My favorite Reagan quote:

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.”

My favorite Reagan speech, which was actually a televised campaign speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater’s run for the presidency in 1964:

Reagan was also very funny and witty, which never hurts. It was part of the reason people liked him so much:

Happy Birthday, President Reagan. America remembers you.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

In the wake of the murder of 26 innocent people at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, it is not surprising that the liberal-led gun control crowd leapt at the opportunity to capitalize on the emotions of well-intentioned people sick of such devastatingly senseless butchery.

The bodies of the dead had not yet begun to cool before the predictably exasperated demands that something must be done began echoing from the microphones of broadcasters and TV hosts across the nation and rumbling off the keyboards of opinion columnists and bloggers alike.  Each time something dreadfully appalling happens – like the Sandy Hook massacre or the Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting back in August – the nation collectively gasps in horror and abhorrence, and rightly so.  We hug our loved ones, count our blessings, and wonder what may be done to halt such heinous acts.  The appropriate response at least in terms of governmental initiatives, and while not popular and certainly not satisfying, is usually nothing.

Charles Cooke at National Review Online writes about this reaction in his essay on this very topic:

“It is often glibly asserted that mine is the “easy” response. On the contrary, it is the difficult response. To shout “do something” or “ban guns” is the facile suggestion, and nonchalantly to content oneself that laws passed in a faraway city will fix society’s problems is the comforting conviction. My judgment, by contrast, is the terrifying one: to realize that there is very little than one could have done to stop yesterday’s abomination is to understand that we are sometimes powerless in the face of evil, however much we shout about it.”

This is contra how so many on both sides of the political spectrum react when a crisis is at hand.  The compulsion to do something, anything, feels far better than admitting that bad things happen, and cannot all be prevented.  Taking action is only beneficial if those actions are…beneficial.

While I hope President Obama’s words at Newtown Sunday evening were a comfort to the families and loved ones in that poor little town, there were also vague and void of substance. “As a country, we have been through this too many times. … And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

How might the President define “meaningful action”?  What do pundits mean when they spend weeks of news cycles insisting that “appropriate and necessary steps must be taken” to prevent things like this from happening again?  If history is any indication, it usually involves a hysteria-driven sacrifice of personal freedoms because doing nothing seems so callous and inappropriate in the face of such immense iniquity.

The two supposedly imperative causes that must be advanced are that of mental health awareness and gun control.  While mental health issues are important and should be given due attention (though I think evil acts are more often just that, evil, stemming broken souls and weak family structures rather than a lack of the proper concoction of pills), it is the perceived gun problem that draws the entire pride of lions’ share of attention from the chattering class.

While the left pines for a “national conversation on guns,” what they truly want is more and more gun restrictions and bans.  Just as there is no line at which liberals would draw at government too big, there is no gun restriction or ban they believe goes too far or impedes on personal rights too greatly if given the chance. It seems always “the time to talk about guns is now” directly after a monstrous crime when emotions are high, passions are at their peak, and calm reason is in short supply.  Jonah Goldberg’s piece at NRO this week warns of the perils of emotionally hasty legislation:

“One piece of advice you often hear in such situations is “don’t make any big decisions” in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. It’s sound advice that is routinely and predictably ignored in the political realm…When politicians say they want to do something regardless of the politics, or that they want to go “above” or “beyond” politics, what they generally mean is they want to do something regardless of the normal rules or what their opponents have to say or, often, the facts…All I’m sure of is that we should be very careful about making big decisions when we are so angry and mourning so deeply.”

When heads are level, the gun grabbers consistently lose that national conversation, as well they should (leaving no wonder why they choose to strike when level heads are few and far between).  Not only does the empirical statistical data contest those who demand harsher gun restrictions, but the rational arguments favor those who advocate even the strictness of our current gun laws be tapered.

The long and short logic of it is this, as Thomas Sowell penned so succinctly for Townhall this week: “The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.”  This reasoning reverberates from an old quote, often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, but whose rightful professor is Cesare Beccaria’s in her Essay on Crimes and Punishments:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”

In the U.S., violent crime is far less prevelant in areas where more people are free to bear arms than where they are not. Phoenix, where one may carry a concealed handgun without even a permit, has less than half the murder rate of Chicago, where concealed carry is banned.  According to John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes’ book More Guns, Less Crime, “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.”  From that same book, the authors note that “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

The opposition to us bitter clingers will generally play to the sympathetic side of human nature that sees an atrocity and wants all of society to feel guilty for it.  A recent trend is to blame some ambiguous and ultimately meaningless notion of a rampant and unyielding “gun culture” in America, or to show pictures of the unjustly fallen and say things like “These are YOUR children and MY children, what can WE do to stop this?” Consider CNN’s Don Lemon, who last week worked himself into a near rage proclaiming “…to say that gun violence is down does not make sense. To me, it’s insulting to everyone who lost a loved one here and who was dealing with that. It doesn’t matter if gun violence is down!”  His desired case for legislative construction are anecdotal narratives, not statistical data; emotional panic, not rational evaluations.

This brings us to the subject of gun free zones, the inconceivably careless invitation to all ill-intentioned crazed madmen. Ask yourself this question: Which sign is more likely to prevent a violent intruder at a school full of children – one that says “No guns prohibited on these premises” or “Staff heavily armed and trained, any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force”? The answer is as obvious as it is ignored by those who believe someone who would kill a slew of blameless little ones would obey gun laws.

The depressed don’t decline suicide because it’s against the law,  and likewise no would-be murderer abstains from slaying  innocent people because he might break a gun free zone rule.  Would you rather defend your home with a gun or with kitchen knives?  Your answer is the former, a thief or killer would prefer you chose the latter.  James Holmes chose the Aurora theatre when seven others were closer to his home because no guns were allowed in the complex.  He knew no one could shoot back.

Restrictive gun control is failed social engineering.  It favors criminals, not law-abiding citizens. It protects the man intent on raping, not the woman trying to defend herself.  Of its own volition, the Second Amendment doesn’t grant us the right to own guns, but rather ensures that the God-given right to self and familial defense through arms cannot be excised by the government or anyone else.

Our system is working, sans calls for further implementation of usually erroneous legislation.  Violent crime, gun violence, and school violence have decreased substantially in the past two decades even as gun ownership has increased markedly.  As conservative writer Michelle Malkin stated on Hannity Wednesday, “We need politicians, for once, to just stop, shut up, and think before they act recklessly again.”

If we really want to do something that will provide a net societal benefit instead of just fulfilling our foolish desires to act in hast regardless of negative ripple effects, if we really want to take the path that might prevent another Sandy Hook, we should support increased gun protection, not decreased.  There is no logically supportable reason to arm pilots and bodyguards but not principals and teachers.  Criminals are less likely to attack a place where they can be met with resistance capable of fighting back.

Let’s stop assuring them that defense won’t come. Let’s stop paving the way for evil.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

“Conservative Americans are not systematically being denied their liberties. They are not facing the might of a British empire determined to crush them. There is no Declaratory Act. There are no unwanted foreign troops stationed in our cities. Instead, we are failing to win the argument. This is a considerable problem, but we have [an] advantage. And it is that our ideas are timeless and they are right. They will win again, whether it is by argument or economic gravity.”

