016 which will help the Republican candidate win in November. But if a Republican wins in November it won't be because the Demonization Machine isn't well-oiled, because indeed it is operating as well as ever.

Gas Cheap Now, But Not for Long

Filling up at the pump is less painful than in the recent past.

I saw gasoline for $1.69 per gallon for Regular (cash) yesterday on Route 1 in New Jersey. It has been a long time since we have seen gasoline that low and the relief to the consumer's wallet is a welcome one indeed. It is tantamount to a tax cut on the citizens or even a pay raise. The bottom line is that it gives people more money to spend on other important things and can even increase household savings rates and encourage on-the-road travel vacationing. The low price of oil and the resultant low price on gasoline and diesel fuel are boons to the economy in many ways.

So why are prices as low as they are? It's because of the extra oil on the market from U.S. oil production which has seen a boom in recent years, due in part to hydraulic fracturing and increased oil drilling on private lands.

But my point with this post is not to talk about why there is so much oil, or the benefits of fracking. There are many articles and blog posts addressing these issues. The point of this particular post is to throw a wet blanket on this low-price enthusiasm.

The price won't be low for long. And the past would be the indicator of future performance.

In 2009, the price of gasoline dropped below $2.00 a gallon for a brief time and then continuously rose back up to $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon for Regular in New Jersey. The chart below shows the price per barrel which the price per gallon of gasoline follows in its movements.

From Infomine.com

The message? Get it while it's hot, because very soon it's going to shoot back up to $3.50 per gallon and probably higher.

What are the causes of oil price movement? Supply, demand, political unrest and government regulation. Right now supply is greater than demand, so the price is lower. But there are so many political hotspots in the world today that any one of these tipping points that tips could cause oil futures to shoot back up to $120 per barrel.

As examples, Russia's designs on Ukraine and its trouble-making around the world have the potential for causing oil prices to rise, and this is a country that wants oil prices to rise back up because so much of their economy and budgetary income is based on the sale of oil and natural gas. So for Russia, instability on the world stage which causes higher fuel prices is exactly what they want and need.

Daesh or ISIS, is militant Islam rampaging through the Middle East and threatening terror everywhere else. They are currently in control of half of Syria and much of Iraq. It won't take much for that particular march of evil to cause an oil price spike. If they were to succeed in taking over Syria or Iraq, or cause mayhem in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel, these are just some scenarios that would be catalysts for crisis leading to an oil price rise.

Al Qaeda, the original Islamic terrorist group is still a very real threat and actively trying to bring terror killings to the next horrific level. There is no restraint as to the kind of murder and destruction that they would like to perform and if they had a weapon of mass destruction they would have no hesitation in using it, as we have seen on 9/11 and in other events. Hamas and Hezbollah are the more localized but just as dangerous militant Islamists of the Middle East. Any of these groups could and would bring economic chaos that could result in sky-high oil prices.

Iran is a country that wants to see Israel and America (the great Satan) destroyed. It is progressing in its efforts to become a nuclear power with Russia's and North Korea's help. It could very soon succeed in its efforts to make a nuclear weapon. If that happens Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear facilities causing a regional war. This would spike oil prices.

The Taliban is still killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and seems intent on continuing to cause death and destabilization, also through the spread of terror.

The Communist-led, police-state of China always takes the side of the bad actors on the world stage as shown by its support of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Russia. And it is intent on destabilizing Taiwan, threatening the U.S. and Japan, and throwing its weight around the region and the world. And China never seems to lend its growing military might to world security threats that other civilized countries fight against. Their belligerent actions could be the cause of any number of scenarios that could cause an oil price spike.

Even if it isn't a national political action that causes the problem, it could be a crucial break in the supply chain, perhaps a few oil refineries going down, a natural disaster or a massive oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago. The anti-hydraulic fracturing movement could also put a political chokehold on oil derived from this process especially if countries regulate against the process as many individual states in the U.S. have done.

So, sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but enjoy the lower cost of gas for your car and fill up your fuel oil tank now because inevitably the low price we see now will soon disappear to be replaced again by the signs we are so used to.

