Author Archives: Bruce MacIsaac

About Bruce MacIsaac

Bruce MacIsaac graduated from Computer Systems Institute with an AS Degree in Systems Analysis. He spent twenty years in the computer field, most recently as the Internet Administrator for Westco Internet. He is a published poet, professional truck driver, and blogger. His interests include politics, travel, Commercial Motor Carrier regulations, spirituality and aviation.

People Flock to Chik-fil-A!

Reports are coming in from all over the country – Chick-fil-A stores are jammed. Some people are reporting a two hour wait and drive-thru’s are lined up around the corner.

Conservative former Governor Mike Hukabee declared today to be Chick-fil-A day and people have flocked in to chicken stores across the country to support first amendment rights.

The controversy started when Dan Cathy spoke in favor of one man, one woman marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press.

The interview was followed by threats from the mayors of Chicago and Boston to refuse business licenses to the restaurant chain.

Gay rights activists are calling for a Chick-fil-A “kiss in” on Friday. Many conservatives have vowed on Twitter to come out and buy more chicken sandwiches on that day as well.

What Every Citizen Must Know About Our Debt!

In this video, accountant Hal Mason explains in detail, and so simply that even the most strident progressive will be able to understand, how and why the US faces imminent economic disaster!

It is vitally important that we all understand this problem, and what it will take to correct it.

The video is about five minutes long.

ObamaCare – Punishing Success and Responsibility

By now we have all heard the “You Didn’t Build That” speech. President Obama does not often make his true feelings known, but that speech was telling.

As he tries to back-peddle from having the man behind the curtain revealed, it is important to point out a few little ways the Affordable Care Act re-enforces his proclamation that success is to be punished.

Time and time again the ObamaTax on people who choose not to purchase health insurance has been referred to as the “freeloader” tax. It is to be imposed on folks who are young and healthy, can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

This is actually MORE insulting than the “you didn’t build that” speech. Many people who are young, healthy and CAN afford to buy health insurance, but choose not to, actually pay their doctor bills when they get them. If the bill is expensive, they arrange terms and abide by them. These responsible people are the ones who will feel the worst sting of the ObamaCare Tax.

According to the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) in 2010 29% of the adult population (19-64) had medical debt, but only 16% had been contacted by a collection agency. That indicates that 13% were paying their bills on-time. Those people will soon have the pleasure of paying a penalty tax, for which they receive neither reward nor benefit simply because they have been responsible free market citizens.

So if you CAN afford health insurance but exercise your freedom to choose not to buy it, even though you DO pay your medical bills (incidentally you pay more for the same service than an insurance company does), you are now a freeloader and are penalized for being responsible!

Yet another provision in the onerous law, of which this author has heard no one speak, allows your employer to charge you more for the same insurance than another worker who makes less money than you do. So as a reward for loyal longtime service you get to pay more money for the same insurance than does a new hire. In case you are skeptical, here is the language, straight from the bill.

‘‘SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan
(other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

Notice you cannot discriminate in favor of a high-wage employee, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a low wage one.

Just two more ways the current administration has found to punish success and reward failure.

Thanks for the Too Big to Fail Memories – Sandy Weill

After raking off three quarters of a billion dollars, Sandy Weill now says it may be time to separate commercial banking from investment banking.

On Wednesday Weill said, “What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking,” He continued, “Have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail.” “There is such a feeling among people, among regulators, among the political system all over the world, against the banking system, and I don’t think that’s going to change so soon.”

This is the same Sandy Weill, who was the one time CEO of Travelers Insurance, one of the world’s largest insurance companies. He cooked up a scheme in 1998 to merge his company with Salmon Smith Barney, one of the largest investment banks and John Reed’s Citicorp, one of the world’s largest commercial banks. The result was a super-bank called Citigroup. In 1998 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, President Bill Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin approved the merger, even though it violated prohibitions enacted in the Glass-Steagall act of 1933.

