Not a Time to be Discouraged.

Its football season and most are happy to see the regular officials back, at least until they blow an important call that goes against their team.  Many participate in office football pools.  We used to have one where I work and many, including myself, used to poor over information like, offensive and defensive ratings, injury reports, and previous match-ups between the teams in order to predict the winners.  However, someone who did not follow football and just picked the winners by picking their favorite city would often win the pool. 

So what does this have to do with politics?  It seems that everyone in this election cycle is conducting polls.  Each of these polling organizations uses their own methodology to try to predict who will win this election.  Since there is no standard for polling methodology, the poll results vary substantially.  People following these polls find themselves on an emotional roller coaster.  One day their candidate is well on his or her way to victory only to have another poll showing him or her losing by a landslide. 

Jim Geraghty in an interview with John McLaughlin (1) explained how campaigns try to sway polling results.  Pollster try to determine likely voters to get a more accurate result but in order to determine this, they need to determine the likely turnout for each party in the election.  Many pollsters do this by looking at turnout in the previous presidential election.  However, there are flaws with this methodology.  For example, the 2004 election had an even turnout of Republicans and Democrats.  Bush won 51% to 48% but had the turnout matched the Democrat +4 edge of the 2000 election, Kerry would have been elected President.  (1)

The 2008 turnout was +7 for Democrats.  Many pollsters in this election are applying this methodology and come up with an Obama victory.  However, there was an election in 2010 with a heavy Republican turnout so we must question whether the turnout will be substantially different in 2012 than it was in 2008. 

Liberal pollsters believe the 2010 election was a fluke.  Former Republican Senator Bob Bennett pronounced the Tea Party was receding in this election.  However, a few hours later Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party candidate, was celebrating victory in a primary runoff election for the U.S. Senate. (2)  We also have to consider the massive turnout in support of Chick-Fil-A because of their support for traditional marriage. (3)

I believe the pollsters using the 2008 election turnout in this election are not properly sampling the electorate.  They are missing one ingredient that numbers cannot mention, the passion of an electorate that has endured almost four years of Obama’s failed policies.  Almost 23 million people remain unemployed and many others fear they will be next.  People have seen their retirement savings shrink and their home values plummet leaving many with homes underwater.  They are tired of hearing that it’s Bush’s fault.  That may have worked the first year but Obama has had almost a full term to fix the problem with little in results.  Instead of focusing on solving the country’s problems, they see their President busy campaigning, playing golf, going on expensive vacations, and hobnobbing with celebrities.  Therefore, I believe the turnout this election will be virtually even if not in favor of Republicans. 

Instead of focusing on skewed polls, I encourage everyone to focus on getting out the vote.  Make sure to vote and make sure everyone you know who does not like the direction our country is going in goes out to vote.  If they have a problem getting to the polls on Election Day, drive them there or get an absentee ballot for them. 

Pollsters are just like people trying to predict the outcome of this week’s NFL games, they are trying to predict the future and like the NFL prognosticators, are often wrong.  The players in the game determine the outcome of the game.  The voters are the players in this game and will determine the outcome this election.  So let’s get in the game by working for our candidate to get out the vote and making sure to vote ourselves.  This is a game our country cannot afford to lose. 

1. Geraghty, Jim. What John McLaughlin Sees in the Polls Right Now. www.nationalreview.com. [Online] The National Review, September 21, 2012. [Cited: September 28, 2012.] http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/327982/what-john-mclaughlin-sees-polls-right-now.

2. Warren, Michael. The Tea Party Is Alive and Well. www.weeklystandard.com. [Online] The Weekly Standard, August 13, 2012. [Cited: September 28, 2012.] http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/tea-party-alive-and-well_649303.html.

3. Geraghty, Jim. The Great Chick-fil-a War of 2012. nationalreview.com. [Online] National Review Online, August 2, 2012. [Cited: August 7, 2012.] http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/312956/great-chick-fil-war-2012.

Becoming an Informed Voter Part 7: Expect Open Borders

I have lived in Phoenix Arizona since 1964 with the exception of one year in Seattle.  During that time I have seen the demographics of the city change.  In 1964, the city’s population was growing because of people moving there from the east and Midwest.  That included my family and me who moved here from Ohio.  The main reason for people moving here was the nice weather in the winter.  Okay the summers are hot but we have air conditioning and we can travel north a couple of hours to be in cooler weather.  Today that is no longer the case.  Today there is an influx of people moving into Arizona from the south because the border with Mexico is wide open. 