Roar: The New Conservative Woman Speaks Out - A Book Review

by Scottie Nell Hughes

Scottie Nell Hughes is a smart, ambitious, successful, and caring conservative woman. She is a loving wife and mother as well as a daughter with a large amount of respect for her parents and her larger family who we are introduced to in the book to some extent. This book’s target audience is supposed to be conservative women, but the wisdom here is applicable to people in general, not just women, and not just conservatives. She talks about parenting issues, so parents will benefit. She talks about career and employment and what she says would benefit job hunters or people working their way up the career ladder. But books aren’t always about the benefits you can take away from them. There are some engaging and inspiring stories here.

Of course, the main point of the book is that she wants conservative women to find their “roar” – to speak out for their ideals and to become more active in bringing about their desires for a better community.

Ms. Hughes highlights the problems with the Obama administration including the incredible debt, the burgeoning welfare class, and the sub-par employment picture in the United States.

One area that she talks about with heartfelt conviction is a woman’s right to self-defense. She delves into the ever-present and ever-expanding efforts to control guns from a uniquely female point of view.

"For the woman walking to her car down a dark alleyway or the mother of two who keeps a .38 snub in her dresser drawer, a firearm can serve (and has served) as a last line of defense between her and a criminal who does not care about law and order. If we’re going to talk about a War on Women, we should address the real war on women: the disarming of women. Guns are tools. Firearms do not only help the nefarious; they help the law abiding. They serve as an equalizer."

Ms. Hughes also discusses women’s roles in society such as in front line combat (which she is against), the workplace, at home, and regarding “reproductive rights,” birth control, and abortion. She doesn’t mince words and takes a firm stand on all of the issues she presents, all to be expected in a book titled “Roar.”

America: Imagine the World Without Her - Film Review

America: Imagine the World Without Her

This documentary film by Dinesh D'Souza and Gerald Molen features, firstly, excellent cinematography. You'll see historical scenes and battles, grand American landscapes, monuments, and impressive (and stark) cityscapes. The musical soundtrack of the documentary is wonderful and adds to the majestic feel of the film. So America looks beautiful and it sounds beautiful - a good start.

But the content here is important as well since it's a documentary and it is the meat that the people are coming for. The producers spend the first part of the film presenting some of the left's most radical and die hard critics' distorted arguments which have been working their way into the mainstream consciousness due to distortions of truth taught by liberal historians and college professors since the 1960s. After the left's "Indictments" against the U.S. are presented, the producers go on to respond to all of these indictments on many levels and from different angles. What you end up with is a regrasping of American history and a cogent and well-argued case for the fact that the United States, overall, has been a force for Good in the world and not for Evil. It is a positive message, not delivered through rose-colored glasses, but with realism and fact.

The film also highlights the fact that great and successful Americans can be of any race or creed and that as a land populated by immigrants, legal immigrants have just as much chance at success as people who have been here for generations.

Unfortunately, the indoctrination of students practiced by the liberal left into America hating, capitalist hating, sometimes race bating, government expansionist, wealth redistributionists is begun in kindergarten and carried through to the last year of college and then beyond by a compliant mainstream media. Films like America are like buckets of sand thrown against a tide of lies, but the efforts are certainly appreciated by patriots and freedom lovers everywhere. Hopefully the tide can be turned in some small way by films like this and by people like Dinesh D'Souza.

I also want to give a big shoutout to AMC Theaters in Brick New Jersey for the choppy playback of this film as if it were playing on an underpowered 300 dollar HDTV with insufficient screen refresh. Hopefully you don't present all your movies this way.

Go see this film and get the DVD when it comes out. There is much to learn here and you may not be able to absorb it all in one viewing. D'Souza has a book which this film is based on which you can see here.

Why Steve Lonegan for U.S. Senate?

New Jersey will hold a special election to fill Senator Frank Lautenberg's United States Senate seat on October 16.

