Ignoring Evil

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

I’m not a huge fan of Kelly Clarkson, although I believe she has an incredibly powerful voice and is remarkably gifted. After all of the back-and-forth between myself and several Ron Paul supporters, though, I was surprised to see this on her Twitter feed, retweeted by someone I follow:

I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t.

Now I’m going to tell you what I believe to be the most insidious problem with Paul and those who support him. It’s not the racist and homophobic statements from his newsletters in the 1990’s (a ghostwriter made several comments in more than one of his newsletters that were outrageously racist and homophobic, and at the time Paul defended them – it wasn’t until 2008 that he denied them, and he has thus far refused to clarify the disparity between then and now). It’s not even his wishy-washy “sure, I’ll stand with the twoofers…oops, shouldn’t have done that!” two-step. It’s not even his belief that we shouldn’t have gone to war with either Iraq or Afghanistan, or his outrageous claim that 70% of the troops support him. All of those things get under my skin in a hurry, but the worst is unbelievable to me.

Ron Paul believes that we should never enact sanctions or refuse to trade with any nation. He believes we should open up all trade with all nations, including Iran, the Palestinians, and Cuba.

Think about that for just a moment. There are a number of things he has said in the past that I can agree with. I have no use for the UN. NAFTA was a spectacularly poor idea from the outset – I don’t think that even looked good on paper. We have far too many government programs and organizations that run afoul of the Constitution in every sense. I believe that abortion is wrong and the federal government needs to get its grubby fingers out of education. But when he starts talking about doing business with nations whose human rights records are unspeakably horrific, I can’t listen.

His reason – and that of his followers – is that people should be free to choose their own path. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and it’s not up to us to decide who is right and who is wrong. Okay…if that is your stance, then why do we have prisons? Why do we send people to jail for things like robbery, rape and murder? Why put them away and strip them of their civil liberties? Who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong?

Paul would openly do business with countries headed by despots who will blow nearly a cool million just on cognac while their people starve and go blind with diseases that are easily and inexpensively avoided in civilized nations. He would open up trade routes with dictators who order torture and imprisonment for political dissidents – including 8-year-old boys, as Saddam did when a young boy playing in his classroom accidentally knocked a picture of Saddam off of a wall. He would restart trade with depraved “leaders” who run their nations under Sharia and allow the beating, starvation, stoning, hanging and/or beheading of any person accused of engaging in homosexual relationships.

Paul and his believers seem to think that if we back off and play nice, the rest of the world will leave us alone. Not true. And if we actually believe that negotiating trade with countries that commit unbelievable crimes is going to persuade them to clean up their act, we are deluded at best. I don’t think we should be doing business with China, but we’re doing a hell of a lot of it and they even own billions of dollars in US debt (that’s a whole blog post in and of itself). That, to me, ranks right up there with giving the entire world a peek at our nuclear arsenal.

During the 1930’s, the Japanese attacked China during the second Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese had already forced China to give up Korea and Taiwan; how they wanted the mainland. During the second war, the Japanese committed atrocities that could not be ignored. While the Japanese bombed Chongqing and raped Nanking, other nations refused to give aid to China because they felt the Chinese were going to lose and they didn’t want to piss off the Japanese. America, however, did give aid to China, and we refused to trade with Japan – parituclarly for oil, which Japan started to run out of quite rapidly. That was why Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor. It was a classic, “I’m going to assault you until you give me what I want” sort of action.

If a mugger hits you and pulls a knife or a gun, most people today would simply give him what he wants to make him go away and tell the police later. What they don’t know is that when you do that, it’s unlikely that the mugger will be caught. It’s almost guaranteed that they will keep doing it until someone finally does fight back and they go to jail. In the same way, if we hadn’t fought back against Japan, they would have kept killing us until we did give them what they were after. Also during WWII, Hitler signed a treaty with the Soviet Union – but years later, once Hitler had taken over nearly the whole of mainland Europe and he had enough power to do it, he turned on his ally and tried to take over Russia.

You cannot try to appease a monster and hope that he won’t come after you when he gets hungry again. It always backfires. THAT is what I believe is the most frightening aspect of Paul’s political beliefs. If we ignore the evil acts of others, we might as well be complicit in them.

Thinking About Newt

Last night on Greta’s program following the debate, Sarah Palin joined the Fox News host to discuss the candidates.  I agree with Palin’s assessment of not getting a whole heck of a lot out of it other than some usual banter between the candidates.  However; I did take note later in the segment when she began to say that Newt Gingrich would “clobber” Barack Obama in a debate.