Mexico is a third world country and I can understand why someone living there might look over the border to the United States and want to come here.  I am not opposed to people seeking opportunities to better themselves but we live in a country governed by the rule of law and therefore we expect people coming here to abide by our laws, including our immigration laws. 

This was the intent of Arizona Senate bill 1070.  In section 1 of the legislation it says the following “The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona.  The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.  The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” (1)

All the State of Arizona was trying to do is assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of its existing immigration laws.  You would think that the Feds would be appreciative of the help but not the Obama Administration.  Instead of working with the state, they chose to sue the state.  This lawsuit made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme court where the court struck down 3 of 4 parts of the legislation.  The only portion the Supreme Court upheld was Section 2(B), which gives law enforcement permission to check the immigration status of someone they suspect may be in the country illegally but they must first have the person lawfully in custody.  This means they cannot just pull someone over to check their immigration status but must first detain him or her for some other crime or violation.  (1) (2) 

The Supreme Court, however, struck down sections 6, 3, and 5 (C).  Section 6 allows local law enforcement to make warrantless arrests of those suspected to be illegally in the country and then turning them over to federal immigration officials. This is similar to what law enforcement officers already do when they arrest someone for possession of illegal drugs and turn them over to the DEA Section 3 made it illegal for illegal immigrants to fail to carry alien registration documentation.  Section 5 (C) made it illegal for aliens to knowingly apply for, solicit, or do work in Arizona.  In striking down these portions of the legislation, the Supreme Court made it almost impossible for local law enforcement to enforce the law. 

The behavior of the Obama administration in this instance shows us that they have no desire to secure our borders.  They politically see the growing population of Hispanics and want to secure their votes.  I understand that illegal immigrants cannot vote but I believe that some do by using stolen identification.  This is why Arizona also instituted a law requiring a photo ID to vote but that is a topic for another posting.  However, the illegals have families legally in the country and Obama believes that leaving the border open will secure their votes. 

The problem with a wide-open border is that more than just Hispanics are free to enter the country.  The recent attacks on our embassies on 9/11 show that there is still radical Islamists who want to murder our citizens.  With a wide-open border to our south, we cannot be sure they are not already coming over our borders and plotting another attack on our citizens on our soil.  Mitt Romney is not anti-immigration he is anti-illegal immigration.  He wants to fix the immigration system to make it easier for those wanting to come to our country legally and become productive members of our society.  However, he also wants to secure our borders to prevent violent cartel members or terrorists from coming into our country (3)

Secure borders are an essential part of our national security.  We need a President that will make border security a priority.  We need a President who instead of suing a state wanting to cooperate with Federal Border Patrol, will partner with them and secure our borders.  It is obvious that Obama will continue his open border policy exposing our country to violent drug cartels and terrorism.  Mitt Romney has promised to work to improve the legal immigration process while securing our borders. 

If you are interested in the security of our nation, the choice is obvious.  Vote for Mitt Romney

1. Forty-ninth Senate of The State of Arizona. Senate Bill 1070. www.azleg.gov. [Online] Senate of the State of Arizona. [Cited: September 2012, 2012.] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf.

2. Shapiro, Ben. AZ IMMIGRATION DECISION DISASTER FOR AMERICANS, WIN FOR OBAMA. breitbart.com. [Online] Brietbart.com, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/25/AZ-immigration-decision-disaster-for-conservatives-states.

3. Mitt Romney for President. Immigration. www.mittromney.com. [Online] Mitt Romney for President. [Cited: September 25, 2012.] http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration.

Identifying the 47%

As a child I remember my parents taking me to the circus.  One of my favorite parts of the circus was the high wire and trapeze acts.  The danger involved with these performances gets our adrenalin going.  To mitigate the danger involved with these acts, the performers often use a safety net so that if they fall they will not be injured or killed and can then get back up and continue their performance. 

