In Search of Common Sense



America is in trouble. Financially, socially, and in the administration of justice. Politicians who decide the fate of every American, each and every day, spend their time in serving their own interests with complete disregard for this nation and its people. And, they completely disregard the will of this people. It is time for Americans to wake up to the fact that we are on a road to ruin akin to the proverbial runaway train heading for a bridge over a deep chasm that has collapsed. What was intended as a government by the people has been replaced by professional politicians. It does not matter which party is in power. The result is the same. We can no longer be content to vote for a "party". We must delve into the beliefs and mindset of each candidate and choose those who represent the best hope for America, its future, its people and vote for those who will best serve us, regardless of their political or party affiliations. We must take an active role in our government by selecting competent, honest, patriotic Americans to hold the reins of government and refuse to accept "sound bites" and personality as the deciding factor in our voting decisions. Our very future depends on it.


November 12, 2011

Does God Exist?

by Laurence E. Wilkinson, Editor




“One cannot be for one group’s right to speak out and exert influence and be against another group’s right to do so.”

In his reasoned and balanced article, Mr. Meacham, respected journalist and editor of Newsweek, enlightened the argument on the opposing views surrounding the religious debate.  He commented that moderation of views is not pleasing or acceptable to either of the polar opposites in the argument of whether God exists.  Indeed, we may accurately state, that even among the various faiths there are disagreements on doctrine and a variety of factions with diverse opinions and viewpoints.

It does not seem reasonable, to me, as a devout believer, that one need to be a centrist or moderate in their faith nor in their disbelief of scripture and religious doctrine, in order to be centrist in the recognition of the right of all humans to have an equal right to their beliefs and accord those with an opposing view proper respect.  Showing respect, being “charitable” toward others, is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith and one which sometimes is lost in the heated and endless debates over religion.

We see the products of ‘fanaticism’ every day in the modern world.  Christians who exhibit prejudice against Jews as the murderers of Christ; Islamists who see it as their divinely sanctioned responsibility to murder the infidel non-believers; congregations who exhibit neither charity nor grace in subjecting grieving families and friends of a gay man who has been murdered because of their irrational hatred of homosexuals; and “Christians” whom denigrate other Christians merely because their doctrine is not what “it should be”.

Those with a religious faith, who believe in God as our Eternal Father, must also accept and believe that we are all children of that God to whom we pray and seek to please and dedicate our lives.  Consequently, we are all brothers and sisters on this earth, all equal before God as his spiritual offspring, and loved by Him who gave us life.

Does anyone truly believe that a loving God, a being of such intelligence and truth, favors any one individual over another simply because of a set of beliefs?  Would it not be unfair of God to show favoritism in such situation?

Surely God blesses those who keep His commandments and will not accept those who knowingly violate his laws.  But what about those who do not have His gospel and have not had the opportunity to hear His word?  Are they to receive eternal punishment for not having had the chance to live righteous lives?  What about children who don’t know any better?  Will they be cast off for having died before reaching an age at which they would know right from wrong?  Is such a perception of God one that truly perceives a loving, fair and merciful God?

Every man will be judged for his own sins, his own actions on this Earth, and according to his individual knowledge and understanding of God’s law.  Only God knows the real heart of every one of his children and is therefore capable of making such a judgment.  We mortals are inherently imperfect and our judgments tainted and riddled by our own imperfections and varying beliefs.  We have not the right to judge the heart of a man.  We may only judge his actions and, to a lesser extent, his intent, and then only for a civil purpose.

Until we are willing to accord every man, woman and child the grace to believe as he or she chooses, to cease attempts to interfere with those beliefs, and judge not by a man’s religion but by what they do, try to do, or accomplish, we will continue to be a society of disruption led by a virulent disrespect for other and ascribing to the demagoguery of those who incite disagreements for their personal gain.

The Downfall of Barack Obama

Remember when liberals claimed Barack Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become president” and was “a sort of god”? Today they say “we are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes,” and the center point of his presidency is “a disaster.” So what changed exactly?

Is President Obama really a different man today than he was before he entered the Oval Office? The same Illinois legislator who voted “present” 129 times is now the debt-crisis-AWOL president who refused to present a specific plan of his own. The same presidential candidate who wanted to “spread the wealth” has unleashed redistributionist, collectivist policies on everything from health care and energy supply to runaway Keynesian spending and ever-increasing taxes. Should we be surprised?

