Pages

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

On President Romney's First Day...

Although the outcome of the election next Tuesday is not certain, it's appearing more and more likely that Mitt Romney is going to be elected the 45th President of the United States.  On his first day in office he needs to hit the ground running and immediately begin correcting the devastation caused by Obama & crew.  Here's a brief list of things he should do on his first day on the job.
 
1.  Sign the repeal of Obamacare, which Congress should have on his desk before the end of the day.  Priority number one.

2.  Meet with the leadership of the House and Senate and make plans for cutting personal income and business taxes.

3.  Demand Congress pass a budget.  Congress hasn't passed a budget in four years.

4.  Call Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and assure him Israel has the support of the United States, emphasizing a joint approach in dealing with Iran.  But don't apologize for the last four years.  I'm sick of people apologizing for the United States.

5.  Declassify all videos, audio recordings and documents on Benghazi.  Make it clear that those who have been silenced by the Obama administration should start talking.  It's time to find out what really happened and why.

6.  The same goes for Fast and Furious.  Soon-to-be-former AG Eric Holder and the Justice Department should no longer be under the protection of executive privilege.

6.  Direct the new Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs to begin strengthening our military and restoring the 20,000 Marines and 80,000 soldiers cut by Obama.

7.  Authorize the redeployment of missile defense to Poland and the Czech Republic that Obama cancelled.  Send a message to Putin that there will be no flexibility.

8.  Order the issuance of permits for oil and natural gas exploration and drilling on federal land.  It's time to release the stranglehold on American energy companies.

9.  Restore the $760 billion that Obama looted from Medicare.

10.  Install new leadership at the EPA who will reverse the environmental regulations advanced by Obama's people, who have added billions in new operating costs and compliance requirements to the coal industry.  Over the next four years there are 175 coal-fired power plants currently scheduled to be shut down.  Start now to reverse the damage done by Obama's war on coal.

11.  Break for a brief lunch.

12.  Do ten more before dinner.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

100 Reasons to Vote for Romney and Against Obama

Bob Ewoldt at Brevis has a list of one hundred reasons to vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama.  Just in glancing at the list I was overwhelmed with the complete failure of the Obama presidency and all the destruction and corruption he has facilitated in the last four years.  And yet, there are still millions of people who think he is wonderful and want him to have another four years.  I just don't understand the thinking of those people.
 
I've selected from the list five reasons to vote for Romney and five reasons to vote against Obama.  There are so, so many reasons to boot Obama that it was difficult to choose the five against him.  If you want to read the entire list please use the link at the bottom to head over to Bob's page.

13. Solyndra. The recipient of $500 million in a sweetheart deal ended up in bankruptcy. An epic waste.

21. Paul Ryan. It shows that Romney’s judgment is reliable. It also says he’s very serious about the budget, deficit and debt.

41. Mitt Romney experience at Bain Consulting and Bain Capital. The records of both are extraordinary. Bain Capital was perhaps the most successful investment firm in the 1990s, when Romney was at the helm. Successes like Staples. This experience taught him about creating jobs and about the economy.

44. Mitt Romney’s charitable giving. It’s huge. He’s given away $30 million over 20 years, and that’s not counting what he might have made if he’d kept that money (the opportunity cost of charitable giving). Mitt Romney is the most generous of any presidential candidate. And it’s not timed for political gain. His giving goes back 20 years. He gave sacrificially even when he was poor and in business school.

46. President Obama has deceived the country about the deficit and debt and his plan to raise taxes. He’s insisted that the deficit and debt can be solved by raising taxes on people making $250,000 or more. That’s a lie. Some people say that it will raise 10% of the deficit. Some say that it will completely collapse economic growth. But no one says that it will raise more than 10% of the deficit.

60. Fast and Furious. The idea of walking guns into Mexico is absurd. And it killed a U.S. border agent, as well as at least 16 Mexican nationals (that we know about).

68. President Obama jammed Obamacare down the throat of America after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts to fill Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat specifically to provide a 41st vote to kill it. Despite enormous majorities against Obamacare, the president pushed it through. What does it say about his indifference to the people he leads?

76. Mitt Romney deals candidly with issues. He gets datasets. He consults experts. He was elected by Democrats because they had a huge deficit, and he dealt with the issue quickly.

83. President Obama lied about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi in a Univision interview, long after everybody (including Susan Rice) had admitted it was a terrorist attack. We know that it was a terrorist attack, and the president continues to try to place blame elsewhere.

