Contrary to popular opinion it was the Democrat party that was against obolishing slavery and civil rights. Watch and learn.

Writer Chick

1. Why is it that the same people who decry corporate welfare think it’s’ fine and dandy to finance green companies?
2. Why does anyone believe that Ron Paul is a Republican?
3. Why are black Republicans called racists?
4. Why is the most transparent president in American history doing everything he can to hide his records?
5. Why are people who need jobs protesting the corporations that provide them?

What about you? What questions are you asking yourself about current events? As always, feel free to add to the list.

“If European governments and the U.S. Congress ceased the practice of giving people what they have not earned, budgets would be more than balanced. For government to guarantee a person a right to goods and services he has not earned, it must diminish someone else’s right to what he has earned, simply because governments have no resources of their very own. … It turns out that if Congress taxed away our entire $14 trillion 2011 GDP and put it in the bank, it would just barely cover Social Security and Medicare liabilities. That observation suggests that we can’t tax our way out of our fiscal mess. In order to avoid permanent stagnation or total economic collapse, governments must start the process of reducing welfare spending. I wouldn’t recommend cold turkey for a heroin addict, neither would I recommend cold turkey for all those people who have been addicted and made dependent upon government handouts. We must find a compassionate way to wean people off government.” –economist Walter E. Williams

This man is my hero.
WC

I don’t know about you but I am getting a bit tired of the talking heads and pundits yammering on and on about how we must decide who our candidate is going to be. They are continuously cramming the ‘front runners’ down our throats and then defending them when chinks in their armor appear or is revealed. They have proclaimed that it is a ‘two man race’ and insist we must now choose between the two.

This morning I read a column that proclaimed that none of the candidates are really worthy. The columnist lamented about the lackluster performances in the debate and said that we needed someone else to jump in or we wouldn’t have a chance to beat Obama. Sorry but I respectfully disagree and submit the following to all the pundits, talking heads and supposed political experts:

The problem is not with the candidates but with the debates themselves. Moderators who are more interested in making titillating comments and inducing fights with the supposed top tier candidates are not even addressing the issues. It’s clear they are going to give most of the attention to Perry and Romney, so how are the others to distinguish themselves when the few questions thrown to them are more of an aside than actually giving the candidate time to really lay out their plans and solutions for the issues?

Also, why are we hobby horsing the social security issue when there are dozens of other issues to discuss? If you want to see an effective debate that reveals the candidates’ positions you need to:

1. Get moderators more interested in doing the job of moderator rather than ‘getting’ a particular candidate or embarrassing them or creating spats between the candidates.
2. Make sure those moderators are actual conservatives – how about Jonah Goldberg, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams for moderators? Why must we have liberals and left leaning conservatives as moderators – you can be darn straight that the Democrats don’t have such moderators when they debate.
3. Ignore the supposed top tier candidates for once – give the other candidates a chance to address issues – we already know what Romney and Perry think, so why must we go over the same territory again and again?
4. Exclude candidates in the 1-2% range. Seriously what are Gary Johnson and John Huntsman doing on the stage at all? Neither has a hope in hell of getting the nomination – so why are they there?
5. Stop handling these debates as though they are entertainment – this isn’t a sit-com but a forum in which voters are supposed to get information.

Personally, I don’t think we need more candidates on that stage, we just need responsible adults who understand what a debate is about (not them, but the candidates and their positions on the issues) and to conduct themselves as the facilitators of the debates not the center of attention.

Again, in my opinion, thus far, the only debate that was even remotely informative was the tea party debate. Because the questions that were asked were asked by concerned citizens who most definitely are going to vote. Not by the You-Tube generation who if they vote at all, aren’t likely to vote Republican anyway.

The problem isn’t with the candidates, it’s with the people who are compelled to manipulate the race to their liking. Well sorry, I believe I have news for all the self-proclaimed experts – we aren’t going to be forced again into choosing someone we don’t want – remember John McCain, Bob Dole and Ross Perot? Three men who insured a democrat was elected president. I say for once, let the voters choose the candidate – you might be surprised at how well we choose.