Barack Obama and Democrats delivered to Romney and his supporters last week the stomach punch of a lifetime; a resounding victory for the left, and a demoralizing defeat for the right.  Conservative author Ann Coulter wallowed Wednesday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show that “If Mitt Romney can’t win in this economy, we’ve reached the tipping point. There are more takers than makers, there is no hope. It’s over.” Indeed, given our dire straits and the implications, there’s not much to be said in the way of silver linings or post-storm rainbows.

Obama won every swing state save North Carolina, and this after the GOP and its surrogate organizations made hundreds of thousands more voter contacts than they managed for John McCain’s campaign. The president won 55% of women, 93% of blacks, 71% of Hispanics, and 50% of the religiously affiliated (including 75% of Hispanic Catholics).  He won 60% of the youth vote, which grew a percentage point in 2012 to 19% of the total electorate compared to 18% in 2008.  About the only major demographics Obama didn’t win are the two shrinking more with each cycle: white adult males and married women.

And, yet…

Obama won about nine million fewer votes in 2012 than he did just four years ago.  While he bested Romney, it’s not unreasonable nor irrelevant to note that this was not some grand endorsement by the public at large of his results or, more importantly, his policies.  Rather, this loss revealed great Republican organizational weakness and a thus far ignored necessity to bend its marketing toward a broader base, namely Hispanics and youth.

Romney closed the popular vote gap by 5% (losing 48% to 51%), a full 4.5% better than McCain managed.

To look at it another way, and while perhaps evermore frustrating, Mitt Romney and Republicans lost this election, more than Obama and Democrats won it.  The GOP failed, and that is a good thing.

Good, in the face of the alternative (getting our tails kicked on ideological grounds, which isn’t what happened), for it presents opportunity to reach potential voters that are not necessarily taken in by the twirls and swirls of liberalism’s diatribe.  If Obama had increased his turnout by nine million, conservatives would be better served to buy an island and start anew.  But he didn’t.  Republicans failed to convincingly market their candidate and positions in a trustworthy way, and in a manner that would persuade enough people that conservatism is best for all, not just the affluent. More than Obama’s likeability advantage, that is what impaired them on election day.  Improved messaging, especially in minority communities, and avoiding get-out-the-vote catastrophes like Project Orca (Ben Domenech quipped: “You’d at least think a Mormon would get door-to-door right”), and Mitt Romney is packing his bags for the White House.

In David Limbaugh’s recent column, he slashes into the naysayers and white flaggers:

“Never mind, you say. The electorate has irreversibly become a taker class, and conservative ideas of self-reliance, personal responsibility and individual liberties will never appeal to a majority again, especially with demographics working against the GOP. We must reject that, or we are as good as surrendering. To accept it, we are confessing our skepticism of the power of ideas, which itself is contrary to the conservative spirit.”

As Jim Geraghty notes, but for 407,000 votes in four swing states – less than 0.5% of all voters – Mitt would have won. We were really close. This is an opportunity.

Contrary to liberals’ cries of a principles and values-driven shellacking, America didn’t beat a resounding liberal drum last Tuesday (nine million fewer votes!).  Instead, she bore a whole lot of frustrated and apathetic evangelicals, libertarians, and conservatives who didn’t like Romney.

The cause for optimism here is that Republican failings this cycle are not solution-less.  It’s easier to make a case to those who simply didn’t like your candidate enough to vote against the other side, than it is convincing voters away from the other contender.  Branding, messaging, organizing, and minority outreach (not pandering, there’s a difference; we have to better articulate why the conservative tide will raise all boats). Broaden the base. Very doable.

Yes, it’s thoroughly disgusting what the American people chose by electing Barack Obama again. Yes, it’s thoroughly disheartening that millions accepted him by default by staying home. Yes, there is work to be done – mountains and mole hills alike – for Republicans to take the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016. But this wasn’t a wave of liberalism flowing over the country brandishing a bullhorn to pronounce conservatism’s permanent death.  2012 was a staggering blow, but not necessarily a lethal one if we play our cards right. Down, but not out.

Ingraham concluded her segment by disagreeing with Coulter, saying that the country hasn’t had a national leader make an elegant and articulate case for conservatism in two decades.  She’s right.  If we’re able to revamp our messaging to the masses and convince them that it is conservatism, not liberalism, which most improves the maximum number of lives, then all is not yet lost.

Iron sharpens iron, and conservatives must work to ensure that their mill is bigger and more efficient in the very near future.  We carry on the fight. No other option exists.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

Last night was an absolutely devastating blow to…many things. Conservatism, traditional American values, the Republican Party, fiscal sanity, economic growth, American unity, the pro-life movement, free markets, and on and on.  I stated before the election that I not only hoped Romney would win, but that he would do so with more than 300 electoral votes. I believed this would reveal a rejection not just of Obama’s poor results, but of his failed policies and ideology.  My prayer was that a great majority of people understood the mistake they made four years ago, and had wised up enough to realize that while they may not be in love with Mitt Romney, he was a competent leader with a history of success, and a welcome change from the drudgery and divisiveness of Barack Obama. I was wrong, and it hurts.  And so many brilliant conservative minds – who are so very rarely incorrect about anything – were wrong too, almost to a shocking degree.

Obama won every single battleground state (except North Carolina, where no one really expected him to).  Republicans were positive Romney had Florida and Virginia, confident about Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire, optimistic about Wisconsin and Ohio, and hopeful about Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Nevada.  Obama won them all. And it wasn’t just the presidency. Republicans spent an immense amount of time and effort trying to take back a majority in the Senate from Democrats who have held it since 2006.  Democrats increased their seats by two, with Scott Brown’s loss in Massachusetts and Mia Love’s loss in Utah the most upsetting. Typically conservative-opposed state ballot initiatives passed; most notably gay marriage in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, and legalized recreational marijuana in Washington and Colorado. Florida rejected banning abortion providers from receiving state funds.

While the GOP kept the House and won a gubernatorial race here and there, it’s hard to find even the dullest of silver linings in this election cycle for the right side of America.

Leaving the bulk of the discussion of the cultural and economic implications of this election for another time, what’s perhaps most frightening is peoples’ embrace of what conservative America sees as the destruction of all things truly American.  In choosing Obama again, voters didn’t just accept the failures of his first term, but the continuation of policies that lead to those failures.

It has been my hypothesis for months that this election was less about either candidate, and more centrally respondent of the culture.  Namely, the entitlement culture versus the production culture.  I feared/fear that once we reach the tipping point where greater than half feel they deserve (any number of things, but for simplicities’ sake, consider “government handouts” an appropriate catch-all) or are at least willing to vote for liberals with entitlement policies, there is no going back.  It is heartbreaking to witness an electorate choose shared and redistributed decline over earned prosperity. As Thomas Sowell rightly asserted, the people were judging themselves this election.  This was a test of our collective principles, our resolve, and our direction.  From this conservative’s point of view, we failed that test in a mighty way last night.

There is never just one reason why a candidate loses while another wins, and the back and forth over Romney’s campaign will be commentated on to death in the following weeks.  I agree with RB’s post that much of it had to do with marketing, but I would also assert that the country is changing, and isn’t as center-right as it used to be.  Conservatives are not wrong in what we believe, but perhaps we are wrong about how many believe it with us.  There is more, of course, but I’ll leave that to those much smarter and more election-assessing mature than me.

So what now? The three essential steps to rectifying this disaster from a purely political stance are, as I see them: continuing to combat the liberal media and largely liberal educational system and their extreme power of influence, winning the Senate in 2014, and nominating and electing a staunch conservative leader as President of the United States in 2016.  My choice is Marco Rubio, but that debate can be had later on.  These are the battles, but the war is over the culture.  Family, integrity, work.

