Rubio says Romney has "Earned" the Nomination

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has thrown his support behind Mitt Romney in the GOP primary race.  During his announcement on Fox News' Hannity, Rubio said that Romney has "earned" the nomination.

Now, I am a huge supporter of Marco Rubio. I believe he is one of the few superstars we have in the Republican Party.  I, however, would like to know what Mitt Romney has done to "earn" the nomination.

Romney has held one political office in his lifetime, and governed rather liberally.  He hasn't made any significant contributions to the Republican Party and even voted Democrat in the 1992 primaries. 

Mitt Romney is a moderate at best, which makes Rubio's endorsement of him rather peculiar.

Rubio was elected in 2010 on the back of the Tea Party movement.  His positions are in line with the conservative base of the Republican Party, and is generally viewed as a rising star in the GOP.

I am very disappointed that Rubio chose to endorse Romney, and I can only speculate that it was influenced by Jeb Bush's backing of Romney.

Jeb still wields a lot of influence in Florida politics, and it would behoove Rubio to follow his lead.

I had high hopes for Rubio, but it seems as if he's more concerned about his own political future than standing up for the principles he preached during his campaign.

Republicans are starting to line up for potential cabinet positions in a Romney administration, a move that could prove to be premature if the convention is brokered and the nomination is up for grabs.

I am not naive and realize that the spoils system still exists in politics.  It just seems a little disingenuous to preach conservatism and then endorse the least conservative candidate.

I really hope that Rubio stays in the Senate because we need a voice like his to combat Harry Reid and his foot soldiers. 

In my humble opinion, Rubio should have stayed out of the spotlight in this election cycle, and preserved his reputation.  The Republican Party needs him to be around for a long time.

My hope is that Rubio's intent was to unite the party and not give his endorsement strictly for political gain.  The former motive would make this sit a lot better with me.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

What ObamaCare Case means for 2012 Election

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided the fate of the presidential election in the case of Bush v. Gore.  It may hold the same power this year, except its influence will come months before November 6th.

The Court heard the final oral arguments today in two cases involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.  The two cases, Florida, et al v. Department of Health and Human Services  and National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Kathleen Sebelius, deal with the constitutionality of Barack Obama's signature achievement.

This case will be one that high school history students twenty years from now will be reading in their textbooks, along with Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Eduction. 

Florida v. HHS and NFIB v. Sebelius, however, will have an immediate impact on this year's presidential campaign.

This law is the centerpiece of the Republican attack on Barack Obama.  Republicans have been arguing since before the law was passed two years ago that it was unconstitutional.

In fact, conservatives have been arguing against universal health care ever since Hillary Clinton proposed it during her time as First Lady.

If the Supreme Court decides to strike down ObamaCare, it will be huge victory for the Republican party and their nominee.

For two years, conservatives have been on the offense against ObamaCare, making the case for why the law is unconstitutional, and they have finally had their day in court (no pun intended). 

There are great consequences too if the Court upholds the law, not only for the Republican Party, but for the country as well.

If the justices decide that ObamaCare is constitutional, which would require a serious lapse in judgment on their part, Republicans will be portrayed as a bunch of paranoid sore losers. 

While a rejection of the law would be a positive for the Republican Party as a whole, it will be a liability for Mitt Romney should he become the nominee.

Because his Massachusetts health care law served as a blueprint for ObamaCare, Romney could also receive some criticism as the result of a rejection by the Supreme Court.

This election is about Barack Obama, just as Democrats made the 2004 election about George W. Bush.  The only difference is, Republicans are willing to admit that their number one goal is to remove Obama from the Oval Office.

Because ObamaCare has been the defining piece of legislation for this president, his fate may very rest with the nine men and women who serve on the Supreme Court.

What went wrong for Newt Gingrich?

Just over two months ago, Newt Gingrich was enjoying the role of front runner for the GOP presidential nomination.  The former Speaker of the House had just scored a huge victory in South Carolina and was poised for a strong showing in Florida.

