Why I (might) care about Republicans

This election season, for the first time in many years, I am starting to pay attention to the Republican candidates. Usually I don't care who their nominee is, as I mostly vote Libertarian. I don't vote Libertarian because they are a Libertarian, but they usually espouse my political philosophy better than the Republican or Democrats.

Now, I'm not going to get into a comparison of Libertarians vs. everybody else (at least not right now), but I know the reality of the situation. Next November, the race will be between a Democrat and a Republican, the Libertarian won't be in the fight. We know the Democrat will be Barak Obama (he might get a primary challenger from the left, but he will be the nominee). I also know that my state (Georgia) is a "Red" state, and it's electors will go to the Republican.

All of that we know, what we don't know is who that Republican will be.

Normally I don't care who the nominees for the D & R parties are, sometimes I will get behind a candidate such as Regan, or vote against a candidate such as Ford. (OK, I'll admit it, I voted for Carter in '76. I did it because Ford pardoned Nixon. I later realized that Ford did the right thing for this country to get that scandal behind us.), but for the most part, I don't care which candidate from the major parties won. Democrats and Republicans are equally evil and terrible for this country.

This time it's different. Obama is not just terrible for the country, he is dangerous. For the first time, we have a President who I believe is trying to purposefully destroy our economic system so he can implement a new one, one that is more Socialist than what we have now.

Thus, I feel that it is important to help pick the Republican nominee; one that I may or may not vote for in the general election. I do not have anybody in mind yet, I need to both hear their positions and assess their "elect-ability", because it doesn't matter what their position is if they have no chance against Obama (Palin, Paul, etc.). I hope to still hold to my principals and try not to vote for someone who may be on the right fiscally, but on the left socially.

Now that Perry is in the race, and Pawlenty is out, things are starting to get interesting. I hope to create a list of likes and dislikes and post them here in the near future.

Daddy, can I have an increase in my allowance?

Us parents who have had teenagers all too well know that sound. The kid want's more money, but most often they don't want to do anything extra for it. And on the occasion that we do increase the allowance, do you think the kid puts part of it away? No, they will spend it.

Cue the folks in congress: The latest proposal is to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion dollars over two years. Is that just in case of an emergency like a credit card that we keep for just that purpose? No, they plan on spending the whole damn thing! Our federal deficit is expected to hit $1.5 trillion this year. Out total debt is over $14 trillion. This will amount to a 17% increase!

After that, will we try to lower the deficit? No, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962, and each time the debt ceiling has been hit. As long as we keep increasing it, the debt will get higher. It's time to cut up the credit card. the only way to force congress to stop spending increases is to hold firm on the debt ceiling.

According to a NPR article, New York Professor James Ramsey is quoted as saying: "[As Samuel] Johnson said about hanging, it concentrates the mind wonderfully," Ramsey says. "I would say if we were in a position of not being able to pay our debts in the short term, it would concentrate the politicians' minds dramatically."

In February 2010, Rep Cantor (R-VA) said this about efforts to raise the debt to $14 trillion: “It is a travesty,” said Cantor. “The writing is on the wall. Congress needs to wake up and realize that the future of American prosperity is in dire straits, mortal danger..."

Would it be the right thing to do right now? My thoughts are that not raising it would cause the economy to slow down, so we should raise it by maybe only by 2-3%, but federal spending (in 2012, not ten years down the road) should be cut more than the increase (let's start with 10%). Start cutting spending now so we don't have to raise it again.

Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA): "I don't like the bill" "This is the best deal we can get"

Quotes from Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) regarding the GOP debt "reduction" bill according to Jami Dupree:

"This is the best deal we can get,"

"I've always been an undecided,"

"I don't like the bill; I think it was negotiated terrible, but it's a start...I think this is a good start."

This is from a candidate who promised to cut spending back to the 2008 levels, and to make "some real cuts to our federal budget"

When a compromise bill is passed (and it will pass), both the GOP and Dems will strain muscles slapping themselves on the back and come back to their districts spouting bullshit about how they cut spending when in fact the final bill will probably do nothing to cut next year's budget.