On a sad day, when hope is hard found, I choose to remember Ronald Reagan’s words: “We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” I hope you join me in continuing to fight for this land we love.

You can follow the author on Twitter:@brady_cremeens

Vice President Biden’s debate performance was a lot of things, not the least of which includes and epitomizes the tendency – nay, utter proclivity – of the Obama administration and campaign echo chamber’s dogged resolve to deny even the most basic of realities.

Amid the smirks and guffaws sat Biden, pompously threading the needle between strained sincerity and angry lecturing. He was a jerk (interrupting Paul Ryan 82 times in the 90 minute debate) and a liar about Benghazi intelligence and increased security request; the debt being caused by “Republican’s two wars on a credit card” (both of which Biden himself voted for); the 2001 Bush tax cuts (that the Democratic congress voted to extend); his opposition to Medicare Part D (again, Biden voted for it and wanted it to be larger); and a plethora of economic and tax mendacity.

So Crazy Uncle Joe lied repeatedly.  This isn’t really a story, as no one expected him to do otherwise.  Perhaps the most hilarious and telling Biden whopper was his declaration that Obama had cut taxes by “$800 million billion.”  This is obviously closer to a misstatement than a purposeful lie, but the whale of the tale is the idea that Obama has cut taxes at all.  He hasn’t, and doesn’t intend to.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

It’s truly perplexing to attempt reasoning with people who demonstrate no semblance of forthright discussion.  On Friday, the day after the debate, Biden was asked about his abortion comments the night before and stated that “By law Planned Parenthood is prohibited from providing abortions.” What?  Planned Parenthood is the single largest abortion provider in the United States, and performs over 1,000 abortions a day.  If Biden is right, this is the greatest criminal justice failure in U.S. history. Or, he’s lying because he wanted people to feel better about Planned Parenthood receiving taxpayer money.

Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, on CNN this week defended her boss against charges he bungled the handling and lied about the intelligence of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi: “The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” Yes, those darn Republicans, making the murder of four Americans after the Obama administration denied its requests for more security into a political issue.  In short, Ms. Cutter is presuming – fingers crossed in hope – that people would neither care nor find it fitting to assess blame if those pushy Republicans weren’t demanding answers.  Besides, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama himself had blamed the attacks on a Youtube video not 12 hours after they occurred.  Agree or disagree (sane minds know this to be hogwash), it’s certainly “politicizing” the situation.

And then there was Big Bird.  While the issue of public funding for PBS became news after Mitt Romney mentioned it as an example of something the government can’t afford to borrow money from China to fund, the subsequent hullabaloo and melodramatic “Save Big Bird!” campaign has been strictly liberal-led. National Press Secretary at Obama For America Ben LaBolt claimed -with the same chutzpah as Cutter’s eyebrow-raising reality warp – late last week that “The only person talking about Big Bird is Mitt Romney.”  This, after OFA created and ran a TV ad prominently featuring Big Bird and attacking Romney for “…taking on our enemies, no matter where they nest. Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street we have to worry about, but Sesame Street.” The sarcasm was dripping, and everybody rolled their eyes.  PBS actually asked OFA to remove the ad, citing apoliticality, but they continued running it in some states.  Couple this with the “Million Muppet March” organized by liberals wishing to protest against cutting government funding for PBS, and there is no question who is ruffling public feathers over this inane distraction.  Indeed, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki retorted proudly aboard Air Force One that “There’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.”  But LaBolt says Romney is the only one talking about it! I guess that’s true, if you just ignore everyone else talking about it.

This is a typical liberal tactic, especially when they are feeling pressure, or even desperation, as the upcoming election is certainly eliciting. When they are determined to defend the indefensible (namely Barack Obama and his record), the minions and cronies will move right past interpretative spin and into alternate realities. In their myriad of untruths and distortions, they won’t argue the merits of a stance or event, but that the actuality of the displayed truth.

Joe Biden would have been closer to the truth if he had said Planned Parenthood performs 800 million billion abortions.

You can’t out-absurd liberals.

Oh, the shame and humiliation that should fill our hearts if Barack Obama were to win re-election because of the Right’s divided front.

It’s wholly irrelevant how much you like Mitt Romney, or trust him to govern conservatively.  The only pertinent factor remains the reality of his superiority over the incumbent.  If you care about American prosperity and strength, the only justification for voting third party or abstaining altogether is a belief that Mitt Romney would push Marxist principles as aggressively as Barack Obama has and would – an opinion I hope we can all agree is ludicrous.  A moderate, yes. Radical leftist, no.

The logic of abstaining or voting third party – when that may enable a far inferior and disastrous incumbent to win over the only viable challenger – is faulty at best, and destruction’s complicity in this case.  Electing Mitt Romney doesn’t save the republic, but it does give us the chance. A chance most of us would acknowledge is all but vanished if Obama wins a second term.

There may be a time for attempting to elevate a third party candidate if you believe such a thing would benefit American politics, but the dire nature of Election 2012 renders a “statement” or “symbolic” vote far too costly.

Votes don’t send messages as much as they reveal priorities, and the priority of patriots and traditional America-types must necessarily land first on preventing Obama from winning a second term where, having never to face an electorate again, he will push his radical agendas even more unabatedly.  Some libertarian wishful thinking aside, Gary Johnson is not in a position to win the presidency.  This isn’t a statement of preference, but of verity. He cannot win, and will not.  Furthermore, the left is not split on its choice.  The claim “Any non-Romney vote helps Obama” rings ominously true because the liberal vote is united. This makes it imperative that all who oppose his ideas and lack of leadership – conservatives and libertarians alike – cast their vote against him, and for the only viable option.

As I wrote in an earlier piece, beating this incumbent in this election is more important than maintaining allegiance to staunch ideological principle. Usually it’s not; this time it is.  A “principled” third party vote (or staying home) serves only to make Obama’s re-election path easier, and is subsequently not principled at all.

Complain about voting for the “lesser of two evils” if you will, but when the choice is continued economic stagnation and a fiscal policy this is not only reckless but criminally immoral – or an accomplished and successful business turnaround artist who at the very least loves this country and her founding values, only fools enable the former out of distaste for the latter.  This isn’t a rallying cry, but a petition to think critically. Even if you hold that both of the main party candidates are “evil”, voting for the lesser – when not doing so guarantees more of the former – is clearly and unequivocally the more logical of approaches.

And let us not forget the Supreme Court appointees to be made in the near future.  While you libertarians (and we conservatives) have been unhappy at times with Republican appointees, there’s no argument that Romney’s would be further right than Obama’s.  For logic’s sake, it’s again immaterial how well you like Romney’s potential appointees, or if they meet your preferred criteria.  The pressing point is on who Obama will select.  If you prefer the soon coming Supreme Court appointees not be radical leftists, voting for Mitt Romney becomes quite easy.

Libertarians, I know you fancy yourselves bastions of logic and rationality, so I’m attempting to appeal to that side of the matters at hand.  I understand the ideological compromises you will have to make to mark a vote for Mitt Romney. My views are more conservative than Romney’s as well.  He thinks government can do things it cannot, and should not.  I know he’s not the perfect guy, and he’s not your guy, but he’s better than their guy. And with your votes, he can beat their guy.  That should be enough to help you hold your nose and cast your ballot.