The president may still win re-election in 2012, of course, but in recent weeks, his approval rating has crumbled, particularly among liberals, to an all-time low of 40 percent in a recent Gallup poll. Another poll shows that even among liberal Democrats, strong support for Mr. Obama’s record on jobs has plummeted 22 points, to a paltry 31 percent. The hope and change of 2008 have given way to the joblessness and foreclosures of Obamanomics.

The only thing worse than the abject failure of a liberal president, at least in the eyes of the liberal, is the undeniable failure of liberalism itself. To claim Mr. Obama has been a good president no longer even remotely passes the laugh test. Consider the results thus far of the Obama presidency:

    Two million-private sector jobs have been lost.
    Unemployment jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 percent with a simply terrible 2011 first-quarter economic growth rate of just 0.4 percent.
    A record 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.
    Gasoline prices more than doubled, from $1.83 to $3.74 per gallon.
    National debt increased 35 percent, to $14.5 trillion, or $137,000 for each taxpayer.
    National unfunded liabilities increased 47 percent, to $114.9 trillion, or a cool $1 million for each taxpayer (and this does not yet include Obamacare).
    America is on the verge of losing its AAA credit rating.

What’s worse, and was as easily predictable, is the systematic dishonesty Team Obama unleashed to persuade Americans to tolerate its big-government, collectivist agenda. America is, after all, a center-right nation with nearly 3-to-1 self-described conservatives compared to liberals. How else besides trickery could Mr. Obama further an agenda so unpopular with voters? Witness the dishonesty:

    The stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent.
    Stimulus funds would go to “shovel-ready” jobs.
    Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs - 400,000 almost immediately.
    You could keep your own doctor.
    The president’s mother was denied health insurance.
    Obamanomics would mean a “net spending cut.”

So, as the liberal presidency of Mr. Obama becomes increasingly indefensible, the liberal is faced with an unthinkable dilemma: acknowledge the fundamental failure of his collectivist liberal philosophy, which tends toward socialism, or blame its failures on a single man whom, until just recently, the liberal deified.

The conflict between liberal collectivist ideology and its application was easily predictable by anyone who has studied big-government economic failures throughout history, from the collectivist all-stars including Mao’s China, Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union to today’s honorable mentions such as Castro’s Cuba or Chavez’s Venezuela. Enforcement of collectivism has always depended on government power, from Stalin’s iron-fisted gulags to Mr. Obama’s mere heavy-handed plan for punitive fines for failure to purchase your government-imposed health insurance. The degree of autocracy may vary, but still the collectivist road to economic ruin is universal.

Here’s what I wrote one year ago:

“As President Obama’s failures mount, there will be an awkward reversal of roles among liberals, and to a lesser degree, among conservatives, that we’re already beginning to see. It will be the liberals, rather than the conservatives, who will decry this man as personally incompetent. In the collapse of the social-welfare state, the last bastion for these scoundrels will be to sacrifice their own anointed deity as though it is his personal failures, rather than the inherent deep flaws of statism, that are to blame. Of course, one must ask how valuable an ideology can be if one man, even (or perhaps especially) a flawed man, can destroy it.

“Conservatives will then find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending Barack Obama personally, or at least reminding the liberals of their earlier effusive praise, in order to redirect the blame where it primarily belongs - at the feet of the statist policies themselves. The liberals will be left to explain, of course, how valuable the liberal ideology itself really is if even a learned and godlike leader cannot manage it. Further, if Barack Obama turns out not to be the deity they once claimed, what does that say of the liberals’ perception (and honesty) when they eventually anoint another?”

This cycle of liberal, cannibalistic personal destruction is the predictable result of the Democrats’ cult-of-personality politics. Those purveyors of big-government rule are the mob that Ann Coulter described in her recent book “Demonic,” quoting Gustave Le Bon from a century ago, that “knows neither doubt nor uncertainty … it goes at once to extremes.” The absurdity of liberals’ deification and then condemnation of their own leaders is second only to their unwillingness to confront the failures of their collectivist philosophy.

In the end, Barack Obama’s failures as president are not because he couldn’t faithfully execute the liberal collectivist philosophy - he ushered in the Obamacare era, after all - his failures are instead because he bought into the failed philosophy in the first place.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama. He blogs at MiltonWolf.com.