If change is going to take place in Washington D.C. and the U.S. Congress, someone should be elected to that Senate seat who is more than a rubber stamp for failed Obama administration policies. The strength of the minority party in the Senate will be buoyed by the election of Steve Lonegan making the Senate that much less likely to be an automatic cancellation of everything which the House of Representatives puts forward, and the body will also be less of a rubber stamp for Obama administration policies (though the Senate will still retain its Democrat majority for the time being).

Electing Cory Booker will continue the Congressional status quo of dysfunction, inaction and voter discontent with the U.S. Congress.

A Senator Lonegan will fight for reduced government spending, attacking wasteful government spending, finding solutions for the debt and deficits, and be a loud voice for lower taxes on overburdened citizens. He has shown himself as an effective leader in New Jersey and on national issues.

Please vote for Steve Lonegan for U.S. Senate on October 16 in New Jersey.

You can also Vote by Mail

Progress Report on the Obama Presidency

Here is a brief progress report on the economic aspects of the Obama administration. Some of the numbers in the following graphic had to be updated as they didn't seem quite right, but they are still bad.

Number 4. in the graphic is wrong due to perhaps being outdated. The federal debt of the United States is now 100% of GDP. This means that the debt of all the citizens of the U.S. due to government spending is equal to the production (in terms of dollars) of the economy over one year. And as you can see in the chart below, that debt is growing by more than a trillion dollars per year. Who thinks that's sustainable? It is crippling, actually. What can we do? Elect people to Congress and the Presidency who want to tackle the debt.

An updated figure from the labor department says that Number 5. in the graphic is now 63% of the population is employed, which is up, but 8 million of these workers are working part time when they want more hours according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These people are often referred to as under-employed.

Additionally, according to Gallop, the home ownership rate is 62% as of April 2012, so I don't know where the number in Number 8. in the graphic above comes from, but 62% is still a lower home ownership rate than all of the Bush years.

In a country where we spend 1.5 trillion dollars more per year than we take in in revenue, how can the following chart be justified? Surely millions of these people on food stamps don't actually need food assistance. How many are illegal aliens? How many are employed citizens gaming the system? This administration has marketed the food stamp program like no other administration before it, in fact markets all of its assistance "products" like Coca-Cola markets Coke. No wonder the numbers are up.

 

Why didn't President Barack Obama get voted out of office during the last election if his economic numbers are so bad? Because the phrase coined by James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid" doesn't hold sway with a large portion the voting public anymore. Mr. Obama was re-elected by people who think a generous, big government that gives more than it gets and over-regulates big business is a good idea.

The numbers show that the housing market is still weak, unemployment is still high, gas prices are still high, electricity prices are up, health insurance costs are up, and the cost of food is up. It has taken many years for the slight improvements to the economy that we have at this point, which is worse than any other recovery from a recession.

Unfortunately, the economic policies of this administration (of which these examples represent just the tip of the Titanic crushing iceberg), if continued, will sink this ship. In the short term, the only relief on the horizon are the 2014 congressional elections, where fiscally responsible senators and representatives must be placed into office.

Vote Out the Golfer in Chief - 22 Reasons to Say Goodbye

This is the week of the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, which will be a factory of lies and smears of Mitt Romney and Republicans, and at the same time there will be no playing up of the non-existent Obama administration accomplishments because there is nothing good to say. Everything this president has done has put a restrictor plate on the American economic engine.


If you are thinking about voting for Barack Obama for president, think first about these facts.

• Less people are working in the U.S. now than in 2008/2009, though there are many more people. The administration tells you about jobs created in a month but they don't seem to factor in that 350,000+ people file for NEW unemployment claims every week.

