We Should Defend Our Borders

Remember when the latest Leftist panic was guns (again)? As I type this, the Left's panic-du-jour is "children separated from their parents" at the nation's borders. The Left is desperately pushing this panic with everything they have. This is probably an effort to derail momentum for border security (because the Left doesn't actually believe in national borders but will gladly use them to their advantage anyway) and distract from devastating things like the IG Report and Hearings.

Plenty of people generally not the Left have hopped onto this bandwagon, and understandably so. We can all agree it is sad that kids are placed in the position of being detained in a different location than their parents. It looks awful and it sounds awful. But how did things get this way?

It's really awful when a surgeon has to cut into somebody, especially a kid. It looks bad. It's going to cause a lot of pain. It would be great if the surgeon never had to do that. But the surgeon is reacting to events that were set in motion when someone assaulted someone else. Then the victim was brought to the surgeon, who has to deal with the mess with no perfect way forward that looks tidy and won't cause any pain.

What's really going on?

Without DACA Trump Will Eat Your Children!

We seem to be in a perpetual state of bad political theater, panics induced by the media-activist complex, in which each and every thing people think President Trump has done is treated like some outrage. Quite often, the objections are completely bogus or entirely partisan. Yesterday it was the bleating over DACA.

To make a long story short, DACA pertains to illegal aliens who were children when they came here, most brought by illegal alien parents. Many of them (contrary to what the mob says,  it is certainly not all) don't really know any other country as home other than the USA. That's squarely on the people who brought them here. Make no mistake about it. They are in this situation because of the people who sent or brought them here, not because of Trump. If they want to blame a politician, they should blame former President of Obama.

President Obama could have worked with his Democrat-controlled Congress to pass laws dealing with "dreamers", to give them some sort of permanent legal standing, but he didn't. Then in 2011, he correctly said it was something he couldn't do himself; Congress had to do it, because of the Constitutional separation of powers.

But in 2012 he did it himself anyway, prompting a flood of children to head for our border for a few years. It was a crises and Lord only knows how many children didn't make it or were severely abused along the way.

Obama knew damn well his unilateral Executive action was 1) unconstitutional, and 2) reversible by the next POTUS.

Most of the elected officials with their bluster in the media over the last couple of days know this, but they figure they'll rile people up anyway, and the usual activist groups are all too happy to put on a show. It's theater of the absurd. So many of these loudmouths are fakers or liars, if they're not completely ignorant of what's really going on.
It's really clear that states are going to get the courts to rule against DACA, striking it down as unconstitutional, so President Trump rightly decides to drop it and calls on Congress to pass legislation. This isn't some wild policy change, or some nefarious action. It is exactly what any President should've done. Any threat to sue President Trump over dropping DACA is an empty threat, unless someone can find a judge so bereft of integrity who is willing to issue a ruling that will be definitely be overturned.

President Trump did NOT announce that "dreamers" are going to be deported. They're all still here, you'll notice. He simply announced that he's not going to engage in the futile exercise of defending an unconstitutional order, which was supposed to be temporary anyway even according to Obama, that gives some illegal aliens privileges over others. That's it. You'd think from all of the whining that Trump had announced "dreamers" are going to be rounded up and tortured to death.

Hey, I get it. People were fleeing hellholes of corruption, crime, failed big government, and poverty and felt like they didn't have time to waste, so rather than dealing with the hassles of our legal immigration system, people came here or sent their kids here, and so you have these people who came here as kids because they didn't have a choice in the matter and are now adults with "illegal alien" status, and most of them have been socialized as Americans, and they want to go to school here, work here, etc. and being illegal aliens makes that problematic, and especially if they have to go back to their country of origin (which is unlikely unless they've been really bad criminals), it'll be a real mess for them. I understand. It sucks.

But this attitude of entitlement-that-must-not-be-questioned needs to be dropped. There are still consequences to doing things outside the law. If your parents stole a bicycle, gave it to you, and you got used to riding it, it is still your parents' fault, not the police officer, if you have trouble claiming that bike as your own.

This idea that Americas are all supposed to bend over backwards because the parents of these kids did things outside of the law is insulting. Yeah, it would be a nice thing to do to pass legislation to allow "dreamers" with clean records to stay permanently (but NOT allowing them any edge over legal immigrants and naturalized citizens). But that shouldn't be tried until the border is secure, or we'll get another flood of children being shoved across the border.

You should listen to the audio linked at the ends of this entry (if it is still there) for a good overview of what has really happened when it comes to DACA.

A few other thoughts:

Anyone who refuses to distinguish between naturalized citizens and legal immigrants on one hand, and illegal aliens on the other, can't be taken seriously when it comes to matters of law.

Saying that "dreamers" or any illegal aliens commit crimes as low rates should be answered with "They wouldn't commit any crimes here if they weren't here!!!"

What's with people using the line "But these young people don't know these countries they'd be sent back to!" First of all, very few of them are going to be sent back to those countries. Secondly, they didn't know this country when their parents dragged them here. Nobody mentions that. The difference is they are adults now and have some control over their own lives.