In 1999, under the leadership of the Clinton administration, and with the encouragement of then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the repeal of key provisions in the Glass-Steagall act by the Gramm-Leach-Bilely Act of 1999 gave legitimacy to the Citigroup merger.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, also known as the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162) was passed in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent failures within the banking system. Essentially the Act’s purpose was to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business. The Gramm-Leach-Bilely Act of 1999 removed many of the barriers that Glass-Steagall had erected. Finally Gramm-Leach-Bilely set up the ability for banks, investment houses and insurance companies to become hopelessly intertwined and to grow so large as to become “too big to fail.” It was signed into law by President Clinton.

Gramm-Leach-Bilely blurred the line between investment, insurance and lending, and weakened the enforcement provisions against sub-prime and predatory loans. After the law’s passage, sub-prime lending skyrocketed. In a paper for the St. Louis Federal Reserve System, Souphala Chomsisengphet and Anthony Pennington-Cross point out: “the market share of the top 25 firms making sub-prime loans grew from 39.3 percent in 1995 to over 90 percent in 2003. Many firms that started the sub-prime industry either have failed or were purchased by larger institutions.” Such purchases which would have been prohibited before the Gramm-Leach-Bilely Act.

When asked if he would re-instate Glass-Steagall in 2007, Barrack Obama said, “Well, no. The argument is not to go back to the regulatory framework of the 1930′s because, as I said, the financial markets have changed substantially.”

Today former senator Chris Dodd, co-sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Act which is an attempt at renewed banking regulation, and though intended to reduce the chance of another banking crisis, actually exacerbates the problem by piling so many onerous regulations on small community banks that they are giving up and merging with large commercial banks, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” “When I first heard about it (Sandy Weill’s comments) it sort of reminded me of Paul Bunyan becoming an ecologist.” He went on to say that forcing all large banks to downsize was “too simplistic,” saying that Citi’s former chief was wrong to call for an end to financial supermarkets. “Just breaking up the banks is not the solution,” Dodd said. He insisted the tools of Dodd-Frank could, in extreme circumstances, be used to break up a systemically risky institution.

“The legislation allows for that Draconian step to be taken if necessary, not just with banks but with institutions that pose substantial risk to the country. They have the power and authority under this legislation to actually do that.”

So while Sandy Weill is calling for a return to the type of regulation and banking system he himself destroyed, we will once again have to live with the unintended consequences of laws passed by those who know little about the subject of those laws.

Moody’s Downgrades Pennsylvania

With Harrisburg already bankrupt and Scranton on the verge, Moody’s has decided to downgrade the state’s credit rating from Aa1 to Aa2.

Citing unfunded pension liabilities, high debt and slow to moderate growth the rating agency also changed it’s outlook for Pennsylvania from negative to stable.

On the upside, Moody’s says that the Government has improved with “two consecutive timely budgets, significantly reduced reliance on non-recurring resources, and a demonstrated willingness to balance revenue shortfalls early in the fiscal year”

Of the state’s economic outlook they cite “Diverse, broad, and relatively stable economy, with wealth levels slightly above the national average, buttressed by its large health and higher education sectors.”

As for what could lead to further degradation of the state’s credit rating Moody’s says “Further economic deterioration that leads to worse-than-expected revenue performance. Higher-than-budgeted depletion of reserves in the near term or an inability to restore budget stabilization fund over the medium term. Further liquidity decline that results in increased external cash flow borrowing, deferred payments, or other cash management tools, and growth in long-term liabilities, increase in fixed cost pressures, or additional deferral of pension costs.”

Yet Another Tragedy – Will There Be A Movie?

My heart and prayers are with those who were injured and killed, with their families and those who love them. This kind of senseless violence is happening all too often these days.

While many will rush to use these broken and blistered lives to rail against the second amendment and call for a ban on all sorts of weapons, let me be the first to defend the first amendment.

It is quite clear that we all have the right to say anything we wish, particularly when it comes to political speech. We have the right to produce any piece of writing we choose, produce any song or video. We have the right to create any kind of film.

Before we launch a full out blistering attack on assault weapons, however, it might behoove us to consider the effect the non-stop violence we see in today’s popular culture has on our youth. It is everywhere, in the movies, in our music, in our books, and on the news.