• 50% of college graduates can't find a job.
• The only place you can get a college loan is through the government. There is no competitive market any longer.
• Unemployment has been above 8% for more than 4 years.
• The debt is 5 trillion dollars larger than it was 4 years ago.
• Obama (The Golfer in Chief) has golfed more than almost any other president (more than 100 times).
• 49 million Americans are on Food Stamps.
• Obama, who has said that he would bring America together has caused America to become more polarized, more partisan than it has ever been by not compromising at all, by not working with Congress, by lying about what he will do, by imposing laws in a dictatorial fashion (DREAM "act"), and by name calling more than any other president before him.
• Obama has continuously dissed America's friends and sided with its enemies.
• Obama attacks the successful people in America, creating class warfare.
• Obama pushed hard for Obamacare which will make healthcare more expensive generally, will cripple health insurance companies, impedes on the rights of individual Americans, and will reduce the quality of health care overall, and enlarges government and government's role in our lives.
• Obama has made massive cuts in the military, weakening America's ability to defend itself.
• Gasoline is $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon higher than when he took office and has been so fairly consistently for his term in office. In a sense, this is equivalent to a 50% tax on fuel under his administration. This would not be the case if he had a more pro-American energy policy.
• He wants to tax carbon, thereby raising energy prices for consumers.
• He placed a 3.8% tax on the sale of your home to help fund Obamacare.
• Has OK'd the use of government funds to do research with stem cells from fetuses.
• Supported partial birth abortion when he was a senator in Illinois.
• Sued Arizona for enforcing laws against illegal immigration. Sued Ohio for early voting rights law for military voters. Sues Florida for trying to clean up its voter registrations by removing non-US citizens.
• Has just given defacto amnesty to a large number of illegal immigrants.
• He wants taxes raised on wealthy Americans, who already bear most of the tax burden, but this will actually hurt small businesses who hire a large portion of the workers in this country.
• He has been very weak in his response to the dangerous country of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
• His requirements for automobile mileage are raising the cost of buying cars and trucks.

This list could actually go on. If you care that this country remain a country where the freedom of the individual is valued and where government is a smaller (not a larger part of your life) then you really should vote for Mitt Romney for president. It's not about what Mitt Romney can do FOR you, it's about what Barack Obama is doing TO you and TO this country.

2016: Obama's America - Movie Review

Produced by Gerald Molen, written and starring Dinesh D'Souza.

2016: Obama's America is a well-made documentary exploring Obama's history, and which asks the following question "Who were Barack Obama's forefathers?" This is a question that was not answered to any degree before Barack Obama's election in 2008 (though there were those who tried to sound the call). Voters were so eager for "hope and change" and so eager to elect the first nonwhite president that they didn't look at or care about his radical background - a background steeped in Marxist, socialist, anticolonial, anticapitalist, anti-Israel, and anti-America ideologies. Some pundits say that the background and history of the candidate (or president) shouldn't be delved into like this. That it's unpatriotic. What?? A person's past and his background are predictors of his future actions. Not always of course, but more often than not for sure.

The early moments of 2016: Obama's America tell Dinesh D'souza's history, which he points out is very similar to Barack Obama's history. They are born the same year, they graduated college the same year, they both went to an Ivy League college, they both were married the same year, and they both grew up in impoverished third-world countries where anticolonialism is prevalent.

2016 then takes the viewer to Africa, the home of Obama's father, his forefathers, and much of his family. Here we learn story of Obama's visit to Kenya after the death of his father and we meet at least one of his relatives. D'Souza spoke to Obama's half brother George Obama, who wrote a book in 2010 despite having only finished the 7th grade. D'Souza asks George Obama if he thinks his brother Barack should help him in some way. George suggests pridefully that he is a grown man and can help himself. Incidentally, the two met in a park, so obviously George did not want to have his home on film, which Dinesh suggests is very small. My question is, the president's brother wrote a book and he still lives in a hut?

Indonesia was also visited by D'Souza and the film crew. Barack Obama (Barry Soetoro at the time) spent a portion of his childhood growing up there, going to a Muslim school as an Indonesian citizen, and according to the president's book, eating dog. Hawaii was also a backdrop for some of the film.

2016 uncovers, as much as any documentary can with this secretive person, the president's background and shows who his father and mother were, shows who his mentors and teachers were, and shows the company Barack Obama kept himself immersed in, all of which reveal that he is no garden-variety Democrat or liberal but rather that he has an extremely left-of-center philosophy founded upon anticolonialism, and anticapitalism.

The film points out that everything that President Obama is doing is purposeful and are not just bumbling attempts at doing what is right for the country. His spending and increases in debt are meant to weaken America's position in the world, the economic stimulus was meant to hobble the economy, and his giveaways to other countries are meant to spread the U.S. wealth.