Then there are the people who say today's American "whites" can be held liable for the evils of the past, but these "dreamers" shouldn't suffer for parental crimes

And notice some people pleading to keep DACA make it sound like Mexico and other countries are awful places. I thought it was racist to do that? At least according to them.

While some of these "dreamers" have jobs right now, that might not always be the case. After all, some of them might think marriage unites a bride and groom, or that men and women are different, or that men can't become women and vice-versa, which according to many people makes someone unfit for employment. So maybe they should all be quizzed before being granted immunity from deportation?

The 14th Amendment is generous enough when it is interpreted to confer citizenship of a baby that drops out of a woman who is a national of another country who illegally crossed the border ten minutes ago. It doesn't apply to children born on foreign soil to citizens of that country who've never been naturalized here.
Finally, it's great to see Leftists pause from saying how oppressive, xenophobic, & racist this country is to say it would be cruel to send poor illegal aliens of "minority" ethnicity back to their country of origin.

The Delusional Democrat Voter Returns

Hey folks, do you remember this?

Well, the same guy posted another round of stuff that Dennis Prager could write if he was trying to do a parody of a typical Leftist.

Simple question: Why is our nation so divided?

For one thing, it always has been divided. It was a massive feat to get our Constitution, and then we went through a terrible war between the states less than a century later.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

This nation is in trouble, so let's be clear:

Someone's been listening to Obama speeches! Trouble, eh? Hmmm. Who's been President the last 7.5 years?

If you're still talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

Dismissing what Clinton did as just about "e-mails" is like dismissing what Nixon did as "just about tapes". Actually, Nixon did far less. And fellow Republicans dropped him and he resigned. You Democrats are not calling for Clinton to drop out.

instead of the urgent need to get weapons of war out of the hands of civilians, you are part of the problem.

What exactly qualifies as a "weapon of war"? I'm guess it is a gun that is currently legal to own somewhere in the country that this guy thinks is too big. Or maybe he's talking about all firearms. Whatever. Well, considering there are millions of people - PEOPLE, meaning things that are 100-300 pounds and need shelter, food, etc. so they can't exactly stay stashed under a floorboard - who came into this country and are here illegally and we "can't" find them or stop more from coming here, then how in the world would we effectively prevent firearms from being smuggled, at great profit, into this country?!? And is this guy talking about confiscation? So he's in favor of something that would certainly lead to stand-offs, barricade situations, groups retreating into fortified armed compounds with their children, and resulting shootouts???

If you're planning to vote for a corrupt businessman whose chief concern is his bottom line with no concern for the small businesses and workers who got him there, you're part of the problem.

I'm no fan of Trump as a candidate. He might be an awful President. He might be a great one. We know Hillary Clinton is corrupt, thinks she can get away with anything, and would do harm to this Union.

And don't feign ignorance. Clinton's biggest concern is her own finances, hence the Foundation shenanigans. Trump's successes and even some of his failures at least helped many other people.

Let's not even get into his overt racism, misogyny, and avocation of violence against his opponent's supporters.

Of course you're not going to get into it because you're probably thinking of parodies of what he actually has said. For example, saying that some illegal aliens coming here are murderers and rapists is not racism. And it is fact.

If you believe your 'good book' means that civil rights and equal rights doesn't apply to gay, trans, or other historically oppresses minorities, you are part of the problem.

The Holy Bible says that there are two sexes, marriage unites the sexes, and that sex is for marriage. That has nothing to do with denying anybody any rights. And MLK Jr. was a REVEREND. I know you like to forget about stuff like that. By the way, my argument against judicial neutering of state marriage licenses didn't invoke the Bible or appeal to theology or religion.

If the congress critter you elected has voted more than once to repeal the affordable care act or defund Planned Parenthood or for lower taxes on the rich, you are part of the problem.

So if  you don't want your tax money used to slaughter innocent human beings for convenience, if you don't like being forced by the federal government to buy a service, and if you think people should be able to keep more of their own money to invest (and grow the economy) as they see fit, then that's a problem?!?

Right now we need to be united as a nation

HA!!! This is from someone who aligns with people who are constantly trying to label and divide people and treat them differently based on their skin color, national origin, religion, sexual desires, and so forth!!!

to reform ourselves into a society where there is really respect for all,

Why are we supposed to respect clumps of cells/collections of molecules? And reform... wasn't Obama going to "fundamentally transform" the USA? Is he a liar or failure?

no poverty

There will always be poverty if for no other reason than Leftists will always say people who have less wealth are poor.

where healthcare is a right

Healthcare is already a "right". Say, didn't you mention Obamacare above? But true rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime is involved.

education opportunities are the same for the child in the highest income neighborhood as the poorest

So you're for vouchers? Yeah, didn't think so. There's no way to achieve this other than to criminalize private education, tutoring, and to get all children out of their homes (which may be chaotic) and stick them in uniform government dorms. After all, their parents might subvert the law and give them some sort of educational advantage if they are left with their parents. Say, who runs those school districts in the "poor" neighborhoods? Around here, Leftist Democrat Unionists do. Hmmmm...