When this discussion comes up I always recall the words of Andrew Breitbart, who thundered away at CPAC 2012 that “I will march behind whoever our candidate is, because if we don’t, we lose. Anyone who is willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker. And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”

We have one chance to give America an opportunity to heal and restore itself.  Let us leave the quarrels over who plugs the hole and stops the flood for another time, and elect the only candidate whose finger will fit.

The consequences of the alternative are far too severe.

Sincerely,

A conservative guy who desperately wants to beat Barack Obama

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

First, a note about the creator of the film. Dinesh D’Souza is a Christian apologist, defender of conservatism and capitalism, scholar, biographer, college president, and family man who came to the U.S. to attend college at Dartmouth and has grown into all of those roles in the quarter-century or so since. He has authored several books, many which garnered best selling status, including The Roots of Obama’s Rage, and Obama’s America, on which this film was based.  A former White House staffer for President Ronald Reagan,  he now engages in intellectual punditry in the form of appearances on FOX, CNN and other channels, debates at universities, and the seemingly unceasing authorship of marvelous works of scholar (a personal favorite is What’s So Great About Christianity?).

D’Souza’s film – which bested summer blockbusters The Dark Knight Rises and Spiderman in ticket sales (per screen) its first week in theaters – doesn’t produce any new information per se, but rather compiles neatly and quite damningly the relationships that our president forged in his childhood and young adult years, and that quite clearly continue to influence him to this day. Perhaps the film’s greatest strength is the way it methodically unveils Barack Obama’s life and aligns his current policy decisions with his worldview and the influencers of both. A quality perspective with which any voter should inform themselves.

My reserved and tepid – yes, tepid indeed – criticism of the documentary can perhaps be shrugged off as more of a personal preference of attacking angle than a legitimate flaw in the content. If I was running the show (and I’m certain it is good that I wasn’t), a higher portion of the film might have been dedicated to attacking our president’s results and failure to deliver on major promises, the rhetorical platitudes of which won him the 2008 election. Instead, D’Souza opted to spend the lion’s share on interviews with and commentary on former and recent (pretty darn recent, in some cases) companions, guides, and molders of President Obama’s inarguably leftist ideology.  I’d say the split was 85-15.

D’Souza was asked about the title and purpose of his film: “The real reason we called it 2016 is because we want audiences to question what the implications are, and what the world would look like in 2016 if Obama is re-elected. It is a real mystery how he managed to convince so many Americans to vote for him, and how some of his deepest beliefs have gone un-scrutinized.”

With a focus on Obama’s anti-colonialism adherences, D’Souza adeptly indicts the president’s policies and exposes the radicalism of his past; an absentee father, a Communist mentor, a domestic terrorist colleague and friend, a racist professor, an anti-American pastor.

D’Souza makes a strong case for Obama’s extreme-left worldview, and does so in a professional way. A cinematic and political success, to be sure. Go see this film, and take your friends and family. If not for the simple reason that it’s important to support a major event in the conservative movement, but also that the widespread comprehension of the information presented is vital if an informed decision is to be made in November voting booths.

What a week (and summer, and primary season) for conservatives, who are experiencing wins all across the country, each seeming to build on the momentum of the last.  Both electorally and culturally, right-wing America has been flexing its muscles of late.

Perhaps even more revealing than conservative primary election wins is the testament to the right to free speech and Christian conservative values on display at Chick-fil-As throughout this great land on Wednesday.

It’s already being reported that Chick-fil-A broke fast-food world sales records on Wednesday, “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”, which is extensively encouraging.  It makes sense, too. Conservatives spend the majority of their time being disappointed by much of the corporate and entertainment industries that seem to cave in to or cater to liberal influence. When the chance came to support a business that reflects traditional American values and make a statement about 1^st Amendment rights in the process, thousands leapt at the chance.

By 11 a.m., tweets and news stories were proliferating of packed Chick-fil-A’s, lines outside and around the building, even drive-thru’s backed up onto interstates.  Pictures of wall-to-wall customers hit Twitter and Facebook. By evening, several restaurants were out of food, and managers went outside to thank the droves of remaining customers for their business, reluctantly turning them away. As I tweeted in the midst of the hoopla, “Conservatives got more accomplished over one lunch period than liberals did in six months of Occupy wherever.”

The idea that Chick-fil-A is somehow discriminatory is a flippantly false accusation and a farce.  Its President, Dan Cathy, had the gall to state what he believes in answer to a question on the traditional Christian family structure.  Against whom have they discriminated?  CFA hires based on merit. It serves every patron who comes through the door with a quality that noticeably outpaces its competitors. The “discrimination” case could be better made for vegetarians than homosexuals.

Not to be lost in the shuffle, the primary issue at stake here is constitutional 1st Amendment rights. When the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, three very prominent cities, declare that a business is unwelcome in their jurisdiction, and the reasons are unabashedly a difference of religious or political opinion, patriotic Americans were right to organize support for the wrongfully oppressed.

This story isn’t about “civil rights” any more than Sandra Fluke’s SOS for free birth control was really about women’s health.  It’s a free speech issue, a government overreach issue, and a religious freedom issue.  Larry Elder got it right in his recent column, “…what part of the First Amendment do these radical mayors not understand? The First Amendment is about preventing government from infringing on political speech. This is a clear-cut case of suppression and punishment of Cathy’s right of free speech.”  This story is an even faster steamroller because Chick-fil-A’s beliefs happen to also be the ones on which this country was founded.

It doesn’t get more un-American than big government trying to prohibit the establishment of a business because that business supports traditional values.  Even if mayors Menino and Emanuel could actually wield the kind of monarchial powers which they so arrogantly claim, their opposition to Chick-fil-A is enormously erroneous – both economic and Constitutional.

As the Chick-fil-A controversy is largely a political one (thanks to liberal presumptiveness), the throngs who came out in support of the fast food chain on Wednesday are undoubtedly people who pay at least casual attention, and are therefore likely voters.  Beings as Chick-fil-A is clearly a Christian, conservative organization, this only bodes well for Republicans in the fall. Enthusiasm and conviction matter, and conservative America had barrels of both to spare this week.

Chick-fil-A wasn’t the only conservative win in recent days.  In a nationally-covered Texas State Senate race, grassroots candidate Ted Cruz soundly defeated Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in an extremely hard fought and intense runoff election on Tuesday.  The Cruz win is a testament to hard work by a myriad of Americans desperate for a return to traditional American values and prosperity.

Add in the monumental Scott Walker win in early June, and summer 2012 has been a conservative home run.  Even the Supreme Court Obamacare ruling, a technical win for Obama and company, served to fire up the conservative base in a way that perhaps even a win would have failed to do.  Donations came pouring in to Romney’s campaign, several million dollars online in just a few hours.  On a similar note, the Romney campaign outraised the Obama campaign in June, and the RNC has far more in its bank than does the DNC.

Perhaps less consequential overall, but still surprisingly telling, Charles Krauthammer took on the White House this week…and won.  Krauthammer’s much publicized column exposing the Obama Administration for lying about the return and placement of the Winston Churchill bust (a gift from Britain to George W. Bush) – and garnering a fiery rebuttal from Obama’s staff before Krauthammer closed the deal – earned him an apology from the White House in the form of a public email. It was snobbish, and diverted blame elsewhere, but it was an apology nonetheless.  Conservatives should be thankful for any mark of victory they can chalk.

The tide appears to be turning.  If only this momentum wave continues mounting towards November.

