In The News Today...

Part 2 of "The New Faces Of Conservatism" will appear tomorrow. Today I wanted to talk about a few things I saw and/or read through various news outlets.

Where to start...

Democrats in Washington will find any excuse for losing the mid-term election besides the truth - that the American people are tired of their failed leadership and their constant lies. Now they are saying the main reason they lost is because the United States voters, who have elected Barack Obama twice to the Presidency, voted Republican in last week's election because they are racists.

“We lost because of ideological differences within the Democratic Party and with our Administration. We lost because our party has, to some extent, lost white Southerners due in part to the race of our President,” Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) recently told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Fudge, who is the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, a pathetic and racist organization in and of itself, went on:

“Our community organizations and churches mobilized to encourage early voting opportunities with programs like ‘Souls to the Polls,’ and African American activists and state leaders stood ready to combat any instance of voter intimidation or fraud,” she said. “Black elected officials crisscrossed the country to discuss the urgency and importance of this election. We phone banked, knocked on doors and held ‘Get Out the Vote’ rallies. Our losses were not a referendum on African American political engagement. We did our part, so don’t blame us!”

So they had people out there pushing to drum up the African-American vote and it still didn't win them the House and Senate seats they needed so it has to be racism. What has this country come to when political leaders in Washington are allowed to take the floor and declare the voters racists just because they lost an election - an election that was full of serious issues that far surpass the race of the President (who was not up for re-election) or the candidates? I'm disgusted by these people who use that word as an excuse for anything and everything.

But Fudge isn't the only one who threw the race card. Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), who faces a runoff against her Republican challenger next month, was asked why President Obama has a hard time in Louisiana.

“Let me be very, very honest with you,” Landrieu responded in an interview. “The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader.”

Uh...  Mary - maybe that's because he doesn't really have a clue what leadership is. Just a thought. She went on to say that some voters, probably the ones who aren't racist, are sexist and won't vote for a woman - even though she has been elected twice by those voters.

“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves. It’s more of a conservative place,” Landrieu told reporters, speaking of the upcoming runoff. Just like those racist voters who re-elected President Obama, those sexist voters who re-elected her last time are now apparently exercising those sexist beliefs.

Exit polls showed that nearly 75% of voters were against an executive action that granted amnesty to illegal aliens and big government interference in state policies and programs. But I forgot - that's racist too. It's not about disagreement with Democrat policies. It's about the skin color of the law breakers and the gender of the candidate(s). Right Congresswoman Fudge? Right Senator Landrieu?

In other news, another "Oops" moment has arisen for the White House and the spin began immediately in an effort to minimize it. 

A video surfaced a few days ago featuring liberal MIT Economics Professor Jonathon Gruber, one of the civilian architects of the Affordable Care Act as well as one of the architects of the Massachusetts health care law. Gruber, speaking at an economics conference (Gee - that sounds like fun, huh?) made several statements about the Obamacare law that told the American people what Republicans have been saying all along.

The Affordable Care Act would not have passed if the American people actually knew what was in it from the beginning. Never mind that 72% of Americans didn't want it to pass anyway - that was irrelevant to the Obama administration. But Gruber said it would not have passed at all if the public and the Congressional Budget Officer weren't deceived about the details of the law.

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that," Gruber told the economists.

"In terms of risk-rated subsidies, in a law that said health people are gonna pay in — if it made explicit that healthy people are gonna pay in, sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay — just like the … people — transperen— lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass."

Of course, the White House and key Democrats are spinning the story in an attempt to negate the negative impacts. White House Propaganda Secretary Press Secretary Josh Earnest told Fox News' Ed Henry (the only reporter who asked about it) “The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent,” and said that President Obama "is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.”

Right Josh. All that writing by the Democrats behind closed doors and the bribes that were spread around to gain last minute support - those are transparent alright. At least to those of us who can see through Obama.

Earnest then tried to turn the conversation around by attacking Republicans.

“It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices are available to middle class families.”

In typical liberal fashion, Earnest took a situation in which the Democrats and the President look really bad and said "But you Republicans did this!" The immaturity that seems to permeate the White House right now is astounding.

Although Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, spoke of Jonathon Gruber by name in 2009, she now denies knowledge of even who he is.

Asked about a Republican health care bill that the CBO had said would cost subsequently less than Obamacare, then Speaker Pelosi said "We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange."

Asked about Gruber's comments just a couple of days ago, now House Minority Leader Pelosi said “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.”

How quickly a Democrat can forget someone when it's convenient. The President himself has yet to comment on the matter. But that's understandable. He's busy trying on traditional Chinese clothing and planning another assault on America via his threatened amnesty order.