Then something happened.  Mitt Romney outspent Gingrich by a margin of 4 to 1 on advertising in Florida.  Negative ads against Gingrich filled Florida airwaves on radio and television.

Florida was the turning point in this race.  All of a sudden debate questions focused on the candidates' investment portfolio and consulting assignments they took as private citizens.

What happened was, Barack Obama and his policies were no longer at the center of discussion among GOP candidates.

Newt Gingrich first began to rise in the polls after a string of strong debate performances in which he made it clear that the major issue of the 2012 campaign is Barack Obama.

After South Carolina, Gingrich was forced to go on the defensive after a slew of negative ads were run against him.

What also happened to Newt Gingrich is that his own intelligence got the better of him.

Rick Santorum accused Newt Gingrich of being too grandiose with his ideas.  Gingrich responded by saying that America is a grandiose country that needs a grandiose thinker.

That helped for a moment, but with ideas like a moon base, Gingrich appeared disconnected from the issues that Americans really care about.

Gingrich is a self-described big thinker and that's a good thing, but not always.  Newt was also criticized for suggesting that all unemployment compensation must be tied to a job training program.

That sounds good in theory, but Gingrich failed to recognize that even people with masters degrees were being laid off.  Again, this type of grandiose thinking made Gingrich appear out-of-touch.

Yesterday, the Gingrich campaign announced that it will be laying off one third of its staff as part of a strategy that will focus on the convention.

Gingrich is going all-in on his brokered convention strategy, hoping that neither Romney nor Santorum wins the required 1,144 delegates before the convention.

This is basically the last option for Gingrich who has had what can only be described as a roller coaster of a campaign.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Obama's Articles of Impeachment

What you see below are Articles of Impeachment I have drawn up for Barack Obama.  I will be sending them to my representative, the Honorable Daniel Webster.  I'm not expecting any serious action.  I did this mainly for fun.  Enjoy!

Articles of Impeachment

112^th Congress

United States House of Representatives

Resolved, that Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully ignored and usurped the constitutional authority of the United States Congress, the States, and of the People.

On January 20, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama II, took swore an oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Contrary to that oath, Barack Hussein Obama II, in his capacity of President of the United States performed the following actions in violation of the United States Constitutions:

(1)   On January 4, 2012, Barack Hussein Obama II appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board without seeking confirmation from the United States Senate.  Pursuant to Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Senate must consent to nominations made to all Officers of the United States.

(2)   On March 23, 2010, Barack Hussein Obama II signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  This Act violates Article X of the Amendments to the United States Constitution.

(3)   On March 16, 2012, an article in the Washington Post revealed that Barack Hussein Obama II will direct the United States Department of State to resume military aid to the country of Egypt, despite a congressional mandate which restricts such aid.  This funding would violate Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

(4)   On June 14, 2012, Barack Hussein Obama II announced that he will suspend deportation of certain persons who illegally reside within the United States of America.  Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution the President must take care that the Laws be faithfully execute

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama II, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Obama to Fund Muslim Brotherhood without Congressional Approval

How is Barack Obama still President?

Every time I turn around he is spitting on the Constitution and the Congress.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will announce that the Obama administration will send $1.5 Billion in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ruling party in Egypt.

Last year, Congress passed a bill that halted all aid to Egypt until the State Department could certify that the Egyptian government is no longer hostile towards pro-democracy groups.  That has still not happened.

Despite this legislation, which was sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy, Obama will send the aid, a clear usurpation of Congressional authority.

The Congress, specifically the House of Representatives has appropriation power in the United States government.  This means that the Congress, not the President, decides how our nation's money is spent.

This man needs to be impeached, post haste.

The State of the GOP Race

To date, thirty three states and territories have held their nominating contests for the Republican nomination for president.

The race is pretty much down to two candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.  Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are still campaigning but have a slim chance of getting the nomination. 

Gingrich is hoping that no candidate gets the required number of delegates before the convention, forcing a brokered convention.

Being a Gingrich supporter, I am also hoping for this scenario.

A brokered convention would allow the nomination to be decided based on who is the best candidate, not who has the most money.

