Loved this video and proud to have it on my blog.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you liked this blog please share it. Thank you.
The more I look, the More I like Mitt.
Our next President?
I thought (and wrote) that the Washington Republican caucuses for President of the United States would come and go this March 3rd with a GOP nomination fully secured for Mitt Romney and that my choice would be largely irrelevant. My home state rendered largely irrelevant again. And while I still think Romney will win the Republican nomination to take on Barrack Obama, I’m less sure. Newt Gingrich‘s win in South Carolina and his surge in national polls, irregardless of Florida, have me thinking I must take a stand, make a choice, and help my choice win.
While I’m not ALL there yet, I do like Mitt Romney more and more. I like Newt Gingrich too. And for the record I increasingly like Rick Santorum. But I’m probably going to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor.
Newt’s bombast is not a turn off for me the way it is for so many others. I was raised with a strong and often angry father, who yelled and was not afraid to show that he was upset. So I’m quite used to this character trait of Gingrich that turns off too many people and will probably be his undoing in the remaining nominating contests. I like Newt’s big ideas, and I like that he pisses off mainstream politicians of both parties. Wouldn’t you agree that going away from the politicians of Washington D.C. is not a negative?
But I said a couple of years ago that I’m not a one issue voter, but if I were, the one issue that is most important to me is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So much of what challenges us as Americans today is completely wrapped up in this one issue: race relations, jobs, drugs, terrorism. We absolutely must secure our borders. As best I can tell Mitt Romney comes the closest to my views on this subject than any of the remaining candidates. For instance, I do agree with him that if you make it nearly impossible for illegals to get jobs, and you remove so many of the other magnets that draw these people to illegally cross our borders many will return to their own homes. Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stay if they can’t feed themselves or their families.
And as a side note, don’t believe Barrack Obama for a second when he positions himself as tough on this subject. In the State of the Union he claimed there were fewer illegal border crossings now than there had been in years. True or not that has nearly nothing to do with anything he or his administration have done. It has more to do with the economy. Why illegally come to the U.S. now? There are no jobs to be had (which further advances Romney’s assertion that no jobs means they will go home).
Secondly, I like Romney’s plans to waive the Capital Gains tax for those making under $200,000. This idea was panned when it was first introduced. Romney’s opponents claiming that such a tax is not paid by people making under $2ook, but instead by people like him. Wrong! I know. I’ve had to pay this tax and I didn’t like it one bit. I wrote a check to the Federal Government for $12,000 after selling my families first home, which we had moved from and kept as a rental for 7 years. The threat of having to pay it again was the primary reason we sold our second house after keeping it as a rental for nearly 3 years. It is a disincentive tax for me and for many other potential investors. I think less-so for those with higher incomes.
Eventually I’d like to see the high-end Capital Gains tax equal the high-end income tax rate. Because it is wrong for wealthy people to pay a much smaller rate than what the rest of us pay. And since they make a large majority of their income through capital gains rather than through salary, naturally they will pay the lower tax rate. When Ronald Reagan reformed taxes in 1986 he agreed with Democrats to make the Capital Gains tax rate 28%, equal to the highest income tax rate. Like Gingrich has said, I’d rather see the income tax lower and expanded to more people than raise the level of the Capital Gains tax rate.
Lastly, if you consider the only negatives on Romney are that he is wealthy and that he is a “flip-flopper”, you really seriously need to re-examine your priorities. After all when making an argument isn’t the idea to bring people to your way of thinking? And for Conservative Pro-Lifers hasn’t Mitt Romney come toward your way of thinking? Isn’t that a good thing?
So those are my reasons. My mind could change. But for now I’m with Mitt. What are your reasons? Who do you support and why?
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
If you find this blog interesting I would be honored if you would share it. TY.
Related articles
- GOP Erasing District of Tea Party Star (newser.com)
- US election 2012: Mitt Romney surges to double-digit lead in Florida (telegraph.co.uk)
- And more polls with Romney leads: PPP: Romney +7; InsiderAdvantage: Romney +5 (tampabay.com)
- Letter: What a contrast between upright Romney and discredited Gingrich (tcpalm.com)
Economics for the Long Run- Wall Street Journal
President Ronald Reagan
In this short article by Stanford Economics professor and senior fellow John Taylor it’s correctly pointed out that continuous short-term government intervention in the economy produces more bad than good, no matter the intentions, and no matter what party is in the White House. These policies have been most effectively and dramatically illustrated by Ronald Reagan, and continued with Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166842399752720.html
Not mentioned in the article is that these hands-off principles originally were put forth a long time ago by 18th Century Economist Adam Smith in his seminal book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, better known as “The Wealth of Nations”.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
Please Share this blog if you find it interesting; others may as well.