One of the reasons my heart was so broken after Palin announced she wasn’t running is because I truly supported her positions and her “plan” which she laid out in Indianola, Iowa at the speech she delivered on September 3rd.

1.) Eliminate corporate income tax.  This gives corporations less incentives for lobbyists as they won’t be seeking tax breaks and favors.  It cuts the crony capitalism which I believe is going on with a couple other of our candidates.  It makes America the most attractive place in the world to do business in.

2.) True stimulus = robust and aggressive development of our own resources here at home.  This will create about a million GOOD-PAYING jobs.

3.) Entitlement reform.  As Palin said, we MUST deal with it.  If not, the European markets will force us to deal with it down the road.

4.) Repeal Obama Care. 

5.) Return power back to the states.

Immediately after her speech in Iowa, Newt immediately pounced on it and had it analyzed by his campaign.  He then said to Greta:

Governor Palin’s speech in Iowa last weekend on crony capitalism and on the problems of both parties is a very, very important speech. I’m going to be tweeting a link to it. I’m also going to be doing some other things with it. I think it was maybe one of the most important speeches she’s ever given, and I think it raised a series of very profound questions that all of us — Democrat and Republican — have to wrestle with as citizens. And she did it very well. It’s a very, very impressive speech.”

You can see the video over at Texans for Sarah Palin.

The night of Palin’s announcement, she said that many current candidates had already began contacting her to meet with her.  The article posted to Politico the day after reported that Newt was one who reached out to her — even seeking her endorsement.

Further, Newt went on to defend her “Death Panels” comment in the last debate.

Since I cannot have Sarah Palin, the emphasis myself and many contributing writers over at C4P are doing are focusing on the remaining candidates as well as the House and Senate, using Governor Palin’s platform as our guide.  You can catch my last analysis on the Missouri Senate Race here.

While Newt has a few skeletons of infidelity in his closet, the remaining candidates for President bring their own baggage as well.  But without a doubt, I agree that among all of them, the biggest asset of intellectual firepower we have is Speaker Gingrich. 

Maybe I’m almost there.  😉

Any thoughts?

Newt’s campaign website.

Palin’s Non-Candidacy and “Anyone but Obama”

Oliver North on Thursday’s Hannity said he is supporting “ABO” (Anyone but Obama) for the 2012 GOP nomination.  This seems to be the dominating narrative among many conservatives these days.

Of course, many in the grassroots have been making this point since 2009.  Conservatives articulated it by pointing out many of Obama’s failures.  With truth on our side, we transcended the message to independents.  This helped us win a sweeping victory in the House of Representatives for 2010’s midterm elections.

Today, we still understand it’s important to replace Obama.  Yet, many of us who have been commenting and writing for the last couple of years have graduated from “anyone but Obama” to “a real conservative who inspires us.”  Conservatives had the luxury of doing it after Carter.  We have earned the right to do it now.

We’ve endured a failed stimulus and watched our government print money out of thin air.  We saw the massive hike of unemployment and energy prices.  In addition, we had ObamaCare rammed down our throats.  As such, our message continues to resonate with independents.  This is why someone needs to tell Fox News we can do better than “ABO.”  Don’t get me wrong, “anyone but Obama” is a great one-liner for a chuckle.  Our country is hurting and part of pulling ourselves up by the boot straps involves the philosophical need for a sense of humor.

But amidst the chuckling last week from what seems to be an overly-confident GOP-establishment, Sarah Palin announced on Wednesday that she would not seek the GOP nomination for President in 2012.

As Mark Levin spoke to the former-Governor right after her announcement, Matt Drudge e-mailed him in response to her decision saying it was “a sad day for America.”  He wasn’t kidding.

As I have stated before, I support the fact that it was her decision and understand the efforts it would take to step up and begin the onerous task of putting our country back on the right track.  But for many of us, not only did Palin seem like the only one who truly understood the steps needed, she also had the track record of taking those steps previously in her career and executing them with success.

Not that a track record matters with the media.  In fact, Palin could take the easy road to the White House by taking Kyl’s Senate seat.  As a Junior Senator, she could vote present 100 times and rest easy.  Aside from erasing her executive experience and love of country, it’s apparently all that is needed these days to get the media’s blessing to be president.  Of course, a few heavy-hitting Wall Street backers wouldn’t hurt either.