Many, some of them the very same people who would like to ban guns, will immediately say that movies and television shows aren’t reality, and people aren’t influenced by them. I would hasten to point out that they will then spend scandalous amounts of money on thirty-second commercials because they KNOW advertising influences people.

This writer would be the very last to advocate any form of censorship. The first amendment is one of the most important rights we have. It is the sacrosanct principal which allows this piece to be published.

Perhaps though, upon reflection about this tragedy and so many others in recent times, those of us who produce media in all forms might take a moment to ponder what effect our products have on those who provide our livelihood.

Is it possible for us to create more works that are uplifting? Could we tone down the anger a notch? Could we possibly think about the caring qualities of mankind, those qualities that bring out the hero in us all? Could we endeavor to highlight those qualities in our entertainment product? Perhaps we could think to ourselves, “My son or daughter may see this.” It would be a nice change.

Senator Patty Murray – Your Money or Your Life!


In a move reminiscent of Bruno Hauptmann, the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat, Senator Patty Murray said, “Millions of jobs could be lost through the automatic cuts, programs families depend on would be slashed irresponsibly across the board, and middle-class tax cuts would expire. And once again, if Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal.” in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday.

She went on, “[I]f we can’t get a good deal – a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share – then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,”.

This is quite like asking, “Would you rather be strangled slowly or shot in the head?” With a 100 year drought looming, the USDA advertising to get more and more people on food stamps because they aren’t spending enough money, the HHS secretary illegally suspending welfare work requirements because they aren’t spending enough money, 4 major cities bankrupt and hundreds more on the brink, more people going on Social Security Disability each month than finding jobs, Ms. Murray is running an extortion scam to raise taxes on the folks who employ 53% of the work force, small business!

Either the Republicans agree with her, and we all jump off the fiscal cliff early next year, or taxes go up for everyone and we jump January 1st.

As we are falling off this impending cliff, I would like Ms. Murray to look my daughter in the eye and explain to her why she won’t be able to get a job when she finishes school. I want Ms. Murray to explain that it was much more important to appear to soak the rich in order for her party to perpetuate a senseless class war so they could get re-elected, than it was to be mindful of my daughter’s welfare.

Even the President acknowledged last year that the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes on anybody. The job creators are leaving in droves. According to the Cato Institute, citizenship renunciation is up a whopping 750% since Barrack Obama was elected.

Jeff Immelt, Obama’s own Job CZAR has said the way to get us out of this mess was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations. But the President hasn’t met with his jobs council in six months. He has been a little busy with all those golf outings and $40,000.00 a plate fund raisers.

Never mind all that, we need Barrack re-elected, and the way to do that is to engender resentment against those who provide the paychecks in this country, those evil rich. Well not all of them are evil rich. Not the ones who have donated money to his campaign. To them we give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and watch them go bankrupt or take the money and jobs to Finland, China, India, and Mexico.

By all means Ms. Murray ignore all the economic evidence since time began and continue your bolshevik revolution, it worked out so well for the Soviets.

The Speech Mitt Romney SHOULD Make

My name is Mitt Romney, and I’m asking for the job of President of the United States of America. The reason I’m asking is that I fully realize that the President of the United States works for you…..you don’t work for him!

You have now spent over half a year working for the government at all levels. Only now until the end of the year are the fruits of your labor your own! This country was not founded on the principal that you should spend half your life working to support government, but that you should endeavor to work for your own betterment and for the benefit of your family.

We all have a vital decision to make this November, probably the most important political decision we have ever had to make. We have to decide what kind of country we want to live in.

Make no mistake about it, this election is NOT about what happened at a private equity firm in 1999, nor is it about taxes, tax returns, or even our abysmal economy! There is much more at stake!

This election is really about guiding philosophy! What system of government do we want? Do we want a government of the people, for the people and by the people or do we want a nation where some people work to support the government, and the rest don’t work at all?