How about you? What do you think?

Copyright 2011

Apparently the CEO of Starbuck’s is concerned over political ‘wranglings’ and how it’s affecting the economy and normal everyday people like you and me. According to this article CEO Howard Schultz is holding a telephone forum for all of us to talk about it.

Mr. Schultz was quoted as saying: “We must send the message to today’s elected officials … that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now.”

Interesting but where was Mr. Schultz when liberals owned Congress and were forcing through massive health care bills and stimulus bills on strictly partisan lines? Um…I guess that wasn’t troubling to him and despite the 50-60% disapproval of Obamacare, nobody sent him emails and letters then? Oh right maybe the explanation for that can be found in   this article which says:

It seems Starbucks is regretting the health care Frankenstein it helped create. The company was a key corporate backer of Obamacare in its legislative stages, but its top executive has raised concerns about the law’s economic damage.

Howard Schultz, the coffee company’s CEO, recently told the Seattle Times that “the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great” in the Obama-care law as currently written (h/t Mark Hemingway).

Seems to me this is just more partisan politics masquerading as concern.  And Mr. Schultz’s forum is tantamount to putting Matt Damon, Janene Garufolo, and the Dixie Chicks on a non-partisan committee for government spending reform.

I’m telling you, you can’t take your eyes off these guys for a second. Be vigilant and stay alert.

Writer Chick

Admittedly, the GOP field is crowded at this stage and bound to get more crowded if Palin and Giuliani decide to join the fray. However, I thought it would be a good idea to do a basic profile of each candidate (as best I can) and let the red state voters decide.

(Note: Immigration ratings by Numbers USA as of August 2011 )

Mitt Romney
Numbers USA gives Romney a D- on immigration

Romney has from day one been considered the presumptive front-runner by both conservative and liberal media sources. Likely it is because he has/had the highest name recognition of any of the candidates due to his previous run for president in 2008.

Though Romney claims to be fiscal conservative, his health-care policy and programs as governor of Massachusetts say otherwise. To add injury to insult Romney-care was the apparent model for the much maligned Obamacare.

He is also pro-business, anti-union, for lower taxes and has attempted to put a human face on corporations. He has many years of business experience and so understands how businesses should and do operate which speaks to his ability to getting America back to work. He supports cutting government spending and repealing Obamacare.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: While I supported him last time out given the available field, I feel that this cycle there are more appealing conservative candidates to support. His biggest stumbling block is the creation of Romney-care and his centrist positions.

Rick Perry

Numbers USA gives Perry a D- on immigration

Rick Perry entered the race a few weeks ago and has polled well. He is a popular governor of one of the few states that seems to be doing okay, has had a good employment record and a business friendly environment. Perry is a career politician and does not seem to have any significant business background. He succeeded GW Bush as governor of Texas after W became president. Though he speaks of fiscal responsibility and reigning in government spending he is reported to have used stimulus funds to close state budget deficits.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: Although he rose quickly in the polls when entering the race his numbers seem to be drifting downward. He may just be the new flavor of the month. The main difference I see between him and Romney is more a matter of personality. His stumbling blocks may include, the guardisil vaccination incident, using stimulus funds to close budget gaps, his previous work with Al Gore, his endorsement of Hilary care in the 90’s, statements he has made regarding border security, his state version of the dream act relative to in-state tuition for non-legal American residents and his attempt at creating that whole big interstate thingie (which admittedly, I’m still not clear on). There have also been comparisons of Perry to GW Bush and if they stick that could downgrade his popularity.

Michele Bachmann

Number USA gives Michele Bachmann a B- on immigration

Bachmann is considered to be very fiscally conservative based on her advocation of a flat tax (or national sales tax, or reform of irs code), that she led the effort to repeal Obamacare, voted against raising the debt ceiling. She has challenged both Democrats and Republicans on out of control spending. She is popular with Tea Party advocates and supporters, is the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress and won the Iowa straw poll. She has a background in business, tax law and politics. She is pro-jobs, for lower taxes, and a business friendly environment.

