Tag Archives: spending

CPAC 2013 Stands With Rand

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

VA Gov. McDonnell Suffering from Legacy Fever

VA Gov. Bob McDonnell does not see any reason why a comprehensive transportation package should not include corduroy roads.

VA Gov. Bob McDonnell does not see any reason why a comprehensive transportation package should not include corduroy roads.

Judging from Gov. Bob McDonnell preoccupation with liquids one would almost think he’s a naval man, rather than an Army reservist. First he tried to free demon rum from state control by privatizing Virginia’s liquor stores.

ABC privatization was DOA even with a Republican House of Delegates for reasons outlined here. Now Gov Bob is intent on reinforcing failure with his latest proposal to free gasoline from Virginia’s fuel tax.

Doesn’t the governor realize that as far as legacies go drinking and driving don’t mix?

Initiatives like these are the result of a severe case of legacy fever — a condition characterized by a politician’s feverish attempt to pass a law voters will remember after their term ends. Symptoms include policy delirium, proposal vomiting and head–count headaches.

Legacy fever doesn’t confine its damage to the infected politician. Visible scars include Obamacare, No Child Left Behind and The Great Society.

This is the last session of the legislature for McDonnell. And unless he wants to be smeared as “Gov. Ultrasound” for all time, he must convince the House and Senate to pass a major legislative proposal.

McDonnell wants his legacy to be a major transportation package that will inject $3.2 billion into Virginia’s transportation fund and give the Commonwealth enough money to both build and repair roads — a twofer that’s been missing in recent years.

The governor’s proposal eliminates the tax on gasoline, increases vehicle registration fees by $15, raises the sales tax by 0.8 percent, increases the portion of sales tax revenue dedicated to transportation by 50 percent and slaps a $100 fee on pretentious alternative fuel vehicles that burn French fry oil mixed with taxpayer subsidies.

In addition, Gov Bob is hoping for some kindness from strangers in DC. Part of the money comes from a tax he hopes Congress will authorize on internet sales, meaning those lazy shop–at–homers (who by the way aren’t cluttering up the roads) will be paying sales tax AND shipping on their purchases.

Unless additional money is found the fund for new construction will be completely empty by 2017 as every last penny goes to maintenance on roads already built.

Fortunately there is a simple solution to this problem. First index the state’s gas tax to inflation, since it has not been increased in 27 years. Then the increase from the gas tax should be offset by a decrease in the income tax making the result revenue neutral.

This also has the advantage of being the responsible conservative solution since people who buy gas tend to burn it on highways, in effect making it a user tax paid by those using the roads.

Unfortunately, we have a legislature dominated by irresponsible conservatives that refuse to raise any tax, regardless of need or justification. Grover Norquist speaks for them when he issued a fatwa against raising the gas tax ruling that voting in favor of indexing violates the No Tax Pledge.

Instead, Norquist says plenty of money for roads can be found by cutting spending in other areas of the budget. This is the policy equivalent of saying, “God bless you” after a sneeze. It does nothing to prevent the spread of germs but gives the speaker a benevolent glow without spending any time in theology school.

If it were possible to cut spending elsewhere to fund roads, it would have been done before now. The potholes you dodge and the gridlock you endure proves this is easier said than done.

McDonnell is obviously appreciates the value of a revenue neutral bill, but removing the tax from gasoline is a ham–handed attempt and profoundly unconservative. It means out of state drivers — which constitute 30 percent of the traffic on Virginia roads — pay nothing for the use of Virginia roads. In effect Virginia taxpayers will be subsidizing the beach traffic jamming our highways on summer weekends.

Transportation is a core government function, and if Gov Bob was certain Republicans would be in charge of government from now on, funding roads from the general fund might be marginally acceptable. But there is no guarantee Virginia voters won’t lose their mind and put Democrats back in charge.

Once you mingle transportation money with the rest of the general fund, it means that money is no longer earmarked for roads. Democrats have no problem raiding the transportation trust fund to spend on their social justice priorities, and they have done it in the past. Tinkering with the percentage of the sales tax that goes to roads will be child’s play for them.

