Life On The Gay Liberal Plantation

I’ve finally decided on the book I’m going to finish first – it’ll be a nonfiction political/social commentary, and I’m tentatively calling it “Self-Loathing Closet Case” for the infamous insult that so many gay leftists like to throw at me.

I’m about to go off on all of the leftists out there. Here’s why: every single leftist on Twitter says the same thing to me when they see that I’m a lesbian and I’m politically conservative. “Wake up! They don’t want you to marry! How can you vote against yourself?!?”

I’m sick of hearing that.

I fail to understand why I should vote solely on the basis of what’s best for me. I’m a lesbian; I’m part of a group that makes up no more than 8% of the population. Expecting the entire population to cater to me because of my sexual orientation on a singular centuries-old issue is ludicrous; I’ve said before that I’d like to marry one day, but it’s not going to happen overnight and I think we need to be wiser about how we obtain marriage rights.

Liberals, for their part, want welfare, socialized healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy…all in the name of doing what’s right for everyone, not just one group. It’s selfish, they say, to only care about issues that only affect your social group. It’s wrong to be selfish. It’s wrong to be greedy. You should care about more than just yourself and your vote and beliefs should include everyone – at least, as long as the “everyone” you’re talking about is 100% liberal.

Taking that into consideration, why does it make any sense for liberals to tell me I must hate myself because I vote for a political ideal that doesn’t agree with gay marriage? They say it as if it is the only issue I should care about, and I should damn and curse any politician who doesn’t believe in my right to marry.

Here’s the big problem with that line of thinking: most Democrats don’t support gay marriage, either. If you listen to most vocal liberals, they’ll have you believe that gays should all be liberal because everyone who is against gay rights is a conservative. That is a bald-faced lie straight from the pits of hell. I’ve had more conservative friends come out in support of me in the past couple of years than I would have ever believed would. VERY few of the liberals in my life have stuck around. I can count them on the fingers of one hand and still have fingers left over. Even conservative pundit Lee Doren weighed in on gay marriage, declaring that he supports my right to marry and he hopes that the GOP, traditionally the party of civil rights, will be the first to get behind it.

Democrats, however, are not nearly as behind gay marriage as many of these people would have us believe. Proposition 8 – the law meant to repeal gay marriage rights in uber-liberal California – was passed with the help of hundreds of thousands of Democrats who still believe gay marriage to be wrong. Barack Obama has said many times that he believes marriage to be sacred, a pact between one man and one woman. When pressed on it by the gay community, he finally said, “well, how about this…if you challenge DOMA in court, I won’t defend it, how’s that?”

I see that cowardly posturing for exactly what it is: a politician trying to fish for as many votes as he can. The gay liberals all snap to and kiss his feet, ready to lap up the crumbs he offers while he works to destroy our Constitutional rights. They’d rather vote for a man who is willing to lie about his intentions than even entertain the beliefs of a party who will listen if given the chance. The very instant they come across someone like me, someone who refuses to just take what the party of choice is willing to offer right now because there are other dangers lurking within that party, they start hurling insults and death threats to try and put my leash back on and drag me back to the gay liberal plantation.

I won’t go.

Who the hell do you think you are? You claim to be the pillars of tolerance, yet when faced with someone who disagrees, you pitch a hissy fit and try to degrade me by calling me names and threatening bodily injury? Are you serious? Who appointed you the keeper of morals? If it’s wrong for the religious right to impose their morals on you, what makes it acceptable for you to impose your morals on me by way of denigration?

I think for myself. Unlike the liberals (who all vote to try to assuage their own emotions), I am capable of looking at all of the issues, include them all in my beliefs and decide based on the totality of those issues what my beliefs are and who deserves my support. Insulting me when I disagree is not exactly the best way to convince me that I should be liberal – it is, however, the surest way to help me be sure of my conservative values. You can be damn sure of one thing…

I will not be kept.

Allen West Will Not Be Intimidated

News reports are coming out this week that Democrats are trying desperately to rally the troops (so to speak) to have the kind of turnout and reaction that Republicans saw during the health care town hall protests. They’re forgetting a few things…first of all, not everything that went on at those protests was very good. Both Democrats and Republicans behaved poorly. There were plenty of disruptions and more than a few fights. Many were arrested and some even ended up in the hospital.

Yesterday, however, newly-elected Rep. Allen West of Florida – a retired Marine Lt. Colonel – held a townhall. A handful of liberals called upon by their leaders did turn out, and they tried to heckle Rep. West and disrupt the meeting. They were soundly booed, and when they were asked by police to leave, the entire crowd cheered:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9h1XHlEPjo&feature=player_embedded]

The woman you see being arrested in the last half is Nicole Sandler, former Air America jockey and now a private radio-show host. She posted on her own blog. If you go to the YouTube page for the video linked above and read the comments, you see the same old, same old: profiteering is evil, he didn’t answer her question, Allen West is a thug, I don’t recall Republicans getting arrested during the health care town halls, all conservatives are Nazis and need to be run out of the country, blah, blah, blah.

Okay, liberals…let’s take another lesson in reality.

-There WERE quite a few arrests during the health care town hall meetings. Both Democrats and Republicans were arrested for assaults, destruction of property, refsuing to obey police orders, and a few other charges. Shouting matches turned into near-riot situations, including in St. Louis, where one man had his shirt ripped off and another was beaten unconscious by liberal protesters (six were arrested in those two incidents).

-Allen West is not responsible for directing law enforcement at a town hall event. He didn’t make any gestures, didn’t say anything, he didn’t argue – Nicole was removed by a police sergeant who had already removed one heckler. You can’t call him a thug unless he was personally responsible for a violent act. I’m sorry, but the only violence I saw was coming from Nicole herself.

-After the outrageous behavior that occurred during the health care town halls, police were on heightened alert to avoid the same embarrassment this time around. Anybody who was seen as a disruption would have been immediately asked to leave; part of that would have been at the direction of the owners of the property where the meeting was being held. There is nothing wrong with being asked to leave. At that point, she wasn’t being arrested.

-As the officer was escorting her from the building, she kept stopping to talk to people. That was when the officer gave her some quiet, gentle redirection. He wasn’t yelling, wasn’t saying much at all – he just put a hand on her back to let her know which direction she was supposed to be headed in. That was when she decided to escalate the situation by turning, screaming, cursing, wagging a finger in the officer’s face and making demands. You cannot do that to a police officer. By training, he sees that as aggression and will immediately arrest you.

-The officer still didn’t yell. He quietly said what was going to happen, told her what she was being arrested for, and ended up with people STILL disobeying his orders. Nicole was trying to do things she wasn’t allowed to do (give her belongings to another person, insinuating that the officer would erase footage on her camera), and her friends were refusing to back away – they kept trying to step in, kept asking why she was being arrested, and only barely complied when asked to back away.