October 11, 2011

Obama's Shirking of his Oath of Office

What America Needs is.......

What America needs in order to return to prosperity is the cessation of politics and spending.

Herman Cain's tax proposal is an excellent beginning.  A 9% flat rate income tax.  A 9% flat rate corporate income tax.  And a 9% national sales tax.

Why is this such an excellent plan?

First:  If government takes less of a bite out of working American's income, there is more money for consumer spending, which is - and has always been - the engine that drives the American economy.

Second:   With a flat rate tax, there are no deductions.  We all know that it's the deductions that our overly complicated tax code provides for that allows those with enormous wealth and income to protect their incomes and pay less than what many middle class taxpayers give the government.  This also holds true for corporations.  The end result is that MORE is paid in taxes overall because it is more fairly distributed among all taxpayers and corporations.

Third:   With a 9% national sales tax, EVERYONE is contributing to the cost of running the government, not just those who are working or those who are paid through a normal payroll rather than cash under the table, a common way of paying illegal immigrants.  And, at a total of 18% federal tax, that's far less than the rate most middle class workers are currently paying and even less than what they will pay in the future with the plans that politicians are promoting.


An Executive Dream Team.

I made this same proposal in 2008 as what I saw as the perfect President / Vice President combination.  I have long said that the office of the Vice President should be more than just a cheerleader for the President, or someone that is sent to a diplomatic or political gathering because the President either doesn't want to go or is unable to attend.

There are two massive jobs to burden a President.  One is domestic issues.  The other is foreign issues.  And, yes, foreign issues are generally the responsibility of the Secretary of State.  But putting greater executive power into play can only be beneficial.

Therefore, it is my belief that the President / Vice President combination would best serve the country if one focused on domestic issues while the other focused on foreign affairs.  Choosing a duo with experience that serves those two needs would be a dream team.

In my opinion, a Mitt Romney presidency with Condoleeza Rice as Vice President would be the ultimate dream team.

Romney's greatest strengths are in creating jobs, empowering the economy.  His years with the pre-eminent world-class business consulting organization of Bain & Co. provided him with the training that enables him to look at a problem from many perspectives and devise a solution;  monitor the implementation and progress of the solution and tweak it or change course as needed.  His subsequent years with the venture capital firm Bain Capital, furthered that experience as he launched powerhouse companies such as Staples that provides employment for tens of thousands across the nation.  And that was just the beginning. 

Condie Rice is an extremely brilliant lady, with two PhD's and a wealth of experience.  As National Security Director for 4 years and then Secretary of State for four more years, she has encountered virtually every issue that one could expect.  Her NSC experience during "war" years honed her skills for dealing with a dangerous world.  Her tenure as Secretary of State positioned her with remarkable diplomatic skills.

And one more thing...

We need smaller government.  The federal government has grown so large that it is crumbling under its own weight and the bureaucrats do as they please.  So, I propose the elimination of.....

Department of Education - this should be a matter regulated by states, counties and cities.

Department of Health & Welfare - again something to be managed by the states without federal interference   and the mandating or onerous obligations on states by politicians 3,000  miles away who seek only to assure their next re-election.

Political Parties -  George Washington said it best when he predicted that the formation of political parties would lead to the destruction of this nation.  How prescient he was.
 

New Jersey Governor Christie Endorses Mitt Romney

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney received a massive boost on Tuesday, getting the endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie – one of the most influential figures in the party.

The huge fillip to Romney’s campaign came just hours before the former governor of Massachusetts was to take the stage in New Hampshire along with seven other candidates for a debate seen as critical to the future of his rivals.

Christie’s endorsement, due to be announced mid-afternoon, was bound to take center stage on the cable news shows in the run-up to the debate and take the focus off pizza magnate Herman Cain and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the two candidates seen as having the best chance of overhauling Romney’s lead in the polls.

“This will throw the debate into turmoil,” independent pollster Matt Towery told Newsmax. “It will put Perry in a very bad position tonight because all the political pundits will want to talk about is Christie’s endorsement.”

Perry was relying on the debate to turn around his faltering campaign and has been working hard to put in a far better performance than he has in three previous debates. Unlike those events this one will focus on one issue, the economy, seen as Perry’s strongest point.

After weeks of speculation, Christie announced during an Oct. 4 news conference that he wouldn't run, ending any lingering hopes that he would enter the presidential race himself. By throwing his support to Romney, he has taken the wind out of sails of the Texas governor, who was already under pressure to put in a stellar performance, Towery said. “It will put him in even more of a tailspin.”