On the other hand, when Republicans want to reverse the process and use general fund money on roads, the likes of Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D–Spending) will accuse you of wanting to boil school children in asphalt.

My suggestion is the GOP leadership put a cold compress on the governor’s forehead and urge him to lie down in a darkened caucus room. Meanwhile, they can put all their efforts behind a transportation solution like mine that has the twin virtues of being both simple and conservative.

The Debt Ceiling, Revenue & The Progressive Overreach

9.4 debt by states-02 (2)Soon, President Obama will stand before the American people, at his inaugural, and take the Oath of Office. He will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear an oath before God and country to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He did this once before in 2009. But, he has increasingly ignored the dictates and tenets of this Founding Document – one of the documents in the Charters of Freedom. He has disparaged the document as “flawed” and has transparently sought out legal mechanisms – and sometimes not so legal mechanisms – to circumvent the provisions and authorities set forth within. Many Presidents have done the same, although, perhaps, not as egregiously.

Truth be told, a great deal of the partisan gridlock – at least where the finances of the nation are concerned – wouldn’t exist today if the politicians we elect to office would simply cease being politicians upon being tasked with doing the business of government; if they simply followed the rules of government as set forth by the Founding Documents. But then, as James Madison said, “If men were angels…”

In a prior article, Why Is Boehner Negotiating with Obama at All?, I pointed out:

“Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:

“‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.’

“And while the verbiage that follows outlines the processes by which the presidential veto and congressional veto overrides are to be executed, nowhere is the power of the purse – the ability to create legislation that raises revenue – extended to any other branch of government or congressional body.

“I bring this fundamental tenet of our system of government to the forefront because I am puzzled as to why House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), are negotiating budgetary financial matters, a responsibility and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives, with anyone outside that body, let alone the Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said legislation?

“Such are the questions that arise when the bully pulpit is used to usurp the constitutional order of our government.”

So, you can imagine how happy I was to read that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), has told his fellow Republicans that he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama. The simple fact of the matter is that he never – ever – should have entered into negotiations with anyone from the Executive Branch over issues of raising revenue in the first place; not on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the budget, tax reform, deficit reduction…none of it. Pure and simple, the Executive Branch, other than allocating revenues granted to it to through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, to the agencies and departments under their purview, has no authority over the raising of revenue whatsoever. I defy anyone to find any provision in the US Constitution that contradicts that fact.

The reality that President Obama (and through him his team) can co-opt authority over matters of national finance simply by bullying his way to a “negotiating table” under the perverted guise of “leadership” says a lot about how far we have gotten away from the constitutional process of government. That the elected officials in the Legislative Branch do not howl in protest over the usurpation of the Separation of Powers – and perhaps that they don’t know better to howl in the first place – presents as a frighteningly, but all to true, commentary on just how constitutionally illiterate (or subversive) our elected officials have become. The same, sadly, can be said of the electorate itself.

If, and that is the optimal word here, our elected federal officials adhered to the US Constitution as the rulebook by which government is executed (which it is), legislation would follow a path that goes something like this:

▪ Legislation regarding the generation and securing of revenue (including matters of debt reduction, budgeting and borrowing) would be created working through regular order, letting the House work its will.

▪ The legislation would be advanced to the US Senate where they “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Note: had the 17th Amendment not been passed allowing for the direct election of Senators by the electorate, Senators would still be charged with protecting the rights of their respective States from the overreach of the federal government.)

▪ The legislation would then go to “conference” where the original legislation would be reconciled between the two chambers.

▪ The legislation would then be presented to the Executive Branch (as is the proper procedure for any piece of legislation), where the President can either sign it into law or veto it.

▪ At this point the House (because the legislation for our purposes has to do with revenue generation) would reconsider the legislation and the objections of the Executive Branch and either override the veto or make changes so as to satisfy the Executive’s objections. The overridden or revised bill would then go to the Senate for a similar procedure.

