Mitt Romney's Rich...So What???

Second verse…same as the first…a little bit louder…and a whole lot worse!

Some of our more loyal readers may remember that, last December, I made quite the criticism of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry when they began attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth in the primary.  (Original post here:  http://www.americasevilgenius.blogspot.com/2011/12/should-we-really-criticize-10000-bet.html )  Now, if you’ll recall, I was no fan of Romney in the primaries.  He was my last choice of last choices among the field (ok…maybe I would have backed him ahead of Jon “May I become a Democrat, Please?” Huntsman, but that’s about it!).  But despite my intense dislike…Hell, my hatred of Mitt Romney, I still believed that attacking him for his wealth was senseless.  There are many reasons to dislike or doubt Mitt Romney, I always used to say…but his wealth is not among them.

And so it has come to pass (or run, if you’re Georgia Tech) that seven months later, with the GOP primary a distant (if not fond) memory, that Obama and his minions are picking up those same “anti-wealth” arguments right where Gingrich, Perry, and the rest left them.  The last several weeks have been filled with talk of Swiss Bank Accounts (legal fiscal maneuver, last time I checked), people who lost their jobs when their companies were acquired by Bain Capital (although the alternative in most of those cases—for Bain not to buy those companies and allow them to die on the vine, costing even more jobs—would seem to be far worse), and general accusations that Romney’s wealth has somehow made him “out of touch” with regular Americans.

And seven months later, I ask the Democrats—just as I asked Gingrich, Perry, et al back in December—“As a voter, why should any of this dissuade me from voting for Mitt Romney?”  Should I consider it a character flaw that someone may legally place their money in a Swiss Bank Account as to avoid an unfair and arduous tax code?  Because I don’t.  Should I consider it an indictment of Mitt’s leadership skills that he consistently made decisions at Bain Capital that resulted in the company turning a profit (in other words, he successfully did his job)?  Because I don’t.  Should I worry that Mitt doesn’t always “relate” to that group of Americans who sits on their couches, watches Maury Povich while eating junk food purchased with their EBT cards and ironically bitching that the wealthy aren’t “doing enough” for them?  Because I don’t.

Now, if the subject is Romney’s lack of Social Conservatism, Romney’s own version of Health Care (aka “Obamacare v 1.0”), or Romney’s flip-flopping on nearly every issue during his political career, or Romney’s lack of chutzpah in going after Obama (where is the nut-cutting Mitt we saw in the primaries, anyhow?), then I’ll criticize Romney until the proverbial cows come home.  But on the subject of Romney’s wealth and how he attained it, I simply can’t see any reason to criticize him.  And I’m a guy who loves criticizing Romney whenever I get the chance!

To put it simply, I don’t want a President who can “identify” with society’s parasites.  Instead, I want a President who identifies with society’s producers.  And in this election, there’s only one clear choice in terms of which candidate stands with the producers, and which candidate stands with the parasites.  Obama is hell-bent on appealing to America’s “victims”…

…well I’m no victim, and I don’t believe that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be “victims” either, regardless of what socioeconomic class they might currently reside in.  Romney probably doesn’t identify with the “victims”.

And in 2012, neither does the rest of America.

Illegal Immigration & the Hispanic Vote

Recently, Barack Obama ruffled some feathers with a recent ruling that we would not deport young Illegal Aliens who were brought over by their parents.  While it’s extremely questionable whether or not Obama actually has the authority to declare such a fiat, the bigger point is that he unequivocally endorsed what amounts to amnesty for a large group of Illegal Aliens.  Unfortunately, Mitt Romney did not strike against Obama when he made this treasonous decision—instead he took the position that he’s become so used to taking as of late--the position of taking no position at all, and sitting on the fence.