Perry knows that another mediocre performance could knock him out of the race for the White House and had been working hard to ensure he is better prepared for the debate at Ivy League Dartmouth College than he has been in the three debates in which he has so far participated.

New NBC-Marist polls issued on the morning of the debate show he has slipped to fourth place behind Romney, Cain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in both New Hampshire and Iowa.

Perry huddled with advisers over the Columbus Day weekend to prep himself for the debate, even bringing in an experienced debater to play the role of an attack-minded Romney, according to the New York Times, which also reported that the strain of the campaign was starting to tell on Perry who was finding it hard to get enough sleep.

One unidentified friend described Perry as “a tired puppy,” while his own son, Griffin, stood in for him at a GOP Columbus Day dinner in Plymouth, N.H. Griffin told ABC News his father was “resting up.”

Towery said the debate is crucial for Perry. “I don’t believe it will decide the nomination, but it can decide who will be eliminated, and that could be Perry if he comes out looking desperate and making critical mistakes,” he said.

“The biggest mistake that Perry can make is to try to be too tough on Romney,” added Towery. “But that is exactly what I expect him to do. To beat Mitt Romney he has to use a less bombastic style. He has the opportunity to appear like Ronald Reagan, but I am afraid he will come out desperately swinging for the fences.”

Perry leap-frogged ahead of Romney within days of entering the race in August, but after what Towery called “three relatively miserable debates,” his poll numbers have slipped badly and allowed Cain to soar. The Times said he is fully aware that he has to improve if he is to put himself back into a position where he is seen as the most viable alternative to Romney.

Conservative activists in the party were particularly dismayed by Perry’s unwavering defense of a Texas law he signed giving reduced tuition fees at state schools to children of illegal immigrants at the last debate on Sept. 22.

He compounded his position by describing anyone who opposed that position as “not having a heart.” In an exclusive Newsmax interview he later said he regretted his “poor choice of words.”

Perry has also taken flak for describing social security as a “Ponzi scheme” and for not immediately repudiating comments made by the Rev. Robert Jeffress who introduced him at the weekend’s Voters Value Summit by saying that Romney, as a Mormon, is “part of a cult.”

“He has to put that issue behind him tonight,” said Towery. “If he doesn’t say that he totally disavows what Jeffress said, he will be in big trouble.”

Christie’s endorsement will also take some of the spotlight off Cain, who had the chance of focusing the debate on his 9-9-9 plan, which would reduce both income and corporate tax levels to 9 percent and introduce a national sales tax at the same level.

The full line-up of candidates in the debate is Romney, Cain, Paul, Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rich Santorum.


Spin Cycles and the Obama Blame Game

President Barack Obama gestures during his news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
White House officials are using a new set of talking points to sell their stimulus plan: The economy’s possible slide into a second recession.

During the summer, officials denied a double-dip recession was on the horizon. But yesterday and today, President Barack Obama and his deputies said the $447 billion jobs-stimulus bill is needed to prevent a “double-dip recession.”

“There is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year,” Obama said in his Oct. 6 press conference. By passing the jobs bill, he said, “we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession.”

That’s a 90-degree shift from his June press conference, when he said, ”I’m not concerned about a double-dip recession … [although] we’re experiencing some headwinds, gas prices probably being most prominent.”

In August, administration officials were still poo-pooing talk of a double-dip.

“We do not believe that there is a threat there of a double-dip recession,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Aug. 3. “We believe that the economy will continue to grow.”

The summer’s talking-point has since been junked, as more economists predict an actual shrinkage of the economy and the arrival of a second recession.

Friday, following the president’s Thursday statement, Gene Sperling, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, also used the threat of another recession to spur passage of the jobs-stimulus bill. “We ought to be acting, passing the American Jobs Act, first as an insurance policy against a double-dip recession … but also as a way to make this recovery take hold,” he said in an MSNBC interview.

When he was asked at the Oct. 7 press conference about the president’s new double-dip argument, Carney backpedaled. “We do not believe it will happen,” he said, before adding that “there is no question that the economy has slowed and job creation has slowed … it is obvious to everyone that we need to take action.”