Mitt Romney is outspending his opponents by a wide margin, bombarding states with negative ads on radio and television.

Gingrich and  Santorum are running a "free publicity" campaign, focusing on appearances on television and radio shows.

If Mitt Romney keeps up the pace he is on, he will win the nomination on delegates.

The calls are now coming, from people like Jeb Bush, for the party to unite behind Mitt Romney and begin the campaign against Obama.

I say, not so fast.

The vetting process is far from over.  I want to see how Romney will fair in a state like Texas, which is the home of conservative Republicanism.

It seems to me that Mitt Romney is winning almost exclusively is liberal areas.  Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Illinois, Michigan, etc.  Even Florida, which Obama won in 2008, went to Romney.

Meanwhile Rick Santorum is winning in places like Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

I've said before that Mitt Romney is the choice of Democrats and Independents for the Republicans nomination.  He is not the choice of true Republicans, and he certainly is not the choice of conservatives.

That being said, if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee I will support him against Barack Obama, but it will be a vote against Obama, not a vote for Mitt Romney.

Supporters of Rick Santorum have called for Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race.  Even if he can't win the nomination, Gingrich is the only candidate who is putting constant pressure on Barack Obama, especially with respect to gas prices.

If nothing else, Gingrich is supplying the Republican nominee with debate material.

So, that is where we stand.  The race is not over yet, but the end is on the horizon. 

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

The Following is a Paid Advertisement

Ticketamerica.com has NHL hockey tickets for the New Jersey Devils and the New York Islanders team and the cross town rival New York Rangers Tickets for all games.
new jersey devils tickets
new york islanders tickets
new york rangers tickets

The Definition of Conservatism

I had a recent discussion on Twitter with a gentleman who asked me to define conservatism.  More specifically, he asked to define what makes a person a true conservative.

This got me thinking about what makes a person a conservative.

Dictionary definitions mention preserving the establishment when defining conservatism or a resistance the change.

In America, the conservative textbook is the Constitution. 

We don't take our cues from the media, activists, or Hollywood celebrities.  True conservatives live, eat, and breathe the United States Constitution.

There are five basic principles which I believe all conservatives should believe in: 1) Limited federal government, with most powers and responsibilities granted to the states 2) A tax policy that supports only constitutionally-mandated functions of government 3) A balanced federal budget 4) Strong national defense and 5) Individual responsibility for personal finances.

These are the big ones.  There are other issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, to which a conservative could subscribe to either viewpoint. 

When conservatives talk about preserving traditional society, they are referring to big picture ideas such as individual sovereignty, constitutional rights, and the freedom to pursue happiness.

Many misinterpret conservatism as a desire to revert America to a society without technology or advances in other areas such as medicine, science, or business.

Conservatives do not want to stop society from advancing technologically.  Rather, conservatives push for individual creativity and entrepreneurship to be the catalyst for such improvement as opposed to government subsidy.

Why is the Constitution so important to conservatives?

The answer is simple.  Politicians are temporary, but the Constitution is permanent.

The American system of government was set up to prevent tyranny, which, by definition, is when temporary politicians seize power from those they govern.

Elected officials are not meant to define to office they serve in, but to act within the constraints imposed on them by the Constitution. 

In layman's terms, the President does not decide what power he has.  Those are granted and enumerated by the Constitution.  Exceeding the limited powers granted to the office, is tyrannical.

The Constitution is the protection of the people from the government, not the other way around.

Our constitution is relatively short compared to the constitutions of other nations and the state constitutions. 

The reason for this is that the US Constitution tells the federal its powers and then leaves everything else to the states.

I use the term individual sovereignty a lot in my writing.  I first heard this term being used by conservative radio host Mark Levin, so I will not take credit for coining the phrase.

Individual sovereignty, as I see it, is the right of the people to make decisions that affect their lives for themselves, as long as those decisions are not immoral or illegal. 

ObamaCare is a prime example of the government violating our individual sovereignty by requiring people to purchase health insurance.

With, individual sovereignty, however, comes personal responsibility.  We are granted the freedom to control our own lives, but we must do so responsibly.