The film also asks and attempts to answer another question, "If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?" According to the film and the experts that D'Souza speaks to, America will be further down the road to socialism, it will be further diminished as a world power, even to the point where it will be vulnerable and unable to deter wars anywhere in the world. The wealth of individual citizens will continue to decrease as well as the country's wealth on the whole.

David M. Walker, who served as United States Comptroller General, had some sobering things to say about the debt and deficit suggesting that we are fast heading down the road of Greece and Spain. When the debt is the same as the yearly GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or near it, I'd say he is right. (On a side note, I hope Mitt Romney appoints David Walker treasury secretary when he is elected.)

If you want to know more about Barack Obama, you will learn a lot about him from this documentary, much of which in fact is based upon Barack Obama's two autobiographies. D'Souza starts with facts he learns in those to build a foundation of knowledge about someone that he suggests is one of the most unknown people ever elected to the office of president.

2016: Obama's America is expanding its reach in theaters. Check for a theater near you.

D'Souza's book, Obama's America is an even more detailed look at the same subject matter and you can get it here: Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America - A Book Review

Get a copy from Amazon.

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America

by Mark R. Levin

Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster

Last week saw the release of Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America. Mr. Levin has been marketing his book on his popular radio show for months and now that it has been released he has made his show an almost non-stop infomercial for the book. He did the same thing with his last book Liberty and Tyranny, which in my view was a better, more ground-breaking book. What has been proven by radio hosts Mr. Levin, Howard Stern, Glenn Beck and others with a book to sell is that using their microphone and their particular soap box, there is no better tool for selling books than a large radio audience. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin takes great advantage of this fact and rather than mentioning it just a few times and then moving on, his tomes become the centerpieces of his radio show for weeks.

All this said, I am a steadfast fan of Levin's radio show, but I cannot wait until he gets past being an unrepentant shill for his book.

As with his last book, Levin introduces a new term which he uses throughout the book, and ineffectively on his radio show, to describe the people who want to control our lives. Where liberal elite, radical egalitarian, elitist, and even Illuminati might be good enough terms to fill the bill, Levin repurposes mastermind, a term which is used by Napoleon Hill and his followers as a group of people serving as a larger sort of braintrust. Two heads are better than one. Levin's use of the term sort of parallels the use of the term in the sense of the evil James Bond anatgonist or of say, Osama bin Laden, but it doesn't work in the political philosophy sense in which he uses it and it is unnecessary in describing the political elite that want to control us.

While reading Ameritopia, it will be noticed that there is probably more quoted text in this book than there is original text by the author. That said, the quotes are generally enlightening and germane to the subject matter at hand.

In the first chapter of the book, Levin lays the groundwork for his thesis by saying: “Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.” This statement about equality is one that Occupy Wall Streeters and liberals in general will disagree with.

The author suggests that in the utopian worldview, an individual is just a cog in the wheel of society. This runs counter to what America is all about and, what Levin argues every utopian society offers, that is a loss of individualism, not to mention freedom.

Speaking of labor, property, and freedom Levin says: “...the individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to benefit from the fruits of his own labor. As the individual's time on Earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his labor—that is, the involuntary deprivation of the private property he accumulates from his intellectual and/or physical efforts—is a form of servitude and, hence, immoral.”

Throughout Ameritopia, Mr. Levin looks at utopian societies as envisioned by political philosophers of the past, starting with Plato from two thousand years ago. He finds that: “Utopianism requires power to be concentrated in a central authority with maximum latitude to transform and control.”

For example, Levin looks at Plato's Republic and de-idealizes his Ideal City. “But in the City, the individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective to ensure order. Dissent, independence, and change are considered destructive. Ironically, it is unlikely Socrates would have survived long in Plato's City, given its totalitarian complexion.”

In his look at Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516, Levin calls it “...a tyrannical society, destructive of individual sovereignty and free will, with many of the attributes of a communist state.”