Finally, the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, is set to be released any day. Police and protesters are gearing up for the possible outcome. Police have been advised by the governor to be "ready for anything" even as the protest leaders, members of such groups as the New Black Panther Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Amnesty International, and other radical organizations, (along with non-radical groups as well) say they will try to maintain peace and order without giving up their protest efforts. The facts of the case are still unimportant to their cause if they (the facts) don't agree with the group's desired outcome, it seems.

President Obama expressed "real heart-driven concern" about possible violence in Ferguson following the upcoming release of grand jury findings in the case. He did, however, promise federal assistance to the governor in whatever capacity it is needed.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday said he offers “the department’s continued assistance” and urging “continued and direct communication between elected officials, law enforcement and community leaders in the days ahead to help deescalate tensions and assist with planning.” He also called for law enforcement to use restraint. 

Restraint is good - until such time that the protesters prove restraint will not stop the violent behavior. Sometimes in riotous situations, as used to be said in the federal prison system where I spent my career, "It's time to kick ass and take names." If and when the protesters make that motto necessary let Eric Holder and the federal government beware if they get in the way. It's not going to be pretty.

Imagine A World Without Steve Jobs...

Process that for a moment. Imagine there was no Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, Inc.

Imagine there was no Apple, Inc. Imagine a world without Apple computers, McIntosh computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods, iPad minis....

You don't own any Apple products, you say? Fair enough. How about the people you know? Do they? Do you own any kind of smart phone or android? Those products stemmed from Apple technology.

The fact is Steve Jobs was instrumental in many of the technological advances of the last 30 years or so. He was brilliant, innovative and savvy. And he almost never was.

Steve Jobs was adopted as an infant. His birth mother, a 23 year old college student, was in no position to keep and raise a baby when she became pregnant. According to Jobs himself, she "went through a difficult time" to have him. She could have aborted him and in this day and age, she very likely would have. Instead she chose to deliver her baby and give him away as an infant.

Jobs forgave his birth mother for giving him up and eventually, after his adoptive mother died, was able to track her down. When she met him she reportedly burst into tears, apologizing for putting him up for adoption. (Can you imagine finding out years later that the baby you gave away became a Steve Jobs or equivalent?)

“I wanted to meet her mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion,” Jobs told a biographer. “She was 23 and she went through a lot to have me.”

“Don’t worry,” Jobs told his birth mother. “I had a great childhood. I turned out OK.”

It turned out that Jobs also had a natural sister who was born to his mother and birth father several years later. She and he became very close.

“As we got to know each other, we became really good friends and she was my family,” he said. “I don’t know what I’d do without her.”

My point of this is not to demand sweeping changes to the abortion laws in this country. Right or wrong I truly doubt that Rowe vs Wade will ever be changed. I don't believe the American people would go for its repeal after all these years and, as I said the other day, it's not something the Republicans should take on as an issue immediately. There are far too many other things that need immediate attention. I could be wrong but that's my humble opinion.

No, the point of this post is to get people to think. If you or someone you know is weighing the pros and cons of a possible abortion, share this little story with them - particularly if they happen to have a phone or an iPad. If Steve Jobs mother had aborted him there would be no Apple, Inc. Would we have an alternative? Possibly. But who's to say? Jobs was one of a kind and his contributions to the world are immeasurable. 

Steve Jobs was just one man but imagine what the world would be like today if his mother had made a different choice. Abortion is always a choice. The government allows it but doesn't force it to happen. That is up to each individual mother. It's just something to think about...

The New Faces Of Conservatism

Today I start a series on the new conservative politicians in the United States and their possible (or inevitable) future impact on American politics. This series will consist of several posts, number as yet to be determined by length....

Now that the midterms are over and the Republicans soundly defeated the Democrats nationwide, it's time to begin looking seriously at the 2016 presidential election - not only who the candidates should be but who has the best chance of winning.

Establishment Republicans and the main stream media have already put some indications out that they would support Jeb Bush should he decide to run. Jeb, the most liberal and progressive of the Bush family, did a decent job as governor of Florida but very few voters are interested in having another Bush in the White House. Some say he might be the only one who can beat Hillary. Personally, I doubt the Bush machine, just because he's a Bush, could ever beat the Clinton machine if it came down to it. And his liberal stance on immigration, amnesty and education have me turned off. Would I vote for him? I would if he is the only choice to keep another Democrat, particularly Hillary Clinton, out of the White House. But that would be the only reason.

Let's not forget that any Republican embraced by the main stream media cannot possibly be a good choice for the nation.

Others in the Republican elite are talking about Mitt Romney running again. While Romney would be far better than Bush for our economy and our world standing (given his vast and successful business experience), he took his shot and proved that he was unable and unwilling to stand up to strong opposition. Romney had so much ammunition to use against Obama during the 2012 election but being the nice guy that I truly believe he is, he declined to do so - and lost. Who can say if it would be different in 2016? He's still the same nice guy. I'd rather go with someone who didn't fall short last time.