This great nation was founded on the principal that all persons are entitled to the fruits of their labor. That if they work hard and use their God given talents, they can expect to reap rewards, and those rewards will accrue to them! It was founded on the principal that government should be severely limited, and should only do those few things that can be done more efficiently by a united group of several states, than those states could do by themselves. A government of the people, for the people and run by the people. A government that serves the will of the people, not one that dictates to them!

That is the system I envision. We have wandered far from the path of the governmental limits set forth in our constitution. I know some say that is a really old document, and maybe is not pertinent today. But the United States I remember, The United States I learned about in history class, The United States I hope to preserve is one in which each of it’s citizens feels a sense of pride and dignity borne of their own accomplishments! It is one in which each person has the opportunity to rise to whatever level of accomplishment their intellect and sweat can lead them! One in which success at whatever level is not punished, but admired and aspired to by others! It is a country in which it’s individuals have accomplished more in 200 + years than in all the millennium that have gone before; where the entrepreneurial spirit is second to none. This is the America men like Jefferson, Washington and Henry envisioned, and it is the one I envision!

If you want a government that is a nanny state, a government that robs self esteem by punishing success and rewarding failure; if you want a government run by dictatorial fiat, where you are told what you can eat, how big a soda you can buy, where you can work, who your neighbor will be, and what you can and cannot do inside your own home, then you should vote for Barrack Obama, for that is HIS vision of America. He sees us all as ignorant children, who must be cared for and dictated to by a benevolent all powerful Government. If you want a country where more people collect food stamps than open businesses, where the standard of living steadily declines until all but the politically elite are equally poor, then vote for Barrack Obama, he is your man!

If on the other hand, you want to live in a country that applauds your ability, if you want a President who has faith in you, who knows the entrepreneurial spirit engendered by you can once again make our economy the strongest in the world, if you want to go to sleep at night knowing we are working to reduce our debt so our children will not be saddled with the burdens of our excesses, then hire me, I can do the job! If you want a country that lives by the rule of law, where justice applies equally to all if you want to live in a stable environment where business planning is not a guessing game due to ever shifting tax and regulatory issues, then I am your man.

Time and time again Barrack Obama has defied the will of your elected representatives, and they have not responded. He has refused to uphold our laws, he has neglected to secure our borders, he has defied lawful subpoenas, and he has given trillions of our dollars to support his friends! He has ignored our constitution and has encouraged others to defy our laws. He has encouraged turmoil among our enemies and he has offended our friends. If this is the kind of government you want, by all means re-elect Barrack Obama.

But make no mistake! My vision for America is a return to the dignity, the freedom and the liberty our forefathers fought for us to have. I have a plan to take us there, but I need your help! I believe in you and I know that together we can again live in a land where our children aren’t born owing their government $43,000 before they take their first breath! We can live in a land where freedom is universal and prosperity is available to all who are willing to take responsibility for themselves, and put in the honest effort. We can again live in a country where integrity is of paramount value and every campaign ad is not accompanied by “Pinocchios”. I have a vision of an America that works, where everyone who wants to work can find a job, and anyone can make a future for themselves and their families. Where words like integrity, honesty, prudence and virtue mean something once again!

My name is Mitt Romney and I want to work … for you!

VOODOO Food Economics

The USDA, in trying to increase participation in the SNAP or food stamp program, claims that for every dollar transferred to beneficiaries a dollar and seventy-two cents in economic activity is generated.

If we were to follow this mushy thinking to it’s logical conclusion, then if we all quit our jobs, closed our businesses and went on the program, we would live in a prosperous nation.

To illustrate this thinking, and expose it’s fallacy, suppose you have ten dollars to spend on food. The government takes one of those dollars from you, and gives it to someone else to spend on food. Now you only have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has one of your dollars.

It gets worse. It costs money in governmental bureaucracy to transfer your dollar to someone else, so by the time the recipient receives your dollar, it is only eighty-four cents. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has eighty-four cents.

Still it gets worse. Suppose instead of your original ten dollars, you only had nine dollars and sixty cents. The government takes your sixty cents, and borrows the other forty cents from China, at 3% interest, and gives you the bill. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, but you owe China forty cents plus 3% interest on the forty cents, and someone else has eighty-four cents to spend on food.