The author next turns his critical eye toward Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan, written in 1651. He applies some slippery slope logic to Hobbes' utopian government, saying: “Indeed, is not an all-powerful Sovereign, which is Hobbes' answer, a great and more certain threat to the individual?” And having concluded that Hobbes' model government is sure to be despotic, Levin says, “Hobbes creates a false choice between polar opposites. Either they live in anarchy or live under despotism.” I disagree with Levin here concerning the quoted Hobbes material. He takes Hobbes Sovereign to its ultimate logical extreme, which would not always or often be the case. But Levin is correct that the civil society always needs to worry about who it invests its power in.

Levin then moves on to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto, written in 1846. Levin publishes a damning quote from the anti-humanistic treatise which those authors seem proud to expound: “In this sense the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

First of all, “Abolition of private property” is a phrase, not a sentence. But be that as it may, Levin handily evicerates the Communist utopia calling them “totalitarian regimes” where the people have no “individual liberties and rights”. I think it may be easily said that there is no single document which has resulted in more dead humans than the Communist Manifesto.

Levin then looks at some of the people who had a positive influence on the Founding Fathers. John Locke was one of those, a thinker who had a great deal of influence on the nascent country. Levin points out that Locke believed “that the wealth created and possessed by one individual does not prevent another individual from creating and possessing wealth.” This is a popular belief among conservatives in the U.S. today, and is something that is forbidden in the various utopias.

One of the thinkers that Levin reviews and talks about often on his radio show is Alexis de Tocqueville. In regards to the tyranny of government Levin mentions this: “De Tocqueville then made the profound observation that this dreary existence is accepted by the people, for they go through the motions of electing their guardians, deluding themselves that they and their fellow citizens remain free for they participate in self-government. However, as the administrative state grows, the vote is less effective and the individual is increasingly disenfranchised.”

I agree with Levin and de Tocqueville that the result of elections sometimes seems to result in little change, but voting is all we have when we want change in a representative republic. Revolution in a democracy can be as simple as voting the bums out. And as Levin often espouses on his radio show, it is imperative that if we want to effect change we must vote, not sit at home.

Mr. Levin's brief look at the liberal/statist Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt was instructive to me and I am sure will be to others as well, considering the whitewash these guys are given in the public school system. Of Wilson, Levin points out: “In short, for Wilson, rights are awarded or denied the individual as determined by the government.” And of Roosevelt Levin opines, “Roosevelt repositioned the utopians as enlightened, modern, and futuristic, and, conversely, presented the advocates of civil society and constitutionalism as obstructing individual and societal progress.”

Roosevelt's New Deal increased the scope and reach of the federal government in ways unprecedented since the ratification of the Constitution, some would say in breach of it. And in speaking of Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” Levin says: “There is little space between Roosevelt's premise and the distorted historical views of Marx and Engels.” He goes on to point out how closely Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” mirrors the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution.

Levin argues that America is already well on its way to being Ameritopia, the utopia that statists, liberals, and progressives want it to be. The federal government has burgeoned to an uncontrollable size. Taxing, spending and debt are irresponsible and immoral. Regulations and bureaucracy are leviathans unto themselves, intruding into every corner of our lives in spite of the Constitution, and entitlements burden and provide foundation for the growing utopia.

Levin says that the Constitution “...secures for posterity the individual's sovereignty...” Little wonder then that utopians attack the Constitution as much as they do. Levin states that it is still not too late to preserve the American republic.

Ameritopia is a cogent argument against utopianism. The reader will learn much of political philosophy. It is a fine historical essay as well. It's not an easy read by any means, especially considering all the middle English usage in the quotations, but you can grasp it if you soldier on.

But as far as fighting liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and Marxism, Liberty and Tyranny is the better book and it will have the longer lasting value.

Mark Levin's radio show can be found here.

Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny can be found here.

Mark Levin's Ameritopia can be found here.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - The Egg McMuffin of Speeches

The political stump is where you can hear the real, unadulterated words of President Obama. You hear sound bites of them every day in the news. In the speeches that he gives when traveling the country while fundraising or pushing a particular issue, the president uses Republican bashing, wealth bashing, petulant, blame-everyone-but-himself, fudge-the-numbers, fudge-the-reality language and comes across as little more than a left-wing ideologue.