Life is like a high wire or trapeze act and comes with certain risks and danger.  To protect those who fall due to the circumstances of life, our country has developed a safety net.  We have unemployment for those who lose their job, food stamps so they can feed their families and disability for those disabled.  Like the safety net for a circus act, these programs assist those who fall victim to economic downturns or other circumstances of life that put them in danger but they were not intended to last forever. 

We now have people who fell into the safety net and decided to stay there.  They have had children who have never known anything other than living dependent on some form of government handout.  In 1996, Republicans in the House and Senate voted for and President Clinton signed legislation that changed the welfare program into a workfare program requiring individuals to look for work in order to continue receiving government checks.  The workfare program resulted in nearly 3 million families moving out of dependency on a government check and moving into self-sufficiency. (1)

A You Tube video recently surfaced where Mitt Romney is seen saying that there are 47% of the population that will vote for more government handouts and higher taxes on the rich.  Opponents of Romney have used this to try to prove their accusations that Romney and Republicans do not care for the poor and disadvantaged.  However, we found out later that part of the video is missing so we cannot be sure of the context of Romney’s comments.  (2) 

To determine the context of Romney’s remarks we must look at other comments and actions of Mitt Romney.  In Mitt Romney’s recently released tax returns, we see that he had income of $13,696,951 and paid taxes of $1,935,708.  Mitt and Ann Romney also gave $4,020,772 to charity.  We can tell a lot about someone from what we see on his or her tax return.  Romney’s tax return shows me that he is wealthy but it also shows someone who pays his taxes and is very charitable.  Based on what I see in the Romney’s tax return, I conclude that Mitt Romney was not calling for the elimination of the governmental safety net in his comments on the 47% but was expressing his desire to see people in the safety net come out of it. 

The government’s safety net not intended to be a hammock.  We need a thriving economy where people can find work and we need to educate second and third generations, raised in the safety net, that there is a better way to live.  People free to pursue their individual dreams and goals built the United States.  Unfortunately, for many, they have fallen prey to politicians with an agenda of creating a permanent dependency class.  It is time for us to break this cycle and empower these individuals to break free of dependency and begin pursuing their own dreams.  This is the most charitable and compassionate thing we can do for these people. 

1. Capara, Collette. How Welfare’s Work Requirements Make a Difference in Lives. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, July 30, 2012. [Cited: September 22, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/30/how-welfares-work-requirements-make-a-difference-in-lives/.

2. Morrissey, Ed. “Complete” video of Romney missing 1-2 minutes of remarks on the 47%. hotair.com. [Online] Hot Air, September 19, 2012. [Cited: September 22, 2012.] http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/complete-video-of-romney-missing-1-2-minutes-of-remarks-on-the-47/.

Becoming An Informed Voter Part 6: The Supreme Court Goes Far Left.

The Constitution of the United States limits the President to two terms in office.  However, through judicial appointments, the President can create a lasting legacy because judges have lifetime appointments.  So what might happen to judicial appointments if Obama gets a second Term in Office?

Many believe that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will most likely retire during the next presidential term.  This is even more likely if Obama wins a second term for she will have assurance he will replace her with someone that shares her judicial philosophy. (1)  If Romney wins the election, she may try to hold on for the next 8 years but with her age and the fact she has defeated cancer twice that may not be possible.  Obama replacing Ginsburg, a liberal leaning justice, with another liberal leaning justice will not change the make-up of the court so this is actually a moog point if Obama wins a second term. 

However, in addition to Justice Ginsburg, there are also two other Justices that will turn 80 during the next presidential term.  They are conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and conservative leaning Justice Anthony Kennedy.  (2)  There is little doubt that if Scalia or Kennedy retires, Obama will replace them with liberal Justices so if Obama wins a second term, Scalia and Kennedy would probably try to hold on for the next 4 years hoping for the election of a conservative President in 2016 when the Presidency will be open.  However, with both of these men in their eighties, that may not be possible. 

The Supreme Court, however, is not the only place where the President makes judicial appointments.  In Obama’s first term, he has managed to appoint numerous circuit court judges and has changed the balance of power in 4 of the 13 circuit courts of appeals.  (2)  With the majority of court cases stopping in circuit courts and never going to the Supreme Court, Obama has already managed to substantially change the make-up of the federal judiciary. 