The Chinese are better off by $0.012 (the interest on the forty cents borrowed in your name), the government is better off by $0.16 (administrative costs), but you are worse off by $1.012

Now instead your original $9.60 to spend on food, you only have $8.588 and the person your money was taken to help has $.084, making the total amount to spend on food $9.428

Wouldn’t it be better to improve the job outlook by putting into practice the recommendations of Obama’s own Jobs Czar Jeff Immelt, who told CNN in September of 2011 the way to create jobs in America was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower corporate rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations.

A Simple Replacement for ObamaCare

The obvious solution to the health care problem is self-insurance. The Obama Tax is designed to effect those who are young, healthy, and can afford insurance. Who makes the decision about what someone else can afford? But that is beside the point. The point is that if one is young and healthy and can afford insurance, then one can probably afford to pay their medical bills, and in fact they probably DO pay their medical bills. Under the Affordable Care Act they will be punished for being responsible.

The folks running up the tab at emergency rooms are people who are young, healthy and CAN’T afford health insurance, but don’t yet qualify for medicaid.

If we really want what we say we want, patient centered affordable health care, driven by market forces there is a very simple solution; self-insurance.

Average lifetime medical cost per person was roughly $360,000 in 2004 according to a report by Health Services Research. If one were contribute $266.00 per month into a modified Health Savings Account, even at a modest 3% return, they would have enough money to cover their lifetime medical expenses. That is less than the cost of an average insurance plan these days.

Certain areas of the health care arena are already driven by market forces. Those areas are for elective procedures that most insurance doesn’t cover.

A good example is Lasik eye surgery. This is a technique for correcting vision via laser surgery. Lasik is not covered by most insurance, since it is an elective surgery. When it first became available, it cost on average between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 per eye. Today the cost is about half.

Why the price drop on a highly skilled high tech procedure? Market forces. Most insurance companies don’t cover this procedure, so the customer must pay for for it out of their own pocket. As more physicians have become proficient in the operation (increase in supply) the price has gone down (to meet demand).

A study of any elective procedure which is in demand, but not covered by insurance, will show similar cost reductions.

The easiest way to reduce medical costs is to get rid of insurance altogether. The insurance companies won’t like it, and government fiat may not be the way to go here, but if everyone was invested in a medical savings account that they had control of, was tax free, and could be used for any health related expenses, not only would everyone have coverage, but they would put downward pressure on the cost of entire health care sector. The account would accumulate year after year, so that when the money was really needed later in life, it would be there. There should also be a provision that whatever is left in the account after the owner expires becomes part of the decedent’s estate, thereby providing incentive to leave some money in the account. It could also be used to defray burial expenses. Since everyone is paying for their own healthcare out of their own pocket as it were, they would tend to take better care of themselves. Everyone would have skin in the game. Therefore this type of system provides an inherent incentive toward better health.

A program could be structured so that one savings account could cover a family, in the same way insurance does now. This eliminates the removal of children under 26 argument. It also eliminates the pre-existing condition argument, since the money from one’s health savings account could be used for any health-related costs, including prescription drugs and other medical devices.

For the truly incapable, some system for funding their Health Savings Account could be worked with a refundable tax credit. Those who are at or below the current income level for medicaid insurance could have an amount equal to the requisite contribution credited directly into their health savings account, with a sliding scale up to 150% of that income level. As for employers who currently pay for some or all of their employee’s health insurance premiums, they could use pre-tax dollars to contribute to the employee’s account.

Medicare would need to be left in place for anyone at or above the age of fifty-five, but for those younger, a refund of the amount they paid into the medicare system could be credited to their savings account.

As for catastrophic occurrences, the insurance companies could offer low cost, very high deductible plans, those formerly referred to as major medical plans, to cover high cost, unexpected illnesses. More importantly, though, it should be possible to make a charitable contribution to someone else’s health savings account to help them defray the cost of an expensive unexpected illness. If we are our brother’s keeper, we should be able to be so without government intervention.