The candidate discusses the issues on her website here

My opinion: I like her. I find her positions very conservative and her actions and record seem to back up that she means what she says. I believe that what you see is what you get with Bachmann. Major stumbling blocks for her are that she is strongly religious which may turn off some voters, she is a social conservative, and she is woman and has been similarly attacked and painted as a nut as Palin was/is. It’s fine if you don’t like a candidate but some of the questions she has been asked in debates and various other comments made about her seem to be based upon the fact that she is a woman. Where is all the feminist outrage?

Ron Paul

Numbers USA gives Ron Paul an F on immigration.

Ron Paul is a perennial favorite among his base. He is touted as the only true Constitutionalist among the candidates and does invoke the Constitution frequently. He has a record of fiscal conservatism and has the nickname of Dr. No among his congressional colleagues. He has previously run as a Libertarian but switched to the Republican ticket in recent years.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: While I might be able to support some of Paul’s positions on fiscal matters, I think he is way off the reservation on foreign policy. And based on many of his own statements he appears to believe that the reason we are attacked is because of ‘interference with other nations – what he calls nation building. He is anti-war in the tradition of a 1960’s hippie. Stumbling blocks for Ron Paul may include rumors of antisemitism and racism, his position on legalizing drugs, his anti-war obsession and his foreign policy and isolationist viewpoints. For me, the thing most off-putting about Ron Paul is his supporters. Who I have personally found to be mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, disrespectful, paranoid and lovers of the use of the term neocon against anyone who does not agree with or support their candidate.

Herman Cain

Numbers USA gives Herman Cain a (C-) on immigration

Herman Cain is a businessman from Georgia who has successfully turned two businesses around. He is also a conservative talk show radio host. He has never held political office but that may not be a bad thing. He wants supports Social Security reform and IRS reform (a flat or national sales tax). He also is in favor of repealing Obamacare, is pro-jobs and pro-business and for lower taxes.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: I like Herman Cain because he is bigger than life, is enthusiastic and understands the jobs and economic issues. Like Bachmann, I believe that what you see is what you get with Cain and I find that reassuring as well. Stumbling blocks for Cain is a large field of more recognized conservative names, and inexperience in foreign policy and other matters. Not sure he could get the presidential nod but I could certainly see him as a viable VP candidate and/or as a cabinet secretary in a new republican administration.

Rick Santorum

Numbers USA gives Rick Santorum an F on immigration

Rick Santorum is a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, a social and fiscal conservative who favors lower taxes for individuals and businesses and welfare reform. Although he sees terrorism as a bona fide threat, his foreign policy positions seem mixed – neither a hawk nor a dove.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: Although he appears to be a sincere individual he does not seem to have rallied a strong base. He still has what appears to be low name recognition and hasn’t polled very well and seems to be stuck on the second tier of candidates. While it’s possible at some point Santorum could develop into a viable presidential candidate I don’t think it will happen this time out. I might like to see him run for Congress again and do a few things to distinguish himself for a possible future run for president.

Newt Gingrich

Numbers USA gives Newt Gingrich D- on immigration

Although in the day Gingrich led a revolution among conservatives, over the years he appears to have mellowed toward the center. His campaign has been troubled since the beginning and though brilliant he doesn’t appear to have a clear platform.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: Frankly I think Newt got into the race about ten years too late. Over the years he has become a kind of squishy republican who has seemed directionless at times. Stumbling blocks for him I think are many, although brilliant, he seems to have too many ideas and yet not the right ones. His platform seems kind of vague, he has lots of baggage on the personal front and his past allegiances with prominent Democrats like Pelosi and Hilary Clinton have done him no favor. He isn’t polling well and isn’t likely to change that. I wouldn’t mind seeing him as a cabinet secretary in a new republican administration.

John Huntsman

Numbers USA gives John Huntsman a D- in immigration

Huntsman appears to have a decent fiscal record – did well as Utah’s governor. And has served in both the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations. He seems to be pro-jobs and for lower taxes. He also supports government intervention on global warming/environmental issues. Most recently he served in the Obama administration as the U.S. Ambassador to China.