Under a Romney Presidency, we might see the replacement of Scalia and Kennedy with Ginsburg trying to hold on.  However, Romney will not be term limited out in 2016 so she may end up having to try to hold on till after 2020 when she will be approaching 90.  This means that there is a relatively strong possibility Romney will be able to nominate a conservative Justice to replace Ginsburg and thus, change the makeup of the Supreme Court.  A Romney presidency will also have the opportunity to replace circuit court judges during his presidency and reverse the trend of liberalizing the judiciary started by President Obama. 

The appointment of judges and Supreme Court Justices who have lifetime appointments is the lasting legacy of presidents.  Voters, however, tend to focus on the economy and social issues during the election cycle.  It is a fact that the economy and social issues are important and affect the daily lives of voters but the next administration and Congress can reverse the bad economic and social policies of one administration.  Judicial appointments, however, are lifetime appointments and extend well beyond the President’s term in office.  

A concerned voter gives this issue serious consideration before entering the voting booth.  With recent court decisions involving Citizens United, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, and Obamacare, we have all seen the power courts can have over our lives.  Therefore, I urge everyone to give the issue of judicial appointments serious consideration in this election. 

1. Goldstein, Tom. The Court in a second Obama Term. scotusblog.com. [Online] The Supreme Court of the United States Blog, February 14, 2012. [Cited: September 18, 2012.] http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/the-court-in-a-second-obama-term/.

2. TeaParty.org. Obama Will Target Courts in Second Term. teaparty.org. [Online] Associated Press. [Cited: September 18, 2012.] http://www.teaparty.org/article.php?id=2400.

Have Obama’s Foreign Policy Chickens Have Come Home to Roost.

During the 2008 campaign, we heard a lot about a statement made by Barack Obama’s pastor the Sunday after 9/11/2001 when he said “Not God Bless America but GD America…. America’s chickens have come home to roost.” Obama quickly claimed that he never heard that comment but whether or not he heard it is unimportant now, what is important is that after the events of this week we must ask, have Obama’s foreign policy chickens come home to roost. 

Western civilization finds comfort in the belief that we have grown past the time in history where a religious theology could stir up messianic passions in people and cause them to leave their societies in ruin.  (1)  In the United States, we have thrived in the absence of theocracy due to our constitutional rule of law being able to maintain a civil society.  Granted, our society has not been perfect but it has maintained a civil society for over 200 years.  However, this is not the case in many Middle Eastern cultures.  The oppression of tyrannical dictatorial leadership such as in Egypt creates a vacuum through which theocratic regimes can come to power.  One such theocratic movement is the Muslim Brotherhood.   

Established by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood insisted that Muslims would find strength in the total self-sufficiency of Islam.  The Muslim Brotherhood mission statement is “to work for the reform of selves, of hearts and souls by joining them to God the all-high; then to organize our society to be for the virtuous community which commands the good and forbids evil-doing, then from the community will arise the good state.” (1)  This sounds virtuous but at its heart is the establishment of an Islamic theocracy.  Therefore, the next logical question we must ask is if the establishment of an Islamic theocracy is all that bad.

Very soon after the election of Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, as president of Egypt (June 24, 2012) (2), there were reports of the crucifixion of those opposing President Muhammad Morsi soon after his election.  (3)  It would appear that there is little room for descent in the Muslim Brotherhood theocracy.  Unlike our constitutional form of government where the Constitution protects the citizens’ right to speak out against their government, in this theocracy the exercise of the right of free speech comes with the threat of death. 

However, even with this knowledge, the Obama Administration embraced the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, labeling it the “Arab Spring.”  They attempted to sell us on the prospect that the Arab Spring is a democratic movement that will result in the rise of democratic, peace loving governments in the Middle East.  They were so determined to remove dictators from the region that they gave little thought to what type of government would replace them.  (4)

Politicians, including Representative Michelle Bachmann, who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, raised the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the Obama Administration and was influencing the thinking and decision making process of the administration.  The Media denounced her statements documented in a 16-page document sent to Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota.  (5)  However, after the events of 09/11/2012, we have to wonder if Representative Bachmann was correct.