These unpleasant realities to our electoral process have been challenged by Palin during her tenures as mayor of Wasilla, head of the AOGCC, and Governor of Alaska.  Further, she became a powerful advocate without the title she claims she never needed and made a difference via speeches, Facebook postings, and commentaries on Fox News since the 2008 campaign.

After months of suggesting she’d get in the race if she felt nobody else was prepared to step up and take on the Obama machine (along with the GOP establishment), she inspired many of us to sign on which we did willingly as we understood her “fire in the belly” spirit.

In truth, it was easy for Palin to proclaim she never needed a title when for three years it was highly probable that she would be a potential 2012 frontrunner.  With that momentum, the media continued to obsess and her critics continued to rant.

So what happens to that power now?  Now that she is no longer perceived as a political threat to the establishment since she was thought to be as a potential 2012 contender, can we expect the media to suddenly rally behind her?  Where is her influence going to come from?

While many of us will continue to support Governor Palin’s ideology and efforts, it’s hard to not question the consequences of her decision.

Additionally, we are all aware of the worst case scenario if she chose a run.  She could have lost the primary.  Even so, her voice would have been vital alongside the remaining candidates by holding each and every one of them accountable to the tough issues that are difficult to talk about such as crony capitalism and track records – in lieu of cordially agreeing that “anyone but Obama” is the answer.

Also, Ronald Reagan lost the Republican primary to Gerald Ford in 1976.  At the time, the establishment believed that Reagan was just a little too conservative to win over independents.  They were wrong and our nation got four years of Jimmy Carter.  Of course, his second try in 1980 carried weight and experience from his first go-around and he emerged victorious in two consecutive landslide wins.

Even candidates like Mitt Romney prove that it’s possible to lose a primary and come back four years later with more political weight.

Similarly, Palin would have kept her core constituency of supporters who are now left feeling frustrated at their remaining choices.

Yes, all candidates in the GOP field are better than Obama.  But it shouldn’t have taken the remaining candidates throughout the course of debates and the politicos over at Fox News to waste our time attempting to inform us of something we already knew.  It shouldn’t be the platform.  The platform should exist to reward us for our contributions as conservatives and voters who come together to make a real difference.

Palin is not required to step up to fill that void in 2012.  But the fact remains, it would have helped considerably.  Especially since many of us patiently waited until October of 2011 for her to make filling the void a non-reality.

And while we’ll all have to wait and see what she does in the future, it remains our responsibility as grassroots conservatives to ensure that the “anyone but Obama” narrative-cliché doesn’t become official campaign policy for the duration of the 2012 primary process.

Moving Forward


After about 10 years of finding an appreciation of Wonder Woman as a child and later years preferring Madonna and disco over Nirvana and Heavy Metal, people had to be headless to not know I was gay.  When people officially found out, they were not surprised.

That being said, it’s no secret that since 2008, it’s been fruitless to try and find the kind of interest I had in Sarah Palin in other potential candidates.  I promise I wasn’t a groupie.  I was a supporter.  Never in my life throughout being as interested in politics as I had been for at least the ten years of my life proceeding had I experienced that kind of rousing.  Our party was snoring in 2008.  Sarah Palin woke us up!

That unique level of support made me what Tammy Bruce herself coined (or at least I believe it was her who did) a “Palinista.”  Bruce herself was one as well.  I had the pleasure of meeting Tammy Bruce at the Indianola Palin rally September 3rd.  She was very down to earth and was busy getting hellos and handshakes from other supporters of Palin and fans of hers, a.k.a. “TAMs”  (Tammy Army Member).

Let me say that it was the first time I was ever involved in politics to that degree and it was so much fun.  I read about people who worked for Reagan’s campaigns and about all the friends they met in the process they’ve kept through this day.  To me, Sarah Palin was the same way — she brought good folks together.  I got to meet Peter Singleton (the King Palinista).  Peter went to Iowa last year leaving behind his business and lived off of his savings to start O4P (Organize for Palin).  Similarly, Michelle McCormick left Texas to meet up with him as well.  I met my friends Cheri, Whitney, and others.  These people will stay friends with me as we continue to look ahead and continue to trade thoughts over at C4P (Conservatives For Palin).

With our dedication, along with thousands like us across the nation, we made a difference.  We did so well that other tea party candidates like Bachmann, Paul, and Cain noticed.  Their supporters often contacted us to get first dibs on our support in case Sarah announced she wouldn’t run as she did.