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

so we can start making real inroads against global climate change.

I don't believe he really cares because he's not living in a cave with nothing manufactured.

The good news is there is a path forward and it starts this November by getting out the vote and installing elected officials who will actually work toward a progressive future.

So, Obama wasn't it? You were screaming "Yes we can!" when he was elected. I saw you.

We cannot stay on the path we're on today and expect workable solutions.

On that we agree.

Wanted: Presidential Candidate

Required Qualifications:

1. Believes in a higher power - an omniscient, judging authority and future state of rewards and punishments for actions in this life.

2. Has integrity, ethics, morality, and discipline as demonstrated in both professional and personal life. Owns up to and has worked to correct mistakes.

3. Is a proven leader, manager, and appointer as demonstrated from previous experience.

4. Takes national security seriously, including control of borders/ports, and willing to use intelligence, covert operations, and military force to kill our enemies, break their things, and disrupt their threats to the U.S. Will ensure our military personnel, active and retired, are appropriately supplied and assisted.

5. Recognizes that both Islamofascism and European-style socialism are incompatible with and a threat to Western civilization and the American way of life; believes in American Exceptionalism, and has a grand vision for the union.

6. Recognizes Israel as beneficial to American interests.

7. Accepts the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not foreign documents, courts, personalities, organizations, or opinion polls; believes that the Constitution limits government, including the judiciary.

8. Believes in the sanctity and worth of individual human life from conception until natural death; seeks to treat individuals equally based on what they do, not based on identity politics.

9. Recognizes and respects the definition, roles, differences, and necessity to the American way of life of: marriage & family, business, government, church (or equivalent), and charities and civic organizations.


Preferred Qualities:

10. Has executive and foreign policy experience.

11. Will promote and support tax reforms that will move us away from federal income taxes towards a system primarily consisting of user fees and tariffs, supplemented, if necessary, by “sales taxes”.

12. Will work to eliminate or reduce federal government involvement in education, health care, business, and any activity not clearly stated as a federal responsibility in the Constitution, instead encouraging voluntary, private action, and state and local involvement only where and when appropriate; will seek real reform of Social Security, Medicare, etc.

13. Will support easing the immigration process for those who demonstrate a desire to legally immigrate, become naturalized, and become law-abiding, productive, integrated members of American society who are loyal to our Constitution and our way of life. In the event of an actual and detrimental labor shortage, will allow businesses to import temporary labor.

14. Promotes voluntary, proven conservation as opposed to using government force to force businesses and individuals to comply with the demands of alarmist activists.

15. Is effective at communicating and defending these principles.

16. Will not fall into the siren call of MSM praise for "bipartisanship", "listening", "international cooperation", and "change" - which are all codewords for supporting Leftist causes - to the detriment of these principles.


Notice I do not mention race, ethnicity, age, appearance, education level, sex, specific religion, marital status, or even political party. That's because as long as the person is described above, I don't care about those other things.

Of the current candidates, is there anyone who meets #1-9? Who meets #10?

Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won't Read

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is "anti-gay"? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It's not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it "anti-gay", you'd think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won't find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won't find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

"STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..."

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

"In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest."
"The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

More core language:

"A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding..."

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights - rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this in the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition and can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone "refusing to serve gay people". I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex "wedding" ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was "anti-gay". However, I can demonstrate that it wasn't. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their "wedding".

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called "anti-gay"?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man's anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man's anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled "anti-gay". That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to "leave us alone"? Now that's not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren't right you're facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a "wedding" cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say "Can't do it." Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the "wedding" by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don't see how it isn't. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don't count on it.

As we're seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don't kid yourself. That's all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama's Department of Justice will.

UPDATE:

A question opponents of Arizona SB1062 don't seem able to answer: What is the objectionable text in the bill?

Elizabeth Warren Can’t See the Forest Through the Trees Planted by Capitalists

Elizabeth Warren certainly is popular with my Leftist connections on Facebook. They proudly copy and pasted her comments:

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No.

Yes, it is class warfare to target the "rich" – by definition.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.

Well, no, there isn't, because someone else has to buy the good and services provided by the rich. The fact is, nobody really does ANYTHING on their own, but we still need to have boundaries. There still needs to be some level of personal autonomy, private property and ownership, and personal responsibility. Should Warren be elected to Senate, she will not have done it on her own, yet she will not be forced to let more than a third of her votes be cast by someone else.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

The rich paid for those roads, too. All of us - who buy gas, anyway - paid for those roads, all of us can use them. Even the people who don't buy gas.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Property owners, a group which definitely includes the rich, paid to educate them. But I'm for separation of state and school anyway.

You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

Again, the rich pay for them, too – more so than other people.

You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.