In hindsight, we now know that the Obama Administration had knowledge of possible attacks on our embassies two days before the attacks occurred.  (6)  With the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the Obama Administration, we must ask if they suppressed this information in order to prevent the Obama Administration from providing the proper protection of our embassies during the 11-year anniversary of the vicious attacks on our nation on 09/11/2001. 

However, we now know that President Obama did not attend any intelligence briefings for the week prior to the attacks. (7)  So, even if the security staff in the administration brought this threat to the President’s attention, he was not there to receive the information and was instead out doing other more important things like appearing on Letterman or going to Vegas to give a campaign speech. 

When Obama was sworn into office he pledged "I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (8)

Mr. President, you have been derelict in your duties as President.  Embassies are the property of the United States even though they are on foreign soil.  As President, you are obligated to protect the ambassador and his or her staff working at these embassies.  You are also responsible for insuring no subversive influences enter into your administration that could compromise your thinking or decision making process.  Finally, you are responsible to attend briefings from your staff where they provide information pertinent to making correct decisions. 

This week, more than any other week of the Obama Administration, demonstrated the weak and incompetent leadership it has provided our nation for the last four years.  This week the Obama Administration also demonstrated its weak and incompetent leadership to the world empowering our enemies and causing our allies to have concerns.  Wake up America, you have an opportunity in November to rid our nation of this weak incompetent leadership and replace it with leadership committed to restoring the security and greatness of our nation.  We must begin by electing Mitt Romney as our next president and then give him a Republican controlled House and Senate to work with. 

I trust the voters of the United States will make the correct choice in November. 

1. Paison, Michelle. !e History of the Muslim Brotherhood The Political, Social and Economic Transformation of the Arab Republic of Egypt. tuftsgloballeadership.org. [Online] 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.tuftsgloballeadership.org/files/resources/nimep/v4/The%20History%20of%20the%20Muslim%20Brotherhood.pdf.

2. Phillips, James. Egypt Elects President from Muslim Brotherhood. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/egypt-elects-president-from-muslim-brotherhood/.

3. Calvin, Donna. Obama backed Muslim Brotherhood Begins Crucifixions and Torture. blog.beliefnet.com. [Online] Beliefnet, August 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2012/08/obama-backed-muslim-brotherhood-begins-crucifixions-and-torture.html.

4. Snyder, Michael. Thanks Obama – The Terrorists You Used To Topple Regimes Are Now Attacking Our Embassies. infowars.com. [Online] Alex Jones Infowars.com, September 13, 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.infowars.com/thanks-obama-the-terrorists-you-used-to-topple-regimes-in-egypt-and-libya-are-now-attacking-our-embassies/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed.

5. Hobin, Partick. Bachmann: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrating Obama Administration. Newsmax.com. [Online] Newsmax, July 17, 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.newsmax.com/US/bachmann-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrating/2012/07/17/id/445620.

6. Vadum, Matthew. Obama Had Advance Knowledge of Mideast Attacks. rightsidenews.info. [Online] Right Side News, September 15, 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.rightsidenews.info/2012091517035/world/terrorism/obama-had-advance-knowledge-of-mideast-attacks.html.

7. Hall, Wynton. NO RECORD OF INTEL BRIEFINGS FOR OBAMA WEEK BEFORE EMBASSY ATTACKS. breitbart.com. [Online] Brietbart, September 12, 2012. [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/Exclusive-Obama-Skipped-Intel-Briefings-Week-Before-Embassy-Attacks.

8. SonServer.com. Presidential Oath of Office. sonserver.com. [Online] [Cited: September 15, 2012.] http://www.sonserver.com/america/oath01.htm.

Becoming an Informed Voter Part 5: Obamacare is Fully Implemented.

Everyone likes a good deal.  If someone offers something free, people will beat a path to your door to get it.  If the government is offering it, you will get votes, perhaps even a majority.  However, if the government is offering something free, it means they have had to take it from someone else to pay for it and that someone else may be you.  This is the problem with Obamacare.  Many voted for Obama thinking they would never have to pay for healthcare again but like any government program, there is a price to pay.  For Obamacare, the price is higher taxes and reduced services.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, in 2015 the nation will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed.  The reason for this shortage is due to the aging population of baby boomers who will require more health care.  Obamacare exacerbates the problem by extending coverage to an additional 30 million Americans. (1)  Doctors are also beginning to refuse seeing Medicare patients due to reduced payments from government under Obamacare.  The reduction in income potential for doctors is also causing some to retire early and discouraging students from enrolling in medical school.  (1)  Even though there will be a doctor shortage, individuals will still receive care but wait longer for it. 