99. Mitt Romney is committed to 340 ships in the U.S. Navy. In a speech to the Citadel last year, said that we’ve got to go to 340 ships, we’ve got to build 9 per year instead of 5, and we’ve got to build the sort of ships that we need, instead of the types of ships that President Obama is deploying. We’ve got to maintain a blue-water navy that is second to none.

http://brevis.me/100-reasons-to-vote-for-mitt-romney-and-against-barack-obama/

Thursday, October 25, 2012

United Nations Day - A Day to Remember UN Failures

Yesterday was United Nations Day and President Obama issued a proclamation of observance, urging all U.S. governors to do the same thing.

“I urge the Governors of the 50 States, and the officials of all other areas under the flag of the United States, to observe United Nations Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities,” the presidential proclamation said.

Here at OK Politechs, United Nations Day came and went, but it's not too late to observe the day with an appropriate activity, that being a very brief list of UN failures. 

The UN turned a blind eye to Rwanda and 800,000 civilians were massacred in 1994.

From 1974 to 1979 Pol Pot killed 2 million Cambodians while the UN did nothing.

Radical Muslims killed tens of thousands in East Timor from 1975 to 1999 while the UN did nothing.

UN peacekeepers in the Congo, Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia, Sudan and Burundi were accused of raping women and children.

UN peacekeepers in Asia and Africa have been blamed for spreading AIDS.

More than twenty different cases of child sex slavery involving UN staff have been reported in southern Sudan.

The United States was one of the top five countries targeted by the UN in 2010 for Human Rights criticism, more than Nicaragua, South Africa and North Korea combined.

The United Nations Population Fund has been investigated for working with the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China to enforce its barbaric “one-child” policy — complete with forced abortions, involuntary sterilization, kidnapping of “illegal” children, and other brutal tactics

This post could be much, much longer with failure after failure and outrage after outrage. 

The United Nations ceased being a body worth funding years ago.  According to the Office of Management and Budget, in 2010 the United States contributed $7.691 billion to the United Nations. What is the US getting for our tax dollars?  What are they doing with our money?

Next year on United Nations Day I would like to be able to mark the day by posting about that organization the United States used to belong to.  But I won't hold my breath.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Third Parties - There's A Reason They're Excluded

Last night I watched the Larry King-moderated debate between four third-party candidates in Chicago.  Present for the debate were:

Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Jill Stein - Green Party
Virgil Goode - Constitution Party
Rocky Anderson - Justice Party


The debate started with hostility from all four candidates which was directed at the Commission on Presidential Debates for excluding them from the Obama/Romney debates and at Obama and Romney and their respective political parties.  Johnson said the only voices being heard were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" (Obama and Romney).

Stein related that she and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, had attempted to gain entry to the debate at Hofstra University but were arrested and handcuffed to a chair for eight hours.

All four candidates voiced their disdain for the current political system, specifically mentioning PACs and Super PACs, saying they should be eliminated.  Johnson said candidates should be required to dress in "Nascar-like outfits" complete with patches representing their corporate sponsors to whom they owe political favors.

Jill Stein came across as the kookiest candidate.  Yes, kookiest.  She railed against Wall Street, complained about corporate wealth and reminded me of some of the Occupy wackos and some of their diatribes.  She called for a "new green deal" that would create 25 million jobs, putting a halt to climate change (Green Party candidate, big shock), making wars for oil obsolete, bailing out students and providing higher education for free.

Stein advocated legalizing marijuana, a substance she incredibly claimed was dangerous only because it's illegal.  Legalizing it would eliminate the health problems associated with marijuana, she claimed.  She said on day one of her presidency she would instruct the DEA to use science to determine what substances would be scheduled.  And hemp would also be made legal since, like marijuana, it has no bad effects.

Stein's foreign policy would consist of stopping all wars, cutting the military budget, bringing all the troops home and stopping the use of drones.  Drones seemed to be a hot issue for her.  She claimed that drones drop bombs on wedding and funerals and that she would lead an international convention to ban the use of drones.  She said her foreign policy would be based on international law and human rights, not on a war for oil.

Stein also advocated for making higher education free.  She said it's an outrage that money is spent bailing out Wall Street instead of students.

Gary Johnson also voiced disdain for the use of drones and said their use should be stopped because they "take out" innocent civilians.  He claimed with Obama and Romney we will have a police state. 