Tammy Bruce warned us weeks ago on her radio show that we were going to learn a lot about ourselves throughout this entire process.  Of course I believed (as well as Tammy) that she was going to run.  Who would think that someone would deliberate until October to say no?

But I don’t regret anything and am continuing other efforts with fellow supporters of the Governor.

The dust has settled from Wednesday’s shock.  I remain hopeful for Palin’s influence over the campaign.  As a matter of fact, I know she has meetings set up with various candidates and Santorum today became the latest to solicit her endorsement.

My only concern is whether or not we can make certain that the grassroots (once led by Palin officially) continues holding the remaining candidates accountable to their records and being able to filter out the nonsense reported by the media and an overly-confident GOP who continue to perpetuate the “anybody but Obama” cliche.

It is more than “anyone but Obama.”  It’s our primary.  We deserve a good candidate.  So I cannot say that my support has moved from Palin just yet, even though I know it’s probably going to have to.  But I sincerely have no idea yet who I can possibly support.

I look forward to discussions here and my other favorite daily forums as we reach that conclusion collectively.

Sarah Palin: The People’s Leader

Written for Conservatives4Palin


With her announcement Wednesday that she would not run for President, Sarah Palin had broken many of our hearts.  Personally, I’ve been waiting patiently since 2008 for Palin to prove the naysayers wrong.  To me, there truly was no other potential candidate more deserving of the title of “President” of our exceptional nation.

Like many of you, I became a diehard supporter the moment she graced the stage of the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minnesota.  Our country was dark.  Our nominee in 2008 came with questionable baggage. I never expected John McCain to go as far out-of-the-box as he did by choosing this magnificent conservative from Alaska to join him on his ticket.

Sarah Palin brought energy back to our love of country.   After many years of challenging wars, the beginning of an economic collapse, and the loss of Congress we suffered in 2006, she was my first sign of hope that patriotism was back with an endless well of energy and determination.

Like many of you and the wonderful contributors of C4P and volunteers at O4P, I made a choice to get involved.  After the election loss of 2008, my attention immediately moved to the midterm elections of 2010.  Having Sarah Palin’s “boots on the ground” made that mission a lot easier.

But she couldn’t do it alone.  It took us; the people she inspired in masses, to make a difference.  She took shots and so did we.  We struggled in our personal lives trying to make ends meet in an Obama-economy, but through those challenges, Sarah Palin gave us the grassroots network by her use of the new social media.  This network became a big step in shaping our electoral process by keeping us involved day-to-day.   Couple that with the support of our hard earned dollars we managed to scrimp and send in to SarahPAC along with tireless hours of volunteering, we along with the tea party became a force to be reckoned with.

Because of her vision and intuition as well as the help from our energy and resources, conservatism presided over the biggest victory either party had accomplished since WW2.

Unlike politicians like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin is not one who feels entitled to anything – including the presidency.  It’s why we love her.  To us, it’s why she truly deserves the honor.  In fact, Sarah Palin embodies the pride all of us carry which thanks all of the exceptional men and women in uniform who have died to preserve our rights.

As conservatives, we accept those rights proudly under the guise of personal responsibility.  The progressives on the other hand spend their lives accepting theirs under the guise of entitlement.

Like Hillary had for three years preceding 2008, Sarah Palin spent the years preceding 2012 with massive media speculation of a possible White House run.  But unlike Hillary who announced her candidacy 18 months before November of 2008, Sarah Palin remained humble and chose to take the proper time to deliberate with her family, to pray for spiritual guidance, and took all things into consideration so she could make the best decision she could.

Of course, we know in our hearts that no possible candidate can replace her.  But the fact is we are collectively faced with the patriotic duty of properly listening to the remaining candidates and making an informed decision when we cast our ballots in the primary.

Sure, it wasn’t what we wanted.  But what we have in this terrific lady is immeasurable.  She showed us for three years that we can work together to attain results.  She even showed us that we can do it without the blessings of politicos and the mainstream media.  The biggest thing she proved is that there is no better tool in the mission for change than an energized people.  Our duty is to continue carrying that torch she helped light and to not allow those happy with the permanent political establishment to discourage us from making a lot of noise.

In many ways, Sarah Palin has had a much larger effect on the positivity of our nation in recent years than any president has in the last couple of decades.  Her proclamation of not needing a title has been illustrated on precisely what she did by disempowering those who sought to destroy her political office in Alaska simultaneously becoming the People’s Leader who was not constrained by a political office.