Demanding government handouts when times get tough leads to government seizing control over an aspect of your life.

If you demand a free college education from the government, then you relinquish the right to choose what type of education you receive.

If you demand free health care from the government, the you relinquish the right to decide what doctor to go to or what treatment to receive.

With liberty comes responsibility, with tyranny comes despotism.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com 

UN Council to Investigate US Voter ID Laws

The United Nations Human Rights Council will investigate laws passed by several US states which require photo ID in order to vote at its meeting in Geneva, Switzerland.

Six states (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) currently require a form of photo identification in order to vote.  The Obama administration is currently working to block Texas and South Carolina from enacting similar laws.

The case against these laws is being brought to the UN by the NAACP.  The NAACP believes that these laws disenfranchise minority voters.

Hillary Shelton, the NAACP's chief advocate acknowledges that the United Nations has no jurisdiction over voting laws in the United States.

This begs the question, why even bother?  Basically this is just a publicity stunt and an effort to gather support for Obama's suit against Texas and South Carolina.

There is nothing disenfranchising about being required to show ID to vote.  The same type of identification is required to get on an airplane, buy alcohol and tobacco, and gamble. 

I suspect that the NAACP and the Obama Administration are attempting to hide some type of voter fraud.

Acquiring a government-issued ID requires proof of residency, citizenship, etc.

My bet is that Obama knows he was the beneficiary of a lot of illegal aliens voting as well as people voting multiple times.

The laws that have been passed in some states and are being vetted in Texas and South Carolina are meant to eliminate election fraud, and that's bad news for Democrats.

Those opposed to the laws say that voter ID laws violate the right to vote.  I say that those of us who play by the rules and don't commit voter fraud deserve to have our vote protected.

Why should someone who is in this country illegally be allowed to have the same voice, or a larger voice if they're voting multiple times, as someone who was born here or moved here legally.

As to the issue to minority disenfranchisement, minorities have the same services available to them as everyone else.  Anyone can go the DMV and get either a driver's license or a state identification card.

The states that passed voter ID laws provide these free of charge, so as not to constitute a poll tax.

I support Voter ID laws so long as ID is provided free of charge, the system protects against fraudulent IDs, and a reasonable level of proof is required in order to receive an ID.

The Obama administration's suit against Texas and South Carolina violates the 10th Amendment and protects those who commit voter fraud.  Therefore, this government is abandoning its duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to protect the rights of American citizens.

Are you surprised by all of this?  I'm not.

Obama's Arrogance Shines Again

President Obama dedicated most of his weekly radio/Internet address to the pressing issue of rising gas prices.

In typical Obama style, the President was arrogant and condescending.

He made the claim that "we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices".  Apparently, B.O. missed supply-and-demand day in economics class.

What our own president does not understand is that the more supply there is, the less something will cost.

Obama goes on to say in his address that investing in clean energy will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Oil will never be completely useless in our economy.  We will still need it to make plastic and operate vehicles such as 18-wheelers, boats, ATVs, motorcycles, and RVs that do not have "green energy" technology.

But if we don't drill for our own oil, then we will have to get it from somewhere else.

You see, Obama thinks we're stupid and that we don't understand economics.

The point he failed to address in his address is how investing in technology for the future helps Americans now.

My car takes gasoline, it will take gasoline tomorrow, and a year from now.  I'm not going to buy a hybrid car just because Obama thinks I should.  Why?  Because my car works just fine.

So, what is Obama doing right now to lower the price of oil and gasoline right now?  Absolutely nothing.

In fact, his own Secretary of Energy admitted to wanting to raise the cost of gasoline in order to price Americans out of using fossil fuels.

The President rejected the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought more jobs and more oil to America.

Obama's propagandists also wanted the President to take swipes at Republicans and oil companies in his address.

So, the President accused Republicans of having a "bumper sticker" energy policy and attacked oil companies for being more profitable than ever, which we know is a lie because Obama said it.