Uh, is there a factory that doesn't have private security?

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

And why does that have to be through the hands of D.C. politicians? Who is it that is funding charities, anyway?

No doubt unwittingly, Elizabeth Warren actually makes our point for us – that by letting free markets work, people who build wealth employ other people to mutual benefit. The wealthy got wealthy, in part, through providing jobs.

The people the wealthy hired were compensated as agreed. The customers who bought the goods or services provided by the wealthy were given that for which they paid. Now, people like Warren want to ignore the fact that the mutual, voluntary transactions were completed and use government force to make the wealthy pay more not only to those already compensated for their work, but to uninvolved people who refuse to work at all.

Are we to believe that someone who studied hard and stayed clean and involved through high school, college, and medical school to become a doctor and works long and odd hours saving lives and then practices good financial habits has less right to enjoy the fruits of her labors and risks than someone who goofed off, dropped out, abused substances, caused trouble, watches the clock at his entry-level job to make sure that he never appears to be working a minute more than 40 hours per week (minus breaks), and blows his money?

All of the things Warren lists have been available to all. It is the wealthy that used them in ways valued most by society.

You can find some good responses to Warren here, here, and here.

My State of the Union 2013 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republican POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over eleven years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allow illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare That the Lack of a Budget, the Large Deficit, and the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.
Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Simple Reason I Never Bought Into Birther Conspiracy

All (or at least most) of the people who buy into the idea that President Obama is somehow ineligible to serve as President due to his birth also believe that the Clintons (or someone backing the Clintons) literally murdered a bunch of people before and during President Clinton's terms as President.

If Obama was actually ineligible, HRC surely would have had access to that information and used that information to secure the nomination in 2008.

Democrats to Republicans: Be Pigs Like Us

Considering how hateful, crude, and willing to lower the political discourse Obama-supporting Democrats were before the election (while claiming, in a classic case of projection, that their opponents were doing just that), it should come as no surprise how arrogant, hateful, and crude they have been since the election.

Part of that arrogance is the nonstop lecturing supposedly directed at Republicans, but is really just Leftists babbling to each other and slapping each other on their back(side)s. "Be like us," they tell us, "And you'll win." No thanks. We're not going to commit massive vote fraud to win, Democrats. We'll never be able to get the repeated votes of dead felon illegal aliens like you will. Let's get real. While some Democrats will vote Republican on occasion, Democultists never will, even if the Republican's positions are closer to their own than the Democrat's.

Hello! Nothing much has changed. For all of the euphoria being experienced by the Left (no doubt many are taking advantage of newly relaxed pot laws), we still have the same President, we still have a Democrat-controlled Senate (still without a supermajority) and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives. The popular vote wasn't lopsided, but rather relatively close. The way the Democultists are carrying on, it is apparent that they realize that if the electorate had been sensible, Mitt Romney would be President-elect and the Senate would have a GOP-majority. They know they should have lost, rather than retained. They are admitting that Obama's performance and the economy have been lousy, and so they see the ability of the Democrats to keep the Senate and White House as a chance to blame GOP "extremism".

Which is funny, considering that Obama lost several times over the number of voters from 2008 to 2012 than the number of voters who voted for McCain in 2008 but didn't vote for Romney in 2012.

Yes, Republicans had been counting on changes so that Obamacare could be countered and religious freedom protected, the economy allowed to flourish, to deal realistically with the debt and deficits, and to keep the USA an international leader that supports Israel and is serious about countering Islamofascist aggression. Yes, we are disappointed that people chose other priorities. The lecturing, however, is absurd. I don't recall Repulicans lecturing Democrats after GWB kicked John Kerry's behind, or in 2010, or when incumbent Democrats were sent packing and conservative Republicans elected in such great numbers in 1994 that Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over.

As we well know now, Big Government came back, stronger than ever. Limited government principles can, too. Sure, it will be more difficult than ever for that to happen. Once a massive new federal ponzi scheme is put in place, it seems like removing it is never going to be a possibility. Still, I'll be just fine if the Democultists get a false sense of security along with all of their smugness.

The Democultists were not elected to run the GOP. We still have some amount of freedom of association. They're lecturing us anyway, telling us how to "win". Right. Because they want us to win, right? Again, it is just self-serving BS. They are saying things like:

"Support abortion!" Uh, Mitt Romney's position on abortion is very much in line with the majority of Americans - that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. Democrats, on the other hand, have the position in line with current law: As long as the baby hasn't been born yet, even at week 40, you should be able to kill it, AND have people who have deep convictions against such barbarism be forced to pay for it. Obama even voted to let babies who survive abortion die without any lifesaving or pain-relieving aid or just mere comfort. Who needs to change their position on that one, hmmmmm? Time for Obama to evolve on something else.

"Support gay marriage!" My own marriage is quite gay, thank you. The GOP should continue to oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses, however. Most states have relatively recently voted to affirm the bride+groom requirement, after all. What we do need to do is counter the BS marriage neutering advocates are constantly piling on young people in academia and the media. The right polling will show that the people support a distinction between marriage and same-sex pairings.

