Thursday, August 14, 2008

Kevin Tracy makes the case for Gayle Harrell

Huck PAC is currently running a poll asking for people to vote for their favorite candidate for Florida’s 16th Congressional District. There are three options available to the Huck PAC supporters so let's hope they choose the right one, Gayle Harrell. Kevin Tracy has written a very good blog about this opportunity and why he supports Gayle. Here is just a snippet of what he has to say:

Of the three Republicans, only one of them has run a positive campaign.

Of the three Republicans, only one of them has any significant legislative experience.

Of the three Republicans, only one of them has a proven conservative record.

Of the three Republicans, only one of them has earned the praises of Newt Gingrich.

Of the three Republicans, only one of them promises to co-sponsor the Fair Tax.

Of the three Republicans, only one of them is a safe bet to win back this seat.

And it just so happens that it happens to be the same person, that person is Florida State Representative Gayle Harrell. She may not have wealthy family members donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National, Wisconsin, and Colorado Republican Parties, but she has something money can’t buy… unwaivering conservative values and an unrivaled commitment to the people she represents.

To read more about what Kevin thinks, visit his site.

You can also visit Huck PAC to vote for Gayle by clicking here.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Evangelicals Bigoted Against Mitt Romney???

As most of you have probably seen by now, the article from The Washington Times, "Evangelicals warn against Romney on ticket", is all the rage. It is linked and discussed on just about every political site you come across. I can not figure out why this is such a big story now, when it has been covered several times over already. The fact that this story is nothing more than Journalistic Malpractice at best, or a flat out "HIT JOB" at worst, makes it even more troubling.

Upon reading the article, there are several quotes provided by prominent Evangelical Leaders, none of which are inflammatory on their own. The comments which are drawing all the fire, or fueling it, are supposedly from "Other well-placed Christian conservatives". Well, just who the hell are these people? Do they even exist? Are they made up people, by the author, to help stir up the hornet's nest?

So now it has come to pass, the day when we can no longer criticize a public official for any reason without fear of being labeled a bigot, a racist, or a sexist. If this all sounds familiar, well it should, this is what the Liberals have been pushing for, for decades. The funny thing is, I do not hear the same uproar when the criticism is focused on the Christian community. Are they the only group that is "fair game"?

Personally, I happen to agree with writer, speaker, and radio host: Gregg Jackson. The reason this was and continues to be a big deal is because Mitt Romney is purposely playing the victim in order to hide from his Liberal record as Governor of Massachusetts.

Surreal as it seems, this is part of a larger Romney campaign strategy. For most of this year, Romniacs have been pointing the finger at the GOP base and accusing them of bigotry for not being interested in Mitt. Among the most prominent Romniacs are talk show hosts Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity, who have been calling evangelical noninterest in Mr. Romney ugly bigotry again and again. Ugly bigotry? Excuse me?

Since when does not being interested in a political candidate put you in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan? Since when does a politician have the right to publicly slander you, your religion and your constitutional right to vote for whomever you want for whatever your reason? If Mr. Romney is right, then the history of the last 40 years of presidential elections is the history of ugly bigotry. Americans elected evangelicals or men who pretended to be in each election.

Mr. Romney's eight-month bigotry crusade is perhaps the final piece of evidence that he is a closet liberal. A half-century Democrat talking point is “evangelicals are bigots.” Evangelicals founded the Republican Party. This is the first time a Republican candidate has tried to win votes by guilt-tripping the GOP base.

When we published an expose on Mr. Romney on showing his governor's record reveals him to be nearly as liberal as Ted Kennedy, Romniacs descended in droves clutching a large suitcase of evidence showing we were completely wrong. Just kidding. They called us “bigots.” Mr. Jarmin's piece is the latest and most hysterical Romniac response to our expose.

Romniacs act like the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is back, trying to take down their man — just like they tried to do to Hillary's husband. Blinded by hatred, this bigot conspiracy will stoop to anything to stop Mitt — anything — including showing voters his governor's record. Read more...

I have been granted permission by Gregg to include some of his writings in my blogs, so please visit and enjoy his site for more very informative articles. Also be sure to check out his book, "Conservative Comebacks To Liberal Lies".

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Mitt Romney Socially Conservative???

This is a hard question to answer. In 2005, Human ranked Mitt Romney the #8 RINO (Republican In Name Only). For example: his position has changed from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice and now apparently, back to Pro-Life. In his own words, while Governor of Massachusetts, he was essentially Pro-Choice. But then he claims to have always come down on the side of life. But that is not entirely true. He is responsible for "Romney Care" which forces all citizens of Massachusetts to have insurance, either private or through the Government or risk a tax penalty. Through this Government version of insurance, abortion is available on demand as a $50 co-pay. To compound this tragedy, tax payers have to fund this monstrosity whether they are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. On a side note to this debacle, Planned Parenthood has a seat on the board for this Universal Health-Care System that Romney signed into law.