Even John McCain has expressed an interest in another possible run. I won't even comment on that.

When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980, he ran on a conservative platform. He had been a Democrat until 1962, but had actually campaigned for Richard Nixon in 1960. He was also the President of the Screen Actors' Guild - one of the most powerful unions in Southern California. He became more and more conservative in the late 50s and became a Republican in 1962.

Following a successful stint as governor of California - possibly California's best years - Reagan ran for President in 1980 on a conservative platform of tax cuts and smaller government. Advisers, media and the Democrats said he couldn't win on that platform... but he did. His conservative policies reversed our pathetic economy and world standing left by Jimmy Carter and in 2004 he was re-elected - winning the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states!

Reagan had his problems. Of that there is no doubt. But his conservative principles made the country more prosperous, stronger all the way around, and made the world a safer place. "Peace through strength" was his motto. And it worked. Reagan's work eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, even though it actually came about during the George HW Bush administration. Have no doubt that it was Reagan who made it happen. His famous statement: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," still resonates with the call of freedom.

Fast forward to 2016. The United States needs a conservative leader. Conservative policies and principles have proved over and over that they work. There are blinding examples in the country today. Let's take a look at a few.

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin

In 2010, Wisconsin was in a state of economic turmoil. Unemployment was high, as were the state's budget deficits. Public employee unions and pensions were factors that were draining the state's funds. Walker ran on conservative principles and policies and won with 52% of the vote. After being sworn into office, Walker, in 2011, introduced a controversial budget repair plan which limited many collective bargaining rights for most public employees.

The legislation made more than $1 billion in cuts to the state's biennial education budget in addition and $500 million in cuts from the state's biennial Medicaid budget. Both were challenged and, following court battles, both survived, along with new voter ID laws. 

Unions went crazy after Walker signed the new legislation. They organized, both inside and outside the state, and protested for weeks. But the bill passed and the state's economy began to improve. The unions campaigned against Walker from all angles, collecting money from labor unions and liberals from around the country. In 2012, a recall election was held in an attempt to toss Walker from office. It failed. Walker defeated the challenge and became the only governor in the United States to survive a recall election. He must be doing something right.

Walker's conservative approach to governing has worked. When he took over as governor in 2011 the state had a deficit of $3.6 billion. Today the state has a surplus of over $900 million. Unemployment has fallen from 9.2% to 6.3%. Liberal critics say Walker's job growth isn't impressive and that there are other deficits that have not been addressed. But the state is in far better shape than it was. Facts are difficult for some liberals to swallow.

Scott Walker ran on his record for re-election this year and won with over 52% of the vote compared to his Democrat challenger with 46.6%. Critics called it a close race but given the fact that Democrats and unions from all over the country helped his opposition I'm thinking that the 5+ point spread wasn't all that close.

Walker's conservative principles are working in Wisconsin just as Reagan's did in Washington. And it's only the beginning.

To be continued....

A Belated Happy Veterans' Day

Some of you may be wondering why I didn't post my usual salute to Veterans' Day yesterday. I wanted to but for two things - Arden and I were traveling and I was sick. No worse time to be sick than when you're on the road. And no - I don't have Ebola. As far as I can tell I had food poisoning. Gotta stop eating in restaurants while traveling...

Veterans' Day is the one holiday each year that is for me and my fellow veterans. Sure, Independence Day is for me - it's for all Americans. Labor Day is for all Americans - even if it was created as a socio-economic tribute to the workers by labor unions, of which I have never been a member.

Christmas is to celebrate the birth of our Lord. New Years is just that. Memorial Day is not for all veterans, as some believe, but for those who sacrificed their lives in defense of our great nation. Presidents' Day is the day they chose to honor the birthdays of two of our greatest Presidents by combining their birthdays into one holiday that doesn't usually fall on either day.

Martin Luther King day honors Dr. King and is about freedom and civil rights. Columbus Day honors the founding of North America. And Thanksgiving is for all to give thanks for the blessings we have been given by our God and Creator.

Veterans' Day is for people like me - those who at some time in their lives put on the uniform of the United States military and spent some years doing what they were told to do in service to their fellow Americans. Some of us were soldiers, some were pilots, some were medics, some were sailors, others Marines and Coast Guard. But we all served our nation, our Commander(s)-in-Chief, and our fellow Americans.

The old saying "A veteran is someone who, at some point in his/her life, writes a blank check to "The people of the United States of America" in the amount of "Up to and including my life," didn't strike me as something that applied to me until a dear friend pointed it out. I didn't go into harm's way when I was in the Air Force - except maybe being in Germany in a time when the Red Army Faction was blowing up American targets and kidnapping and executing random US military personnel, because there were no wars going on at the time. I never saw combat. However, I was subject to go if and when it was necessary. And would have proudly accepted the call.