Republicans oppose what they see as massive government spending and increased federal debt in the stimulus plan.  And well they should.  With a national deficit of $14 trillion + and growing by leaps and bounds, America is facing the same catastrophes that have rocked the Eurozone with country after country going into near-default and needing the help of neighbor nations to save them.  Our deficit is so great that no one could save us.  Yet Obama and the Democrats see the solution to every issue as "spend more, let the next several generations worry about it!"

The president’s tactic would add the GOP’s opposition to the stimulus policy to the list of factors that Obama already blames for the economic crisis.

“The combination of a Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring — which drove up gas prices — and, most prominently, Europe, I think, has gotten businesses and consumers very nervous,” Obama said Oct. 7. “And we did not help here in Washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place — a bit of game-playing that was completely unnecessary, completely unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities here in Washington.”

Clearly, our President is good at blaming everyone but himself for his failed policies.  We can only hope that America wakes up to the dangers and falsity of his rhetoric and starts looking at who is really to blame for the "game playing".

The Trouble With Republicans

There must be something wrong with the Republican field, if one follows the media.

First Bachmann was the front-runner for nominee. She was all over the news with her victory in Iowa, the conservative news stations praised her, the liberal news stations finding faults with her, and so on.

It took a couple of weeks for Bachmann’s fame to fade out. Rick Perry threw his hair in the ring. Suddenly the media were all over him. The polls showed huge support for him. The Republican leadership was excited. He had all the support he needed, he beat all his rivals the moment he entered the race, Texas prospered under his governorship, he was an experienced leader, he was a “formidable campaigner”. . . for another couple of weeks.

Then it was all gone. Suddenly we were back to Romney who “recovered” and now led the field again. Again the polls showed how the Republicans just wanted Romney and no one else. Another couple of weeks.

Then Herman Cain appeared almost of nowhere and rose from 4-6% to 38% within a couple of days. He is now the darling of all Republicans, and the polls support him, while Perry and Romney are far back.

Bachmann is not even mentioned anymore.

Let me try to understand this. The Republican voters are a bunch of immature imbeciles that change their loyalty to their candidates – and therefore the principles that those candidates represent – every two weeks. And they do it in large groups: large enough to make a candidate skyrocket overnight and then fall like a meteor in two weeks. Since the candidates don’t seem to change their principles every two weeks, then the preferences of the voters that participate in those polls must be based on something else but principles: for example, personal appeal, or just momentous whims. Or at least that’s what the media is trying to tell us.

I don’t buy it.

Yes, I know very well that the maturity of the Republican voters is not perfect; I know that they can be lured by rhetoric. But there’s no way that the whole Republican field is so vulnerable to manipulation as to change its loyalties to a candidate every two weeks without any obvious change in the principles of those candidates.

The picture becomes clearer when we look at the “polls” that are the basis for the media preferences to one candidate over another. With all the talk these days about “scientific polls,” most of those polls are anything but scientific. Most of them use 400-600 “responders” with no clear explanation as to how these responders were picked and not others. When it comes to the Republican presidential nominees, one phrase is used profusely, “likely Republican primary voters,” without any explanation as to what constitutes “likely.” Then the 400-600 responders are asked questions that usually are so arcanely worded as to leave many people wondering what the questions really mean. Then the results are usually not posted, but only a sample of what the media want us to know about the polls.

Ever since The New York Times told us who we conservatives wanted for our nominee back in 2008, I am suspicious. The NYT endorsed McCain. I was not surprised. I was surprised when there was not a single voice in the Republican establishment to raise the alarm that the Republican Party was nominating exactly the candidate who was endorsed by a far-left, die-hard socialist, bankrupt paper financed by Soros. The media at the time told us conservatives who we want, and who was our “electable” candidate. We know how that worked out.

So the media now is working again to choose our candidate for us. They try one to see if he will create enthusiasm. If he doesn’t, they try another one. Then another one. Not that there is a lot of difference between the candidates; the issue is more psychological than a matter of principles. The media just wants to tell us who we want.

I say we give them the famous answer of General McAuliffe, commanding the 101st Airborne at Bastogne in December 1944 to the German demand to surrender: “NUTS.” And vote for the one the media refuses to notice.  The man of principles who never  betrayed the Constitution.

The ultimate solution, as I have said many times, is to listen, investigate and choose the person BEST QUALIFIED to address the problems in this country, support that individual and stick with them and not be the victim of the latest poll, trend or whim!