What about Gay Marriage, you ask. Well, during Romney's tenure as Governor, Massachusetts became the FIRST state to legalize Gay Marriage. But wait, Gay Marriage was not made legal by the Legislature drafting a new law. It was ruled on by the courts. And the last time I checked, courts do not make the laws, they interpret and enforce them. That did not matter to Mitt Romney though. He threatened his justices and clerks to provide services to marry these gay couples anyway. Even going so far as to change the marriage licenses to read "Partner A" and "Partner B" from what it was before, "Husband" and "Wife". Here is a quote from a World Net Daily article which is linked below: "Since even the court admitted that the marriage statute excludes homosexual 'marriages' and the statute remains law, Mitt Romney did what he did on his own. Neither governors nor courts – neither being law-makers – have legal authority to convey to illegal homosexual marriages licenses".

Well, he is and always has been a staunch supporter for the 2nd Amendment, right? WRONG! In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994. At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA." And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety." He now touts his work as governor to ease restrictions on gun owners. He proudly describes himself as a member of the NRA -- though his campaign won't say when he joined. Even though it is common knowledge it took place in 2006. To add a little salt to the wound of 2nd Amendment supporters, Romney enacted a "FEE" hike that quadrupled registration fees from $25 to a whopping $100.

But Romney is the most Conservative when it comes to Immigration, right? WRONG again! Mitt Romney bashed Governor Huckabee relentlessly during the Primaries about supporting in-state tuition rates for children of undocumented residents. But what Romney failed to mention is that he too supported it while neither candidate actually signed any legislation. Here is a quote from Romney right before he vetoed the measure, “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state." It should be noted that several other states already have this law on their books and they include: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington. Romney is also not a good example of someone who should be in charge of Illegal Immigration considering his landscaper had illegals working on Romney's estate, not once but twice.

But Romney did not pardon or commute the sentence of anyone, not once. Well that is true, even though it is the Governors job to review each case that is submitted and carefully judge whether or not the case deserves a pardon or commutation. One such case came to Romney's desk not once but twice. Mitt Romney refused to pardon Anthony Circosta, who was decorated with the Bronze Star for his actions in the Iraq war. Mr. Circosta had a criminal record from when he shot another child with a BB gun at the age of 13, the pellet did not even break the skin of the victim. But because of this record, Mr. Circosta was unable to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer. And Romney knowing all this, still refused to pardon our decorated soldier.

So, is Mitt Romney Socially Conservative? I think not. Some say, "but he changed his mind and everyone changes their minds from time to time". Well that is true but when he changes his mind on all of these issues at the same time, 2006, it makes you wonder, "did this 60 year old man suddenly change his core values and convictions or did he change his mind on the issues because he no longer needed to be the Liberal Governor of Massachusetts but instead, needed to be a Conservative Republican running for President?" A little too convenient if you ask me.


Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Mitt Romney Fiscally Conservative???

If you believe everything that FOXNEWS, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, President Bush, and other "Conservatives" are saying, then yes, Mitt Romney is the Economic King. Mitt Romney has the most and best experience when it comes to the Economy. Are all of these people really that naive or do they have an agenda?

Let's take a look at some of Mitt Romney's accomplishments from his 4 years as Governor. Considering that is the only example of his economic experience as it relates to government. We will cover some of his business economics at another time.

Massachusetts' economy, during Mitt Romney's tenure, ranked 3rd lowest in the country in regards to payroll employment. It would have ranked 2nd lowest had Louisiana not been battered by Hurricane Katrina. Manufacturing payrolls actually fell by 14 percent under Romney compared to only 7 percent nationally. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents.

Between July 2002 and July 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than went there to live. Only Louisiana saw more residents leave it's borders, and I think most would agree that those folks had little choice in the matter thanks to Hurricane Katrina.

Overall, Massachusetts' growth rose by 9 percent while the rest of the nation rose by 13 percent. This resulted in a ranking of 14th lowest in the nation. Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value.

There is one category, however, in which Massachusetts ranked highest. That was the cost of housing prices. While the rest of the nation saw an increase of 40 percent, Massachusetts saw an increase of nearly 95 percent. So people were making less money but housing costs went up. No wonder so many people left the state during Romney's tenure.

Romney claims to have balanced the budget in Massachusetts by eliminating duplicate agencies and other wasteful programs when in fact, he raised "FEES" and closed tax loopholes on businesses. He quadrupled the fee on gun owners registration from $25 to $100. The blind had to pay an additional $25 fee for certification and identification. The mentally retarded had to pay higher fees. Romney proposed fee hikes on people taking tests for tuberculosis. And if they unfortunately tested postive, they would have had to pay an additional $400 fee. Luckily, this particular fee was rejected. All in all, it is estimated that Romney raised "FEES" by approximately $501 million in his FIRST year as Governor. So how much did he really save by eliminating duplicate agencies and other wasteful programs? As it turns out, a whopping $10.5 million. What is that, like 2% of the $501 million in "FEES"? That isn't just fudging words, that is blatant dishonesty. No wonder they nicknamed him "Fee Fee".