While I am disappointed, I am also relieved that we won’t be losing that quality in this all-too-important election cycle.  Her “boots on the ground” are even more important than they were in the 2010 mid-terms.  We have a White House to win and Senate to take back.  She’s out there serving as the General to our army and I couldn’t ask for anything more of her.

Sarah Palin’s possibilities are endless.  It took Ronald Reagan 16 years from the time he inspired Americans with his Goldwater speech in 1964 to make it to the White House.  Sarah Palin is young enough to make herself the most powerful advocate in the country, a possible Senator someday, or yes, even a possible candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Throughout all that remains to be seen in the best days that are yet to come, I know in our collective hearts that we must continue our journey.  I will continue donating to SarahPAC.  I will continue to follow Sarah Palin’s commentary and campaigning efforts to restore our nation.  I look forward to doing it with all of you.  We owe her to honor what she spent so hard working for.

So while we won’t be calling her “President Palin” in 2012, we can be confident that with our unconditional and continuing support, she will always remain the People’s Leader.

Michele and Sarah: The Woman Warriors of the Right

Re-posting an article of mine published on American Thinker, also featured in Conservatives4Palin.

With the debut of Stephen Bannon’s documentary in Iowa, the media cycle woke up energized Tuesday morning.  It seems CBS News managed to find two Republican Iowa women who believe it’s time for Sarah Palin to go away.

Of course, Sarah Palin’s approval in Iowa greatly outweighs her disapproval, but this type of narrative seems to be a stubborn roadblock for the Mainstream Media.

CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford said, “Palin has been so badly damaged by years of negative media coverage” after one of the Iowa voters declared, “I respect her a lot, and I really do like her, but I think it’s time for her to step back.”

The second comment came from a Waterloo resident who seems to portray Bachmann as a more serious candidate.  Her reasons include the fact that her children are raised while Palin’s are not.

With this “news,” CBS scores a double-win for liberalism.  They get to portray Republican women as anti-feminists while simultaneously using them to characterize Sarah Palin as a housewife on a mission to break the rules of motherhood.

Ironically, news stories like this directly confirm Crawford’s claim of press-perpetuated scrutiny.  But unfortunately for those in the media and the blueblood elite members of the Republican Party, this isn’t the first time Sarah Palin’s dealt with it.  This in and of itself is not good news for Michele Bachmann.

After the Congresswoman’s announcement in Iowa yesterday, Bachmann innocently and erroneously claimed John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa.  As a result of her gaffe, the media immediately pounced.

While Bachmann is relatively new to the national spotlight and the media’s dissection of every word uttered, Sarah Palin has undoubtedly proven it is something she can handle.  Since 2008, Sarah Palin has been scrutinized, vetted, quoted, and taken out of context more times than practically any other politician in history.

As a result, she has a steel spine in dealing with it which matches her handling of dismayed establishment-politicians beholden to special interests.

To be fair, it is difficult to point out the differences between the two without first acknowledging the similarities.

Without a doubt, Palin and Bachmann are political allies.  While Palin was campaigning with John McCain in 2008, Bachmann was on the House floor standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout.  While Sarah Palin was out selling books and preparing to campaign for a myriad of candidates, Michele Bachmann was rallying strong as a member of Congress against the stimulus and ObamaCare.

Both women are of strong faith.  Both women are resourceful, attractive, young, and energetic.  Further, they separately and collectively graced stages and podiums in 2010 at Tea Party rallies to deliver great energy to the crowds, leading to the most historic victory for conservatism since WW2.

In all honesty, their convictions alone make them both more than qualified to take on President Obama, win, and lead this country to the greater days we’ve yet to discover.

Still, on the basis of objective evidence, the chips fall in favor of Sarah Palin.

First, no President since James Garfield in 1880 has gone directly from the House of Representatives to the White House (my apologies to Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fans).

Despite varying political persuasions, Americans instinctively prefer executive experience found in former governors including Reagan, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and even Carter.

As a former governor, Palin vetoed $237M of wasteful spending under Alaska’s billion-dollar annual budget.  She proposed and often convinced the legislators on both sides of the aisle to reduce burdens on individuals and businesses by eliminating nuisance taxes and various bureaucratic road blocks to success like license fees and other unnecessary costs.

She achieved a record 88% approval rating by showcasing her independent streak of reaching across the aisle to Democrats in the legislative branch.  Doing this made sure that fellow Republicans were, too, held accountable.