-AT NO POINT DID ANY PERSON INFRINGE ON NICOLE SANDLER’S RIGHTS. She was not being told that she couldn’t speak her mind freely. She was simply being asked to do so elsewhere. If she’d wanted to stand on the corner outside the event and scream at people as they left, as long as she kept her distance and didn’t get into a fight, she would have been allowed to do it. She could have quietly left, written a letter to Rep. West, and if she didn’t get a response the way she wanted, she could have vented in any forum she wanted as long as her speech didn’t include death threats.

Nicole Sandler was not arrested for her political speech; she was asked to leave because of her behavior, and later arrested when she deliberately escalated that behavior. You cannot behave any which way you like and expect that it will be protected. When you attend a certain event, there will be a format and rules. Fail to obey them and you can be asked to leave. There’s nothing Unconstitutional about it. All of the claims of Nazism, thuggery and infringement of rights? I will again refer you to my post about Nazis being left-wing.

My favorite part of the whole thing? It was when Allen West quietly listened to her yell, gave her some wiggle room, and finally said, “I will not be intimidated.” I like Allen West. When is he gonna run for the Presidency?

Civil Discourse

Social events in our country over the past year have driven many to clamor for a new form of civility – the University of Arizona even founded a National Institute for Civil Discourse in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and five other innocent souls in Tucson (the home of U of A). The suicides of multiple young kids after months – sometimes years – of gay-related bullying (even when those kids weren’t gay) brought on a fresh round of cries for people to start caring and lawmakers to pass anti-bullying and hate-crimes legislation.

Our actions, however, tell a different story.

It amazes me that liberals are usually the first ones to squeal about the horrors of bullying and hate crimes because it is often those identifying as liberals who display the most hatred and ignorance (see my post on Nazi comparisons for further extensions). I can’t get used to it because they continually lie about wanting society to do better. They clamor to end all religious influence over society yet when asked why human beings are basically good, they have no response. They insist on teaching that we humans are essentially just highly-evolved animals, but they believe that we’re somehow better than animals…all on our own. There is no God, and my faith is culturally unacceptable, but human beings are supposed to be better than other animals?

It’s no wonder that our society displays so much hatred and ignorance. On April 18, an unbelievable display of such wanton emotion was captured on cell phone video in a McDonald’s restaurant in Baltimore. According to multiple news sources, a 22-year-old woman was attacked in or near the bathroom by two girls, one 14, the other 18. The two attackers showed open hostility to everyone who tried to intervene – and even after leaving the restaurant TWICE, they came back to beat their victim again. The third attack had the suspects ripping the victim’s wig off and dragging her by her hair to the door while an older woman with more balls than the male manager tried to stop them. Incredibly, the two girls assaulted the older woman as well.

The video carries on for more than three minutes. What’s more, the incident was caught on a cell phone camera owned by none other than Vernon Hackett, an employee of the restaurant, and the video catches him and a fellow employee laughing hysterically at the violence. The manager is caught doing nothing more than yelling “stop!” at the two thugs – he didn’t even reprimand his employees for taping and laughing at the fight. He never even tried to stop them. At the end, the victim is left having a seizure on the floor, chunks of hair litter the floor, and the aspiring filmographer warns the suspects to get away because the police have been called.

This isn’t the first time that a video of a pile-on beating has been posted to the internet, but coming on the heels of all these calls for civility and concern for bullying victims, the fact that such an incident could not only occur but go viral online is astounding. It gets even worse from here…multiple sources, including the local ABC affiliate linked above and LGBTQ Nation, are reporting that the unnamed victim was a transgendered female…and the attack was over the fact that she was trying to use the women’s latrine.

Personally, I believe that if you’re transgendered but still genetically the gender you were at birth, you should use the corresponding facility for the corresponding plumbing. If businesses want to install unisex bathrooms, fantastic; that is their decision. Whatever your belief, however, there is no excuse whatsoever to react violently and then try to excuse your outrageous behavior by pointing out your victim’s perceived character flaws. I’ll tell you right now, if I had been there and had witnessed that scene firsthand, neither of those two girls would have left that establishment in one piece. Regardless of what I think I would have stood up for their victim and use the gifts the Good Lord gave me to do so. I might have even turned on Hackett and just said, “oops…sorry!” afterward.

I’ve also got good money that says every one of the employees and perpetrators involved is an Obama fan. If this is what they call hope and change, they can keep it.

If you want a good look at just how “civil” liberals are, take a look at the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin over her son Trig. A Wonkette writer recently attacked Trig himself, saying, “what’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.” (It’s worth pointing out that so many conservatives were rightly outraged that Wonkette deleted the post…h/t to Steven Crowder for the info). Worse yet, “comedian” Louis CK went on the Opie & Anthony Show and verbally assaulted “that baby that came out of her disgusting c–t” and flayed her for mentioning the difficulties of raising a Downs Syndrome child, continuing to say, “this is hard? It’s a baby, put your tit in its mouth!” The commenters, which include the user who posted the clip, are just as evil – and the singular comment I posted garnered six positive marks, yet the poster removed it. I guess he’s too much of a coward to face the same criticism he offers.

Liberals embody the very same intolerance they attack conservatives for. Somehow they manage to exalt themselves whenever another teenager commits suicide by claiming that it’s all the fault of conservatives. I have news for you, folks…our society will never grow up as long as this kind of thing is acceptable. As long as teenagers watch the adults in this country launch personal attacks against politicians like Sarah Palin, liberal commenters bully conservatives into submission with accusations of racism and intolerance, teen-mom reality “stars” caught on video beating their baby daddies and ex-friends, and trans-phobic beatdowns at McDonalds, kids will keep getting the message that bullying is perfectly acceptable, and the more shock value you garner the more popular you become.

Civil discourse is beginning to look an awful lot like gang rape.

Do Democrats Hate Poor People?

All too often, the issues facing our country are discussed in purely political terms with partisan ideology at the center. This guarantees that opinions will be formed purely on emotion, and not the facts. If the issue is illegal immigration, Republicans hate Mexicans. If it’s education, Republicans hate children. If it’s welfare reform, Republicans hate poor people.

So on that note, let’s examine how Democrats fare under the same level of scrutiny, shall we?

 

Hating Mexicans

In America, we have immigration laws – like them or not. They are in place for a reason, mainly to ensure that we know who is coming here, and that we can accommodate the increase in local, state, and federal services their presence requires. Currently, we let roughly 1 million immigrants into America legally, almost 2,800 per day. Think about it: 2,800 people per day that need jobs, housing, food, education for themselves or their children, drivers licenses, social security cards, and many other necessities. Now add to that another 1 million who come in illegally, or overstay their visas. These are people we don’t know. They could be anyone from a hard-working farmer to an Al Qaeda terrorist – and anyone who tells you differently is wrong. If we don’t know who they are, then we don’t know how they aren’t. Now, while some people will say it’s racist to single out Mexicans in the illegal immigration discussion, let me explain why that is by showing you the country of origin of those living in the U.S. illegally, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

#1 – Mexico: 62%

#2 – El Salvador: 5%

#3 – Guatemala: 4%

#4 – Honduras: 3%

That’s quite a drop-off from #1 to #2, isn’t it? Also bear in mind that these 4 countries equate to 74% of our illegal immigration problem, and they all enter the U.S. through our border with Mexico. So it’s not racist to talk about our southern border, it’s REALITY.