The question is one of belief. Do we believe as the founders of this nation did, that the individual is wise enough to make his or her own decisions and provide for his or her own needs, or do we believe that the citizens of this great nation need the government to make all their decisions for them, that they do not have the intelligence or wherewithal to care for themselves? If we believe the latter, then the Affordable Care Act is perfect. If, however we believe the former, that liberty is worth having and that the fruits of our labor should be our own to decide what to do with, then perhaps a health care program such as the one laid out above is the way to go.

MSNBC Now THAT’s Funny

I have finally found a use for MSNBC, entertainment value. On Tuesday Andrea Mitchell tried to defend Barrack Obama’s false ad about Mitt Romney outsourcing jobs. She was talking with Governor John Sununu. Not only did he destroy her argument, he did it while laughing out loud at her. The Romney campaign should use this video as an ad all by itself. I can’t stop watching it.

Nancy Pelosi & Congressional Black Caucus Walk Out in Support of Gunrunning Drug Cartels and Murderers

Nancy Pelosi & Congressional Black Caucus Walk Out in Support of Gunrunning Drug Cartels and Murderers

Thousands lie dead in Mexico, bloody and beheaded in the streets. Bolstered by automatic weapons that the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms made certain got into their hands, they have extended a reign of terror across Mexico and US southern border states.

When federally licensed firearm (FFLs) dealers raised the alarm to ATF officials that straw purchasers were buying large numbers of deadly weapons the ATF assured them is was ok to make the sale. When an FFL told ATF they did not have enough weapons to fill an order, the ATF told them to order more. When border patrol agent Brian Terry lay dead in the Arizona desert surrounded by weapons sold to the Mexican drug cartels under the Fast and Furious gun walking program, no one in the Justice Department seemed to know anything about what happened.

To date no one in justice or ATF has been fired, and that is A-OK with Pelosi and her cohorts. Nine secret service agents were fired within a week of being found in the company of prostitutes, but a year and a half after the brutal murder of Brian Terry, the Congressional Black Caucus is satisfied to let those responsible for the wholesale slaughter of Mexican citizens go un-investigated and unpunished. The democrats who walked out of congress today don’t want to know why there have been no answers and no retribution for those who were involved in making sure these guns got into the hands of these heinous villains, and they certainly don’t want to know anything about those who have so far successfully covered up that involvement.

What else are we to conclude but that those who claim racism at every effort to secure our borders, don’t give a single whit for the lives of thousands murdered south of our border; they would rather pose for the camera.

Expect the Economy to Begin to Improve by November

Back in April, when diesel fuel was rapidly approaching $4.50 per gallon, I wrote an article predicting the recent downturn in our economy.

Today oil fell below $80.00 per barrel and diesel fuel is now well below $4.00 in most places.

Given my economic theory of diesel, there is an approximate three month lag between the price of fuel and its effect on manufacturers and shippers. That being said, the economy should hit bottom about the first of September. Manufacturing and hiring should begin to pick up again then.

Mitt Romney has pledged to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline as well as open up production of oil and gas leases already issued. By the economic theory of diesel, policies which would sustain lower fuel prices would do more to improve our national financial situation than anything else. If we continue the current policies which cause the current porpoising of oil prices, our economy will continue to stutter.

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews Makes the Case for Mitt Romney!

Monday night Chris Mathews ended his show by making a good case for Mitt Romney’s election to the office of President of the United States.

Mathews claimed that “Mitt cares about three things: his faith, his family, his business. Right now his business is running for president. That’s why he’s interested in the presidency. It’s his business to be interested.”

How refreshing it would be to have a President that cares about his business, being President. So far Barrack Obama has spent the majority of his time in office playing golf, raising funds, and targeting people for assassination.

Mathews went on to say, “The need for a new war with each new Republican president. And they need someone in the White House to push it for them.”

Again, one war would be refreshing; our current President has four of them going at once, and is busy poking the Russian Bear with a pointed stick!

In addition to vacationing, Mr. Obama has also spent a great deal of time ignoring the constitution, and circumventing the laws of the land.

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Mr. Mathews, but in this case I’m all for a man who focuses on faith, family and the business of the country!