While one can appreciate Michele Bachmann’s entrepreneurial experience as a job-creator, Palin’s similar experience is now combined with that of an executive of a state.  She knows how to utilize business experience for the greater good of job creators.

Further, as former head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), Sarah Palin knows firsthand the complexities involved in dealing with often-stubborn oil giants.  Her experience can be utilized to explore tapping into our own resources benefiting our economy, creating jobs, and making us less dependent on foreign sources.

Finally, the aforementioned experience Palin has with handling the media is one characteristic which discourages Republicans from supporting her.  However, those same naysayers seem to be ignoring the lashing Bachmann took yesterday.

In addition to voting records, experience, and name-recognition, media-written narratives have become an expected, yet sad reality to our electoral process.  Since waiting around for the media to treat a good conservative candidate fairly is not likely to happen anytime soon, we have no choice but to accept it and fight back as we did in 2010.

That mission promises to be a lot easier with a candidate who has spent many years handling it than with one who is not even yet acclimated to it.  Be it media wisdom, executive experience, or vast knowledge on issues like energy, it is Sarah Palin whose time has come.

The Waning Cain

I first met Herman Cain this past February when he addressed a Republican luncheon in Las Vegas, and spoke about his ideas as a potential candidate for president in 2012. Overall, I liked his frankness and some of his ideas to tackle some of the most serious issues our country is facing. If I had to describe Herman Cain in one way, it would be that he pulls no punches, tells it like it is, and has no patience for nonsense.

When I saw Cain for the second and third time, in early March and again in May, his speech was pretty much the same. He recited his sturdy one-liners like “not on our watch,” and his “immigration is four problems.” He didn’t offer too many specifics on foreign policy, but all three times he gave the audience some applause-worthy red meat. Herman Cain is an outsider, a different kind of presidential candidate. He’s not a politician, and he’ll tell you so.

However, is that what American wants? Or needs?

If you’re anything like me, you don’t like the typical career politician. You know the type: Always running for office, avoiding controversy once elected, putting on the fake smile, and never actually doing anything. Washington has too much of that. Too many people want to be something, rather than do something. There is a difference.

Now, suppose I need to have surgery to remove my appendix. Do I want the career doctor? Or would I prefer to have the receptionist operate on me? If my football team – the New England Patriots, if anyone cares – makes it to the Superbowl, do I want a career quarterback in the game? Or would I settle for the guy who runs the concession stand?

In the world of government and politics, it is important to understand how the system works. Regardless of how much a presidential candidate may want to change the system, he or she is just one cog in the machine. One could say that in order to change the system, you have to know the ins and outs first.

Herman Cain says he doesn’t want to know how Washington works. In fact, he said at the Right Online conference in Minneapolis this weekend that he doesn’t need to know how it works, because it doesn’t.

Wouldn’t fixing the problems of our country be more difficult, if our next president had no idea how the system works? Is Herman Cain ready to be president, simply because of his business credentials?

Some examples from the campaign trail may shed some light on the situation.

While being interviewed on Fox News Sunday last month, Mr. Cain was asked about the Palestinian concept of “right of return.” This refers back to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs either fled or were expelled from their homes in what became Israel. Palestinians believe that these refugees, and their descendants, have the sacred right to return to their homes and property in Israel, or be compensated by Israel. This has become a major sticking point in the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Herman Cain was caught flat-footed, only able to demonstrate that he was not familiar with the concept. His answer was convoluted at best, first stating that it should be negotiated, and then claiming that Israel doesn’t have a big problem with people returning. This was after slamming President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus.”

The previous day, when announcing his candidacy for president in Atlanta, Herman Cain said that Americans do not need to re-write the Constitution, they need to re-read the Constitution. This line grew great applause from the audience in attendance. However, Mr. Cain went on to quote the Constitution as including a line about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which actually appears in the Declaration of Independence. Cain went on to talk about Americans’ right to “alter or to abolish” government – also found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. This prompted several pundits to suggest that it was Herman Cain who needed to re-read the Constitution, and with good reason.

On Afghanistan, Herman Cain refuses to put forward a plan, saying that he would defer to the experts – unnamed experts. While I certainly hope he would surround himself with knowledgeable experts as president, it is still concerning that he has no tentative plan with which to deduce how he would handle the issue as a whole if elected. Cain has used the “defer to experts” line so often, it became part of the Daily Caller’s New Hampshire GOP Debate drinking game, this past week.