As I explained in a previous post, The Truth Behind High Gas Prices , oil companies run at about an 8% profit margin, which is pretty modest.  As I also explained, the federal government is profiting most off of the sale of a gallon of gasoline.

Uncle Sam takes in 18.4 cents for every gallon of gas sold in the United States, and then taxes the company 40% on their operating profit.

In an attempt to spin the facts, the President referred to tax deductions as subsidies, but failed to mention the actual $500 Million subsidy the federal government gave to Solyndra, which by the way was being run by an Obama campaign donor.

Obama wants you to forget about how much you paid yesterday for gas and focus on what you'll be paying for one kWh of electricity for our car 35 years from now. 

I want to tell you, Mr. President that you won't President in 35 years.  So, why don't you worry about what you can do right now to help lower the price of a gallon of gas, which has doubled in your 3 year reign of failure.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Obama Planning to Influence Supreme Court of ObamaCare Ruling

In just over two weeks the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in the case of Florida,et al v. Department of Health of Human Services.  This will be a landmark Supreme Court case which determines the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

The Obama administration knows that the law is in serious jeopardy of being rejected, so they have begun a propaganda campaign to get the American people on their side.  Right now, most Americans are against the law.

According to a report in today's New York Times, the White House hosted leaders of several pro-ObamaCare non-profit organizations on Wednesday.  Among other things, they discussed plans for prayer vigils and press conferences for the three days the Supreme Court will deliberate the case.

Of course, the administration already has an insider on the bench.  Associate Justice Elena Kagan served as Obama's Solicitor General before he nominated her to the high court.

For those who don't know, the job of the solicitor general is to represent the administration's position in cases before the Supreme Court.  Had she stayed in that position, Kagan would have been lawyering for the Obama Administration in this case.

There have been calls for Kagan to recuse herself from the case, but that is unlikely to happen.

The left already has the mainstream media on their side, so expect a lot of biased coverage of this case. 

Apparently, Obama will also be coordinating activists in an attempt to influence the Court.

My guess as to why he is so concerned about his case is that he knows his reelection would be in great peril if the law is struck down.

This law is Obama's signature piece of legislation.  It has all but defined his presidency.

If the Supreme Court sides with the people who have been challenging this law and declaring it unconstitutional, then Obama loses.

Parts of the law have already come under intense scrutiny.  Secretary Sebelius has already said that the CLASS Act is flawed and will cost more than originally thought.

The contraception mandate has been the source of a political firestorm involving the Catholic Church, Rush Limbaugh, and Sandra Fluke.

If the Supreme Court throws out the entire law, Obama is finished.

Some collateral damage may occur in the GOP race also.  Mitt Romney's defense of RomneyCare has got him hot water with some conservatives. 

Because it is the forerunner to ObamaCare, Mitt Romney's health care law will become a hot topic in the race for the GOP nomination. 

Rick Santorum will be the beneficiary of that potential blow to Romney's campaign.  Newt Gingrich will not benefit as much because he supported a version of the individual mandate in the 1990s. 

Arguments in the case begin March 26th.  Stay tuned for more coverage.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

 

We Need a Role Reversal in America

When I was a kid and my bossy, know-it-all, sarcastic side came out, my mom would stop whatever argument we were having and say, " Role reversal!  I'll be the mom and you be the kid." 

I think the federal government and the American people are in need of a similar role reversal.

It seems as if we're in a era where the role of the citizenry is to work to support and further the cause of the federal government.  Never before in history have politicians said things like, "we have a revenue problem" or that some portion of the population needs to pay "their fair share" as if they weren't paying enough already.

A revenue problem, for those who haven't figured this out already, means that politicians think you should be taxed more than you already are.

The purposes of the federal government are to protect our rights from being violated and to improve American society, not the other way around.

When you and I go to work every day, it is not to support to the Leviathan that the federal government has become.  Rather, the reason we go to work every day is to support ourselves and our families.

Imagine a world where every dollar you earned went straight to the government and then some paper-pushing bureaucrat decided at the end of every week how much money you are allowed to have.

This is the path we are on.