"Hush Rush!" This one of their favorites. They tell us to get rid of conservative radio talk show hosts, columnists, and talking heads. However, most of these Democultists have never paid much attention to what these conservatives have actually said or written, only what Leftist groups and basement-dwellers claim the commentators meant. No, this will NOT help Republicans. Democrats have academia, most media, control of major online information sources, the government employee unions, professional associations, and so many other things. People who believe in American values such as liberty, In God We Trust, and e pluribus unum, people who believe in Constitutional, limited government also need a voice.

"Diversity!" The Left is obsessed with race, gender, class, sexual orientaton. So Democrats focus on one issue said to be the most important to each "minority" group, and insist conservatives (and thus Republicans) want to deprive the groups of their respective "rights". What's supposed to be important to women, you see, is to have other people forced pay for their birth control. Latino voters are supposed to care most about amnesty for illegal aliens. Never mind the fact that most Latinos here are natural born citizens, and those who are naturalized citizens or legal immigrants shouldn't have to take a back seat to cheaters. The Democrats insist that any opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens is nothing but anti-Latino racism, as if most people opposed to amnesty aren't just as opposed to, say, Canadian or German illegal aliens getting amnesty. It's divide to conquer. Meanwhile, Republicans attempt to appeal to people as Americans, including treating people, regardless of sex or skin color, as capable adults. Every single woman or person of color voting is an adult American, supposedly. The Democrats are gushing over each example of someone elected to office with this (non-"white") ancestry or that (non-Christian) religion, and how many females are going to be in the Senate, or openly homosexual elected officials there are now. Uh, except they've cheered for the defeat of Allen West and Mia Love, and any other Republican woman or person of color. So they lack credibility when they tell the GOP we need more diversity in our candidates. Contrary to the evidence, they insist we're only bunch of old rich WASP heterosexual males (and sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and bigoted ones at that), and anyone else in the party is a deluded or self-loathing token or sell-out, worthy of being subjected by the Democrats to the very hatred the Left claims the GOP harbors. Even as they sneer and hurl epithets at them, these Democrats, completely devoid of self-awareness, say more people should be begging for such despicable treatment. They act like Michael Steele was never a GOP honcho, and like they didn't reprise their historic role as the actual racists with opposition to integration and civil rights laws. For all of the Democultists' talk of diversity and inclusion, they deride white heterosexual males, especially wealthy ones, and are calling on the GOP to take a discriminatory stance against people who are actually serious about following Christ.They tell us to purge our racists, which the GOP did so swiftly a long time ago that no blatant racists remain in power within the GOP, but there are far more racists in their party. They tell us to get serious about the treatment of women, even as they continue to give President Clinton and Tony Villar a prominent role, an deify late Senator Ted Kennedy. We ARE serious about women. We think women can, for the most part, take care of themselves without Big Brother, thank you. Contrary to the constant bleating of the Democultists, Republicans, except for the odd rarity, really don't care whether a politician is male or female, or care about their skin color. We care about values, priorities, positions, plans, and character. Such things have no gender or skin color.

"Restrain the Rich and Make Them Pay More!" and "Let the tax cuts expire!" and "Boycott companies announcing layoffs!" The people saying these things either want to bring down the quality of life in the USA or simply don't understand basic economic realities. The businesspeople even warned ahead of time what would happen without a change for the better in the election. The angry Obama worshipers deny that these are the logical and natural consequences of increased costs to business and increased regulation to business - they instead chalk it up to greed, spite, and racism towards Obama. Where is this heading? Many of these people would cheer if Obama and the Senate had the federal government seize these businesses to stop layoffs and to dictate salaries, dividends, etc. These people think they know how those businesses should be run, based on their concept of what is fair. Just see here. The people running these businesses are the ones who had the creativity & ambition, busted their humps, put in the blood, sweat & tears, took the risks, worked the long hours, made the hard decisions, invested their own money and convinced others to invest theirs, and thus have provided goods, services, and employment. Why should they have to give up more based on what outsiders want? Outsiders don't get to tell them how to run their businesses (beyond what they've already put into law) or how to live... not yet, anyway. Yes, they have the freedom to boycott, and in doing so, will mostly hurt the people they claim to be concerned about.


Nope, that is not the way forward for the GOP.

We'll let the Democrats be Democrats. We can have big wins again without becoming clones of the Democrats (which wouldn't lead to winning anyway).

How? Here are a few ways:

1) We will show that the looming problems are not the fault of the current House of Representatives or "greedy" private sector people, but the failing model of increasing government expansion.
 
2) We will show unmarried women that they can be responsible for themselves. Relying on Big Brother is not independence and in the long run, makes them and everyone else worse off. In relying on Big Brother, they are actually dependent on men as well as burdening other women.

3) We will show that blanket amnesty for illegal aliens would hurt citizens "of color" and legal immigrants the most.