So, don’t like the laws? Change them. But until then, the government’s job is to enforce them. And that’s what Republicans want. They want a secure border. They want legal immigration. They want those here illegally to be deported when caught, according to the law.

Now we can argue immigration reform all day, and I’m one Republican who thinks it is impossible to deport the 15-20 million people here illegally. However, until we actually pass immigration reform and discover a way to handle all of these issues, we have no choice but to enforce the laws.

But what about Democrats? Do they hate Mexicans too?

Many liberal Democrats argue against raiding businesses that hire illegals. Why? Because they will be deported, and working for $3 per hour in unsafe conditions is still better than Mexico.

Really?

If that’s the case, isn’t the problem Mexico? And if everyone with the motivation to work hard leaves Mexico, who will be left to fix it, other than the drug cartels?

So these liberals would rather have illegal immigrants working in unsafe conditions, unable to report accidents, earning slave wages – simply so they don’t have to return to their home country?

Appalling.

Slavery was wrong in the 19th century, and it’s wrong today. But you don’t hear anyone saying that liberals hate Mexicans, do you?

 

Hating Children

Education is a hot button issue that is frequently distorted into an ideological war of emotions, when in fact there is nothing emotional about it. Schools exist to educate. Period. And on that measure, they are failing.

Since 1970, our education system has flat-lined on achievement in reading and math. Despite that, we’ve increased funding exponentially with zero results. Zero. Absolutely no movement of the needle. So the answer is more money?

“Since 1971, educational spending in the United states has more than doubled, from $4,300 per student to more than $9,000 per student, adjusted for inflation.” – “Waiting for ‘Superman’”

So if money is the answer, why has money not been the answer? And does wanting the correct answer constitute hating children? Of course not. Does putting your own selfish agenda ahead of the success of our children, and our nation, constitute hating children? Judge for yourself.

Many of the obstacles to fixing our education system reside with those controlling it: Teachers’ unions.

Do not confuse teachers’ unions with other unions, or you will fall into the same trap of thinking with emotions. Unions were created to help workers negotiate for better pay and working conditions, against giants of industry who were profit-driven. Education is a non-profit endeavor, paid for by tax payers, and therefore there is no evil CEO to demonize.

There are many things that will help toward improving our education system, including the use of technology to lower the cost of educating our children as a whole, rewarding the best teachers while coaching or removing the underperformers, adequately preparing middle school children for high school, and high school children for college, and making school districts accountable to parents and tax payers.

Unfortunately, teachers’ unions do not want technology to lower the cost of education our children, because it will result in a need for less teachers – even though our school districts are wildly under-staffed as it is.

Teachers’ unions also do not want teachers to be treated differently, in any way. So rewarding great teachers, and firing bad ones, is completely off the table.

Furthermore, these unions resent standardized tests, as they do not believe the performance of students has any bearing on how qualified a teacher is. After all, they can’t make the kids learn.

In fact, according to “Waiting for ‘Superman’,” the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers (the two most organized unions) spent $55 million on federal campaigns over the past 20 years, and 90% of it went to Democrats. So, if teachers’ unions are in the way of improving education, and they donate almost entirely to Democrats, do Democrats hate children?

Let’s pretend you own your own business. Would you want to keep your good employees, and get rid of the bad ones? Would you want to reward your best people with incentives to perform well? Would you expect a return on your investment? Well none of that applies to education, mainly because of teachers’ unions.

Apparently, if you support school choice, merit pay for teachers, and accountability to parents and taxpayers, you hate children. But if you want to give those controlling our education system more money, after a 40-year track record of failure, well… you’re a kid’s best friend. (Read: nightmare)

 

Hating Poor People

Almost a full 50% of Americans pay no income tax. Now just to clarify, most do pay it in their paychecks, but they get it all back on their tax returns. And while they do contribute to Medicare and Social Security like all Americans do, this 50% of Americans are far more likely to need Medicare and Social Security than those who do pay income tax.

With that said, the answer to everything these days seems to be: “Tax the rich – or you hate poor people.” I guess it is perfectly okay to hate rich people. After all, rich people are the ones hiring the rest of us. But it’s not all rich people that are evil blood-sucking greed-mongers. What about actors? Hollywood is gluttonously wealthy, yet you don’t hear liberals screaming for them to hang, do you? Nobody blames the ills of society on Johnny Depp and Ben Stiller, do they? Yet from June 2009 – June 2010, they were the two highest paid actors in Hollywood, earning $75 million and $53 million respectively.

“But it’s different,” they’ll say, because people pay to go see Johnny Depp and Ben Stiller, which justifies their huge salaries. Of course that argument doesn’t seem to work for the rich guy who created Wal-Mart, an outlet in which millions of Americans pay to buy things – justifying his huge salary.

You see, it’s all about emotion. The guy who runs the business must be exploiting workers, while Johnny Depp makes people smile. Of course if Wal-Mart went out of business tomorrow, we’d see how many people would be smiling when all of their employees were out of a job, and the public could no longer buy a pair of jeans for $8 or an entertainment center for $69.

If you wanted to raise taxes on soda and bottled water, would that be good for poor people whose grocery bills would go up? Well, that’s what Democrats in New York and Nevada want to do.

Does it help or hurt poor people when gas is $4/gallon? Wouldn’t drilling for oil inside the U.S. help bring those prices down? Many Democrats are against drilling in America, even though they love beating up Republicans for going to war for oil in the Middle East. If we had more drilling here, Democrats would have one less thing to blame on Republicans – so obviously that’s out of the question.

 

Conclusion

There are many things to dislike in our country, and even some things to hate. There are a lot of things to love about American too, but most people take those for granted.

To think that Republicans hate Mexicans, children, and poor people, simply because of their political views is just plain ignorant.

I don’t think Democrats hate Mexicans, children, and poor people either. But they do hate Republicans – and that’s really what all their bitching is about.

Hunting RINO Hunters

(Warning: No RINOs were harmed in the writing of this piece. Mark Ciavola does not endorse actual hunting of RINOs, or any violence to any one for any reason whatsoever, unless deemed appropriate by a court of law and a jury of his peers. In no way does he mean to offend the effete sensibilities of CNN, MSNBC, or liberals who had no problem with similar wordplay until one of their own was shot. All Rights Reserved. Charges may apply. Do not eat.)