This is not to say that there are not essential services that the government provides.  Common-interest budget items such as defense, roads, post offices, etc. are necessary, and a small amount of taxation is needed to fund them.

Our tax burden, however, should be limited to those, constitutionally-mandated functions of government.

The citizens should be the beneficiary of the government's work, not be burdened by it.

Of course, this is not to say that we should expect the government to provide us with everything we need.

Rather, government should provide an environment that allows the citizens to pursue their dreams and provide the best life they can for themselves and their families.

So in this relationship who is supporting whom?  Should we, the people, continue to hand over the fruits of our labor to a government that is not living within its means?

Or, should we demand that the government return to providing only those services it was intended to provide?

I think the latter choice is best for everyone involved.

 ###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Gingrich in a Tough Position after Super Tuesday

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both solidified their status as front runners in the GOP Presidential race after picking up six and three states, respectively.

Newt Gingrich, winning only Georgia, now finds himself in a conundrum. 

Gingrich basically has two choices.  He can either drop out of the race and throw his support, and his delegates, behind Rick Santorum; or, he can continue his campaign and hope for a brokered convention.

What makes this decision even more difficult is that Gingrich's campaign has come back from the dead on more than one occasion during this primary process.  It is not a far-fetched idea to think that it can happen again.

The Red, White, and Blue Fund, and organization backing Rick Santorum, has called for Gingrich to drop out.  An advisor to the group said that with Gingrich out of the race, Santorum would have won Michigan and Ohio.

Tuesday night, Gingrich told supporters that he plans to continue his campaign.

As a Newt supporter, I want Gingrich to continue his campaign all the way to the convention in Tampa, and hope that none of the candidates wins a majority of the delegates.

A brokered convention would be immune from the millions of dollars that are spent attacking one another.  Convention delegates are serious political people. 

I believe that Newt can go before a convention and make his case as to why he is the best person to take on Barack Obama.

To make a football analogy, Romney just does not match up well against Obama. 

RomneyCare and ObamaCare are essentially the same thing, so that issue becomes moot in a Romney-Obama debate.

No matter how "severe" a conservative Mitt Romney thinks he is, the facts tell a different story.  He is not running his campaign as a former governor, he is running his campaign as a former CEO.

The reason for this is that his record as governor is weak.

He speaks more about his 25 years in the private sector than he does about his 4 years as governor, despite the fact that the job of President is more related to a governor than a CEO.

Santorum does draw contrast to Obama on a number of issues, but I feel as if he lacks the gumption to take on Obama in a debate.

Santorum talks to much about ideals and principles.  While those things are important, people want to hear plans and specific ideas on how candidates will solve specific issues. 

This is where Newt's strengths lie.  He is specific when he speaks.  Newt has a plan for his first day in office.

The difficult task in a general election is not winning over members of your own party.  The challenge is convincing independents and members of the other party that you are the better candidate.

Romney and Santorum simply cannot do that.  Newt can.

So, I say keep going Newt.  Don't let Santorum strong-arm you out of the race.

In the end our goal has to be to defeat Barack Obama.  If we keep our eyes on that goal, the choice for Republican nominee becomes clear.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Netanyahu: Israel has the Right to Defend Itself

In a meeting today with President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the Jewish state has the "sovereign right to defend itself." 

Obama, and other administration officials have said that an Israeli strike on Iran would be "premature".

What we saw today from Prime Minister Netanyahu was the beginning of Israel's slow separation for the United States.

Publicly, Obama says that the United States is an ally of Israel, that they stand together, and all of the other diplomatic mumbo-jumbo.

Then, the President says that they don't support what Israel in trying to defend themselves and Israel went as far as to say that they would not warn the United States if they decided to strike.

Netanyahu said very sternly today that "the very purpose of the Jewish state [is] to restore to the Jewish people control over our own destiny."

Obama does not believe in this stated goal of Israel.

Judging by his words and actions, Obama wants Israel to be a pawn for the United States in the Middle East and act according to his wishes.

Candidly, I believe Obama is saying one thing publicly regarding his policy toward Israel but privately does not believe in the idea of a Jewish state.