Many who support Obama’s decision (and even some who support Romney’s non-decision) state that it would be unfair to send back Illegal Aliens who did not come here of their own volition but instead because of their parent’s lawbreaking.  While it is completely understandable to feel some sympathy (at least on the surface) for Illegal Aliens in this predicament, I still do not see where such sympathy should then translate to an obligation on our part to use our resources (already stretched to the maximum to begin with) to help them stay here.  While many of these young Illegals did not come here through any fault of their own, the fact remains that they are not here because of any fault on our part, either.  As such, why should we be the ones to take responsibility for the illegal and immoral actions of their parents (actions which many of them took purposefully in order to make sure that their offspring were born as “American Citizens” without going through the proper channels)?  Add to this the gang violence and drug trade that is perpetrated by many (though by no means all) of the young Illegals, and it becomes clear that—sympathetic or not—we simply cannot assist them in the callous breaking of the law which their parents undertook.  In a time of international war and economic issues domestically, this type of assistance would be nothing short of slitting our own throats.

Looking at this from a purely political perspective, one thing is apparent:  Obama is trying to use this stance to court Hispanic voters, and Romney is being very careful not to piss off those same Hispanic voters.  But is this a reasonable reaction from either candidate (particularly Romney)?  Is it a given that all (or even most) Hispanic voters are sympathetic to Illegal Aliens?  I ask that question rhetorically, as I honestly do not know the correct answer at this point in time.  But as I think about it, I would think that logically Hispanic voters should be no more sympathetic to Illegals than we are…indeed, logically speaking, they should be more angry with Illegals, as their actions reflect poorly on legal Hispanics and cause tremendous amounts of anger and distrust toward Hispanics who are here legally—anger and mistrust that would not otherwise be there if the Illegals weren’t such a significant problem.

Now, to be sure, there are many voters (and even large blocks of voters) who do not cast their ballots logically (see the nearly homogenous support for the Democratic party by the African-American community—despite a half-century of policies that have destroyed their families and confined them to near-permanent poverty—for an excellent example).  It is entirely possible that a significant number of Hispanics are sympathizing with Illegals and thereby voting against their own best interests…it certainly wouldn’t be the first time in American politics that such “misguided voting” has happened.  However, it seems to me that the best way to deal with this in the long term for the Republican party (or any party for that matter) would not be to accept the faulty premise put forth by these voters, but to instead better inform and educate them as to why they should turn against Illegal Immigration themselves.  To accept the faulty premise might win you some elections in the short term, but would do irreparable damage to the nation in the long-term (again, see the Democratic Party’s constant efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the African-American community).  But if instead, you clearly and coherently make your case, you have the potential (over the long haul) to change the attitudes of the best and brightest voters within that community and start a generational shift in how that block of voters approaches such issues.

If your goal is simply to win one election, then I’ll admit, it’s a low-percentage play.  But if your goal is to save and improve the nation, it is the only strategy that makes sense.

But maybe there’s another alternative…maybe there are already significant numbers within the Hispanic community which already have the same disdain for Illegals as the majority of other Americans do.  After all, Legal Hispanics are just as much a part of—and just as much invested in—America as all other legal American citizens are.  Perhaps there are a significant number of Legal Hispanics who’s attitudes towards Illegal Immigration are logically correct.  Perhaps there is a group within the community who realizes that they suffer more directly than anybody else in America because of the actions of Illegals.

Those people may be out there (or if not, a significant number could be converted).  But as long as the Democrats appeal directly to the Illegals, and as long as the Republicans are too scared to upset them, we may never know.  And all American Citizens—regardless of ethnicity—will continue to live in massive danger.

Dispelling Obama's Lies on the Bush Economic Policy

In the midst of his re-election campaign, Barack Obama has resorted to telling bold-faced lies to the American people. Namely, he has characterized the economic policies of George W. Bush as “failures” in nearly every speech he has recently made. But a quick look at the facts indicates that Bush’s economic policies weren’t “failures”, but were instead quite successful…and that those policies certainly did not create the current financial mess.