Proponents of Obamacare claim that people will be able to keep their own doctor and healthcare plan.  However, according to the consulting firm Deloitte that surveyed 560 U.S. companies, 1 out of 10 of these companies is planning to end their employee health insurance plans when Obamacare takes effect.  (1).  The law forces individuals losing their coverage into a healthcare exchange and your current doctor may not be a part of the exchange.  For these individuals, Obamacare costs them both their doctor and health insurance.   

When Congress passed Obamacare, the total cost was under $1 trillion for the first ten years.  To keep the cost below $1 trillion, they used an accounting trick.  Taxes are collected but no benefits are paid out until 2014.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently scored the legislation using the real first decade (2014 through 2023) and determined the real cost to be $1.93 trillion.  In addition, there will still be 30 million uninsured.  (1)

Excise taxes levied on medical device providers (i.e. stents, artificial joints, etc.) will cost jobs and force many out of business.  Mike Minogue, a CEO of one of these companies recently told the House Committee on Small Business that “these excise taxes are equivalent to 15 percent of his company’s research and development costs and 10 percent of its employee head count.” (1)  He went on to say, “This tax will affect jobs.  It will mix health care reform with tax policy and it will be extra detrimental to companies that are not yet profitable and need every dollar to survive,” (1) The industry employees more than 400,000 employees and with 70 percent of medical device companies being small businesses, this legislation will force many out of business, resulting in the outsourcing or elimination of many jobs.  (1)

Part of the financing for Obamacare comes through taking $716 billion out of Medicare.  Medicare is already projected to go broke by 2024 (2) so taking money out of the program now will only accelerate the go broke date.  However, proponents of Obamacare claim that Obamacare covers the shortfall through the increased  efficiencies of Obamacare and through lower payments to Medicare providers.  As we discussed earlier, adding an additional 30 million users to the system while forcing more doctors out of the system through lower pay only exacerbates the problem further. (1)

Obamacare will also raise prices on products we buy.  Recently Papa John’s Pizza founder John Schnatter spurred outrage when he stated Obamacare would raise pizza costs.  The reason, increased costs due to rising health insurance premiums and taxes for providing health insurance to his employees.  Current estimates place the increases at 3 percent or more.  (3) These increased costs are not limited to the Pizza industry so we can look forward to increased prices on many of the products we use. 

The only way to prevent these events from occurring is for there to be a full repeal of Obamacare.  Republicans, including Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, have promised full repeal of the law.  However, full repeal is possible only with republican control of every elected branch of government.  We must then hold these elected officials accountable to their promise to fully repeal the law.  If they fail to live up to their promise, voters will replace them in the next election.  The power is with us the voters this November. 

1. Benson, Guy. Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped. townhall.com. [Online] Townhall.com, July 30, 2012. [Cited: September 11, 2012.] http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/07/30/obamacare_fewer_doctors_jobs_destroyed_coverage_lost.

2. Paul C. Broun, M.D. U.S. Congressman. GOP Doctors Caucus: Medicare Trustee Report reinforces urgent need for reform . broun.house.gov. [Online] April 24, 2012. [Cited: September 11, 2012.] http://broun.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=292261.

3. Vision to America. Papa John’s Founder Warns ‘Pizza Tax’ Is Only a Hint of Obamacare Costs to Come. visiontoamerica.com. [Online] August 10, 2012. [Cited: September 11, 2012.] http://visiontoamerica.com/11446/papa-johns-founder-warns-pizza-tax-is-only-a-hint-of-costs-to-come/.

This Election We Have a Clear Choice

The conventions are over and now the campaign for President moves into full swing.  Each candidate is now free to spend money from the campaign coffers so get ready to see your TV, radio, and even your computer screen filled with advertisements from each candidate.  We also have the, so-called, debates coming up.  I say “so-called” because in my opinion a true debate would be one where the candidates ask each other questions and have no idea what the questions will be about.  