And then there's last night's State of the Union address. In the televised address to both houses of Congress, President Obama came across as someone who might be willing to cross the aisle to work with the other political party. He and his speechwriters tried to sound more moderate, more reasonable, and more pliable. He spoke well of America and its flag, he spoke well of the military and their successes against bin Laden and in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of liberty and tyranny (!) and of intolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also spoke almost conservatively when speaking of unfair trade and piracy from countries like China.


Appreciative and appreciated words.

But the president and his speechwriters are liberals and a liberal message can't help but pervade even this attempt at an aisle-crossing speech. He went on to say in the State of the Union address that our relationship with Israel is stronger. It is clearly not. His actions have distanced us from Israel and increased the threat against them from multiple enemies in the region. Egypt, Libya, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, and Iran are all greater threats to Israel than ever. He said our ties with Europe and Asia are stronger. They are not. He said our ties with South and Central America are stronger. This is true, if the government is left-leaning, or socialist. It is not true of more democratic, or conservative states like Honduras or Colombia.

He said in his speech that our military will be stronger in the years to come, but 500 billion dollars in cuts, a smaller fighting force, and the smallest navy since 1947 counter this statement. All of this in the face of increasing threats around the world. Everything Barack Obama has done since entering office has been aimed at reducing the military's strength (not too mention increasing the size of the budget, and the debt).

In his State of the Union speech, the president (a Democrat) said that he believes what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for the people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. However, his actions for the last three years show just the opposite. He wants government doing any and every thing that people could do better for themselves.

This president once again called for immigration reform so that illegal immigrants can enjoy the benefits of American citizens and not have the worry of being deported hanging over their heads. :`-( I ask again, what kind of country do we live in where our leader wants to sanction the illegal actions of millions of people? Against the will of the majority.

The 44th president also called (yet again) for a tax increase on millionaires. Nothing new there. He and his speech writers know what works with his base, I guess.

He continued on to say that he wants to develop more energy in the U.S. from all sources of energy and even suggested opening up more public lands to drilling. This would be great if it were true, but he has turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada which would have greatly helped reduce oil imports from the Middle East and has continuously been a thorn in the sides of oil companies that want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coasts. And despite his failed backing of solar energy company, Solyndra, he wants to double down on that type of investment.

My suggestion to those who listened to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address (hopefully his last)--Forget everything you've heard, because it's the stump speeches where the truth (and more lies) comes out to play. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, this is nothing more than a State of the Union Show.

Get a free download of State of the Union addresses. State of the Union Address (1790-2001)


Egg McMuffin is a registered trademark of McDonalds Corporation.

A U.S. Spy Plane: The Latest Spoils of Iran's War Against the West

The Islamic Republic of Iran has committed its various acts of war on the United States of America over the last thirty years. There is the Iranian plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C. restaurant in October of 2011; there is the IED production which led to the deaths and maiming of countless U.S. soldiers; there is the training of insurgents in Iran to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; there is the continuous kidnapping of American citizens; there is Iran's support of terrorist organizations with direct responsibility for attacks on U.S. citizens and interests. And now, because they have somehow nabbed one of our unmanned spy planes, allegedly over their airspace, they say the U.S. has committed an act of war against them.

They are, and have been in a state of war against the U.S. and the West since 1979.

So, on December 08, 2011 Iran's government revealed that it has in its possession a top secret, United States stealth drone, known as the RQ-170. They have displayed it on Iranian TV for all the world to see. (There are anti-U.S. banners covering the landing gear. Why? Are they hiding something there?) If it is legit, they will surely try to reverse engineer it, and perhaps ask for China or Russia's help to do so, if they haven't already sold it to one of those countries. And they have laughed at and mocked President Obama for asking for it back.

Is the President worried about this? He doesn't appear to be. (Have fun in Hawaii, Barack.)

My first question is, why didn't this UAV have a self-destruct mechanism? My second question is, why don't we go get it or go destroy it so that the technology doesn't benefit our enemies?

I really hope there's more going on here than meets the eye.