4) Cracking down on vote fraud while pointing out to citizens concerned about this that fraudulent votes devalue theirs.

Sorry, Democultists... we're not going away. We're going to stand up for American values and the Constitution, for free markets, and yes, we will continue to follow God and share the good news. Deal with that.

No Really, Gays Can Vote Romney

Even the Leftist marriage neutering advocates say about 20% of homosexual people are going to vote for Romney, yet I found Christopher Hennessy's great example of Stage One Thinking at the Huffing & Puffington Post.

If I hear one more person explain how, even though they believe in gay rights, they're voting for Romney, I'm going to lose my mind.

He's (I'm assuming the name "Christopher" means the person is a he) claimed to have a mind to beging with. He claims a Romney Presidencey would be "dangerous" and would may come at "the high cost of decimating right for gay people, women, the poor, and immigrants". Really? What rights? He never bothers to say. He just wants you to believe there is a monster under the bed and only Obama, who just four years ago said that marriage is between a man and a woman, can save us from the monster.

Then he quotes the hissy fit whine penned by Pulitzer and Tony Award-winning playwright Doug Wright. Then, an open letter from Broaway star Max von Essens, and finally paraphrases someone who disagreed. (Does Hennessy get paid for columns that essentially are copy & pasted from elsewhere?)

I responded by pointing out what I saw as the first of our ironies in this story: that Obama has been thwarted at every move by a happy-to-admit-it obstructionist Congress, inherited a problem so large we're lucky we've made any progress at all, and had to deal with Greece and the EU and other realities of globalization that make completely fixing the economy in four years a ludicrous expectation.

But that's what Obama promised everyone. It is the kind of government Obama's trying to create that caused problems in those other countries to begin with, and dealing with Congress is something every President has had to do. It is how our Constitution is written, like it or not.

Then Hennessy writes delusional fiction dialogue about the dissenter's children, having been thoroughly indoctrinated by the marriage neutering advocates, being upset at her.

Then he tells us not to care about the future of our kids. After all, there are people who ... uh... might... have to... uh... go to a different state to get a neutered "marriage" license. CAN'T ANYONE SEE THE HORROR?!? I mean it is practically as if towns are getting together with chains, picthforks, and bonfires to lynch same-sex couples in broad daylight!!!

More importantly, we need to make clear to our friends and family what the stakes are for them. The stakes are our relationships with them, our continued willingness to meet them without rancor, to feel like part of the family, to not wonder how a slight decrease in their yearly taxes could mean more to them than we do.

So in other words, if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to disown everyone. Toddler much? Hey, President Clinton SIGNED DOMA. Would Hennessy rebuff him?

Then he takes a swipe at the Boy Scouts, but manages to wrap up without bashing Chick-fil-A. Perhaps an editor wanted to keep the piece shorter for the sake of the website's target audience.

Homosexual people are free to live their lives and share their lives, which I think is a good thing, and that's not going to change with President Romney. This drama-queen nonsense is ridiculous. For years, homosexuality advocates called for tolerance, and now many of the same advocates call for intolerance. Their shades of fascism are enough reason to be wary of their political endorsements.

To insist that everyone must vote to re-elect Obama because he's now in favor of neutering marriage and Romney opposed neutering marriage shows a lack of perspective and priorities.

Vote for Romney. If you have some unstable, petulant person in your life who would react like Hennessy if they knew, don't tell them. The ballot is secret. All of us, including homosexual people, will be better off with Romney.

Please read Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican.

The MSM Has Neglected Benghazi

Bill Ossiginac of Anaheim, California had this letter printed in the Orange County Register:

Why isn’t the aftermath of Benghazi on the front page, above the fold, every day, until we pressure our government enough to tell us the truth, or at least get some answers? If this were any other president it would be a huge story. I think we will find out later this is worse than Watergate.

The U.S. media are not doing their jobs and do a disservice to the people of this once-great country. Not letting the people know the truth from the media is the first step in taking away freedoms from the very people that you are suppose to inform.

Please give the people some front-page coverage of the things that really matter. If the aftermath and cover-up of Benghazi doesn’t matter, then God help our country.

Nobody died in Watergate. This is far, far worse than Watergate. Have we become a country resigned to the kind of corruption and cover-ups typical in other countries? I pray not.

Obama Doesn't Want to Serve a Second Term as President

Yes, he's officially campaigning for a second term. Yes, he tells you he wants your vote (and his supporters want you to vote early and vote often, even if you're a dead illegal alien felon). But based on my observations, I don't think Obama really wants to serve a second term as President.

I assume he likes the perks and powers of of being President, and very much enjoys having an attentive audience.

However, I also think he's frustrated and overwhelmed. He can barely tolerate enduring the critical scrutiny, or sharing power with the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the states.