In order to analyze the success (or failure) of Bush’s economic policies, we must first take stock of the environment with which he was working. In 2001, Bush was not only dealing with the burst of the dot com bubble, but also was dealing with the after-effects of the most heinous attack on American soil in our history. Life in America had virtually grinded to a halt—and understandably so—on September 11, 2001…the day that the entire world changed. And our economic habits were a part of that re-assessment of our surroundings, just as everything else was. So there’s no doubt, Bush was dealing with an economy that was dangling on the precipice to begin with.

Bush’s primary maneuver to answer this most gargantuan of economic challenges was the (now much-vilified) “Bush Tax Cuts”. And while it’s difficult to trace an upturn or downturn in an economy to any one factor, the fact remains that nearly six million jobs were created between 2001 and 2008 (or perhaps even more jobs were created, depending upon who’s estimates you believe. Stats, BTW, come from the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, as re-printed in the Tampa Bay Times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-bush-tax-cuts-created-8-million-/ ). Furthermore, tax revenue increased after the tax cuts (just as it normally does when taxes are cut…that’s the pesky little economic fact that Liberals don’t want you to know!) Between 2003 & 2007, tax filers grew by 9.6%, and taxable income grew by 44% (Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery )

Critics often say that many of the jobs created during the Bush years were later “lost” in the 2008 recession. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that these jobs were created in the first place. Economic conditions and environments change over time, and no job is guaranteed to exist 10 or 20 years down the road—no matter what economic or political philosophies shape the environment in which the job was originally created. I’d be willing to bet that if, today, you walked up to an unemployed man who is presently struggling to feed his family and offered him a job—but with the caveat that “I can’t guarantee that the job will still be around ten years from now”, that man would eagerly take the job (and likely give you a heartfelt “Thank You” on top of it). Created jobs don’t suddenly lose their legitimacy simply because they may not survive different and unforeseen economic circumstances down the road. The bottom line is that Bush’s tax cuts were a significant factor in the economic environment of the early 2000’s—and that was an environment in which jobs were created. Seems like the definition of “successful economic policy” to me…

But what about the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis…that just had to be all Bush’s fault, didn’t it? After all, it happened during his term, so it must have been his fault, right? Why, you’re probably saying to yourself, if he’d just reigned in Wall Street, none of this icky recession stuff would have ever happened!

You couldn’t be more wrong.

It wasn’t George W. Bush—or even Wall Street for that matter—who caused bad loans to be made or unreasonable risks to be taken by the banking industry. Instead, it was the government itself that injected this undue risk into the system—via the Community Re-Investment Act that was implemented back in the late 1970’s. It was this law, followed by continual pressure from the Federal Government, which forced banks to lend to home “owners” who had heretofore been kept out of the housing market (and kept out of it for good reason).

Prior to this act, most banks had far more strict lending standards. Back in the 1970’s and earlier, it wasn’t out of the ordinary to see banks demand down payments of 20% or even more on a home loan, or to charge interest rates in the double-digits. While lending standards and conditions like these certainly make it more difficult for individuals to purchase homes, they also functioned as a roadblock to keep the riskiest investors out of the marketplace entirely—thereby reducing the risk for large-scale disaster. But government involvement in housing brought with it lower interest rates, lower down payment demands, and insistence on much looser and unreasonable lending standards (including the outlawing of the legitimate lending practice of “redlining”—the act of prohibiting home loans to certain zip codes in which homes are statistically unlikely to retain their value). All of this in an effort to attract the worst possible customers into the marketplace. Since banks were no longer allowed to make good investment decisions, they had to do the next best thing—find a way to sell the risk (which the government had forced them to take on in the first place) to some other sucker…er…”investor”…in order to glean some value out of it and mitigate this risk.

And all of these dominoes started falling long before Bush (or even before his father) ever took office. It wasn’t a lack of Wall Street regulation and banking regulation that caused these problems…it was instead the over-regulation of the housing industry which brought upon this financial disaster.