So, as you can see, the only options available for President Obama (or the Executive Branch), constitutionally, are to either sign the legislation into law or veto the legislation presented. Nowhere – nowhere – in the US Constitution is the Executive Branch afforded negotiating rights on matters of raising revenue but for those two options and at that moment in the timeline.

That understood, what we just witnessed – with the US Senate crafting legislation regarding the raising of revenue and the Executive Branch negotiating from the start with the leadership of the US House – was wholly in usurpation of the constitutional process by which revenue legislation is supposed to adhere. In fact, it could be said that the entire piece of legislation, by way of its origination, is unconstitutional.

Yet, because there will be no constitutional objection to this travesty of process, American taxpayers are now saddled with higher taxes and over $4 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, and we haven’t even dealt with the sequestration, the debt ceiling or the budget, all of which will, most likely, see an arrogant and belligerent Executive Branch bullying its way to yet more “negotiating tables”; negotiating tables at which they do not belong. I am willing to bet that through it all, taxes spending and the national debt will rise, and deficit reduction will remain in the realm of political rhetoric; the filth of political opportunism soiling the futures of our great-grandchildren.

On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear this oath, as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nowhere in that oath exists the caveat, “…unless I think the document is flawed.” Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to uphold and protect; to defend the US Constitution. That means adhering to the provisions, limitations and authorities held within, including the legislative process by which revenue is raised for the federal government.

So, when you hear Mr. Obama say: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” two thoughts should come to mind.

First, your eyes should roll, given the fact that all the Obama Administration has done over the past four years is scream that they need to spend more money. Blaming Congress for racking up trillions in new debt with nothing to show for it but fictitious “jobs saved or created” numbers that don’t reconcile with the unemployment and workforce stats is tantamount to piling up debt on your Dad’s credit card and then blaming him for being a spendthrift.

Second, you should be asking yourself – and your elected representatives – this: What gives Mr. Obama the right to say he “will not have another debate with this Congress,” over the debt ceiling when he has no authority to debate it in the first place? More importantly, you should ask yourself why your elected members to the US House would allow their leadership to include Mr. Obama in debates exclusive to House membership…ever.

The time to understand the US Constitution – to become constitutionally literate – is now…as is the time to actually start asking these question. Your great-grandchildren’s’ freedom may just depend on what you do right now.

Calling Ceasefire on the Boehner Bashing

120712_boehner_crying_reu_328_605After the deal on the fiscal crisis passed, disappointed Republicans began a rallying cry resembling those of medieval times yelling, “Off with his head!”. Except instead of Boehner’s head, Republicans want his gavel. Historically, the problem isn’t Boehner, it’s tired Republican strategy.

Republicans, for decades, have been sucked in by the Democrat Party’s last-minute engineered emergencies like the “fiscal cliff”. This crisis is manufactured under the transparent drive to increase taxes. Republicans walk into negotiations demanding spending cuts and come out with tails between their legs and higher taxes. Frankly, it’s as ancient a story as The Three Little Pigs.

Almost everyone knows the story of Ronald Reagan. He thought he went for a deal that raised one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in spending cuts. Unfortunately, the majority of those cuts never came. While the Washington Post refutes the claim, there is still strong evidence to suggest that this is what Reagan believed when signing the deal.

Continuing on, let’s not forget President George H.W. Bush who, in 1990, was promised two dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in tax hikes. Sadly the story ended with a 137 billion dollar tax increase and an additional 22 billion dollars in spending.

Following suit yet again, Boehner and a host of Republicans believed that they could negotiate their way to a compromise with a party who simply wasn’t interested in a win-win scenario.

These examples aren’t meant to make Republicans out as martyrs. We are all big boys and girls with our own separate philosophies and motivations. The Democrat’s strategy works every time because Republicans refuse to learn their lesson every time.