He's used to climbing quickly from promotion to promotion, and now that's over. It's not fun - it's deadly serious and his decisions often involve matters of life and death. He's having to campaign just to keep the same job. There's no more taking pot shots at the more powerful guy and claiming he can do better. There's no more "Oooh, he's going to be the first black ____!" There's no more "Oooh, he's going to lower the rising seas and heal the planet! He's going to give me a nice house!!!"

He'll be able to earn millions and millions of dollars with much less pressure once he's out of office. He won't have to wonder what Biden is going to say to embarrass this Administration next. He won't have to deal with the military, of which he's not all that fond. Same goes with the whole "God, country, flag" stuff. So why did he run for a second term?

There are probably several reasons. In addition to the perks, powers, and attention, in no particular order:

1. I'm sure his wife and daughters also don't want to vacate the White House and lose any of their perks.
2. His party, his staff, major supporters, and political connections begged him to campaign hard for a second term, as they all do better the longer he's there, and there's a part of him that doesn't want to upset them.
3. They don't want a Republican to be President.
4. He doesn't want a Republican (or perhaps anyone else) to be President as long as he is eligible, and it is easier for an incumbent Democrat to win this next term than a new Democrat facing a new Republican.

Really, though, I don't think he's looking forward to actually serving. He likes to defend himself, but a passionate vision for the future is lacking.

If you really like Obama, set him free by voting Romney.

Obama is the Extremist on Abortion

I like to say that I survived Roe v. Wade, but here's another legitimate survivor of abortion, who wants you to know just how extreme Obama is when it comes to abortion.



There's no way around it. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

A Real Sign Obama Will Not Be Re-elected

I don't personally assign any more or less weight to celebrity political endorsements. I don't favor or disfavor any political candidate or legislation based on what a celebrity says. I also believe celebrities have just as much right to give their opinion as anyone else  - though they need to be mindful if what they say will hurt the people they work with, who might be struggling financially.

That all being said, I think Clint Eastwood's endorsement for Romney spells trouble for Obama. Eastwood has long been involved in politics, even serving as Mayor of a California city. Comedian John Lovitz, a Democrat who voted for Obama, has spoken out against some of Obama's statements, tactics, and policies. Even adult video performer Jenna Jameson, a name known widely even among people who do  not view such material, has endorsed Romney.

Centrists and even people who lean a little Left, people who usually vote Democrat, are thinking a change is needed - and more importantly, they are speaking up about it. Are there prominent Republicans or conservatives speaking up, saying they will vote to give Obama a second term? We could be in Jimmy Carter territory here. To me, it is very telling that someone of Eastwood's stature and entrenchment in politically-active Hollywood is willing to endorse Romney and appear at a Romney fundraiser.

This should give us hope, but not assurance. We must reach out to conservatives and libertarians who are leaning towards not voting at all, or voting for a third party candidate (which would really be a de facto vote to re-elect Obama. We need to reach out to centrists and classical liberals. We need to get the word out, get people registered, and get them excited about voting.

We need to elect Romney, and we need to elect Senators and Representatives who will support limited government policies. This will help the economy to recover. We can make this happen!

Thank You, Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle

And thanks to Tammy Bruce blogger Maynard for calling our attention to this:

Letters to LAT

The letters printed in the Los Angeles Times can sometimes be insightful, sometimes an indicator of societal decay.

Rosemary Hagerott of Sierra Madre had a great letter:

I agree with your subheadline's characterization of what the president said in his State of the Union address: "Obama says all must pay 'fair share' of taxes."

I'd like him to start by collecting taxes from the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

Right on!

And how about all those Americans who don't file tax reports? And how about all those who earn most of their money "under the table" and report very low income?

Such is a problem with income taxes.

Once he addresses this issue, I might listen to him about the "rich" paying their fair share. Right now, the "rich" are the only group of taxpayers paying their "fair share."

And when did it become anathema in this country to achieve the American dream by becoming rich?

When too many people decided it was better to slack off, make poor choices, and let Big Brother take care of them. And then link to blogs like this and complain about it rather than learning from the simple steps to avoid poverty.

Eugene Sison of San Dimas may have Bush Derangement Syndrome:

It has been said that men such as Obama must be "twice as good" as the George W. Bushes of the world to succeed at the same job.

Huh? It this a racial reference? If so, Obama only has to be 50% better.

So, as president, Obama listed his administration's accomplishments: preventing a second Great Depression while saving the auto industry, ending the Iraq war while getting Osama bin Laden, passing healthcare reform while reining in Wall Street. Two words came to mind: Mission accomplished.

Obama's stimulus effort made things worse.

He didn't save the auto industry - he bailed out American Big Labor.
Pulling troops out of Iraq was made possible by the decisions of the Bush administration in addition to all of the hard work of the military and contractors.
Yes, it is good that he kept up the pursuit of OBL, and didn't wimp out when it came time to kill OBL.

Healthcare reform? He inserted the federal government into private health insurance matters and is creating an new dependency program.

What exactly has he done to "Wall Street"? Wall Street PAID FOR OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

What a bunch of hooey.