Then there’s the 2nd Amendment. Herman Cain, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment. That’s great! But when asked about gun control, and whether states or local governments should be allowed to control guns, he answered, “Yes.” Now perhaps this was yet another example of how Mr. Cain was unprepared for the question, but he’s not running for president of Wendy’s, he’s running for president of the United States. And if he truly wants to be the next president, he needs to know that these questions are coming, and have answers.

Finally, there is a problem of messaging. It’s a problem most Republicans have, so it’s hard to be too critical of Cain.

In one interview, Mr. Cain was asked about his position on homosexuality. He replied, “I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian. I believe it’s a sin. But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.” When asked to clarify his position that homosexuality was a choice, Cain replied, “I believe it is a choice.”

Now, having been raised Catholic, I understand that Herman Cain’s view of homosexuality being a sin is perfectly valid. It is what his faith teaches him, and he has a right to believe that. However, as president of the entire United States, Cain would have to represent all Americans – even homosexuals. Last week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie answered the same question with the following:

“My religion says it’s a sin, but I’ve always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. So I think if someone is born that way, it’s very difficult to say that’s a sin. My church says that, but I don’t look upon someone who is homosexual as a sinner.”

In speaking with young people daily about politics, both gay and straight, I can say that the “religious right” is one of the reasons many people leave or avoid the Republican Party. That is not to say that having a foundation of faith is a bad thing. I simply believe that most Americans do not want to get their moral advice from a political party.

As a gay man, I know I was born with a predisposition to be gay, as Governor Christie speculates. Much like heterosexual people develop an attraction for the opposite sex, gay people develop it for the same sex. It’s just that simple. And while the church would advise gays to not act on those attractions, the reality of life necessitates otherwise.

For Herman Cain to believe that homosexuality is a choice, not actually being homosexual himself, would be like me, as a Caucasian, believing Black people face no discrimination in America today. It is simply presumptuous. What it does do, is ensure that many homosexuals never hear his conservative vision for America – because he has already turned them off.

As a gay conservative, I know first-hand how hard it is to convince gays of the merits of conservatism – due in large part to the religious standards within the GOP.

Again, it all goes back to messaging.

This past week on the Alan Stock News Show in Las Vegas, Herman Cain stated that “all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslim – except a couple.”

This is up there with John McCain’s “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” song.

While conservatives will stand up and say “But he’s right! All terrorists ARE Muslim,” they are wrong. There are terrorists all over the world. Some are Black, some are white. Some are male, some are female. Some are right here in the United States, and aren’t Muslim at all.

It’s one thing to say that the radical Islamists who have attacked us look similar, come from similar places, etc. It’s another to make an insensitive statement that all terrorists are Muslim.

Herman Cain is a good guy, and he wants to get involved and help save his country. I get it. And I applaud his willingness to get out there, in front of the public, in front of the media, and be a candidate.

However, we elected a candidate with no experience in 2008, and look where it got us.

Up on stage with six other candidates for the 2012 nomination, Herman Cain, for the first time, looked to be outclassed. His answers were vague, he repeated his standby lines, and offered very little new information as to who he is, and what he would do as our next president.

Herman Cain might make a great CEO and even a great elected official some day. But he is not ready to be president of the United States.

We conservatives may like his no-nonsense attitude, but that and three F-bombs landed Donald Trump back on Celebrity Apprentice, if you know what I mean.

Taking the High Road With Anthony Weiner


I must admit, I felt a bit giddy when I saw a man I truly detested literally caught with his pants down.  I believe Anthony Weiner is a cocky man who in many ways does not represent the people he allegedly represents.

On the other hand, though I disagree with his positions to the largest degree imaginable and utterly dislike folks like him and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who spin and lie about important issues like Health Care and Medicare, I believe Weiner is a liberal who believes in his positions and exudes a lot of passion in fighting for them.

I am far from perfect.  So is Anthony Weiner.  So is Sarah Palin.  So is George Bush.  We can go on and on in the search for divine perfection.

Watching Hannity tonight, I found myself rolling my eyes at all these demands for Weiner to resign.  Are we really so perfect as a society that we cannot allow someone the opportunity of learning from a bad choice?  The first step to moving our Democracy back to a place where ideas alone are debated and tested on their merits is getting past these bizarre delusions that we can expect people to be perfect and divine.  It’s never going to happen.