Johnson ran through a list of positions on various subjects - Don't bomb Iran.  End the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home tomorrow.  Marriage equality for homosexuals, which he said was on par with the civil rights of the 1960s.  End the drug war and legalize marijuana.  Repeal the Patriot Act.  Eliminate income tax and corporate tax.  Abolish the IRS and create a federal consumption tax.

Johnson claimed that 90% of the problem with marijuana was prohibition related, not use related.  He said Colorado has a legalization measure on their ballot and that Coloradans have a chance to "change marijuana policy worldwide."  He said marijuana use issues belong with the family and not in the criminal justice system.

On military spending, Johnson made sure that no one in the military would vote for him by saying that he would cut the defense budget by 43%.  He also said that Al Qaeda was wiped out after we were in Afghanistan for six months (someone forgot to tell Chris Stevens) and that it's time to get out.  He continually said we should not bomb Iran.

Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party said he wants public financing of campaigns and free access to public airwaves.  He claimed the government has been sold out to Wall Street fat cats who are buying elections and making out like bandits.  He said Bush and Obama have shredded the Constitution and the "imperial presidency" has been expanded. 

I am pretty sure he made the claim that the Pentagon has warned that climate change is a greater national security threat than terrorism and that we need environmental justice.  My notes on that comment are slightly illegible and I haven't been able to verify that statement with a transcript.  If anyone reading this post has a link to one, please post in a reply, thanks.

Anderson said the war on drugs is insane and that marijuana and all drugs should be legalized.  He wants to treat drugs as a health and education issue and not a criminal justice issue.  He also said as president he would issue a pardon to everyone in prison for drug offenses.

Anderson said that every vote to build the F-22 Raptor was treason against our country.  Defense money should be spent on education and jobs and combating climate change.  He said if you haven't been attacked then attacking a country like Iraq is illegal and should be prosecuted.

Like Stein, Anderson said that higher education should be free.  Interestingly, neither said where the money would come from to pay for it all.  He also said if given the opportunity to pass a Constitutional amendment he would pass an equal rights amendment for sexual orientation.

Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party had an accent that made him the most interesting debater.  He called for a "green card moratorium" until unemployment is below 5%.  He advocated cutting federal spending on the war on drugs, saying it was a state issue but that he is against legalization.

On military spending Goode said he supports a strong defense, but that to balance the budget, defense cuts would have to be made.  He said we need to "retrench" rather than try to be the policeman of the world.

Goode was against more Pell grants or more federally subsidized student loans, saying we can't afford them. 

The most interesting part of the debate came at the end.  I was under the impression this debate was organized to give third-party candidates a chance to put forth their views after being excluded from the Obama/Romney debates.  All four candidates voiced extreme displeasure with the exclusion and the organizer of the debate, Christina Tobin of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, spoke of the need to give a voice to third-party candidates. 

However, at the end of the debate it was announced that there would be another debate on October 30 and that viewers of the first debate could go online to vote on which two of the four candidates should be included.  What happened to inclusion for all candidates?  After railing about third-party candidates being left out, they're leaving some out of the next debate?  That's just bizarre.

It was an interesting ninety minutes and instructive to hear the views of these candidates.  That said, I would not support their inclusion in debates with the Republican or Democratic candidates.  They have zero chance of being elected and I don't believe time should be spent listening to them advocate for things like legalizing marijuana or doing insane things like slashing the defense budget by 43%.

And if you favor including these fringe candidates in debates, then you must also favor including the Peace and Freedom Party candidate, Roseanne Barr.  You read that right - Roseanne Barr.  Shockingly, she was excluded from this 'inclusive' third-party debate.  But I'm sure she and her running mate, Cindy Sheehan, will get plenty of votes in California anyway.

Perhaps these candidates have been smoking too much of the marijuana that three of them want to legalize.  Until they come back to reality and stop advocating either crazy or impossible ideas, they will always be the fringe candidates who will be excluded.  An overwhelming majority of Americans aren't interested in their ludicrous agendas and just don't want to waste their time listening to them.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Electoral College or Popular Vote?

There has been some speculation by some that Romney may win the popular vote while Obama wins the Electoral College.  While such a scenario is unlikely, it has happened three times in our history, with the most recent being in 2000 when George W. Bush won the Electoral College while Al Gore won the popular vote.  Not surprisingly, after that election there were many people who called for an end to the Electoral College and a switch to a national popular vote.  Of course, Al Gore also favored this switch.

Fortunately, there are enough people who recognize this movement for the disaster it would be and that it would be a huge blow to the federal system designed by the Founders.  Congress has rejected hundreds of bills that would have changed or eliminated the Electoral College system.