During this election cycle, I have heard people claim there is absolutely no difference in the two parties.  After watching both the RNC and DNC conventions, I cannot understand why anyone would still think that.  The differences in the two parties were on display and the voters in November have a clear choice to make. 

The RNC convention emphasized the greatness of our nation.  It encouraged people not to lose hope and that it is possible to restore our nation to its position of greatness.  However, the greatest thing emphasized at the RNC was the power of the individual.  The theme of “you did build that” in opposition to the much maligned statement by President Obama that “if you have a business you didn’t build that” was prevalent throughout the convention.  The Romney plan of lower taxes, less regulation, and energy independence empowers individuals to build businesses and create new jobs. 

The DNC convention emphasized the greatness of government.  Its theme of class warfare pits the wealthy against the poor and middleclass.  They promise a big government that will increase taxes on the rich and redistribute it to the poor and middleclass.  The DNC promised women free contraceptives, free abortions, and even partial birth abortions at taxpayer expense. 

However, the biggest difference in the parties came when the DNC removed any mention of God or Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their platform and then put them back in over the objections of the delegates at the convention.  The delegates actually booed placing God back into the party platform.  I have to wonder if it is wise to boo God.

The RNC freely mentioned God and made Him part of their platform.  Even Mitt Romney mentioned his faith in his speech to the cheers, not boos, of the audience.  The Constitution guarantees each individual’s right to practice his or her religion.  Once again, the RNC shows its respect for the individual while the DNC wants to force God out of the political discourse. 

The contrast between Democrats and Republicans involves who we believe should be empowered to solve the country’s problems.  The RNC believes in empowering the individual so they can care for themselves and their families.  The DNC believes individuals are powerless without the power of government to assist them.  As a voter, you must decide who should be empowered.  

Becoming an Informed Voter Part 4: Expect Energy Prices to Soar.

This Labor Day saw record gas prices (1) with an average of $3.80 per gallon, up 14 cents from last Labor Day.  After a few weeks of relief from rising gas prices, consumers once again face the prospect of having to spend more of their hard-earned money at the pump and in their electric bill.  In this election year, we must ask the logical question, which candidate for President has the best program for reducing gas and energy prices?

Obama’s energy policy focuses on development of alternative fuels to get the nation off its dependence on carbon based fuels.  I have to admit that reducing our dependence on petroleum in the best long-term interests of the country, but we have yet to develop a market ready replacement for crude oil.  However, this did not prevent the Obama administration from attempting to force alternative green energy on the public. 

The Obama administration invested taxpayer money in numerous green energy ventures but these companies are beginning to collapse.  First Solyndra a manufacturer of solar panels and then Evergreen Energy a developer of alternative fuel products and Beacon Power Corporation an energy storage company have filed for bankruptcy.  The reason for their bankruptcy is that there is not a sufficient market for their products to operate profitably.  If we apply the economic law of supply and demand, the government invested taxpayer money to create a supply of green energy products without waiting for there to be sufficient demand for the products (2)

In addition, GM has halted production of the Chevy Volt for the second time this year.  The first time was in March, due to dismal sales of only 1,626 cars in two months.  Even though sales have increased, they still lag behind the goal of 60,000.  Part of the reason for dismal sales is the sticker price of $39,995, which is a high price for a small hatchback (3).  The Chevy Volt also has safety problems with the battery catching fire in collisions.  It is a fact that cars can catch fire in collisions but the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) launched its investigation of the volt when a Chevy Volt it tested caught fire several weeks after a crash (3).  It appears GM may have rushed the Volt into production before it was safe and marketable. 

Romney’s energy plan calls for more drilling of our nation’s petroleum reserves to increase the supply of crude oil and thus reduce prices.  Opponents of this strategy cite that simply increasing supply of a product does not necessarily equate to lower prices.  I believe they may be looking at their own failed attempts to increase supplies of green energy.  The difference with Romney’s plan is that there already is a solid demand for petroleum.  So applying the law of supply and demand, an increase in supply in this case will result in lower prices due to the existing solid demand for the product.

However, Romney’s plan does not ignore research and development into alternative energy sources but it also allows for the drilling for more domestic crude oil.  This will allow time for these alternative sources to be fully tested and marketable before introducing them to the public (4).