Related articles
- Ronald Reagan Weighs In On Bain Attacks (riehlworldview.com)
- Fearing Gingrich, Both Sides Say He’s Unelectable (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- State Of The Union: A President Who Finally Has The Wind At His Back (themoderatevoice.com)
The Republican I will vote for is…?
Who we gonna pick
It’s getting down to crunch time and I haven’t fully determined in my mind who it is I would vote for in the GOP race for President of the United States. By crunch time I mean…weaker ineffectual campaigns are getting crunched and eliminated from even appearing on the ballots of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and they are dropping out. In my case I can’t actually vote for a candidate until March 3rd when Washington State has its caucuses and by then it’s not likely to be a contest at all. But since my decision has never been fully made I thought I would ruminate about the remaining five candidates.
Let’s start with who I won’t vote for.
Crazy Ron Paul
I won’t vote for Ron Paul. The Congressman from Texas last night during the South Carolina debate looked every bit the crack pot that I’ve maintained he is for four years. His foreign policy is a dangerous joke. And what is really offensive is the fact that his ardent followers have actually compared Paul to Jesus. I’m not making this up. I’ve seen it on Facebook. If by some miraculous disaster Paul actually did win the Republican nomination I would have to vote for Barrack Obama.
When Governor Rick Perrymade his late entrance into the field of Presidential hopefuls I was very enthusiastic and hopeful.
Perry came in too late.
His long record of success in Texas and his strong Christian beliefs had me thinking he could really be something special as President. But unfortunately he got such a late start in the race that he was clearly unprepared and overwhelmed at first. He has clearly improved his debate performances. Last night I thought he was terrific at articulating some strong Conservative ideas, and he didn’t look like a moron when he went after Mitt Romney about release of his tax records. His early gaffes I think I can comfortably say can be attributed to lack of preparedness. And in a way there is something endearing about the fact that Perry hadn’t been thinking he would run for President for years like some (Romney); and as such his entrance to the race, later than any of the candidates we’ve seen these last 7-8 months, left him flat-footed and ill prepared. Alas, it’s all gonna be moot soon. I strongly suspect Perry will drop out of the race following Saturday’s primary in South Carolina; as he probably should for the good of the party and the Conservative movement.
Mitt Romney
That leaves Senator Rick Santorum, Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Governor Mitt Romney. I could happily vote for any of the three. I think Romney will win the nomination. I don’t believe Santorum can hang on for much longer, perhaps dropping out after Florida at the end of the month. Money being what it is. I think Gingrich will stick around for a good while primarily because he seems to have a multi-billionaire sugar-daddy who will keep feeding his Super PAC money. But by the time March 3rd and Washington’s caucus comes around…Gingrich may be gone at worst or completely ineffectual at best.
So ultimately I don’t think I’ll have to decide. I think the decision for me and most of the rest of the country will be decided no later than the Nevada caucuses on February 4th. Nevada has a strong Mormon population and Romney is expected to win there handily. Certainly we’ll have no doubt come this year’s Super Tuesday elections March 6th when 10 states have primaries or caucuses. And if I’m right, and I am, and Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee and it will be firmly determined that he is by February 4th and at that point only 5 of our fifty states will have voted…how sad is that?
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
Related articles
- Huntsman to quit U.S. presidential race: campaign (vancouversun.com)
- New Polls Bring Good News for Romney: Mixed News for Obama (themoderatevoice.com)
- Rick Santorum, the Conservative Consensus Candidate: Or Is He? (ibtimes.com)
- Analysis: Romney’s rivals have little time in SC (troyrecord.com)
- GOP rivals assail Romney in S. Carolina debate (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
No to Gay Marriage. Where’s the Discrimination?
The seal of the State of Washington
So Washington State Governor
Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire
Christine Gregoire wants to make our state the seventh in the national to make same-sex marriage legal. Well zippity-do-dah. As if Washington state had slipped far enough off the proverbial liberal cliff already. Now we want to put ourselves in the same category as New York, Massachusetts and the politicians and judges in California. I say the politicians and judges of California because the good people of the Golden State have had the good sense to vote FOUR TIMES to disallow Gay Marriage.
Lesbian wedding cake
I’m going to throw a bone to proponents of Gay Marriage. I don’t think there is any doubt that some who oppose Gay Marriage do so for purely hateful and discriminatory reasons. Some people hate gay people for reasons that fall pretty close to why they hate other types of people; because they’re “different”. However, I strongly believe that the most liberal wings of the Democratic party HATE all Conservatives and put just as much logic and reason into such feelings as the discriminatory gay bashers put into their thoughts.