The candidate discusses the issues on his blog here

My opinion: It’s hard for me to get a handle on him. He has never polled well and appears to be pretty moderate – what some would call a RINO. He is too squishy for my tastes and I think lacks the strong personality of many of the others. Unfortunately, personality does play a part in presidential elections and he seems to lack the charisma necessary to snag a nomination.

Gary Johnson

Numbers USA gives Gary John an F on immigration

Johnson speaks out against government spending and seems to have a similar anti-war and isolationist stance to Ron Paul. He supports massive spending cuts and identifies Social Security reform and Obamacare as major issues to address. And like Ron Paul heavily targets the Federal Reserve as a source of evil.

The candidate discusses the issues on his website here

My opinion: Frankly I never heard of him until today. Although based on what I have seen he appears to have similar views to Ron Paul – perhaps is a Ron Paul lite? No idea really. Not even sure if he is in the polls at all.

Sarah Palin

Although, at this writing Sarah Palin is not in the race she seems to be the 600 lb elephant in the room (no insult intended). There are certainly people who expect and predict she will get into the race. So I would like to discuss her here. Since she is not running there is no platform or official positions to discuss. However…

Numbers USA gives Sarah Palin a D on immigration

Mrs. Palin’s views can be found on her website here

My opinion: Mrs. Palin has been a controversial figure from day one and in all honesty I don’t know why. Never in my lifetime have I ever seen an individual more attacked and maligned than Sarah Palin. She has been scrutinized on everything from her fashion sense to her vernacular. And for that, the woman has my deepest empathy.

Although many seem to believe she is going to throw her hat in the ring, I don’t think she will. If she plans to run, what is she waiting for? The race is in full swing and the field has a variety of candidates from which to choose. Also, though she polled pretty well before people were announcing, in most polls she isn’t polling very well currently. I personally can’t forgive her for endorsing Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorini as candidates in California, rather than other more conservative candidates who were running. She does have great influence within the party among certain voters and is certainly loved by many but I think it takes more than that to make a good candidate. The stumbling blocks she faces should she decide to run are: waiting to announce, some may see it as hedging her bets, the media is sure to have more attacks waiting in the wings, her reality show, that she resigned as governor of Alaska (and so has a thin background) and like Bachmann the fact that she is a woman. Also since Bachmann has been in since the beginning she may find that voters who might once have supported her have moved on to and support Bachmann. While I would never rule her out completely and I do believe she is a force to be reckoned with, I have to confess I’m not exactly sure what her true role is in the conservative scheme of things. Is she a cheerleader, a celebrity, a candidate? I just don’t know.

While I certainly have my favorites I can honestly say I would vote for any of these candidates (except Ron Paul) against Obama who I believe has done serious damage to our country from the policies he has implemented, the money he has spent and the expansion of government he has created.

It is still quite a long way from even the first primary – so we all have time to decide and let the field naturally evolve but this is my take on the current candidates.

Writer Chick

Copyright 2011

I am somewhat mystified by the apparent support for Rick Perry. Based on cursory research I’ve conducted about Perry he seems to be quite the squishy Republican. Or a RINO if you want to use the vernacular…

• He is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, yet he used stimulus money to balance his budget.

• He touts Constitutionalism yet he’s willing to make deals with the right people.

• He is against Obama-care and government takeover of health care yet.

• He is also supposed to be for getting America back to work, border security, etc etc. and yet.

• Yet the media would have you believe he is the anti-Romney candidate and a tea party favorite.

• If you want to know what a Texan thinks of Rick Perry, read this. It should be quite enlightening.

Just like the previous election I do believe that the media is trying to manipulate us into choosing the ‘right’ candidate lest we pick someone that they do not approve of – the horror of such a scenario.

The fact is folks, that before we jump on anybody’s band wagon because an attractive politician has given a speech in which he has said all the right things – we need to do some due diligence. Don’t let fancy speeches and media manipulation make your decision for you.

That’s all I’m saying.

Writer Chick

copyright 2011

It’s a long video but worth the time. If you care about the financial condition of this country, you’ll take the time to watch.