As a proud Palinista, I’ve watched the media vet Sarah Palin up and down and from side to side.  She made a mistake in a bad interview with Katie Couric and her daughter made a bad choice by getting pregnant out of wedlock.  As a conservative, it was frustrating for me to watch an entire media explosion and the vile hatred from the left come at her in these petty ways completely overlooking her success as a public servant to perpetuate smear from everything having to do with her career as a politician, to her marriage, and even the birth of her son.

It is so easy to buy into the sensationalism of it all.  But folks, we’re at a new time in our nation’s history where lies and deceit from the White House are dictating the rest of our lives and our future.

  • We were told that everyone could keep their health care if they liked it, remember?  That was a lie.
  • We were promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if we allowed Obama to squander a trillion dollars.  The current unemployment rate proved, that was a lie!
  • We were promised health care negotiations would be held on CSPAN, that was a lie!
  • Union-leaders with Cadillac plans were given a pass after the nation was promised fair health care reform.  That was a lie!

We have a country destined for greatness on the basis of its founding but headed for failure on the basis of its current leadership.  We must stay on the issues and support the folks we know hold the right convictions and commonsense ideals to turn it all around.

I’d like for Anthony Weiner’s Congressional destiny to be left up to the voters.  In order for our country to remain free, I would hope Anthony Weiner learns from this stupid choice and continues to use the House to argue for positions he supports.

But the next time some liberal starts attacking someone like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann for the stupidest and most trivial reasons possible, we need to remind them of how easy it is to take the high road because on the basis of the issues alone, conservatives remain poised at taking this country back and improving the conditions that are affecting all of us.

At the end of the day, this too shall pass.

Don’t Hold Your Breath Waiting for NBC to Correct This (Mitchell Lies about Palin)


Sarah Palin is driving the left insane again.

Andrea Mitchell, yesterday, interviewed a member of the Rolling Thunder organization who had stated Sarah Palin was not invited to the event on Sunday.

Thanks to a conservative-blogger from Hot-Air who phoned the organization and spoke with Rolling-Thunder spokesperson, Christine Colborne, it turns out Palin WAS invited by the organization and had accepted the invitation too late for them to formally inform all of their members.

I will await Andrea Mitchell to correct her false and misleading segment and to apologize for sloppy journalism that doesn’t require conservative bloggers to take the steps she refused to take.

Just Saying

A few good words about my home state from Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner….

If you want to see a place where the private sector in America has been booming and generating jobs, you should look at Texas. That’s my take from these absolutely fascinating numbers compiled from Bureau of Labor Statistics figures by The Business Journals, tracking the increase or decrease in private sector jobs in the ten years between April 2001 and April 2011….

In those 10 years, Texas gained 732,800 private sector jobs, far ahead of the number two and three states, Arizona (90,200) and Nevada (90,000). The nation overall lost more than 2 million private sector jobs, with the biggest losses coming in California (623,700), Michigan (619,200) and Ohio (460,900).

 Texas’s gain was also impressive as a percentage of jobs at the beginning of the period. Texas had job growth of 9%, more than any other state except much smaller North Dakota (19%), Alaska (17%), Wyoming (16%), Montana (12%) and Utah (10%). The biggest losers in percentage terms, by far, were Michigan (16%) and Ohio (10%)…..

The lesson of the previous decade seems clear: if you take a previously prosperous and creative state and subject it to high taxes and intrusive regulations, it loses 5% of its private sector jobs; if you take a previously somewhat less prosperous and creative state and govern it with low taxes and light regulation, it gains 9% more jobs, even as the nation’s economy is suffering.

And another thing of interest from Fox News…..

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday he is considering a run for the Republican nomination in 2012, saying he’ll decide after the current legislative session ends next week.

“Yes sir, I’m going to think about it,” Perry said in a response to a question from a reporter, “but I think about a lot of things,” he added with a grin.

Laughter ensued.

And another article from Fox News….

Perry, who has been governor for more than a decade, is a favorite of the Tea Party movement for his tough stands on state sovereignty, border security, taxes and gun rights. Anybody who packs heat when he jogs so he can blow away coyotes that mess with his Labrador retriever and hangs out with Ted Nugent at a Tax Day rally is going to have serious street cred with the Republican base.

Perry has his problems, but there isn’t a friggin’ GOP candidate who doesn’t.  I’m not exactly endorsing Perry (just like Rush Limbaugh wasn’t exactly endorsing Perry last week). I’m just saying…..