Outside of the "FEES", how else did Romney manage to balance the budget? Well, he cut $277 million from the state's local education aid budget. He also cut another $130 million from higher education which pushed added cost down to the local towns and counties which in turn resulted in what? You guessed it, higher taxes but at least it wasn't Romney's doing, now was it?

Let's talk pork for second, shall we? Romney, his surrogates, and other supporters are constantly touting Romney's leadership during the Salt Lake City Olympics. Sure, there was a ton of corruption and overall bad leadership until he took over. But what exactly did he do to make it a success? He lobbied Congress for federal funding, taxpayer dollars. He ended up getting a total of $342 million taxpayer dollars which went directly in support of the games. What most people don't realize is that an additional $1.3 billion was spent in and around Salt Lake City to improve infrastructure which hosting the games made necessary. This has to rank way up the list of most outrageous pork barrel spending projects funded by American tax dollars.

Last but not least, RomneyCare. The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed, which claimed that, under RomneyCare, "the state is forcing people to buy insurance many will need subsidies to afford, which is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention down the road." It went on to add, in addition to making health insurance mandatory (taking away tax deductions for those who don't buy insurance), the legislation Gov. Romney signed expands the state's Medicaid rolls, levies a $295 per-employee "fee" on businesses that don't offer health insurance, and sets up a government board to approve new health plans. Romneycare generated a cost overrun $151 million before it was even implemented. I can't wait to see just how much this monster ends up costing Massachusetts this year. And you know who will pay for it, that's right, taxpayers.

This list could go on and on but I am tired of typing. The bottom line is this, Mitt Romney is no Fiscal Conservative.


Friday, May 23, 2008

Media Bias and Spin...

We just completed voting in Kentucky for the 2008 Presidential Primary on May 20th. Out of curiosity I asked my co-workers if they would be willing to discuss who they voted for and why. Almost everyone I asked agreed to share with me their choices and reasons why. The results of those conversations were staggering, to say the least.

One person, a registered Democrat, voted for John Edwards because they did not think America was ready for a Black President. This same person did not like Hillary Clinton because, "she was a crook involved in that White Water scandal". They also told me that come November, they would vote Republican no matter who the nominees were because they always has in the past. Another colleague voted for Hillary Clinton because it was historical. I asked them what policies they liked of Clinton's and they could not name one. They just wanted to vote for a woman. The last person I will write about here, there were several more but I don't like typing so much, voted for Hillary Clinton as well. This person is a die-hard Democrat, or so they thought. I had them take a voters guide test back in January and those results were hilarious. Their top choice candidate, based on the answers to several questions, turned out to be Duncan Hunter with Mike Huckabee coming in second. The highest rating Democrat was Joe Biden at number 6.

The common theme I discovered by talking to these people is just how misinformed they were. All three of these individuals watched network news once a week on average but not any cable news. None of them used the internet or talk radio to gather information about candidates either. You have to wonder, how many people in our great Country fall into this same category? How many people are voting for leaders of our Nation and have no idea what they stand for? Worse yet, how many people are voting for leaders of our Nation who hold the direct opposite views from themselves?

Surveys and other research dating back to 1964 have shown a clear tilt toward Liberal views in the media. Why is this, you ask? Journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or Liberals, and they espouse Liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found five times more journalists described themselves as "Liberal" as opposed to "Conservative". In most cases, journalists voted Democrat over Republican by at least a 10-1 margin. The big culprits in this category would be ABC, CBS, and NBC which just so happens to be what most people receive for free via broadcast. They are not alone however. CNN, MSNBC, HBO, and most newspaper organizations also tilt to the left according to research and polling.

Now you are sitting there and wondering why Conservative media is not biased? Well, they are, maybe even more so. While most of the research I read show a majority of major media leaning left by at least 58%, the talk radio industry and FOXNEWS overwhelmingly lean right by as much as 72%. Granted, there is not as much Conservative media in the grand scheme of things as there is Liberal but the bias is still there, and don't even get me started on the Internet.

Now let's discuss some of the media darlings that work for these organizations and see if we can find some trends. We have Chris Matthews with MSNBC, Keith Olberman with MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell with MSNBC, Brian Williams with NBC, Katie Couric with CBS, and the list goes on and on. See the trend? NBC and it's cable sister MSNBC are notorious for leaning way left (Liberal or Democrat). As for Conservatives, this list is much easier since most are either on FOXNEWS or talk radio. We have Rush Limbaugh with EIB network, Sean Hannity with FOXNEWS, Britt Hume with FOXNEWS, Fred Barnes with Weekly Standard and FOXNEWS, Karl Rove with FOXNEWS, Matt Drudge with Drudge Report, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and the entire NRO staff. There are several more but you get the idea. All of these media darlings are extreme in their tilt for either Liberal or Conservative views.

So what is the point of this post, you ask? Educate yourself and think for yourself. If you watch or listen to only one source to get your information, chances are, you are only supporting views of that source and not your own. My three colleagues I mentioned above are prime examples of this.