But here is where the ball game changes: After all these years of misled Republicans, Speaker Boehner has made it clear that he will no longer negotiate with President Obama. Boehner has learned the lesson Republicans should have learned decades ago: Negotiating reasonably with Democrats is the way one loses to Democrats. Which is exactly why, moving forward, we need John Boehner as Speaker.

 

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury has nearly a decade of experience in political strategy and has recently opened a consulting firm targeted at helping businesses and campaigns flip their marketing and public relations strategies through new media. Michelle is also a weekly commentator on the Hayden Collins Radio Program and a national speaker. To book Michelle for an event or inquire about her professional consulting services click here. To get more updates, follow Michelle on Twitter or Subscribe on Facebook

 

It’s Still Government Spending, Stupid

Barack Obama, who has stayed in continuous campaign mode since birth, persists in insisting House Republicans submit to his demands to hike tax rates on “the rich.”  If Republicans do note cede to his decrees, Obama will let everyone’s tax rates go up and cut obama_liesone trillion dollars from the budget, half of which will come from defense spending.

If he were truly interested in solving America’s fiscal troubles, this would not be his position.

Most definitely not…

Obama carries on with his nonstop campaign-style appearances, claiming that higher tax rates will reduce the U.S. deficit and cut the national debt.

That is categorically complete, total, absolute, utter fantasy.

The amount collected by the IRS from Obama’s long lusted for tax hikes would fund U.S. federal spending for fewer than nine days.

For members of the self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite: That is less than two weeks.

At current spending levels the U.S. federal government borrows forty six cents of every dollar it spends.  Despite the fact that 2013 has not yet begun, through the first two months of fiscal year 2013 the U.S. is already approximately $300 billion in debt.

The biggest drivers of U.S. deficit spending are Medicare, Social Security, “safety net” programs and interest on the debt.  The looming short and long term costs of Obamacare have yet to fully reveal themselves, but given the U.S. federal government’s track record one can safely predict that it will be far more than what taxpayers were told and will rape their wallets for billions every year.

In other words, under the White House’s current “progressive” policies, it is only going to get worse, not better.

obama_pelosi_reidThe Oval Office occupier and his “progressive” Party Pravda press secretaries willfully ignore and refuse to mention that under the current tax rates, revenues are up by thirty billion dollars over last year.

Obama keeps claiming that raising tax rates on America’s highest earners, those who already pay forty percent of the revenue to the IRS, will be the silver bullet that solves America’s financial woes.  He continues blaming today’s deficits on his predecessor.

During his time in office, George W. Bush’s highest deficit was $438 billion.  Obama’s government has posted a $1 trillion plus deficit for four straight years.  2013 will make five.  America’s fiscal gloom and the looming “fiscal cliff” “crisis” are the result of “progressive” spending on wasteful big government socialist programs.

That is the reason.  Any other claim is pure unadulterated political snake oil.

America’s debt and deficit problems can only be resolved by cuts in spending.  When the United States receives another credit downgrade, it will be because of “progressives”, not Conservatives.  America needs to cut spending, not increase taxes.

Anyone who says differently should be in organic fertilizer distribution…or is that redistribution?
Warning: This show is addictive

Republicans: still searching for a fight they can win.

Obama signs another IOU as Congressional Democrats applaud

Rep. Frank Wolf (R–VA) and I disagree on term limits. I’m a firm believer in 12 years and you’re out — while Wolf is an advocate of the 30 years and counting philosophy. (Unless Frank doesn’t have any other options, because his family refuses to spend more time with him.)

But based on his courageous vote last week against the payroll tax extension, it’s safe to say we do see eye–to–eye with regard to what the media terms “bipartisanship.”

This is important because in a presidential election year independent voters are going to be bombarded with stories touting the benefits of “bipartisan cooperation” between Democrats and Republicans.

The political calculation in the media is bipartisan = good. Conversely, refusal to compromise principles = bad. So independents should either support “bipartisan” candidates who just happen to vote for liberal legislation or stick with the genuine article and vote Democrat.

Independent voters that are concerned about the country’s continued deficit spending should not meekly accept the media’s definition of political progress, because that definition undermines everything in which they believe.