We have to face it, the old school Republicans do not want to cut spending, that's how they get elected, by bring money back to their district. Money the government either took from someone else, or borrowed. I'm not 100% on the Tea Party yet, but they have shown that they can get elected. We need to give them a chance. I suggest that if your GOP congressman is challenged by a Tea Party-er, it might be a good idea to see what this person can do.

Westmoreland gets his ass in line

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) voted for the GOP "deficit reduction" bill  that does not cut spending in 2012. On his website he states:" In the 112th Congress, I look forward to joining my Republican colleagues to cutting federal spending back to its 2008, pre-stimulus level, to ending the failed trillion dollar stimulus package, and to making some real cuts to our federal budget." What happened? Did he follow Boehners order to "get your ass in line"?

I guess this is racist too

I guess this is racist too:

(It mentions an increase in food stamps and Obama)

Record Number of Americans Rely on Food Stamps

Congress is under pressure to cut the rapidly rising costs of the federal government's food stamps program at a time when a record number of Americans are relying on it, says ABC News.

• On May 31, the House Appropriations Committee reviewed the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) that includes $71 billion for the agency's "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" (SNAP).
• That's $2 billion less than what President Obama requested but a 9 percent increase from 2011, which, critics say, is too large given the sizeable budget deficit.
• A record number of Americans -- about 14 percent -- now rely on the federal government's food stamps program.
• More than 44.5 million Americans received SNAP benefits in March, an 11 percent increase from one year ago and nearly 61 percent higher than the same time four years ago.
• Nearly 21 million households are reliant on food stamps.

Opponents of the program argue that money from the food stamps budget -- with what they call its increasingly lax requirements -- needs to be shifted to other programs such as education and child nutrition. The program's supporters argue that at a time of economic decline, such welfare programs are even more important to try to keep Americans from spiraling into poverty.

• The cost of the food stamps program has increased rapidly since it was established by Congress in 1964.
• It cost taxpayers more than $68 billion last year, double the amount in 2007.
• Nutrition assistance now accounts for more than half -- or about 67 percent -- of the USDA's budget, compared with 26 percent in 1980.
• That shift in focus, critics say, is ineffective because it hasn't put a dent in poverty or hunger in the United States while taking away money from other programs, specifically agricultural programs that should be the main focus of the agency.

Source: "Congress Mulls Cuts to Food Stamps Program amid Record Number of Recipients," ABC News, May 31, 2011.

Record Number of Americans Rely on Food Stamps

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere Warned the British

"He who warned, uh, the ... the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free ... and we were gonna be armed." - Sara Palin

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere Warned the British | User Submitted

Romney: "We're going to hang him—uh, so to speak, metaphorically

(NEWSER) – Mitt Romney tried to play up his recurring theme of an Obama "misery index" at a GOP forum last night, but he's drawing attention instead for his choice of words that he immediately walked back. Noting that Ronald Reagan spoke of a similar index and "hung that around Jimmy Carter's neck," Romney said Republicans today must do the same to Obama. "We're going to hang him—uh, so to speak, metaphorically—with, uh, with, uh—you have to be careful these days, I've learned that, with an Obama Misery Index."

The Boston Globe noted it: "Romney almost immediately caught himself, with the English major declaring 'metaphorically' speaking, but the mix of nervous laughter with applause indicated at least some in the audience realized its potency," writes Glen Johnson. The Atlantic,ABC News, and Politico also picked up on it, prompting Romney's spokesperson to write: “It is not what the governor meant and that was very clear in what he actually said. It’s a ridiculous exaggeration of his actual comments.” Probably a safe bet that particular metaphor won't surface again, though.

Romney Stumbles Over 'Hang Him' Metaphor - He quickly walks back comments on President Obama

Crazy Nut Cheerios

Herman Cain: "U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our watch!"

Tea Party influencing the GOP towards more support of Marijuana Reform

Tea Party influencing the GOP towards more support of Marijuana Reform: "
From Eric Dondero:

Pat Robertson's new position of Marijuana decriminalization has taken a number of pundits on the left and right by surprise. But as Melissa Bell, a columnist for the Washington Post points out, it may not be all that surprising given the rise of the libertarian-oriented Tea Party.