Say, aren’t grassroots conservative movements dead? Somebody should really tell them. They’re making an awful lot of noise.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

The compassion argument is used as a jumping-off point for nearly every single liberal economic policy. It’s their defense of amnesty for illegal immigrants, big government spending programs that “help” the poor, and their continued refusal to address the entitlement programs that are strangling Republicans’ attempts to be fiscally responsible.

Indeed, liberals tout food stamp and welfare programs designed to, theoretically, aid those who simply need a hand up to get back on their feet.

And so, the big government programs came and come; faltering, flailing, and failing to fix the problems their not-so-well intentioned administrative bureaucrats deem important uses of taxpayer money.  Insomuch as government involvement in addressing whatever happens to be the trendy perceived societal woe serves only to worsen the wound and waste money, perhaps a re-examination of the liberal “compassion” claim is warranted.

In short, nary a reasonable person would consider sweet-talking an old lady before robbing her to be “compassionate”, but that’s precisely what happens when government throws its weight behind an effort to fix problems.  Fluffy platitudes and kind-sounding remarks are the name of the game in compassionate governance, while honest to goodness results matter not.

It’s why President Obama can appear sympathetic to the “many millions in this county” who go without health insurance (not without health care, by the way, but that’s a separate argument) while painting opponents of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as heartless Republicans who, as Nancy Pelosi famously cackled, “want women to die right there on the floor.” Never mind that there are only about 10-15 million Americans (3-4% of 330 million) who want health insurance but don’t currently have it.  In other words, President Obama has decided it’s both financially and morally beneficial to handicap 97% of the population to supposedly aid 3-4%.

The same tactic has been used to justify the government-led “War on Poverty”.  The thinking is that a nation as prosperous as America surely has an obligation to provide for those in need.  I wrote in a June 5^th column for The Right Sphere that “The much ballyhooed War on Poverty is a failure. In fact the impoverished would have been better off had the government left them alone. The national poverty rate was 11.2% in 1974. 30 years later in 2004 it was 12.7%, and it’s above 15% under the presidency of Barack Obama. Liberals claim “compassion” to justify their big government charity programs, but the facts tell us they only make things worse.”

Meanwhile, conservatives are compassionate in reality, but don’t break their arms to pat their own backs.

A 2007 study by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse, found that, as George Will put it, “Conservatives are far more liberal givers.”  Brooks’ data revealed that, nationally, conservative households give 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household, even though liberal families in America, on average, make six percent more than conservative counterparts.

Additionally, conservatives donate more time, blood, and other resources both in America and overseas.  And here’s the kicker – those who reject the notion that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” (the basic goal of the government “compassion” programs) gave an average of four times more than those who hold that notion as truth.

Conservatives walk the compassion walk by reaffirming their sincerity with money, time, and honest generosity.  Liberals would prefer government just keep reaching into our wallets, provided they smile and wave.

This certainly blows holes all over the “Conservatives are insensitive, uncaring, greedy jerks who only care about corporations” ship steered by liberals trying to justify the failure of government programs because “at least we care enough to try”.

When confronted with the evidence that conservatives consistently give more to the needy than do liberals, the retort is usually that removing religious donations from the equation makes the  numbers essentially even. My response to that is two-fold: 1) It’s pretty remarkable, given that removing religious donations only makes the figures basically balance out (consider the massive amounts of religious donations, and the fact that conservatives include far more religious folks in their ranks) and 2) Who cares? Religious organizations are amongst the biggest givers of time and money in this nation (Catholic Charities, the single largest). Their impact is enormous. America would be a far worse place without the charity and charitable acts provided by religious organizations.

The point is, even if the source of the compassion (for conservatives – personal obligation; for liberals – promoting government spending) was a wash, failing to provide positive results can hardly be described as compassionate.

Obama has been dubbed the “Food Stamp President” by right wingers pointing out the fact that food stamp recipients have increased by 76% in the last 3-plus years.  Additionally, the President has lengthened the amount of time one can draw unemployment benefits to an obscene 99 weeks.  While liberals cheer these stats as a sign of a moral responsibility being met and, unfathomably, as “economic stimulus”, Ronald Reagan got it right when he noted that the welfare and food stamp programs are best judged by how many people are able to leave them, not how many are added.  If the government is simply enabling people to remain impoverished (or pushing more people below the poverty line, as has been true of late), it’s hurting, not helping.

Parents aren’t assisting a child with bad grades by increasing the amount of time he’s allowed to watch television.

Stealing from Peter and giving to Paul isn’t compassion.  Liberals pretend it is, but nothing could be farther from the truth, especially when liberal policies take from Peter and then make Paul dependent on a wasteful and inefficient government, thus impairing them both.

Compassion requires self-proclivity.  It’s an individual inclination (for the religious, often motivated by love, duty, and obligation), not collectively forced money pooling and delving.  True compassion contains an emotional element, and is demonstrated through action and results. Conservatives are superior at both, and are more than happy to aid – through individual giving and fundraising – those who need it, thus accomplishing both ends by purer and far more efficient means.

If your goal is to really help people, give like a conservative.  This does far more actual good than does the liberals’ attempt to treat a wasteful and corrupt government as the world’s largest soup kitchen.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

Every candidate wants the voters to see him as normal, that he understands the plight of the average folks, that he best represents the views of the masses because, at least in perception, he is no different from those masses.

Thus the efforts of both the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns to paint the other as out of touch and distant, removed from the average Joe in a way that is detrimental to his ability to govern appropriately.  So far, the Obama campaign (and its army of media surrogates) has taken up far more ruthless means toward this end.  Obama’s lackeys are amplifying Romney’s extensive wealth, lavish vacations, and luxurious mansion in an attempt to generate a void between the “working class people” and Barack Obama’s opponent.

The truth is this: neither Obama nor Romney are in much of a position to relate to “normal” people.  The vast majority of Americans aren’t able to comprehend a life of garage elevators or private jets or having someone else drive your car while you sit in the back, drink champagne, and talk about vacation houses and Swiss bank accounts . Be that as it may, only one side is hypocritically capitalizing on this perceived disconnect.

The charge, while exaggerated, is that Mitt Romney is far too disengaged from average Americans to be their President. The myth here is that Barack Obama isn’t just as culpable.

This is the President who had millionaire film director Tim Burton decorate the White House for a Halloween Party, who hob-knobs with George Clooney and invites Bon Jovi for a flight on Air Force One, and who has fundraisers costing upwards of $40,000 a plate with millionaire fashion designers in New York City.

This is the President who visited a town hall at the University of Maryland and opened his speech by complaining about how difficult were the hours spent in Washington performing his duties. Sarcastically, he announced “There’s nothing I enjoy more than spending hour after hour debating the fine points of the federal budget with members of Congress.” The crowd reacted with uneasy chuckles, as if to say, “Isn’t that your job?”

This is the President who has played over 90 rounds of golf in the three and a half years he’s been in office, and has held more fundraisers than the five presidents before him…combined.

This President’s media eviscerated the Romneys for their extreme out of touch-ness, as Ann Romney made a TV appearance in a $900 shirt, when just the week before Michelle Obama took an evening out whilst vacationing in Hawaii in a $4,000 skirt.

This is the President who never had a real job before running for state senate in Illinois, but who now has the gall to say, as Americans are struggling in his economy, “You know, I think we’ve been a little bit lazy.”  He also thinks we’ve become “soft” and lost our “competitive edge.”