This is because bills that pass Congress with bipartisan support and media approval in the days of Obama, are bills that increase spending and hasten our descent into drachma–based budgeting. And voting to extend the payroll tax cut is a perfect example.

Usually Democrats believe Americans are under–taxed and only their stubborn greed stands in the way of Nirvana in America. This time Democrats support the payroll tax cut extension because passage improves Obama’s prospects for re–election. What Democrats oppose is making the extension deficit–neutral by cutting spending somewhere else to offset lost revenue.

Republicans don’t like the extension because it undermines funding for Social Security, does not provide any real economic stimulus and will add approximately $100 billion to the deficit.

A genuine compromise would address elements of both positions. A bill that continued the tax cut for the rest of 2012, so Obama can slide past election day, and was offset by spending cuts would give Democrats and Republicans their top priority, while forcing compromise elsewhere.

Yet the “bipartisan” bill the country got extended the tax cuts with zero budget cuts.

To put this in perspective, total federal spending for this fiscal year is estimated to be $3.8 trillion. A cut of $100 billion from that gusher of Chinese–backed indebtedness is less than three cents on the dollar, yet Democrats would not cut a penny.

In fact this bill wipes out the measly $95 billion in deficit reduction “victory” the House GOP leadership sweated bullets to achieve last year.

Wolf describes the bill as, “…shameful. The American people are right to be disappointed that the president and the Congress have walked away from every serious deficit reduction effort. They should be appalled that both sides have joined together to spend more money and weaken Social Security.”

And Rep. Jeff Flake (R–AZ) hit the nail on the head, “Why is it that the only time we can come together and reach an agreement…increases the deficit or explodes spending? That’s enough to make the country cry for more partisanship.” Or if not more partisanship, at least some leadership, but that does not appear to be on the horizon either.

Republican leaders were faced with a choice: defeat the extension because it increases the deficit, moves Social Security another step down the road to a welfare program and is simply irresponsible vote–buying. Knowing full well that Obama will characterize their opposition as refusing a tax cut for the middle class, while protecting the rich.

Or they can choose to crater on the spending cuts offset and vote for a fiscally irresponsible bill knowing that Obama will use the bill’s passage as proof he’s fighting for the middle class, while the GOP is only interested in protecting the rich.

Someone please help me find the victory here. The reality is Republicans face a hostile media that favors spending and an administration that wants to increase spending. Making the case for cuts is not going to get any easier. If GOP leadership is unable to make the case for small spending cuts now, there is no chance they will successfully make the case for major spending cuts we must make in the near future.

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post, smug Republican House veterans who supported the “compromise” said conservative freshmen “had touched the stove and finally realized it was burning hot.”

The veteran’s advice was the usual: voting for pork is the best insulation.

How Much Does The Government Really Have To Buy A Vote?

A break down of exactly how much does the government REALLY has to buy votes, who pays taxes, who does’t pay taxes, and how much each department spends. Bill Whittle calls Barack Obama’s $1 billion that he will spend to get re-elected “chump change” in comparison. These Big Government statistics are 22,000 times that amount… and each dollar is spent buying votes!

Barack Obama will have ONE BILLION DOLLARS to spend on his re-election in 2012. Bill calls that chump change. Find out how the Big Government statists spent 22,000 times that amount on buying votes in 2011 alone!

Ron Paul: Sage Grandfather or Crazy Uncle?

I find myself intrigued with Ron Paul on a regular basis. The man can get up and say some of the most patriotic and sensible things in one sentence and then in the next sentence sound like he just came out of an insane asylum. Paul has great ideas when it comes to fiscal responsibility, spending, freedom, and the Federal Reserve. On the other side of the coin, though, his ideas on foreign policy leave me wondering where he left his brain, or if he has one that is properly balanced. When he speaks of fiscal issues he sounds like Ronald Reagan. When he speaks of foreign policy he sounds like Hugo Chavez and even to the left of Barack Obama.