For the last few years the term “RINO,” Republican In Name Only, has been tossed around like “party favors” at Lindsay Lohan’s house. It has been used within the conservative movement to separate the men from the boys, in what is nothing short of a macho pissing contest on who can be more or most conservative. Last summer I opined on the term itself, attempting to make the point that these moderates are needed for the GOP to win seats in liberal states like Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware. I also pointed out that there is a big difference between a “RINO” and a traitor. However, as political rhetoric becomes more and more intense, reason is often left by the wayside.

Whether we like it or not we have a two-party political system here in America. Today, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party candidates, and other third-party options simply cannot win elections – especially at the federal level. Even with many Americans becoming increasingly disenchanted with both major parties, these third-parties pull an insignificant portion of the total vote. They do, however, succeed in playing spoiler on many levels, often costing Republicans elections. The reason for this is that many Independents are right-leaning, as are Libertarians. Only the Green Party and Socialist Party, in less than a dozen states, produce candidates that take votes away from Democrats. Perhaps the most interesting part of these right-leaning third-parties is that many of their followers are former Republicans.

The 2008 Republican Party Platform listed nine items: National Security, Government Reform, Economy, Energy, Environment, Health Care, Education, Crime, and Values. Clicking on the first plank, National Security, you will be treated to a 6,336-word novel that includes opinions on everything from homeland security and veterans to immigration and policies for the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Only the most ardent political junkie would ever make it through reading the entire plank only to be smacked with a 3,512 treatise on Government Reform, which for some reason includes the preservation of the District of Columbia. In total, anyone wishing to know where the GOP stood in 2008 “on the issues” would be subjected to an information overload of more than 35,000 words – seventeen times the length of this post.

If a “RINO” is someone who doesn’t adhere to the majority of core Republican values, we sure don’t make it easy to be a real Republican! There are 75 planks-within-planks. Even by Reagan’s standard of 80% agreement, real Republicans would disagree with the platform 15 times! It is worth mentioning that GOP.com currently features a six-plank platform including National Defense, Health Care, Energy, Education, Economy, and Courts, with a one-paragraph blurb explaining the conservative side of the argument on each issue. It is broad, and most-likely intentionally vague, so as to adequately satisfy the entire Republican Party. Remember, the GOP has an obligation to represent ALL Republicans – both fiscally conservative and socially conservative. It is not the “Social Conservative Party” or the “Fiscal Conservative Party”… it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

As I have stated in previous articles, and countless times publicly, I do not believe in the mythical creature “RINO.” And while I am still one of the most conservative people I know, nowhere on my voter registration form was I asked if I was a conservative. Anyone who checks the box marked “Republican” is a “Republican In Name Only,” since the form does not ask you to rate on a scale from 1 to 10 how conservative you are.

The term “RINO” is being applied to Republicans who voted for TARP. Twenty-one in the House of Representatives including Paul Ryan, and 34 of 40 Republicans in the Senate voted for TARP, which was designed as a loan that would repay taxpayers – unlike the bailouts that followed under President Obama. Is Paul Ryan a “RINO?” What about Senators Coburn (OK), Cornyn (TX), Kyl (AZ), and Thune (SD)? These are some of the most conservative Republicans in Washington. Pushing people out of our party because they disagree on a few issues is ludicrous, especially when we are in the middle of an ideological battle for the heart and soul of our country. Ultimately, these representatives must act in accordance with their constituents’ wishes and not the agenda of a national conservative litmus test.

Then you have this moron, who blames Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “RINO” status for Jerry Brown’s 2010 victory. Arnold didn’t keep Republicans home on Election Day, conservatives did. Meg Whitman didn’t tell Republicans to stay home and hand Jerry Brown a victory in liberal California, conservatives did. Republicans and conservatives were not rushing to vote for Jerry Brown because Arnold and Meg were “RINOs.” Jerry Brown won because there weren’t enough Republican votes, due in large part to the unwillingness of conservatives to elect a moderate Republican over a Democrat. Period.

With all of this in mind, I’d like to introduce you to a new term: CINO. Conservatives In Name Only.

What is conservatism? According to Ronald Reagan, conservatism consists of small government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, and liberty for all. These basic tenets permeate every conservative discussion in our country today, especially within the Tea Party movement. But how many conservatives are really conservative? And what about the CINOs? It’s easy to say you’re conservative, but actually standing for these true conservative principles create an interesting dynamic.

To most conservatives I’ve come in contact with, small government means adhering to the U.S. Constitution in determining which issues the federal government should take control over, and which issues should be left to the states by virtue of the 10th Amendment. It also means keeping spending low, reducing our national debt, and running an efficient government that stays out of the marketplace. Conservatives preach all day long that individual schools and communities should have local control over education. They believe that the influence of powerful teachers unions and the federal education bureaucracy has severely damaged our education system. Conservatives believe government should stay out of your personal life.

CINOs, however, have no problem with big government if it is advancing their own agenda. They have no problem with a variety of federal spending, including earmarks, if it keeps them elected. CINOs believe in local control over education, unless that local control results in the removal of school prayer. CINOs don’t want the government telling us which light bulbs to buy, or which cars to drive, but they WILL try to put a federal marriage amendment in the U.S. Constitution telling us to whom we can pledge a lifelong commitment of love.

What if marriage was defined in the U.S. Constitution in 1780? Only property owners would be able to marry. In 1820, slaves would have been prohibited from marrying. In the 100 years between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, a federal marriage amendment would have banned interracial marriage. Today, in 2011, none of us would support any of those definitions. So why is anyone seeking to define marriage in our most revered American document? CINOs are for state’s rights, until those rights produce unpopular results. CINOs are for small government, until they see government as a way to protect their own values.

Take a look at the New York Conservative Party platform. I can say that I either support or am indifferent to almost everything on the list. As for where I disagree, I would be indifferent toward a state constitutional ban on gay marriage so long as there are civil unions or domestic partnerships in place so that gay couples can still have legal proof and protections of their relationships. I simply cannot get behind collecting DNA samples of “every criminal who commits a crime,” and I’m not sure how any conservative could. Most people would think I’m a conservative for being okay with 43 of the 45 planks in the New York Conservative Party platform, but to many others my true belief in small government would relegate me to “libertarian” status even though I do not support the legalization of drugs or an isolationist world view.

As we evolve as a nation, we seem to remain center-right. Yet, many of those in the Republican Party are seeking to implement a far-right Party philosophy. How can the GOP be “America’s Party” if we are alienating so many moderates and Independents with an irrational addiction to far-right, and often not conservative, stances? Should we not be sticking to the core tenets of conservatism, while trying to deliver our message to a wide audience in ways they can relate to?