This is the President who enjoyed the single largest influx of Wall Street donations in presidential history for his 2008 campaign, and now watches as his team and media brigade attack Mitt Romney’s wealthy connections.

This President has held fundraisers with Robert Downey Jr,. Sarah Jessica Parker, Cher, Jessica Alba, Sophia Bush, Jared Leto, Billy Crystal, Salma Hayek, Matthew Broderick, Ellen DeGeneres, Drew Barrymore, Vanessa Williams, Lady Gaga, Will Smith, Whoopi Goldberg, Jamie Foxx, Eva Longoria, Spike Lee, Al Green, Mariah Carey, Will Ferrell, Jim Belushi, Robert Di Nero, Don Cheadle, J.J. Abrams, Reese Witherspoon, Julia Roberts, Danny Devito, and billionaire Warren Buffett..

And all of these took place in the last calendar year alone.

This President enlisted Tom Hanks to narrate his campaign video “The Road We’ve Traveled”, and recently held a fundraiser at the house of Glee creator Ryan Murphy that cost $25,000 per famous Hollywood couple.

While this President is attending fundraiser after lavish fundraiser yukking it up with the richy rich for their money, he managed to take a brief break for a press conference, at which he claimed “The private sector is really doing just fine.”

It’s not hard to imagine the private sector is doing just fine when you’re only looking at it across the table from millionaire actors, actresses, singers, producers, designers, and whatever Whoopi Goldberg is.

Is Mitt Romney out of touch with average people? Who knows. Maybe. Or maybe he’s just an average guy who put his business skill and intellect to good use and has reaped the blessing of success. (Isn’t that what capitalism is all about? Allowing and enabling individuals, families, and companies to achieve based on ingenuity and hard work?  Isn’t that a primary reason others flock to our country…for that same opportunity?) Either way, the idea that somehow Romney is a wealthy elitist while Barack Obama is a man of the folk is as absurd as two mansion man Michael Moore posing as an Occupy Wall Street 99% -er .

There’s nothing inherently wrong about fundraising with rich people; after all, they have the most resources from which to draw.  Also, and contrary to current liberal talking points, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being so wealthy you have to shovel piles of cash to see out of your driveway.  This is America. Success and opportunity are good. In fact, that’s the point.

Let us not be fooled into thinking Romney is incapable of understanding the plight of the regulars, while Obama is himself just a regular who happens to be President of the United States.

The narrative is a false one, as are all narratives pushed by the liberal media, and dishonest to boot.  As they pontificate about Romney’s snobby wealth, while claiming Obama’s focused concern for middle and lower class Americans, remind them that over the last decade Mitt and Ann have given an average of 15% of their income to those in need, while Barack and Michelle gave just 1% over that same time period (consistent with the fact that conservatives give higher percentages of their incomes to charitable needs than do liberals).  And, just for fun, mention that George W. Bush and his wife Laura donated a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than the Obamas as well.

The Obama team and media are attempting to paint Mitt Romney as Gordon Gekko.  True or not, Barack Obama is an un-altruistic Danny Ocean.

You can follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

If you have read many of my pieces or followed me on Twitter for even a short time, you’re well aware that I believe the vast majority of the problems America is experiencing are rooted firmly in the growth of liberalism and the declination of traditional American values. Although liberalism is rampant and raging, another issue is just as paramount to the destructive edge of the cliff upon which our country is teetering – the apathy of my generation.

Those who wish America ill, who strive to change her through “progressive” legislation and an amoral society have done and are doing immense damage to the prosperous hopes of this great nation and tarnishing the treasured history of her fought and died-for values.

These destructors, however, would not be allowed to even entertain the notion of a fundamental changing of America’s cherished guard without the unspoken approval of a dissenting body who is largely too apathetic to obtain truthful information and from it bellow a resounding statement of informed intent.

This intent – that of resolute traditional Americanism – and this allowance – granted by those who sit quietly by while the fighters on the left win the war – are indicative of a people group wholly entrenched in the assuredness of easy life and who take being American and her God-blessed freedoms for granted.

The issue, this apathy, finds itself most at home in a teenage and young adult generation, my generation, who have never had to work to be American (or work at anything much at all, for that matter).  We’ve never had a Great Depression, a WWII, or any major uniting adversity.  We’ve had it easy, and it’s showing.

My generation is one of laptops and relative morality, not farm chores and personal responsibility.

Humans want to fight for something. It’s ingrained in our being. And when nothing inherently noble is apparent, it becomes easy and may seem right to create, often out of thin air, a “righteous” rationale for being, and being American. This synthetic purpose is a prevailing reason for why we are witnessing an entitled and faux-victimized generation flooding the streets of our cities with a twisted understanding of equality and fairness.  People long for purpose, and a generation of indiscriminate enablement empowers them to fight for disillusioned aspirations straight out of Moore’s Utopia. Their goals are not just, and subsequently not American.

This apathy takes two forms: The first is a lack of motivation to become properly informed of facts sans spin.  The second is a lack of impetus to turn that information into an effective furthering of traditional American values and an effort to squelch anti-American liberal progressivism and the revisionist history that precedes it.

It isn’t the ill-intentioned minority that represents America’s greatest inner threat, but a silent majority of passive enablers who are either too lazy or too engaged elsewhere to take a stand.

It isn’t evil politicians that bode the most danger to the financial and societal future of America, but a generation of adults who behave like children and care not what happens next.

This problem starts in the home.  It is there where the origins of entitlement and victimization begin developing.  Broken families and absent morals allow Americans to grow up expecting (from the almighty government) freedom, security, even a job and “free” health care. The oft-preached “social justice” is generally used as a overarching excuse to tolerate anyone and anything, regardless of principles and ethics.

My generation, especially, expects to be granted these uniquely American advantages instead of being appropriately grateful for those who worked and fought so hard to ensure them.

Advantages should be earned, not doled out on a silver platter of expectancy.

This attitude of self-entitlement can continue to shift basic American principles for only so long before being American is no longer considered a blessing, but a predetermined warrant to demand whatever one desires.

I believe we are currently witnessing the comeuppance of this disposition; demonstrated by a massively extended federal government of liberal elites toting a narcissistic superiority complex coupled with the Occupy movement and that which it represents.

This culture of demand and take, instead of earn and offer, precedes both the moral and economic fall of even the strongest nation.  No empire can withstand the many relying on the few.  Our American empire is no exception.

True ignorance is hard changed, and pure evil hardly ever changed. It is the apathy of the decent that must be eradicated and replaced with informed activism.

America as we know it hangs in the balance.

They are convinced the earth is heating up. They are convinced this is man’s doing. And, they are convinced the government must lead the charge and fight against this beast that they are convinced will be our doom sooner rather than later.

Why are they so certain? Why do they presuppose the premise of their argument and dismiss, resoundingly, the existent contradictory evidence?

Yes, regardless of what most schools and nearly every media outlet present, there is contradictory evidence.

For example:

• The earth hasn’t actually warmed in 15 years
• Evidence that some scientists lied about their global warming research
• Contrary to reports of massive arctic ice meltdown, the latest study shows that ice levels in the arctic circle are at their highest levels in seven years
• Not only is there more ice, but in contrast to the cries of environmental extremists, there are more polar bears too
• Evidence shows that the earth heated up in medieval times. Yet, there were no CO2 emissions, so it couldn’t have been human-caused
• Challenging the notion that extreme action should be taken to “decarbonize” our economy

When factual certainty is replaced with agenda-coinciding theory, science very quickly becomes religion.