Another four years of an Obama Presidency will result in more risky investment of taxpayer money in unproven green energy technology while failing to utilize domestic petroleum and coal.  This will result in our nation having to buy more foreign oil from the Middle East where the threat of war disrupting supplies is becoming more and more of a possibility.  Therefore, we will continue to see soaring energy prices. 

The Romney plan addresses the immediate problem of soaring prices by increasing domestic supplies of petroleum, a product that already has solid demand.  These domestic supplies are not threatened by a possible war in the Middle East resulting in more stable energy prices.  Romney’s plan does not ignore the need for research and development of alternative energy sources but allows time for these products to be tested and marketable. 

If rising energy prices are a concern of yours, Romney’s plan is the best plan.  Unless, higher gas prices do not concern you then you are free to vote for four more years of Obama’s risky green energy programs. 

1. Fox News Corporation. U.S. gas prices at highest ever for Labor Day weekend. www.foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News Corp., September 3, 2012. [Cited: September 4, 2012.] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/us-gas-prices-at-highest-ever-for-labor-day-weekend/#ixzz25SgEBv3k.

2. Paugh, Dr. LLeana Johnson. Green Energy Not Ready for Prime Time. www.canadafreepress.com. [Online] Canada Free Press, January 30, 2012. [Cited: September 4, 2012.] http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44277.

3. Edelstein, Stephen. GM may halt Chevy Volt production for the second time in September. www.digitaltrends.com. [Online] Digital Trends, August 28, 2012. [Cited: September 4, 2012.] http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/gm-may-halt-volt-production-again-next-month/.

4. Mitt Romney for President. Energy Pro-Jobs, Pro-Market, Pro-American. www.mittromney.com. [Online] Mitt Romney for President. [Cited: September 4, 2012.] http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy.

The ABC’s of Politics in 2012

This week the presidential election season got into full swing with the Republican National Convention (RNC).  Next week we will have the Democrat National Convention (DNC) followed by the debates and then the election on November 6.  Even though the conventions are not what they used to be since we usually know who the nominee is prior to the convention, they still highlight the major differences in Republicans and Democrats.  These differences can be as easy as ABC.

The A stands for the ANC (Adult National Convention).  This is what we witnessed this week.  The RNC represents a group of adults that see the direction of the country and do not like it.  However, instead of complaining about it, they gathered to nominate Mitt Romney, a man they believe has both the experience and knowledge to implement real solutions to the nation’s problems.  Real solutions that have a proven track record of working.  It was refreshing to me to witness a candidate for president stand in front of the people of the nation and tell them he believed in them and wanted to restore our nation to its greatness. 

The B stands for the BNC (Brat National Convention).  When the DNC meets this week, we will no doubt see a group of people complaining about the mess Bush left them.  They will be complaining that the government does not provide for them cradle to grave.  They will complain that it is not fair that someone like Mitt Romney is rich while they struggle.  Meanwhile, while they continue to complain that they do not have all the freebees they think they deserve while walking around with their I-Phones, and I-Pads, drinking their expensive Starbucks and Red Bull (not that Starbucks or Red Bull are evil, just expensive).  These people remind me of the brats we see in the store who throw a tantrum when mommy and daddy do not give them everything they want.  They never once consider that the reason mommy and daddy do not let them have it is because they either cannot afford it, or they know it will not be good for them. 

The C stands for change that I believe many in this nation will show up at the polls to vote for in November.  Many of them fell for the message of change Obama promised in 2008 only to be disenchanted when they discovered the kind of change Obama meant.  I believe many of these people heard the message Romney delivered in his speech and relate to it.  I know I did.  I believe these people will show up in droves at the polls and elect Mitt Romney as our next president. 

However, that is not the end of it.  After winning election, the Romney Administration must deliver on its promises.  The fact that the Nation could go from supporting change as Obama promised to Change as Romney promised demonstrates that the citizens of our nation are interested in results.  I have no doubt that with Mitt Romney’s experience and expertise, he is capable of delivering the change our country needs, but there will be resistance.  I just pray Mitt Romney has the intestinal fortitude to confront any resistance and implement the changes our country needs.