I often talk about the problem of attracting young people to the Republican Party. They are often turned off by social conservatism. To be clear, I believe social conservatism has its place within our Party just like fiscal conservatism does. We should all be advocating for what we believe in. It should not, however, be the ENTIRETY of our Party, or firmly established in the U.S. Constitution. We should welcome pro-choice conservatives, gay conservatives, and young conservatives into our Party. We may disagree on some issues, but for the most part we can work together to elect Republicans and maintain control of Congress and state legislatures across the country. While I am pro-life, everyone 37 years old and younger was born into a country where abortion is legal. Let’s face it: Pro-life is a choice; pro-abortion is not. Let’s deliver that message!

The fact that there is a segment of the Republican Party committed to “hunting RINOs,” shows that they care more about a purist agenda that fits their own values, and not the success of the only viable alternative to the liberal agenda – the GOP. Remember, Senator Jim DeMint famously said, “I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.” I would rather have zero Arlen Specters, because Arlen Spector is an opportunist traitor who ditched his Party in order to thwart the will of the people and keep his cushy government paycheck. However, ultimately I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios and 30 Scott Browns than allow a Democrat super-majority to ruin our country. And if Senator Jim DeMint doesn’t see that, then he is too senile to represent anyone in Congress.

CINOs spit on Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

CINOs piss on the theory that anyone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend, not your enemy.

CINOs rejoice in seeing moderates like Mike Castle lose in Delaware, only to cost Republicans a winnable Senate seat with a mismatched candidate like Christine O’Donnell. (Castle had won 18 elections in Delaware, which is only 28% Republican)

CINOs express an almost divine dedication to candidates like Sharron Angle, who – as a statement of fact – lost a GOP primary race for State Senate in 2006, a GOP primary race for U.S. Congress in 2008, and now a general election for U.S. Senate in 2010. It’s remarkable to watch someone fail upward. Even a casual observer would see that if Republicans in her own State Senate district didn’t want her, and Republicans in her own U.S. Congressional District didn’t want her, that the entire state of Nevada wouldn’t want her either. Yet these “conservatives” from all over the country pushed for Sharron in her U.S. Senate primary since she won the macho pissing contest to be labeled “most conservative.” That label may win you a GOP primary (although usually not in Angle’s case), but it won’t garner you much support from Independents and conservative Democrats. And appealing to national conservatives who cannot cast votes in Nevada (or Delaware) is entirely irrelevant.

CINOs are committed to advancing their own personal agenda, even if it means the demise of the Republican Party.

CINOs constantly invoke Reagan’s name, yet refuse to follow his most successful strategy: an inclusive GOP! (They don’t call them ‘Reagan Democrats’ for nothing, folks!)

They are CINOs.

And I’m announcing CINO season OPEN.

“Life Must Go On As Usual”

It’s hard to admit making a mistake, but I owe the regular visitors of this website; along with my fellow contributors here, an apology.

The same day Congresswoman Giffords was shot, I reacted badly to the first article written by the AP on the story.  The article, which I linked to on my post where I specifically blamed the left, was written about 30 minutes after the tragedy.  This early on they were already linking Sarah Palin and the tea party to it.  In all honesty, my post was a reaction to that. (Along with a Facebook page I had found that has since been deleted portraying Loughner as a liberal).

As much as I disagree with liberals on pretty much everything, it was wrong for me to link the violent behavior of one idiot to an entire political party.  What I did was no better than what liberals (some of them) were doing to Sarah Palin.  As such, I shall remember that not everyone on the left is clinically insane and I apologize to Mel, Mark, Chris, and Philip (along with our regular visitors) who have to “share” this space with me.

That being said, I’d like to move forward with another aspect of how our country is prematurely responding to this tragedy. 

Aside from Sheriff Dumbnik’s running around and blaming everyone on the right; taking the attention away from him and the Police Department there in Tucson who had been getting warnings about Jared Loughner for the past three years, I have a huge problem with shutting down Congress over this.

It sends the wrong message.

On October 12, 1984, Margaret Thatcher was headlining the annual conservative conference in Brighton.  While the workaholic Iron Lady was preparing documents at 2 a.m. for business at the conference the next day, a bomb went off in the hotel.  Luckily, Margaret Thatcher and her husband had been moved to another room earlier in the day.  Nevertheless, many were killed and injured.  Mrs. Thatcher was immediately treated and examined for light injuries sustained and went to the police station. 

Almost immediately, the media and others speculated whether or not the conference would remain scheduled.  Upon exiting the police station, Lady Thatcher made her first statement to the media:

You hear about these atrocities, these bombs, you never expect them to happen to you.  But life must go on, as usual.

She also added that her conference would not be cancelled and would continue to go on “as usual” she said sternly.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXTJ6g3no5M&feature=related]

The next day with very little sleep, Mrs. Thatcher kept her committment and arrived to the conference.  She not only defied the wishes of the bomber, she also showed up on time and said:

The fact that we are gathered here today, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

Lady Thatcher wasn’t showing cruelty to the victims who lost their lives.  As a leader of a nation, she had to resume business as usual to let the enemies of civilization and freedom know that she and her people in majority were in control and their rights to freedom and political process would not end. 

Similarly, as a political leader, John Boehner made a very decent and honorable statement in honor of Congresswoman Giffords.  Now, members of the media at the Washington Post are questioning his sincerity because he did not cry when he made the statement and also thought it was wrong for him to point out the fact that public servants of all levels were and always will be at some risk, but it was no reason to be deterred from doing their jobs.

Perhaps someone should tell the writer, Courtland Milloy, that we are supposed to learning a lesson about political rhetoric from this.

To reassure you, the shooting made us all sad, Mr. Milloy.  But on Saturday, I had to stay at my office anyway.  I had to get our income tax software ready for our filing season.  I had to make sure my files were cleaned out ready to be filled with new paperwork.  I had to organize my desk and clean out my drawers.  Then on Sunday, I had to go back.  Monday, I had to work and meet with clients.  Today, I had to go to a tax seminar to further prepare for my work that is vastly approaching.

Similarly, Congress should not be shutting down over this.  The best way to let lunatics like Loughner know that the only thing their potential dangerous violence is going to get them is a one-way ticket to the electric chair is to not allow our daily lives to be changed.  The world keeps on turning and “life must go on as usual.”

Joy Behar and other liberals — obviously ignoring Sheriff Dumbnik’s warning of political rhetoric — responded to Boehner by calling him “Boner” (the same party who created the term “teabagger”) — and somehow turning his promise to the people who elected the new Congress that they would indeed proceed with their promise to begin doing what we sent them there to do into an act of hate.  It makes you wonder who decides what political rhetoric is.  It also makes you wonder what “hate” is.

I have faith in the American people that they understand the bigger picture.  Boehner reserves his tears for moments of triumph.  When we overcome obstacles and tragedies and evils and plow through it in a way that only American exceptionalism can guarantee.

It seems to me that the people blaming Sarah Palin, criticizing Boehner, and everyone else on the right are the ones spreading the hate now.  It also seems to me that they reserve their tears in a sad effort to exploit tragedies to argue for bigger government and more infringements on our freedoms and liberties.