When the liberal media or world of academia attempts to persuade its audience of the dangers and impending doom of environmental changes, we are witnessing the theory of manmade global warming, not a factually-based scientific conclusion.

They claim science, but their claims lack inarguable certainly. As a belief or unbelief in God requires faith, the belief in global warming, manmade or not, requires a faith in something that has not been proven. Their hypotheses reside in agenda and scheme, not verity.
Science is something that can be studied, observed, and tested. Global warming, and especially the presumption that man is to blame, is none of these things.

This is not a declaration of definitive evidential analysis for one side or the other, it is merely a challenge to consider why some “scientists” and their political pushers are so certain of something so uncertain.

Is the globe actually warming? Is there any actual substantive climate change? Is it caused by man’s activity? If so, can anything be done to curb the affects?

Conservatives are inclined to answer “no” to these questions, citing large amounts of evidence (such as the arguments provided in the links provided above) that says the earth and her inhabitants are just fine and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Liberals, on the other hand, promise that global warming is real, manmade, and disastrous.

Perhaps you are engaged in this discussion, and unsure how to combat your liberal counterpart who insists that manmade global warming will be our demise. Remind your foe that a mere 25 years ago liberals swore up and down that the globe was cooling, and we were headed for another ice age.

Ask them why their unfounded argument is so impassioned and why they cling to shoddy evidence with such fervor. Their answer will either be a regurgitation of questionable science or some form of tree-hugging, “Don’t hurt Mother Earth!” environmental radicalism. This approach – that of placing the environment above human necessity and reasonable use – mirrors closely the replacing of hard science with hopeful religion that global warming activists must necessarily adapt in order to justify their activism.

The real answer? That the politicians and enviro-lobbyists brutally pursue their agenda, and they have a whole lot of average folks fooled into thinking that the evidence for massive manmade climate change is conclusive.

Don’t be one of them.

You can follow the author on Twitter @brady_cremeens.

P.S. For a harsher, yet critical commentary on the reasoning behind the global warming extremists, I urge you to read this piece by James DelingPole, entitled “Why I Am So Rude to the Warmists“.

I fought the nomination of Mitt Romney through various outlets (mainly Twitter and yelling at my radio) for several months. I could not stand the thought of this Massachusetts moderate being the representative of the proudly enthusiastic and recently recharged conservative movement of the past four years.

This primary season, in regards to the evolution of my political comprehension, has been one of great learning and expanded understanding of how things work. In the fall of ’11, when things began heating up and the debates revealed the candidates’ principles, policies, and campaign competency, I navigated through my primary virginity (I was 18 just in time to vote for John McCain in the ’08 general election, but was mostly politically unaware at the time of the primaries). By gobbling up all the articles, video clips, and commentary that could be had on each of the 8 serious candidates, I started forming opinions and mindsets about what I liked in a candidate, and balancing that with the practical issues such as ability to raise funds, organize, etc.

Around the time of the third or fourth debate, I became a fan of Herman Cain. I liked his apolitical, private sector career success and his no-nonsense approach to addressing the major issues of this election cycle. My enthusiasm for Cain sizzled after just a couple of weeks (and much before the alleged sexual harassment scandal), however, after his many misstatements and gaffes (on things that really matter), and some major problems with his 9-9-9 tax plan that were presented to me by economic people I trust.

After my fortnight of support for the Cain, Rick Perry declared to run and I had found “my candidate”. Here was a conservative Governor of a thriving state with an excellent record and the economic values and plan to tackle the evident disaster that Barack Obama and Democrats are currently forcing upon America. What was truly unfortunate was that Rick Perry’s greatest campaign achievement was the remarkable accuracy in which he shot himself in the foot. Numerous flubs, poor showing at debates where he failed to articulate conservatism ideals and his plan for implementing them, and a growing fear that a Rick Perry presidential candidacy wouldn’t have the organization nor competency in the public eye to beat incumbent Obama and his vast media machine. The worry that I held, and shared with many others, was that if Perry performed so poorly when even favorable cameras were on him amongst his Republican peers, he would likely crumble in a general election that will be perhaps the nastiest display of political and personal attacks in electoral history. I believed that Perry would make the best governing President out of this field of candidates, if only we could get him to the White House. I still believe that to be the case, actually.

At the conclusion of Perry’s candidacy I was left without a candidate I really liked. In fact, of the four remaining candidates (Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum), I was utterly unenthused and virtually disheartened by the choices with which we were left. Even in my short time of being politically aware, I felt this GOP field to be weak. Certainly not what conservatives wished for when beating the sitting President is thought to be more vital than ever before.

I thought, debated, argued, read, listened, rolled my eyes, gritted my teeth, and concluded that, of the remaining candidates, Newt Gingrich was the least bad choice. This blog post nearly perfectly summarizes my thoughts on supporting Newt.

I appreciated his attack-dog style, his refusal to accept the premise behind liberal arguments, and his passion to fight a corrupt and dishonest media that so desperately wants to reelect President Obama to a second term. There were many things I didn’t like about him, as well. His more-than checkered past. His inability to hold his tongue when digging a losing hole deeper and deeper. His deceitful video attacks on his fellow candidates. That spine-tingling global warming ad he did with Nancy Pelosi. He did, however, bring positives to the table. An understanding of historical precedent and what things happened and why, a fairly conservative record, a leadership record that includes balanced budgets and spending reductions even with a Democratic President. Trust me, my conclusion to side with Newt was both measured and balanced, and I was about as disenchanted as a supporter could be.

There were only two times in this primary season that I could accurately describe myself as “excited” about our prospects against Obama: the day Rick Perry declared his candidacy, and the night Newt won South Carolina. Both of those events gave me hope that we might have a chance of avoiding the Romney nomination that I so dreaded. They proved, however, to be but miniature ripples amongst Romney’s steady and sizeable primary wave.

Not for one minute in the last 8 months have I wished Mitt Romney to represent Republicans against Obama. In fact, I still don’t. But conservatives, among other things of course, are realists. We see the world as it is, and accept reality as a bases on which to make necessary decisions. The math is undeniable and, barring some sort of scandal that changes things dramatically, Romney’s nomination is now truly just a matter of time.

And so, as I firmly believe that defeating Barack Obama is imperative not just to the hope of returning the Founding Father’s conservative ideals to the governance of our nation, but perhaps saving our country from Greece-like financial devastation and an international plummet in economic rank and fast-dwindling respect.

Obama is molding America, purposefully, into a worldwide embarrassment.

Many conservatives have voiced their intentions to stay home on election day if Mitt Romney is their only choice against Obama. This worries me greatly.  I would never ask you, if you aren’t doing so already, to vote for Romney in the primaries. I certainly didn’t. I implore you, however, to cast your vote for him in the general election.

Worst case scenario: He’s a middle-centrist squish who governs as a moderate, like he did in Massachusetts. That’s the worst case scenario. We already know Barack Obama to be a radical leftist who will enrage even his own base to force his dangerous agenda.

It is more important for the future of our great nation to defeat Barack Obama than any other incumbent President in our history.

Vote for Mitt Romney because his Vice President won’t be Joe Biden.

Vote for Mitt Romney, because his economic plan and experience is the succulent grapes to Obama’s dried raisins. He has the business experience that our nation needs to undo the problems created by those with largely no business experience.

