Take Our Country Back!

This is a Tax Freedom Day Rally speech from April 15, 2012 in Medford, Oregon.

Advertisements
Published in: on April 16, 2012 at 10:35 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

There are Worse Things than McCain — Really!

OK, McCain it is. I’m not happy. You’re probably not either. I don’t know who all these “Republicans” are who are voting for him in the primaries, because I’m not aware of one person who likes him. But, be that as it may, the RINOs have spoken and McCain is going to be the Republican candidate. What do we do now?

The pragmatists will weigh the pros and cons and decide which candidate will do less harm to the country. The petulants will go home and sulk, and either not vote at all or throw away their vote on a third party candidate. The punitives will actually cross over and give aid and comfort to the enemy in our country’s time of crisis, and cast their vote for the Democrats out of spite.

From a pragmatist perspective, what are the key issues? The economy, the war, immigration, healthcare, and Supreme Court appointments are probably the most important.

The economy is a big one, because there’s a fundamental philosophical difference in the way Republicans and Democrats address the problem. Republicans believe in fixing the economy by cutting taxes to stimulate growth. Democrats believe the way to fix the economy is by raising taxes and redistributing the wealth. Which do you prefer? 

  •  McCain’s plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts, create more tax cuts for middle class families, make the current low capital gains and dividends tax rates permanent, and require a 60% majority in Congress to raise taxes in the future. He’ll also cut government programs that don’t work, earmarks, subsidies, and pork barrel spending.
  • Mrs. Clinton’s plan is to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, raise capital gains and dividends taxes back to their previous levels, spend $10 billion dollars on extending and broadening unemployment entitlements, hand over $25 billion to low/no income families for “emergency energy assistance,” establish a $30 billion emergency housing fund, and put a five-year rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages.

The war is another big one. Would you rather we fight it over there or over here?

  • McCain fully supports doing whatever is necessary to prosecute the war to the finish. He has consistently supported it from the start, and was an early proponent of the increase in troops.
  • Mrs. Clinton and Obama both supported the Iraq spending bill that would have brought most of our troops home by next month. Mrs. Clinton has promised that, if elected, she’ll bring all the troops home within two years. Obama promises to do it in one. Then we can fight the terrorists on our own soil. That ought to be fun.

On immigration, it’s a wash. They all supported the same immigration bill. Yes, McCain was a sponsor of it, but it’s the one thing on which they all agree, so there’s no win here.

On healthcare, we all know what Mrs. Clinton’s plan is.

  • Mrs. Clinton wants to legislate that everybody has to buy health insurance. For those who can’t afford it, she’ll just take the money out the rest of our pockets to make up the difference.
  • McCain opposes mandatory universal healthcare coverage.

There are likely to be three Supreme Court Justice appointments during the next administration.

  • McCain is a strict constructionist.
  • Mrs. Clinton would pack the court with liberal judges who believe we all need to be protected from ourselves more than we do from criminals and, like children, we can’t be trusted with firearms. (It’s kind of hard to defend yourself in an emergency with a trigger lock on your gun, but Mrs. Clinton thinks it’s necessary so we don’t accidentally shoot ourselves.)

There’s another consideration for the pragmatists. The president appoints the heads of a lot of federal agencies. If we have a Republican (or even a RINO) in the White House, these federal agencies are going to be run by Republicans. If we elect the Clintons or Obama, they’ll be run by socialists. Remember, it’s not just the president you’re voting for, it’s the party, too. 

Question of the day: If McCain were to choose Fred Thompson as his running mate, would that change your mind?


Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to del.icio.us

What’s the Opposite of a RINO?

If a RINO is a Republican in name only, the opposite is someone with traditional conservative values who doesn’t identify as a Republican. Who are these people? Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Independents, and even conservatives who’ve given up on the system and no longer register to vote. My esteemed friend, the Sidewinder, refers to them as apostate Republicans. Most of them wouldn’t be caught dead voting for a Democrat but, for whatever reason, they’re disenfranchised from the Republican party. Some of them quixotically vote for third party candidates. Others, more cynical, don’t vote at all.

Why should Republicans care? After all, these apostates are not true believers. If they did come uninvited to the party, they’d no doubt be disparaged as RINOs. But can the party really afford to be so exclusive? Apostates though they may be, they’re also voters, or at least potential voters, and their numbers are inexorably increasing while mainstream Republicans are on the decline. (Look at the results of the last election, and consider the consequences if that happens again.)