George W. Bush was far from a perfect President. There are many things that even the most ardent Conservatives and Republicans can find to disagree with him on (His gratuitous spending on education, “No Child Left Behind”, dumping money into AIDS prevention in Africa without getting anything in return, Medicare Part D, and a myriad of other issues). But to look at his economic policies and consider them to be failures is to completely ignore the facts and history of the 2000’s. The Bush Tax Cuts did not destroy jobs, and Bush’s economic policies did not cause the housing crisis. And while we’re on the topic, here’s another Liberal charge that we can debunk: “Charging two wars on our Credit Cards” didn’t play any kind of significant role in creating our massive debt. At the height of our military action—2006—Military spending and educational spending combined were less than 20% of our total budget. Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, and the like) were nearly 2/3 of our overall budget! Blaming our horrendous debt on our wars and military action is like a 350 pound woman saying “this dress makes me look fat”. Honey, it ain’t the dress that makes you look fat…it’s the fat that makes you look fat. It ain’t the wars that have made us broke…it’s the Social Security, Medicare, & Medicade that have made us go broke, and that we’re constantly borrowing money to fund!

So whenever you hear Obama talk about the “failed economic policies” of the last administration, recognize that your President is lying to you. It would be bad enough if Barack Obama were simply an incompetent buffoon who was in over his head—he’d have to be replaced, but you couldn’t really get mad at him for his stupidity. But he’s lying to you on top of simply being incompetent, and the media is backing him up. And lying to the American people—when the facts to the contrary are as obvious as a Hollywood starlet’s boob job—shows not only a severe lack of character, but it calls into question one’s motivations, patriotism, and dedication to American principals as well!

Should we really criticize the "$10,000 bet"?

By now, you have no doubt seen, heard, or otherwise have been made aware of the now-infamous "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry during the most recent GOP debate. If you missed it, whoomp, here it is:



In the aftermath of this comment, Romney has taken a lot of heat for being "out of touch with "regular Americans". Media members, Democrats, and even a number of Republicans (including Rick Perry) have castigated Romney for this remark.

Now, let me be clear, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. I couldn't warm up to him if we were cremated together. I think he's a Moderate (something that is practically a four-letter word among modern Conservatives), a flip-flopper, and the epitome of the word "RINO". You probably won't find anyone on the planet who is more eager to find a criticism--any criticism--of Romney and play it to the hilt more than I am. I'm the first guy to look for anything that could possibly derail the Romney campaign and milk it for all it's worth...

...and even I think the this criticism is ridiculous.

Since when has the GOP been the party of leveling criticism at a man merely for having been successful and attaining wealth during his lifetime? Since when has the GOP been the party that characterizes free-spending of private funds as a "character flaw"? The GOP hasn't been that party--at least not during my lifetime--and we never should become that party.

Note to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken some jabs at Romney because of the "bet": Knock it off. You both are sounding like the President and the party that we are trying to remove from power. Placing a $10,000 bet with your own money (or spending $10,000 of your own money on any other thing you wish to spend it on) is nothing to be criticized, is none of your damn business, and is no reason to think less of any man.

Two weeks ago, I was playing poker in a local casino. While I played in my low-buyin No Limit Hold 'em game (a game where, at best, a few hundred dollars was on the line at any given point), the next table over housed a Pot Limit Omaha game. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of poker, Pot Limit Omaha is, generally speaking, a "bigger" game than No Limit Hold 'em. Omaha is wilder, more action-packed, and with many more "swings". To make a long story short, it takes a lot more money to play Omaha than it does Hold 'Em...and at the next table over from me was one of the biggest Pot Limit Hold 'Em games ever seen in a Missouri casino.

I'll admit it, I was curious...I glanced over at the Omaha table. I noticed several stacks of chips that ranged from $10,000 up to nearly $20,000 in front of one player. It was far and away more money than I've ever played poker for (and more money than I likely ever will play poker for). And with such a wildness and aggressiveness that typically surrounds your average Pot Limit Omaha game, there's no doubt that many of those $10,000+ stacks were "all in" at various points.