Americans are learning and we won’t forget.  But one thing remains true: “life must go on, as usual!”

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

As 2010 comes to a close, we can look back at the last two years of the Obama administration and huge Democrat majorities in Congress, and sort out the good, the bad, and the ugly. Part of that look back will include the lame duck session, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) – a policy put in place 17 years ago by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. The opinions of most Americans on the DADT policy can be classified into four distinct views:

Many people, a significant majority in fact, oppose DADT and support gays and lesbians serving openly in our military. Some Americans disagree with this viewpoint for many different reasons – some of which are valid. Of those who wish to see DADT go away, some would like to see it repealed immediately, while others believe we should go to great lengths to ensure that military readiness and efficiency is not compromised. On the other side of the issue, there are people who believe DADT is a good compromise which allows gays to serve, while protecting the military from political correctness and the liberal gay agenda. The fourth view is outright opposition, harkening back to a time when homosexuals were actively rooted out of the military. Those who hold this view are somewhat rare, but they exist nonetheless.

Repeal DADT Now!

The loudest voice for repeal comes from those on the far left, including the Gay Left and the myriad of organizations that encompass them. These are people who generally oppose military action abroad, support deep budget cuts within the Department of Defense, and the defunding of several aspects of our military apparatus. It seems counter-intuitive that these people would be so concerned with what goes on inside the military, but they do so under the umbrella of equal rights and equal treatment under the law. While their efforts seem noble, they often discount legitimate concerns offering few real solutions to the inevitable challenges repeal would naturally produce. Their hearts may be in the right place, but very little thought goes into the logistics behind repeal, mainly because they do not fully understand how the military works, or how these challenges may manifest themselves.

Repeal DADT – Responsibly

I am one of the many people who believe DADT should be repealed, simply because all Americans should be allowed to serve – and risk their lives – for our country, so long as they meet the physical requirements of the job and follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It seems as though a majority of Americans fall into this category, feeling that the policy should be repealed responsibly, as we are in the middle of a two-front war, and a global fight against terrorism. While the definition of “responsibly” differs from person to person, it generally includes waiting until combat operations cease in Iraq and Afghanistan, or ensuring that military readiness is not impacted by repeal. I favor the latter. These people understand that repealing DADT will be an enormous undertaking by the military, and do not want to see one mission or one soldier’s safety compromised by a hasty decision or poor timing.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is Working

There are those that believe DADT is a good policy, and should remain in effect as it is. There are many people in this group who have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep the policy in place, such as navigating the logistical nightmare of living arrangements and battlefield hygiene as just two examples. Other issues brought forward by this group, such as working alongside gay soldiers and keeping sexuality out of the military – which I will address shortly – may have been blown out of proportion and over-politicized.

“God Hates Fags”

The final group is a small, but boisterous, segment of the population. By now, almost everyone who watches the news has seen images of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) protesting military funerals, and unleashing a unhealthy amount of anti-gay propaganda in the process. According to their website, which is actually www.godhatesfags.com, the WBC admits to engaging in 44,819 pickets in 816 cities, even employing children in their horrific displays which include signs bearing slogans such as “Pray for more dead soldiers,” “Thank God for Sept. 11,” and “God Hates Fag Enablers.” These people, of course, are on the extreme end of the spectrum, but I use them as an example to illustrate that there is real bigotry out there, and it should not be tolerated. These actions are neither Christian nor do they represent the intentions of our founding fathers, who valued personal freedom, and our Constitution which guarantees it. Those who have an intense dislike of homosexuals believe that homosexuality and the military are incompatible. They support a return to the 1981 Department of Defense policy, in which gays were flat-out banned from serving. There are many valid arguments against repealing DADT, especially during wartime, but hating gays isn’t one of them.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

For some, this issue is seen as a battle against the “homosexual agenda.” For others DADT is seen as a partisan issue, and victory over pro-repeal Democrats and President Obama is of utmost importance. In speaking publicly about this issue over the last year, I’ve heard some interesting arguments both for – and against – repeal. Most of the arguments for repeal are based on what people perceive as a “right” to serve in our military. No such right exists. Our military is the most formidable fighting force on our planet, a fact that has kept us safe from foreign aggressors, and helped ensure tranquility and prosperity here at home. The military has always decided who can and cannot serve, with help from its Commander-in-Chief – our president. We could pretend that repealing DADT will create no challenges or conflicts, but we would be deluding ourselves in a dangerous way. While our military is extremely professional, and it has overseen racial integration and the inclusion of women, it did so for the most part during peacetime – and still faced challenges.

Troop morale, unit cohesion, the ability to conduct successful missions, and the safety of our troops – both gay and straight – should be our top priority, and that of our government. With that said, a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that nearly 17,000 men and women were discharged for homosexuality during the 1980s, and another 14,000 were discharged under DADT since 1993. Together that’s 31,000 service personnel – about 2% of our Armed Forces – with whom we have invested time and money in training, discharged from the military. That number includes good soldiers, officers, career veterans, and those trained in Arabic, many of whom were guilty of simply being gay.

The comfort level of serving alongside gay men and women is one legitimate concern, but the Pentagon’s own DADT study seems to have put that to rest. Of the roughly 400,000 military members and spouses surveyed, only 29% cared enough to respond, and 70% of those believe that repeal would have a positive impact or no impact at all. Of those who responded saying that they already believed someone they worked with or served with was gay, 92% said it was a positive experience. This seems to show that those currently serving will do just fine with DADT repeal. However, there are other issues which require greater examination.

Some believe there is no place for sexuality in the military. This is an argument I’ve heard often, especially from conservatives, yet it confuses me greatly. Clearly there is plenty of heterosexuality in the military. Men frequently talk about “hot chicks” and other things of a more sexual nature not fit for publishing here, yet no one advocates for a DADT policy for straight soldiers. It seems as though these opponents do not understand the meaning of “openly gay.” There is a clear difference between “being gay” and “engaging in homosexual acts.” For example, if a soldier is an orthodox Jew, he is allowed to serve as openly Jewish – meaning that he does not have to hide or lie about it. However, the military prohibits soldiers from wearing non-military issue hats while on duty, which prevents the orthodox Jewish man from wearing a yarmulke. If the Jewish soldier refused to follow the UCMJ and wore a yarmulke every day, he would be reprimanded, punished, or possibly discharged if he refused to comply.

The most relevant arguments I’ve heard against repeal have to do with the logistics involved in living arrangements, showers, battlefield hygiene, and personal conflicts. Currently, men and women have separate accommodations, for obvious reasons, but how do you add gays into the mix? When President Truman desegregated the military, a large majority of Americans were against it, and many white service members wanted nothing to do with black soldiers. There are stories of race riots on Navy warships during the Vietnam War, and sexual assault is an “epidemic” according to the GAO. Surely these are not reasons to ban straight white men from the military, and neither should they be reasons to ban blacks, women or gays.