When I hear him speak of auditing or eliminating the FED I stand up and cheer. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental entity that is destroying our economy by printing money that has essentially no value, thereby lowering the value of the dollar and guaranteeing severe inflation in the very near future. The FED also has virtually no oversight from anyone in Congress. Paul is also correct in his assessment of federal government spending. We cannot keep spending money borrowed from China for building IHOP restaurants, studying ants in New Zealand, teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex, and certainly can’t keep borrowing to prop up European countries.

I also agree with much of his stand on Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and the other third world hell holes Obama is involving us in. Fighting a war against Islamic terrorists is one thing but this “nation building” farce is only a boon for the military industrial complex and is not helping any aspect of our national security interests. We are wasting money and lives in a venture that will fail because it isn’t about winning a war; it is about being politically correct and propping up a puppet government. As we are leaving Iraq we see the sectarian slaughter returning.

Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been butchering each other for centuries and we are not going to stop it. Until these stone-age animals decide to live like human beings nothing we do is going to change anything. All we do is put our soldiers in the line of fire with a no-win policy that puts their lives in danger with rules of engagement that are insane.

While closing military bases all across the United States we build and expand bases throughout the world. While we are “helping Afghan police and military close their borders to invaders” we leave our own borders wide open to drug cartels and the very Islamic terrorists we are fighting in far off lands.

Ron Paul makes quite a stir when he talks about “legalizing drugs”. I don’t remember everything he has said about drugs but I do know he has some valid points here also. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 50 years and has cost taxpayers billions in wasted money. Not only have we not solved the problem of illegal drugs; this “war” has made it worse. Most of Paul’s position has more to do with leaving this issue to the states, not legalizing drugs wholesale as the story is reported. Ron Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate, as am I. It only took the politicians 14 years to see the problems caused by Prohibition and repeal the 18th Amendment. The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years with the same results we saw during Prohibition. I don’t condone legalizing all drugs but I see a colossal failure that could be handled better at the state level.

Paul has the same ideas on abortion; let the states decide how they want to handle this issue. I agree with him on this matter. If it isn’t in the Constitution the federal government has no business sticking their nose into it. Every time a person or group doesn’t get their way at the state level they run to the federal government to override the states, the place where these issues should be decided. I see abortion as murder, and see murder as a state issue not a federal one.

I hear all of the things Paul writes and says about these issues and I jump up and cheer him on. Then he begins to talk about foreign policy and I scream out in pain. Paul is just as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to blaming America for every ill in the world. I have a cousin who worked in the building demolition business years ago and I had several opportunities to see the activities involved in blowing a building up, or rather imploding them. When I hear Ron Paul talk about 9/11 being an inside job I want to choke his scrawny little neck.

The idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by internally placed explosives is ludicrous to anyone who has even a scant knowledge of building implosions. The amount of work necessary to drill into pillars, place the explosives, wire them together, and tie everything to a detonator cannot be accomplished in a building with thousands of people walking in and out all day every day. A building that size isn’t brought down on itself with a satchel charge tossed into an elevator. The idea that the Bush Administration was involved in setting up the hijackings is equally ludicrous and statements by Ron Paul and his supporters on this issue shows they are well outside the realm of sane or intelligent thought.

While Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what is needed to restore The Republic of the United States of America, he has more than enough crazy ideas to make him a danger to every person in this country. I would love to see Ron Paul be the next Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve but to put this man in the White House would endanger our nation almost as much as re-electing Barack Obama.

We need a very strong leader with strong conservative values. We need someone who will articulate the conservative message and have the courage of his/her convictions. Now is not the time for waffling or being concerned about “diversity” or “inclusiveness”. The only answer to our nation’s problems is a conservative approach that relies on the Constitution that our founding fathers fought the Revolutionary War to make possible. Anything less will result in the demise of a once great nation and the rise of another Third World banana republic with a dictator such as Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez. Ron Paul is not the man for the job.

I submit this in the name of the most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 23, 2012