The Republican platform approved at the convention this summer also includes language opposed to any change.

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College,” the platform reads. “We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

The national popular vote is a misguided movement that ignores the original intent of the Founders when they drafted the Constitution. The federal coalition of the United States was designed with the intent that the states, not the direct vote of the people, would select the President. In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison wrote that "the immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters."

The power of today's federal government would likely give our Founding Fathers coronaries if they knew how it has evolved from what they created.  The federal system of states retaining power not specifically given to the federal government has eroded over time, but the Electoral College has remained. Switching to a national popular vote would take even more power away from the states.  As it is now, even the small states are vitally important in the presidential election.  They may not receive the attention from campaigns that battleground states do, but all are equally important and can decide an election.  Just ask Al Gore, who would have been elected president had he carried his home state of Tennessee.

If Romney wins the popular vote but loses to Obama in the Electoral College, there will be some on the right who propose changing the system, just as some on the left did after Gore lost.  But, this would be a huge mistake.  Retaining the Electoral College is vital to our federal system and doing away with it would be the death knell for what the Founders created. 

Monday, October 22, 2012

A United Nations Monitor May Watch You Vote

At the request of liberal groups such as the NAACP, the ACLU and the The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the United Nations will be sending at least 57 poll watchers to various locations around the United States to observe the election on November 6.  The groups sent a letter to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, and warned of a "coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans - particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities."

Giovanna Maiola, spokeswoman for OSCE, has said the monitors won't limit their observations to what goes on at the polls but will also be focusing on a number of areas on the state level, including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing and new voting technologies used in different states.

This is not the first time that OSCE had monitored a US election but the monitoring is making news this time due to all the complaints and warnings of fraud from both liberals and conservatives.  Changes in election laws to require photo identification have the liberals screaming voter suppression and events such as the ACORN fraud in 2008 have the conservatives concerned. 

It's important to note here that these foreign observers are not being requested by any conservative group.  Only the liberals have asked that the election be monitored by the UN.

Liberals have always been fond of the United Nations and have never failed to desire to give the UN more power and funding.  It should not be surprising that they would turn to the UN for assistance when they feel their votes are being suppressed at the polls.  And, for the record, no one is being denied the right to vote.

Aside from the fact that our election is none of the UN's business, their monitors seem to think our election process should emulate that of other countries they have monitored.  Criticizing the election process in the United States, after more than two hundred twenty five years of free elections, is outrageous.

Here is an example from a 2004 monitoring report:

"The observers said they had less access to polls than in Kazakhstan, that the electronic voting had fewer fail-safes than in Venezuela, that the ballots were not so simple as in the Republic of Georgia and that no other country had such a complex national election system. . "To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," said Konrad Olszewski, an election observer stationed in Miami by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. . "They have one national election law and use the paper ballots I really prefer over any other system," Olszewski said… "Unlike almost every other country in the world, there is not one national election today," said Gould, who has been involved in 90 election missions in 70 countries. "The decentralized system means that rules vary widely county by county, so there are actually more than 13,000 elections today." Variations in local election law not only make it difficult for election monitors to generalize on a national basis, but also prohibit the observers from entering polling stations at all in some states and counties. Such laws mean that no election observers from the organization are in Ohio, a swing state fraught with battles over voter intimidation and other polling issues."

There are some states that have laws disallowing international observers access during voting, but most states do not.  Every state should pass such a law.  Having foreigners involved in our election process in any way is an affront to our national sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent that could eventually lead to horrible consequences.  The United Nations should keep it's nose out of our elections.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Rally of Ten for Obama

Sandra Fluke, the professional student labeled a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh, headlined a rally for Obama at a Sak 'N Save in Reno, NV and drew an amazing crowd of ten people. Ten. After addressing the delegates at the Democratic National Convention the champion for taxpayer funded birth control has been relegated to a parking space and wasn't even able to fill it. Small crowds at rallies for Obama are becoming the norm but this is the first one I've heard of that fits in a parking space. And the ten who showed up were probably either wanting to ask which aisle the green beans were on or see if Fluke finally got the tattoo below her belly button that says "Your tax dollars hard at work."


Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Murderous Left: Emulating the Taliban

There seems to be a growing number of threats lately on Twitter and other social media outlets to riot, assassinate, murder or firebomb conservatives or Republican candidates.  Most of these threats are directed at Mitt Romney but there have also been threats directed at other conservative candidates or even people simply using social media to promote conservative ideals.  Launching a hate-filled, profanity laden diatribe is nothing new for the left, but the influx of death threats and promises to assassinate are becoming disturbingly common.