The ultimate lesson from all of this is that implementation of repeal should lie in the hands of those in charge of our military. Even though Congress has passed repeal, and the president has signed it, it must be approved in writing by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, followed by a 60-day waiting period, before it takes effect. This allows the military time to carefully implement repeal. This is preferable to having repeal pass through the courts. In the meantime, as everyone in our military honors their duty and follows the law, we will undoubtedly hear from those outside the military with an opinion on this highly emotional issue. Some are already insulting members of the military by insinuating that they cannot rise above sexual orientation and do their jobs professionally. Others are urging soldiers to quit the military, and urging parents to discourage their children from seeking military service. On the other hand, some institutes of higher learning like Yale and Columbia are reconsidering ROTC programs because they will no longer create a conflict with their non-discrimination policies.

In the end, DADT will soon be a thing of the past. Gay service members can now return to duty to fulfill the remainder of their contracts. Will they? Who knows, as many believe DADT had become a way out of the military for some. Either way, it is the right thing to do. This is America, and in this country we are supposed to believe that “who you are” is more important than “what you are.” As Barry Goldwater famously said, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.” No one today would suggest that African-Americans be removed from the military, and it is my hope that decades from now, the same can be said for our gay soldiers.

A Good Start On Congressional Spending

Good news in the House when it comes to earmarks…

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is supporting fiscal conservative Rep. Jeff Flake’s bid to join the Appropriations Committee. 

In a bow to fiscal conservatives, Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday he would support Flake’s effort to join Appropriations. 

“I support Congressman Jeff Flake in his effort to be appointed to serve on the Appropriations Committee, and I join with incoming Majority Leader Cantor in expressing hope that other reform-minded Members of Congress will follow Jeff’s example in seeking appointment to the committee,” Boehner said Monday in a statement.

Flake and other fiscal conservatives have sought to aggressively cut spending in the next Congress and end practices like earmarks, on which the House and Senate GOP have adopted a voluntary moratorium. Flake’s appointment to the Appropriations panel would be seen as a major tidal change for the committee.

Boehner, himself, doesn’t do earmarks.  And the GOP leadership in the House and Senate has vowed to take on earmarks.  Whiny little grassroots folks like us are constantly reminded by establishment Republicans, Democrats and their MSM consorts that Congressional earmarks account for so very little in the grand scheme of federal spending.  But we all know it’s a good step forward to eliminate them. 

Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake’s appointment to the Appropriations Committee is excellent news that signals the House GOP leadership is serious about this battle.

Black Republican Answers Obama

I’ll bet you didn’t know these tidbits:  1) 32 Black Republicans ran for Congressional office in the 2010 primaries, 2) 14 Black Republicans are now contesting Democrats for Congressional seats in the 2010 general election.

There are 3 Black Republicans who are well-situated to win their races.  The candidate most assured of a seat is Tim Scott who is running for a House seat in South Carolina.  I appreciated this article from theLondon Daily Telegraph – that’s London, England.

Campaigning a few miles from Fort Sumter, where the first shots of the Civil War were fired in 1861, Tim Scott described last week how he was born into poverty and a broken home, much like Barack Obama…..

But the conclusions that Scott, 45, drew were very different from those of Obama. When he was 15, a man who ran a Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant taught him “that there was a way to think my way out of the worst conditions”. Scott went on to became a small businessman and a proud “conservative Republican”.

Barring a cataclysmic upset, Scott will be elected to Congress on November 2nd. There, he will be a ferocious opponent of Obama, to whom he gives a withering “failing grade” for his presidency.

What I really love is the Telegraph’s commentary on Obama.  I had to do a double-take to make sure that the words weren’t a quote from Scott.  I’m so accustomed to the left-wing tripe from the American MSM, that this was a total shock.

Rather than ushering in a post-racial era, Obama’s election to the White House appears to have intensified racial divisions in America. This is not, as the Left asserts, because Right-wing opponents are full of white-hooded bigots who refuse to accept a black man as President. Obama’s own strange myopia on race has played a big part.

This article is too great to miss.  Be sure to read it in its totality.  The Telegraph levels a charge that the GOP has “ceded black votes to the Democrats and failed to recruit candidates like Scott to winnable congressional seats.”  And I don’t disagree with that for one moment.

While most of us would consider it self-evident that GOP values agree strongly with the traditional values of the black and hispanic communities, we must also realize that the effort to highlight those areas of agreement has been neglected by the GOP.  Republican presidents have nominated women, blacks and hispanics to the Supreme Court and have appointed them to their cabinets.  But the presence of minority GOP members of Congress has been lacking.

The obvious reason for this is that their vocal leadership and Democrat elites have convinced minority voters that the Democrat Party is the only vehicle to secure their interests.  The GOP’s failure to counteract that false message is a travesty at best and a total disservice to be sure.

If Scott is the only black Republican on Capitol Hill in 2011, he will be all too easily marginalised and treated as a curiosity. That would be a shame because he has some interesting views on cutting the deficit and shrinking government.

“I’ve been black for a long time,” Scott says wearily whenever he is asked about race. He wants to be judged on his character and policies rather than the colour of his skin. At Fort Dorchester, encouragingly enough, not one pupil asked Scott about race or why a black man would be a Republican.

Obama made history by winning the White House. But it will take the likes of Scott to break down the racial barriers in America that the first black president has been content to leave in place.

One last note – there are 3 races where Black Republicans look poised to take a Congressional seat.  Aside from Scott, there is Allen West in Florida and Ryan Frazier in Colorado.  But there are other candidates with a chance.  One of my favorites is Rev. Stephen Broden, who is trying to upend scandal-ridden Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas.  He was actually endorsed by the Dallas Morning News (who had repeatedly endorsed Johnson) over the 12-term incumbent. Visit Broden’s website and donate at http://www.brodenforcongress.com/

Common Sense Conservatism: The Size of Government

Conservatives, including Republicans and Libertarians, believe in small government. But how many Americans truly understand what that means? Many Liberals point to our support of smaller government, and say that conservatives are against any and all government aid to those less fortunate among us. The fact is the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government limited powers, and they routinely overstep their authority at our expense. The Constitution clearly states that any rights and responsibilities not expressly given to the federal government, fall to the states and to the people. Over the years, the federal government has put its hands in just about everything – all paid for by us. Regardless of political ideology, the growth of government produces costly and inefficient government, constantly at odds with our definition of freedom.

Let’s play a game. I want you to think of a number – the amount of money you spend on stamps each year to send mail through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). If you’re like me you’ve switched to online banking and other technologically efficient methods of paying bills, but even I use snail mail 4-5 times per month. At 44 cents per stamp that’s around $25/year, give or take.