In response to an item in the Business section, "How the wealthy get tax breaks," Business, Jan. 24, Anthony Maenza of Oceanside wrote:

If a criminal stole 35% of my money last week and 15% this week, would The Times write that the criminal's actions this week helped to increase my wealth? If not, then how does The Times justify writing that "wealthy people grow even wealthier with the help of the tax code"?

Because the article wasn't about subsidies given to the rich but instead about the wealthy keeping a larger share of their own money, one must conclude that The Times believes the money belongs to the government, which then favors the wealthy by letting them have a disproportionate amount of said government's money.

How about mentioning the earned income tax credit, which "refunds" unpaid taxes to the poor — taxes paid by others (likely the wealthy)? That would be honest journalism.

Perfect.

Al Barrett of Santa Monica is clueless, and so must be right at home in the People's Republic of Monica ("Santa" should be banned for being religious.):

Keeping Mit Romney's income tax rate no higher than 15% is necessary to help him create jobs, according to some economics experts.

Hey genius, that the personal tax rate on capital gains, which is investment income. The money used to invest has already been taxed, and the profits are taxed again before they are paid to Romney (and elderly widows), who then have to pay taxes on the money AGAIN.

It doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Romney's efforts have created a heckuva lot of jobs. Jobs NOT dependent on taxes, unlike so many "green" jobs.

Apparently, high school economics courses need to be required and improved.

My State of the Union Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republic POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Equal Access to Capitalism. Explain some of the major benefits of capitalism, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over ten years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence an character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Don't Badmouth the First Lady's Body

Regardless of the party affiliation of the President, I've never approved of making fun of the body or general appearance of the First Lady. Currently, Michelle Obama's figure has been criticized in high-profile media. Really? We can't find more constructive things to discuss?

By all means, analyze what the First Lady says or does, but stop with the snipes about her body. Please. She's actually an attractive woman, but even if she wasn't, why lower the public discourse? If the First Lady were to do something extreme with her appearance, then of course we should expect discussion about that. But that is not the case currently.

Yes, we have the freedom of speech. But just because we can say something doesn't mean we should.

This also goes to the wife of Vice-President and the children of the President and Vice-President. I remember when some were calling the hairstyle of Marilyn Quayle a throwback. Whether or not it was, I thought it looked great on her.

As far as I know, Michelle Obama has not applied to do modeling work. So please find more constructive things to do with your platforms than mouth off about her body.

Please?

Replacing Obama

Many people naively voted for Obama because they believed the hype and that what they didn’t like about how things were was primarily Bush’s fault. Obama was oversold. They thought Obama is going to wave a magic wand and make their lives better. They thought he was going to create cushy, high-paying new jobs for them, or hand them a prestigious diploma for free, or that he'd bring about world peace and no American soldiers would be wounded or killed, that he'd end pollution and global warming, make the dolphins and polar bears happy, end racism and homophobia, make abortions a pleasant and painless experience with no negative consequences ever, and give them a big new house for cheap, punish the unfairly rich, cure cancer and AIDS and provide top-notch medical care for free, and that everything was going to be just one huge party and lovefest across America and around the world. He was going to cure lepers and turn water into wine.

The Occupy movement is largely resulting from that.

Don't antagonize these people. Don't call them stupid. Don't badmouth Obama in front of them.

There are better ways to turn them into the conservative voters of the future.

Feel free to let them vent about Obama.

Show interest in their hopes, their dreams, their expectations, and their thoughts (if they have any).

If you followed the advice I gave on November 6, 2008, you would have documented and kept their exact expectations that they expressed to you back then.

If you didn't do that, you should be able to dig up stuff online listing Obama's promises.

We knew Obama wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he promised. We also knew he was going to make some things worse.

So, our jobs from now until Election Day in November 2012 is this. We're going to check in on those 2008-was-their-first-time-voting Obama supporters – talking about current events and what is going on – specifically, asking them questions and making sure they've been paying attention. This is very easy on some of the social networking sites.

Don't let them forget their expectations or the promises of Obama and the Democrats.

Remember – be gentle and respectful, but firm. Don't be nasty and drive them away, but don't let them wiggle out of the logical conclusions.

Often, you are going to have to link them to info from sources that favor limited government, federalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and so forth – sources that actually take the Constitution seriously and might even mention now and again that this is the greatest country in the world. There are plenty of such sources that are clear, calm, and reasonable and avoid taking a tone that turns off those who might not automatically agree at first glance or hearing – sources with a lot of credibility. If the person has indicated that they voted for Obama, at least partially, because of his parentage/skin color, be sure to use Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, and Thomas Sowell as sources, among others.

Don't accept a dismissal such as "Oh, that’s just an Obama hater." Ask them exactly where and how the source is wrong. Appeal to them to be open-minded and fair.

If you can’t get them to vote for the Republican, perhaps you can get them to vote for a third party candidate or not vote, rather than voting for Obama.

Obama deserves to lose the support of many of the people who voted from him in 2008. If he does lose that support, he will be replaced.