From WaPo 'Pat Robertson, supporter of Legalized Pot?' Dec. 23:

Robertson's position is not as unusual as you might think. Support for legalizing marijuana has been growing amongst conservatives, who cite legalization as an answer to the 'narcoterroism' in Mexico and the overburdened jail system. In October, Newsweek looked at the GOP's relationship to marijuana, saying that although only 25 percent of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana (as compared to 55 percent of Democrats), the number has jumped seven points since 2005. The article credits the influence of the anti-government-intervention Tea Party:

It's becoming increasingly hard for conservative candidates and lawmakers to square libertarian Tea Party catchphrases like 'fiscal responsibility' and 'limited government' with the government's war on drugs, especially when their constituents might prefer to see a war on joblessness.

Editor's comment - 25% of Republicans now favor marijuana reform is a very encouraging number for the libertarian wing.

"

"Nappy-headed" kids should have free internet

That Internet Thing, Again: "
Hey, let’s not even let the ink dry before we take the next step! High speed internet is a civil right, and that means that black people should get it for free!



You think I’m kidding? Hell to the no to the NFW:

On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: ”Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way.” Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.

“Broadband is becoming a basic necessity,” civil rights activist [ and former Executive Director of the NAACP ] Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every “nappy-headed child” in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, “deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is.”

Read the rest, because there’s so much more there than just the race card crappola. Michelle Malkin, writing in today’s Town Hall.

The “net neutrality” mob—funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits—has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for “media justice.” Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic “rights.” Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.

If Charlton Heston were still alive, there would be pictures of him holding a keyboard today. Because it starts with Net Neutrality, and it ends with “digital justice” and the left’s concept of the “fairness doctrine”. Which means Camp Ayers for you and me.









the camel’s nose







"

Herman Cain: “We are looking at doing an exploratory committee real soon”

VIDEO: Herman Cain Tells Cavuto He Is ‘Prayerfully Considering’ 2012 Campaign : The Other McCain: ""

A good way to see what's in the tax bill

More Tax Deal Details - Jamie Dupree on wsbradio.com

Bluegrass Pundit: Angry House Dem Drops F Bomb on Obama

Bluegrass Pundit: Angry House Dem Drops F Bomb on Obama

AG Eric Holder: Feds Will Enforce Marijuana Laws Regardless of Prop 19

"Attorney General Eric Holder announced today the Justice Department will continue to prosecute marijuana offenders in California, even if Proposition 19 passes."AG Eric Holder: Feds Will Enforce Marijuana Laws Regardless of Prop 19 - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime:

Welcome

"I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States . Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, 'If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?' She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal,' I told her. 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Libertarian Party.' Her parents still aren't speaking to me."

Candidate's Name Misspelled as 'Rich Whitey' on Black-District Ballots

Poor Illinois Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney, the victim of an extremely cartoonish "error:" His name has been misspelled as "Rich Whitey" on voting machines in nearly two dozen Chicago wards, half of them "predominantly African-American.

Candidate's Name Misspelled as 'Rich Whitey' on Black-District Ballots

Montana GOP Platform: It's Illegal to Be Gay - Party platform still has old plank against 'homosexual acts'

(NEWSER) – Homosexuals may be gaining more rights across the nation, but they can steer clear of Montana Republicans, thank you very much. The AP notes that the state party has adopted a platform that reiterates this statement of principle under the 'crime' section: 'We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.'

Montana GOP Platform: It's Illegal to Be Gay - Party platform still has old plank against 'homosexual acts':

Sarah Palin Would 'Give It a Shot' If the Public Wanted Her to Run for President in 2012

(NEWSER) – Add this to the will-she or won't-she debate: Sarah Palin tells Fox News that she'd be willing to "give it a shot" if the public wanted her to run for president in 2012. "If the American people were to be ready for someone who is willing to shake it up ... and if they happen to think I was the one, if it were best for my family and for our country, of course I would give it a shot."

Sarah Palin Would 'Give It a Shot' If the Public Wanted Her to Run for President in 2012

Handel endorses the "corrupt relic of Washington".

BREAKING: Handel Concedes; Nathan Deal Wins Ga. GOP Gubernatorial Runoff : The Other McCain