Now ask yourself a question, as I glanced over at the Omaha table, what should I have thought of those players who had $10,000...$15,000...even $20,000 in chips in front of them? Should I have viewed them in a negative light? Should I have considered those $10,000 stacks of chips in front of them to be indicative of some sort of deeper character flaw? Should I have thought that anybody who would have $10,000 in play during a poker game would therefore be "out of touch" with many Americans?

To me, the answer is an obvious, "No!" The only thing I know about any of those players is the stack of chips they had in front of them--hardly enough information to make any type of reasonable judgement about any of them, character-wise. For all I know, they could have all been wonderful, church-going, family men. Or, for all I know, they could have been criminals. Or they could have been charitably-active, civic-minded individuals. Or they could have been wife-beaters. The bottom line is that I have no idea the character of any of those individuals at that table, and the amount of money that any of them had in play could do absolutely nothing to lead me towards any sort of character judgement about any of them.

There's a ton of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney (Romneycare for one. His inconsistent positions on, well, everything, for another. His lack of Social Conservatism for yet another...), but I don't see where his ability or willingness to place a bet of $10,000 with his own money should be listed among those reasons. Is Romney "out of touch" with the poor? How should I know? Heck, I have a lot less money than Mitt Romney, and I'd say that I'm "out of touch" with the poor. And given the criminal behavior, the constant "gaming of the system", and the lack of family structure that we see out of large swaths of the poor, I hope I remain "out of touch" with those people.

Perry, Gingrich, and the rest should focus their criticism of Romney on the important issues (and there's plenty of red meat there with which to combat Mitt). The discussion and criticism of how wealthy someone is--or what they choose to spend that wealth on--should have no place in a Republican primary season.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do a couple of shots of Pepto Bismal...all this defending of Mitt Romney makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach...

My initial thoughts on Herman Cain's "Sexual Harrasment"

So the Democrats...or other jealous GOP candidates...or the media...or somebody...decided to drop the dime on Herman Cain today with claims of sexual harrasment against him. I've been a pretty voiceferous supporter of Cain up to this point, so will these accusations affect my view of him? Well, unless there's something much deeper to these allegations than what has come out to this point (what I've heard so far--while perhaps fitting the legal definition of "sexual harrasment"--seem to be little more than "normal behavior of a healthy male"), I can't say that it will. The allegations as I understand them at this point (some sexually suggestive--but unclear--conversation and physical gestures) make this seem as though this is, at best, a misunderstanding (or, at worst, perhaps an attempt at "gold digging" by a female co-worker...something we see all to often by "professional harrasment victims" that populate much of the modern workplace environment). Unless there's a much more pervasive (or perverted) pattern of behavior here, I don't see how this would dissuade me from the reasons that I have supported Cain up to this point.

Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):

From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )

"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."

Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).

Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.

The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".

No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.

The 2012 GOP field--Where does everybody stand?

It would be an understatement to say that the run up to the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination has been one of the most eventful, interesting, contentious, thought-provoking, surprising, and wacky buildups to a primary season that America has ever seen. Whatever you might say about the run for the 2012 Nomination, you certainly can't say that it's been dull.

So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:

(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)

Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).

Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.

Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.

Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.

Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:

Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.

Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".

Buddy Roemer: Who?

Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.

Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.

So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.

It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.

A Primer for the Protesters--Explaining Economics and "Fairness"

While it would be easy to dismiss the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters as little more than hippies, druggies, and union thugs, the fact remains that there are some younger folks in these mobs who might very well have the mental capabilities to one day become solid contributing citizens. The only problem is that they've been negatively influenced by popular culture, by their "education", and yes, by those hippies, druggies, and union thugs who have shown up at these protests. Frankly, we have allowed these young people who would otherwise have so much potential to have their views of fairness and capitalism to become corrupted by those to whom their ultimate goal is to remove capitalism and fairness from America.

Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.

In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?

It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.

So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.

Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:



Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:



What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:



So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:



Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):



And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:



So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:



So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!