2012 Presidential Primary Update

Things are looking good in the Republican primary race for the 2012 presidential election. After an ornery second debate on Fox News last week, Governor Tim Pawlenty has left the race and Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered it. Pawlently placed third in the Iowa straw poll, which Michele Bachmann won by a small margin over Congressman Ron Paul.

After an errant Tweet by a staffer, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has once again reaffirmed that he is not going to enter the race, much to columnist Ann Coulter's dismay.

Governor Sarah Palin remains cagey about her plans as far as running for president in 2012. To date, she has not denied or affirmed. But to all appearances she is certainly acting as if she could jump in at any moment.

Real estate developer and reality show Don, Donald Trump is still threatening to throw his hat in for 2012, but I think he will be content with Governor Perry's candidacy and will choose to stay out. However, if Mr. Trump doesn't like the eventual primary choice, then don't rule out an independent run for president from Trump. And though he believes he would pull voters from Obama in the general election, he would also split the conservative vote. It would probably be a disaster for the Republicans and lead to Obama's reelection.

Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are both still in the race, and they are both great conservatives, but neither appears to have the traction that Bachmann, Romney, or Perry have. I believe they will be the next candidates out of the race along with Newt Gingrich. Newt would be a smart and effective president and get the country's economy turned around, but he can't get conservatives to coalesce around him, much less the independents and Democrats he'd need for the general election.

Ron Paul's ideas resonate with blue collar Republicans, and young voters like no Republican since Ronald Reagan. However, he does not appeal to the broad base of conservatives or Republicans due to his drastic foreign policy and social ideas. He will likely stay in the race as long as he can to take advantage of the extremely visible platform that his ideas have as a presidential candidate.

On the other hand, Michele Bachmann is looking strong after her Iowa straw poll win despite the mainstream media bias against her and continuous, baseless liberal attacks. She looks poised and espouses a consistent recipe for dealing with the country's economic woes, as do most of the Republican candidates.

Presidential frontrunner, Governor Mitt Romney's poll numbers took a big hit this week due to the entrance in the presidential race of Governor Rick Perry. While Romney would make a fine president who would handle the U.S.'s economic woes much better than President Obama has, Governor Romney has some negative baggage that might make Perry more attractive to voters. We'll have to wait and see what kind of negatives come out on the Texas governor in the days ahead.

Is Ralph Nader running? LOL, jk.

June 13 GOP Debate Will Push 3 Candidates Down in the Polls

(AP Photo/Jim Cole)

On June 13, CNN held a Republican debate in New Hampshire and there were actually winners and losers (despite what you may have heard elsewhere) and I don’t just mean the moderator John King.

It’s now seventeen months until the 2012 presidential election and the fight for who will be the next president of the United States has begun in earnest. The discussion and debates between the candidates will hopefully enlighten the voters as to why they should not elect Barack Obama to another term as president. The Republican primary debates are an especially important forum for voters getting to know the candidates and the issues better. 

In my opinion, no one person really won the debate, though Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney came out looking the best. Businessman Herman Cain also performed well, though I really think his thin political resume is going to hurt him. My advice to Mr. Cain is to run for governor or senator first and then come back and run for president. He’d be a shoe-in then! 

Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty didn’t do themselves any favors in Monday’s debate for the simple reason that they have no charisma. You must have some charisma or likeability factor if you’re going to have a chance and they didn’t have it. Ron Paul was his usual self, sometimes making sense and sometimes expressing radical and untenable ideas.

If you are going to be elected president of the United States you need to have charisma, and/or political gravitas, and not hold radical positions that most people would disagree with. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney have the charisma. Newt Gingrich doesn’t really have charisma, but he does have the political gravitas. Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty have zero charisma, so even though they have good political backgrounds they are not electable to the presidency. Ron Paul has a non-politician’s genuineness but he consistently supports ideas outside the mainstream and is frankly too old. So, he is also unelectable to the presidency.

So the only person up there on Monday with charisma, political chops, and no baggage was Michele Bachmann. In my view, the race will be between her and Mitt Romney, assuming that no one else throws their hat in the race.