We need to stop acting as if Israelis are not already under attack.  They have been battling the Palestinians for decades and have been attacked by missiles from Hamas and Hezbollah.

These three groups are allies of Iran, and if an attack doesn't come directly from Iran, it could still sell weapons (or donate them).

Iran's dictator Mahmoud Ahmadenijad has said that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map and denies the existence of the Holocaust.  So, should we believe this mad man when he says that his country's nuclear program is strictly for "peaceful purposes?

Methinks not.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Tweet

Obama's Cabinet is a Joke

Barack Obama is the most dangerous man ever to be President.  Yet, the threat he poses to our freedom continues to be overshadowed by the threat posed by members of his cabinet.

President Obama makes himself look like an idiot every time he speaks, but the members of the cabinet take it one step further and make our entire government look incompetent.

Kathleen Sebelius is the latest in a long line of department heads to say something moronic.

Yesterday, Sebelius, who is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health that the reduction in the number of pregnancies will compensate insurance companies for the cost of providing free contraceptives.

Her rationale is that as contraceptives become more readily available, fewer pregnancies will occur and the number of pregnancy-related health problems will decline.

This sounds all peachy on the surface, but when one thinks about this a little further, the flaws in this argument become abundant.

First of all, the cost of providing pregnancy-related health care is already covered by insurance premiums paid for by the patient and/or her employer. 

Secondly, this is an argument about providing free contraception.  The last time I checked, we still have to pay co-pays for other medical services and products such as prescriptions, medical exams, tests, hospital visits, surgeries, eyeglasses, contact lenses, diabetic testing supplies, and other treatments.

So, where did this sudden burden of paying for contraception come from?  Should our insurance companies also have to pay for over-the-counter cold medicine, cough drops, band-aids, vitamins, nicotine patches and gum, etc?  Where does it end?

Obama has transformed America from a country that dreams of two cars in every garage to and country that dreams of a condom in every pocket.

As I said before, Obama's cabinet is full of incompetent managers.

I have been very critical of Eric Holder in the past, and will continue to expose him until he is either fired, resigned, or leaves office when Obama loses.

Here are some articles I've written which criticize Holder:

Obama Owes Americans and Apology

2012 Election will be Defining Moment for the United States

When in Doubt Play the Race Card

Eric Holder has to Go

Holder in a Catch-22

I concur, as I often do, with Newt Gingrich who recently called for the dismissal of Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Chu, testifying before Congress, said that the overall goal of the Energy Department is not to lower the price of gas, but to decrease the dependency on oil. 

I'll say that again, in case you skipped over the last paragraph.  The United States Secretary of Energy does not want to decrease the price of a gallon of gas.

Instead, he wants to essentially price Americans out of the oil-buying business and force them to use other types of energy.

The reason he wants to do this is two-fold.  First, the federal government, as well as state governments, taxes gasoline purchases.  Therefore, the higher the price of gas, the more revenue the federal government receives.

Secondly, his job is on the line with Obama's.  If Obama is not reelected, then Secretary Chu has to go out and find a real job. 

The Obama campaign receives a lot of donations from so-called "green energy" groups and environmentalists.  Their survival depends on people using less oil and converting to new-age energy sources.

Chu is just another example of bureaucrats serving the President and not serving the best interest of the American people.

I won't get into the failure that is Timothy Geithner.  His story was covered enough during the first year of the Obama presidency.  I will say that nominating a man who didn't pay his own taxes to manage the federal treasury should have been a warning sign of what was to come in Barack Obama's presidency.

So, as important as getting rid of Obama is, removing his cabinet members that are systematically tearing down America is just as critical. 

If the President was smart, which he clearly is not, he would Holder, Sebelius, Chu, Geithner, and, just for good measure, Leon Panetta.  They are all incompetent failures in their respective posts and the American people deserve better leaders.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Review of Newt Gingrich's "A Nation Like No Other"

Newt Gingrich's book A Nation Like No Other was published in June of last year, just as his presidential campaign was getting underway.  Perfectly subtitled "Why American Exceptionalism Matters", this book explains what kind of country America is, how we got here, and what we have to do to sustain American Exceptionalsim. 