Vote for Mitt Romney. He won’t alienate America’s friends and cater to her enemies. America will be a safer, more secure place with him in the White House.

Vote for Mitt Romney because, assuming he follows through on his word (and he surely will with a Republican House/potentially Republican Senate, as he has no chance of being reelected if he reneges), he will repeal Obamacare. Even if you are unsure about Mitt’s desire to repeal, it’s still more logical to elect the guy who might over the guy who surely will not.

Vote for Mitt Romney, if for no other reason than his love for America is apparent and his obvious patriotism is refreshing and appropriate for the office of the President of the United States, and is so lacking in our current President.

It would be nice to elect a President that actually likes America and her citizens. Mitt Romney does.

Vote for Mitt Romney in order to help beat Barack Obama. For those paying any attention at all, that’s the only reason needed.

It will be a hard pill to swallow for some conservatives, myself included, to vote for a Republican who hasn’t acted as such in several cases. Beating this incumbent, in this election, is more important than staunch ideological principle. Usually it’s not. This time it is.

If we desire the chance to further conservatism in America and revert her back to her traditional principles, there is no other choice than supporting whoever opposes the “fundamental change” of Barack Obama. This year, it will be Mitt Romney. He therefore necessarily deserves and desperately needs our support.

I, for one, will give it.

Follow the author on Twitter: @brady_cremeens

Of course, it takes but one step beyond the agreement that improvement is positive to find a distinct and very core difference between the two ideologies. Conservatives wish societal progress to be fueled by free market ingenuity and creativity. Leave it up to the suppliers and demanders to decide when something is worth the time and money, and at what point new will surpass old. Liberals, on the other hand, seek first the government to require progress to be made, through legislation and tax dollars.

This kind of forced advancement is a failed experiment, exemplified recently with the Chevy Volt disaster. Every Volt sold costs taxpayers $7,500 in tax credits to the buyer, making it cost-prohibitive to a general public who only purchased 7,800 in 2011. Last week, greenercars.org released their compilation of “The Greenest Cars of 2012”. The taxpayer-funded Chevy Volt didn’t even make the list (which included the top 12 most fuel-efficient vehicles).

Not only did a precious few of the Obama-lauded “Car of the Future” actually sell, the main draw for the volt – that it is a vast improvement over the environment-killing gas-fueled cars – is a complete farce.

Meanwhile, the Environment News Service reports () that a new study shows electric vehicles create more harmful pollution than gas-fueled vehicles. According to the article, “In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, and about 90 percent of that is from coal. The generation of electricity to operate EVs emits fine particles at a much higher rate than petrol-powered vehicles, finds a team of researchers from the United States and China.”

The point is not that efforts shouldn’t be made to create more efficient, alternative-fueled vehicles; it’s that the government shouldn’t shove technology that has yet to come to fruition down our throats.

The President is receiving much grief from the conservative blogosphere due to his comments in the last couple of days referencing algae-powered cars. The reason for the criticism certainly isn’t that right-wingers oppose alternative fuel, but that they can see the writing on the wall. Conservatives do not want to pay for the government to research at a slower and more expensive pace than the private sector could.

Liberals aren’t practical enough to allow the U.S. to tap into its own vast reservoirs of oil, why should conservatives trust them with government funds to properly navigate uncertain energy sources like algae?

In this day of rapid technological advancements, Republicans cannot afford to accept an image, painted by the media and academic world, of stand-still curmudgeons opposed to advances in efficiency and energy. They must instead stress that true progress comes at the hand of private-sector initiative and originality, not government regulated union jobs or coerced research.

America’s proven traditional principles allow for the freedom of imagination and innovation, the very thing that “progressives” take away when they infuse government into whatever the field may be.

Conservatives do not support the platform of anti-progress, but rather condemn government funded failure.

The former Governor of Massachusetts has, for all intents and purposes, taken both sides on nearly every major political issue in the past two decades. He has been staunchly pro-choice, now firmly pro-life. Been pro-amnesty, now tough on immigration.  He has been strict on gun laws, but now finds himself promoted by the NRA.  He has been on both sides of tax cuts, campaign finance reform, and even whether or not he considered himself to be a Republican. He’s hopped over the fence on gay marriage, climate change, and stem cell research.

The problem lies not only in Romney’s seeming inability to have a firm conviction on much of anything, but also in the resulting lack of trust and therefore enthusiasm this kind of political say-anything-to-anyone pandering fails to drum up in the conservative base.  Mitt Romney may very well be the Republican nominee, but that in itself is not enough to beat Barack Obama next November.  For that, he needs an inspired and excited base willing not only to vote, but to knock on doors, annoy friends, and do the hard work it takes to beat any incumbent, especially one who wields dangerously the vast power of the media machine, as Obama most undoubtedly does.

It is the opinion of this novice commentator that in order for Mitt Romney to both secure the Republican nomination and conjure up the needed enthusiastic support (the latter is more important, as the former is looking more and more inevitable), he needs to flip-flop twice more.

How can this be? Will not another change in form turn off the base further and create even more resentment at his pending nomination? Maybe, but not doing so could be far more damaging to the big picture.

There are two issues, one solidified through time and one that has arisen recently, on which most conservatives differ quite greatly with Romney. First is his refusal to betray his Massachusetts health care scheme now dubbed “Romneycare”.  While it may differ from Obamacare in some areas, the idea of government mandated health services is a big no-no with most conservatives.  Romney condemns the idea on a national level, but defends his plan in MA, even against vast disapproval from the “not-Mitt” Republicans invested in this primary season.  The second infraction, exposed only this week, is Romney’s surprising policy of an automatic raise in the national minimum-wage.  These are in stark contrast with the conservative model of less government regulations in the financial sector.

Conservatives advocate for the freedom of the markets, and these two Romney policies are far removed from that core value. His bid for the GOP nomination may be safe either way, but to increase his chances of defeating Obama, Romney should do what he does best: flip-flop.

He needs to denounce these stances in favor of reconciling his economic principles with traditional conservative beliefs.  Romney’s two main advantages to those who support him are some sort of campaign competency (what we may call “electability”) and extensive private-sector experience that has lead to economic prowess.

The first point is a propellant of constant arguing between the Mitt’s and the not-Mitt’s.

The second, given the aforementioned stances, should upset any self-considered conservative. In a general election where the economy will be of unprecedented focus, the right wants their candidate to epitomize the opposite of an incumbent who has quite effectively obliterated the U.S. economy and done near irreparable damage that will take years (perhaps several administrations) to fix.  Republicans seek to run, essentially, the anti-Obama.

Romney’s current stances aren’t it.

Mitt needs to pull a Romney and reverse his views on both his defense of his failed MA health care system, as well as the inflation-indexed minimum wage.  Both are contradictory to the conservative message, and both do further damage to a campaign that will already struggle to instigate the wide-spread eagerness necessary to defeat Barack Obama.

Newt Gingrich, in essence, supported for 20 years what Romney implemented in MA, yet has changed his tune and convinced many that he is against the individual health care mandate that both Romney and Obama have required of their respective constituents.  In so doing, he was able to garner a surprising amount of conservative support, even though many of his own policies and much of his political record are to the left of what many in the base prefer.  He was able to do what Romney was not: present himself – at least in the case of health care – as the anti-Obama, even the anti-Romney.

Romney must convince the massive amounts of base conservatives turned-off by his moderate policies that he is, at least, a strong free-market capitalist.

Either way, the primary election may not be affected.  However, the general election may rest on it.