Many news outlets have been reporting the threats against Mitt Romney, quoting mostly Twitter users in their criminal threats of assassination.  The Examiner has many examples.  Here are a few:

"I wana shoot mitt Romney (sic)," threatened "Brick Chaney."
"Someone shoot Mitt Romney," tweeted "bow_Tye."
"Ruaridh Pond" wrote: "Someone needs to shoot Mitt Romney. I'd pay d**n good money."
"[S]eriously," tweeted another user, "Mitt Romney needs to die."
User "Gavin" expressed hatred for Mormons and said he would "f*****g freak" and "die" if Romney won.
"Mitt Romney just needs to die, he is going to do no good for our country, (sic)" tweeted "Fish Taco."

The Secret Service has confirmed it is aware of the threats against Romney.  A spokesman said they will conduct appropriate follow up if necessary.  That follow up should include prison time for the geniuses threatening murder.

Among others, death threats have also been made on Sarah Palin, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Supreme Court Justices after they ruled on Arizona's immigration law.

Many news sites have also been reporting the threats to riot if Obama loses the election.  Rioting has always been a staple of leftist politics but I don't recall any threats in the past to riot if the outcome of an election wasn't to their liking.  Perhaps rioting is a tactic of the new more tolerant left.  It would dovetail nicely with their vandalism and bomb threats.

The most sickening death threats of all, though, were leveled on a 6 year old boy.  Six years old.  And just what did a six year old do to get the attention of the murderous left?  He starred in a YouTube video called 10 Reasons Not To Vote For Obama.

“Shoot tha kid Kill tha Parents!!!”
“[C]an someone kill that child… to teach his parents a lesson.”
“This child and his parents need to be euthanized.”

This all sounded too familiar.  Just last week in Pakistan Malala Yousufzai, a 14 year old girl, was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman and left for dead.  She was targeted by the Taliban for promoting girls' education and criticizing the Taliban's actions when they took over the Swat Valley where she lived.  The Taliban have threatened to target Malala again until she is killed because she promotes "Western thinking."

Shouting down and silencing the opposition has always been the modus operandi of the left. Angry, profanity laden shouting has become all too common and now they have progressed to death threats via social media.  How long will it be before someone actually makes good on one of these threats?  And once the first conservative is killed will that then start a new trend of carrying out the murderous threats?  Being a conservative politician could be a life threatening occupation.  Or a six year old YouTube star. 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Obama's Media Protection

For almost four years now Barack Obama has lived under the protection of the media.  They have shielded him, propped him up, deflected blame for him, lied for him and given him a free pass on everything he has done and everything he has not done.

The millions he and Michelle have spent on lavish vacations at taxpayer expense.  The unemployment numbers. Oil, natural gas and coal production. Energy independence. Taxes. Immigration. Obama has failed in all these areas and more, without one word of criticism from the media.  His signature accomplishment, Obamacare, was passed without a single Republican vote and was lauded by the media as a wonderful accomplishment when even Nancy Pelosi said we won't know what's in it until it's passed.  Had the media done their jobs and reported the truth about the bill, Congress would not have dared pass Obamacare for fear of being tarred and feathered when they returned home to their constituents.  Some almost were in spite of the media.

When running for president Obama promised he would have the most transparent administration in history.  Instead, the Fast and Furious cover up and now the Benghazi cover up have been scandals that ordinarily would destroy a presidency and send the incumbent packing after the next election.  But, the media has ignored Fast and Furious.  And the media went along with the administration's spin, blaming a video for the events in Benghazi.  Willing accomplices, every step of the way.

And now, at the end of his first and, hopefully, only term, Obama is having to step out from behind the wall of media protection and be face to face with the opposition on the debate stage.  Even the blatant bias of the moderators has not been able to protect him from the awful truth, which is that the country is in far worse shape now than when he took office.  All his lies, all the interruptions from the moderators, all the lies told by moderators when 'correcting' Romney, all the liberal spin from the media after the debates...  All have failed to hide the fact that Obama's presidency has been a failure.

In spite of the media, from the polling numbers it appears the majority of voters know the truth. At this time it appears that Mitt Romney will be elected president next month.  What I wonder is how much of a landslide would it be if the media did their jobs with no bias and reported the absolute truth about Obama, his failures, his lies and his plans.  But, if they did that, he would never have been elected in the first place.