A historian by trade, Gingrich does an outstanding job of backing up his assertions with facts.  He not only cites the Constitution, but also the Founders themselves, Supreme Court decisions, and other primary sources. 

This book is more than just about why America is the greatest country on the planet.  It explains how American success means success for the entire world.  Gingrich examines how the world would look if America did not assume to role of world leader.  Would Nazism have prevailed?  Would Eastern Europe still be behind the Iron Curtain?  Would Osama Bin Laden still be alive?

Gingrich and co-author Vince Haley explain, in-depth, what separates America from the rest of the world.  Chapters with titles such as "Work: In America, It's Called 'Opportunity'" embody the spirit of American Exceptionalism.

A major theme of the book is the role God and faith play in the American system.  Gingrich cites the Founders in explaining the importance of God, religion, faith, and family.

A term used most often by conservative commentators, civil society, is thoroughly explained in A Nation Like No Other.  Gingrich asserts that communities and individuals have more power to better society than government.

Gingrich concludes the book by describing instances where ordinary citizens got off of the sidelines and took action to influence change.

The epilogue, entitled "January 20, 2021" describes what America will look like if conservatism wins in 2012 and the left is defeated. 

I was a supporter of Newt Gingrich before I read this book.  Now I am both a supporter and a fan.  If you're struggling with who to vote for, read this book.  You will not only learn more about America and why it's so special, but you will also learn more about Newt and his love of country.

###

Twitter: @AConservVoice

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aconservativesvoice

E-Mail: eric@aconservativesvoice.com

Letter to Sen. Bill Nelson regarding Blunt Amendment Vote

Below is the text of a letter I sent to Senator Bill Nelson regarding his vote to kill to Blunt Amendment.   Feel free to use this letter as a form if you wish to write to your Senator who voted to kill this amendment.

The Honorable Bill Nelson

United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Nelson,

Today, you and your colleagues in the United States Senate voted to table the Blunt Amendment, which would protect the religious liberty of organizations that are opposed to certain types of medical treatments and products, mainly contraceptives.  I am very disappointed in the outcome of this vote because the right to religious freedom is the first right granted to United States citizens in the Bill of Rights.

Once again, you and your colleagues put politics before people.  The Bill of Rights is not negotiable.  Politicians and, more dangerously, unelected bureaucrats are now demanding that religious organizations compromise their religious convictions.  This is exactly the type of tyranny our Founders feared.  The free exercise of religion is the most sacred right American citizens enjoy.  Unfortunately, politicians are now more concerned about garnering votes than they are with upholding their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Protecting our rights, are prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, is the ultimate responsibility of government.  With this vote, the United States Senate has abdicated its responsibility to protect the religious freedom of all Americans.

I ask of you an explanation as to why you voted to table this amendment.  What was your rationale behind voting for such an obvious dereliction of your duty to defend our Constitutional rights?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

 
Eric S.

The World Needs more Andrew Breitbarts

Conservative commentator and leader of the online conservative movement, Andrew Breitbart, passed away this morning at the age of 43.

Breitbart dedicated his professional life to championing the conservative cause and providing an alternative to the liberal mainstream media.

He was a journalist who never sugar-coated his stories or backed down from telling the truth.

The online conservative media would not be what it is today if it weren't for Andrew and his colleagues at bretibart.com, biggovernment.com, and his other websites.

Breitbart got his start working with Matt Drudge and Arianna Huffington, before she became a liberal.

He then spawned his own website and subsequent websites focusing on the media, Hollywood, journalism, and peace.

For those of us who spend our time promoting conservative values and exposing liberal lies, Breitbart is our patriarch. 

Even if you disagreed with Breitbart's positions, his passion and enthusiasm for his life's work is undeniable.  That is something we can all learn from Andrew, regardless of political persuasion.

In short, the world needs more people like Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew is survived by his wife Susie and their 4 children.