I’m not advocating voting for RINOs, when there are true conservative options. But the last thing the Republican party can afford is to drive the RINOs away. The party can’t continue to view itself as a members-only club, or a church of true believers, while the Democrats set themselves up as a populist block party, everybody welcome, with free food (and healthcare) for anyone who’d rather get something for free than work hard to earn something better.

There are still a lot of people who share the traditional values on which our country was founded. But many of them are drifting away from the Republican center of gravity, and it’s going to take a concerted effort to reach out and draw them in. It’s time to start focusing on what we all have in common, rather than what separates us.

I’m an apostate, myself. I’ve been a libertarian for 28 years (and no, I don’t support Ron Paul). But I’m registering Republican this year because I’m so disturbed by the Democrats’ misguided agenda, and so apprehensive that they will prevail, that I see a real need for conservatives of all persuasions to form a united front to defeat them.

I’m not particularly partial to any of the remaining Republican candidates, but I tend to favor Giuliani. He’s got the strongest position on the economy and on national security, and he has a record of getting things done. (Does anybody remember the 1976 movie Taxi Driver, when Travis Bickle, a New York cabbie, said “Someday a real rain will come, and wash all this scum off the streets?” Well, the real rain did come, and it was Rudy Giuliani.) But, at this point, I’ll support whichever one wins the nomination. An actual elephant would no doubt be best, but even a RINO is better than a donkey bearing a staggering socialist agenda.


Bookmark/Rate this post: Digg it Stumble It! add to del.icio.us
Published in: on January 27, 2008 at 11:01 pm  Comments (7)  
Tags: , ,

Chronology of Islamic Terrorism Against the U.S.

The Hydra was a mythical monster with the body of a snake and a hundred heads. Every time one of its heads was cut off, a new one grew in its place. The Islamic terrorist network, spread out across the world, is the modern day Hydra. It has many heads. And, any time you cut one off, a new one will soon replace it. But it’s funded by a small handful of very wealthy countries, who fund it through the proceeds from oil. We cannot kill the Hydra by cutting off its heads. The only way to kill it is to cut off its source of funding.

Ron Paul and the Democrats would have us believe that all we need do is go home, and the Jihadists will leave us alone. To me, that seems naive. Remember, the Islamic terrorists started this war by attacking us at home, on our own soil, killing several thousand civilians in our nation’s largest city and attacking our Pentagon. Before that, there was a whole series of escalating attacks spanning over two decades.

  • In 1979, fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage by Islamic terrorists who took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.
  • Between 1982-1991, ten Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon.
  • In 1983, a Hezbollah suicide bomber attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people.
  • Later that year, another suicide bomber attacked the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. marines and injuring over 100 more.
  • Terrorists also bombed the U.S. Embassy annex in Kuwait in 1983, killing six and injuring over 80 others.
  • In 1984, there was another suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut, killing 24 people.
  • Later that year, Hezbollah hijacked Kuwait Airways flight 221, and killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development when their demands to release the 17 terrorists who had bombed the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait were not met.
  • In 1985, Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847, first to Lebanon and then to Algiers, where they held the passengers hostage for 17 days. Again, they demanded the release of the terrorists who had bombed the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, and shot a U.S. Navy diver when their demands were not met.
  • Later that year, the PLO hijacked the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, and killed an American tourist when their demands for the release of PLO terrorists were not met.
  • In 1986, TWA flight 840 was bombed just before landing in Athens, Greece, killing four people who were sucked out of the hole caused by the explosion.
  • In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 from London to NY was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 passengers and 11 people on the ground.
  • In 1993, a Muslim sniper opened fire on the CIA complex in Langley, VA, killing two CIA employees and injuring three others.
  • That same year, a car bomb was planted in the garage under the World Trade Center.
  • In 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed five Americans.
  • In 1996, Hezbollah bombed the U.S. military complex in Riyadh, killing 19 Americans and injuring hundreds more.
  • In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the U.S. Embassies in both Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing a total of 223 people and injuring over 4,000.
  • In 2000, Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole harbored in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring 39.
  • In 2001, they destroyed the World Trade Center, killing 3,000 civilians, and attacked the U.S. Pentagon.

Our policy of turning the other cheek up until 9/11 only emboldened them. They kept escalating the violence until they hit us so hard we couldn’t ignore it. And they’re going to continue waging war on us, whether we fight back or not, until Allah grants them victory (as they’re confident he will). Ignoring them hasn’t worked in the past. Why would it work in the future?

Bringing our troops home before the job is done would result in bringing the war home with them. Is that really what America wants?


Rate this post: Digg it add to del.icio.us Stumble It!
Published in: on January 13, 2008 at 7:42 pm  Comments (26)  
Tags: , , ,