And should any of our leaders do anything at all to placate either of these extremes? Absolutely not. Sadly, they do all the time. The expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”, comes to mind.
Most people oppose legalization of gay marriage. Constant opinion polls and ballot measures have said so repeatedly in the past 10-15 years…which is the only period of time in human history in which the matter was given any consideration whatsoever.
And while I am certain to receive comments and criticisms calling me a hater and homophobe and other colorful descriptions I’m not too worried about it. Speaking of expressions, there is one I heard when I was a child referencing sticks and stones that comes to mind. Because the proponents of gay marriage are so loud and visceral I realize I’m sticking my head in the lions mouth; but hoping, perhaps foolishly, that calm reason and debate can dominate this discussion.
My opposition to gay marriage has more to do with my political philosophy in general. The more government, the more laws the less liberty and freedom. And gay marriage creates more laws and restrictions than it eliminates in addressing a discrimination that does not exist.
I credit radio talk show host
Michael Medved
Michael Medved for sharpening my point of view on this gay marriage issue. Medved has correctly and repeatedly pointed out that when it comes to gays and lesbians wanting to marry someone of the same-sex as things stand right now THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION. ZERO!
Right now in most of this country a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman. No where does it say that “a GAY man cannot marry another man” or “a LESBIAN cannot marry another woman”. Meaning, a gay man can legally marry anyone that I can legally marry. I am heterosexual. I am married to a woman. Were I single I would be legally barred from marrying:
1. A minor
2. Anyone legally married to another
3. My mother, sister, or first cousin
4. Someone of the same-sex (in my case a man)
I CAN (if I weren’t already married) legally marry anyone else who doesn’t fall into those four categories. Any gay man can do the same. So I ask, where is the discrimination?
A society has a right to establish laws protecting our cumulative values. You can’t just dismiss the laws that prevent you from marrying some other people. It used to be legal for you to marry your first cousin. After divorcing my Mom’s father in 1942 my Grandmother married her first cousin. On at least one other occasion in my own family’s genealogy I found an instance of 1st cousins marrying (let the jokes begin. “That explains a lot”, etc, etc). And while I don’t recall finding instances of legalized minors marrying in my family history I do know of instances where someone as young as 16 was married. Most famously singer Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin; something that wasn’t terribly uncommon in the deep South as recently as the 1950s (age or 1st cousin). And of course bigamist marriages legally occurred with Mormons in this country in the 19th century, and still exist today, illegally. The point is gay people aren’t being discriminated against on this issue and there are plenty of examples of laws that DO prevent us from marrying some other people. And those laws apply to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation.
Also, as Presidential candidate
Newt Gingrich so adequately pointed out in last Saturday’s New Hampshire debate legalizing gay marriage creates, or expands, discrimination by our governments against many Christian churches. He correctly points out that the Catholic church in Massachusetts had to close down their adoption services because they wouldn’t allow adoption by same-sex couples. The Obama administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off Christian colleges and universities from any federal funding and research grants for opposing the gay agenda. The repercussions of legalizing gay marriage are enormous and go far beyond creating special rights for a small minority class of people.
Homosexuality and gay marriage are opposed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In only four other countries in the entire world is gay marriage legal. Canada is the only country in the Americas where it is legal.
And as Presidential candidate Mitt Romney
said in that same debate marriage between a man and a woman has been the ONLY standard by which humans have existed and grown for 3000 years. And we shouldn’t throw 3-thousand years of history out the window so cavalierly; especially when no discrimination exists.
Lastly in the interest of political fairness this isn’t just a GOP or Conservative issue. Democratic President Barrack Obama is on record as being opposed to gay marriage. Washington legislators or voters should say no to Gregoire’s proposal because ultimately this is not a state issue. It’s must be a Federal issue for the simple reason that we cannot have a couple, any couple, being legally married in one state and not so in another. Ultimately, baring a Constitutional Amendment, the Supreme Court will decide the matter.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.
Related articles
- Thousands of same-sex marriages performed in Canada may not be legal: report (news.nationalpost.com)
- Canadian Premier Denies Gay Marriage Reversal After Foreign Couple’s Divorce Limbo (huffingtonpost.com)
- Feds say thousands of gay marriages done in Canada not legal: Report (theprovince.com)
- Washington Attorney General: Residents Should Vote On Gay Marriage Rights (thinkprogress.org)
- AP: Gay marriage within reach in Wash. Legislature (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Roman Catholic Silence In Washington (lezgetreal.com)
M Schuett blah blah blah 