Have you figured out your number? Great, now I’d like you to increase it by $26.81. Of course you may be asking why your total is $26.81 higher for no reason, and I’m glad you asked. That’s the amount of DEBT the U.S. Postal Service incurred last year, per taxpayer. So if you’re a tax payer who mails 4-5 letters per month, you’re actually paying 88 cents per stamp instead of 44. The USPS has actually accrued $11.8 billion in debt over the past three years. Too bad there’s a law preventing competition with the Post Office. Welcome to big government.

Have you ever taken a ride on an Amtrak train? If you haven’t, you’re really missing out! Amtrak offers rail service to millions of Americans nationwide, complete with rundown equipment, surly conductors and consistently late arrivals. Just the level of efficiency you’d expect from a government-run outfit. One thing you may not know is that Amtrak is in debt, costing taxpayers an astounding $32 every time a passenger boards a train. That’s right! Amtrak costs the government, meaning you, $32 per passenger in subsidies. Pretty crazy, huh? Well, you didn’t think incompetence was cheap, did you? The most alarming example of this incompetence is the $462 in subsidies per passenger on the Sunset Limited route from New Orleans to Los Angeles. Tickets for this route are several hundred dollars even with the government subsidy, and 72,000 passengers use it per year! Has anyone ever heard of Southwest Airlines? $304 round-trip, no cost to tax payers!

By now everyone has heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) had a very large role in our current economic woes. In 1977, Democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act, designed to increase lending from banks to low-income people in their community. Home ownership was at 63% in 1993 and by the end of the Clinton administration it had increased to 68%. According to the American Spectator, the New York Times “reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers.” Many of these home-buyers could not afford monthly payments unless they were given extremely low interest rates, thus the Adjustable Rate Mortgage was the perfect solution. With low introductory rates, buyers could afford monthly payments. Even though they were told their rates could go up, that was an afterthought to having their own home. When those rates did go up, the payments were no longer affordable, and people began to default. These mortgages were then traded on the open market as mortgage-backed securities – only as good as the mortgages themselves. Thus when the mortgages were defaulted on, widespread financial turmoil ensued as many banks, financial institutions, hedge funds and 401k plans invested in them.

In mid-2008, before the economic collapse, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally sound. He said they were good long-term investments. These two GSEs owned almost half of all mortgages, and when those loans started going belly-up, so did our economy. Barney Frank then co-authored the new Financial Reform Bill which was passed into law, giving the government unprecedented control over the financial industry – and it doesn’t cover Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac! How much sense does that make? Now Congress is considering a bailout for these two mortgage giants. It’s a wonder Barney Frank still has a job.

When I was a little kid I remember commercials advocating for healthy eating habits. They talked about the four food groups and the importance of fruit and vegetables. There was even one with a horse that brushed his teeth to avoid gingivitis. I can’t imagine ever having a problem with the government advocating for healthy eating habits or good hygiene. However, today our government no longer wants to be an advocate, they want to be the enforcer. A segment of the big government crowd wants to ban trans-fats and sodium from the food we eat, remove toys from kid’s meals, and tax unhealthy food like soda and candy.

I won’t sit here and pretend that trans-fats are healthy, or that high sodium makes for a good dietary choice. But is it the government’s role to prevent us from making our own decisions? Don’t I have the freedom to choose between a KFC combo meal and an all-organic salad bar meal from Whole Foods? What problems are solved by legislating healthy choices? Is it the toy in the Happy Meal that is harmful to children? Or is it the fact that parents choose a McDonald’s Drive-thru over cooking an actual meal? How about this made-up headline: “Toys banned in Happy Meals; Calories decrease by zero.” Meanwhile, if I want to choose some heart-healthy pomegranate juice over a soda I pay three times as much! The government should be an advocate, not an enforcer. It doesn’t have the right.

The government is even involved in the cars we buy. CAFE standards are designed to increase average MPG among car companies, resulting in increased cost for vehicles and making it harder for car companies to turn a profit. Those costs, combined with unrealistic compensation packages for their union employees, led to a collapse of Ford, GM and Chrysler and costing thousands of American jobs in the Rust Belt. Furthermore, these standards have forced automakers to produce far lighter vehicles (about 500lbs lighter), which result in a 1.1% increase in fatalities per 100lb decrease in vehicle weight, and a 1.6% increase in serious or moderate injuries per 100 lb decrease in vehicle weight. The government’s own National Highway Traffic Safety Administration admits that the doubling of fuel efficiency between 1975 and 1985 resulted in average weight being reduced by 1,000 lbs, causing 2,000 additional deaths and 20,000 additional serious or moderate injuries. Where’s the outrage? Not only has CAFE been disastrous for Americans who get into accidents, but it has done NOTHING to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, as it has increased from 35% to 50% since CAFE was implemented. Furthermore, penalties incurred by car manufacturers for failing to meet these standards are passed on to consumers. According to the NHSTA, this has amounted to $654 million since 1983.

President Obama’s stimulus package cost more than the entire Iraq War, and failed. His trillion-dollar health care reform law doesn’t do a single thing to control health care costs, instead premiums are going up all over the country. His Cap and Trade bill threatens to kill manufacturer jobs, sending more U.S. companies overseas to escape oppressive regulations and financial penalties simply for existing. The government continually oversteps its bounds and sends us the bill. The list of unfunded mandates passed onto the states is too long to list. Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act are just a few policies passed by the federal government, with the insurmountable cost hoisted onto the backs of individual states that are going bankrupt under their weight.

When it comes to the actual responsibilities of the federal government, it has a spotty record. The government has failed to secure our borders and deal with illegal immigration, yet it sued Arizona when the state tried to make up for the government’s negligence.

When the 13 colony-states established the federal government it limited its powers, to avoid the very situation they escaped from in England. Each state was supposed to retain its autonomy on matters that were not of national concern. Conservatives believe in this arrangement as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government shouldn’t tell us which light bulbs to buy or what to eat, nor should it tell us who we can and cannot enter into a relationship with. It shouldn’t take our money for programs and services that it has no right to create, nor should it tell private industry how to run a business. The larger government becomes, the smaller the individual is.

So here we are approaching the 2010 midterm elections. Democrats are in trouble, because they haven’t been listening to the American people. They’re in trouble because they’ve continued to grow the size of the federal government at a time when our country is already $14 trillion in debt. Democrats aren’t afraid of running out of money, because they can simply raise our taxes. They’ve even managed to convince some people that taxes are necessary in order to continue providing goods and services. But increasing taxes on those of us who still have jobs, or on businesses that are still open, does nothing to fix our economy and put people back to work. It only serves to keep the government from realizing it needs to STOP!

Small government principles are good for everyone. Keep government small. Keep it out of our lives. Keep it out of our pockets. The solution to our problems isn’t higher taxes, it’s less spending; it isn’t bigger government, it is smaller government; and it isn’t government in every aspect of our lives – it’s FREEDOM.