My son's mother was in the Air Force at the time as well. Together we had to sign paperwork that said if we were both ordered to duty in a war zone who would we leave our son with in the meantime. There was a single mother who lived in our apartment building, also active duty, who has to sign that same paperwork. Ever have to make a decision like that? (Chances are they wouldn't have made my wife and I both go and leave our son behind but we still had to make that designation.)

Everyone who joins the military makes sacrifices. They lose some of their freedoms - such as complete freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to wear what they want, freedom to quit a job they just don't care for, etc. They are under the control of the government for the time they are in. The government tells them where they are going and what they are to do. And they can't say much about it without serious consequences.

Families of veterans sacrifice as well. They too are subject to the whims of the government. They must choose to follow their beloved service member to his/her assignment or be separated from him/her for the duration. And there are many assignments to which a spouse or loved one cannot follow.

Less than 0.5 percent of Americans serve in our armed forces. That's about 1.6 million out of 300,000,000 plus citizens. When you think about it that's not a lot of people to defend our nation and her people - particularly since we are involved in global affairs. It's a pretty big sacrifice. Winston Churchill said it best: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

So a day late and a dollar short, I want to offer a sincere thank you to my fellow veterans and your families for your sacrifice, your courage, and your honor. Together we stood and accepted the call of our nation. Together we stood, as the prophet himself did in Isaiah 6:8, and said to our God and our country: "Here am I. Send me." 

Most of us would do it again in a minute if necessary. We are brothers and sisters in arms. We are the few who put country ahead of self. We are the 0.5 percent.

Do Elected Officials Maintain Common Sense After Elections?

Everyone by now has heard about the openly lesbian mayor of Houston who has singed an ordinance which allows people of the city to use any bathroom that is open to the public, male or female, depending on what "gender they identify with." It matters not what gender they are, says the mayor. What matters is who they identify with. In other words, a man can now legally enter a women's bathroom in a mall just by saying he identifies as a female.

Understandably, many people are upset about it and believe it could lead to many problems, particularly sexual predators using it as an excuse to get close to victims. Imagine a peeping Tom dressing as a woman so he can enter the lady's room to see what he can see? Unimaginable? Certainly not in today's society.
A group of five Christian pastors led a petition drive to reverse the ordinance. They garnered over 50,000 signatures - three times the number of signatures necessary to place the ordinance on a ballot so the people can decide whether or not it's something they want in their city. Subsequently, the city's legal office subpoenaed sermons, speeches and other public remarks made by those pastors, ostensibly to see if they were "using their churches for political reasons."

A legal firm, representing the pastors pro bono, have taken up the cause saying that the city's subpoena of the sermons violates the First Amendment. Senator Ted Cruz and others have also criticized the mayor's office.

“For far too long, the federal government has led an assault against religious liberty, and now, sadly, my hometown of Houston is joining the fight,” Mr. Cruz said in a statement. “This is wrong. It’s unbefitting of Texans, and it’s un-American.”

I must agree - not only about the subpoenas but about the ordinance as well. In 2006, the LGBT community made up 4.4% of the population of the City of Houston. So 8 years later it could be as high as 8 or 9%. That leaves over 90% of the population that is not part of that community. So I would bet that the majority of Houstonians (?) are against this new ordinance for a variety of reasons. Even though the numbers of LGBT supporters are growing I would still make that bet. And the mayor should be checking with all of her constituents before passing such a major ordinance. Such a small minority should not be dictating the moral behaviors of such a large majority.

The mayor, reacting to pressure from the pastors' attorneys and the public, has backed off of her request for sermons and speeches, but not before attempting to justify the subpoenas by saying the pastors were politicizing the pulpits. She obviously doesn't understand that for most Christian pastors this is a moral and Biblical issue rather than a political one.

Now let's move West on I-10 to the lovely city of San Antonio. A liberal city on the San Antonio River, it's home to The Alamo, the River Walk, the Tower of the Americas and many other interesting and historical attractions. I always enjoy visiting and have several good friends who live there.

On the radio yesterday I heard about a new city ordinance in San Antonio that is just another example of the loss of common sense by elected officials. Beginning in January of 2015, hand held cell phone use will be illegal while operating a motor vehicle. 

The law - 19-255, begins with "(1) ENGAGING IN A CALL means talking to, dialing, or listening on a hand-held mobile telephone, but does not include holding a mobile telephone to activate or deactivate the device."

You may use a phone that is mounted to the vehicle, on speaker mode, or via a Bluetooth device but you cannot hold it, even for GPS use.

An article I read said that one of the reasons they passed the ordinance is because last year a six year old girl was struck and killed by a driver who admittedly dropped his cell phone and was searching for it on the floorboards, distracting him while he was driving. 

“If he didn't have the cell phone he wouldn't have lost control of his cell phone and my grandson would still be alive,” Stephen Abrams told the court.

While my heart breaks for this grandfather and the girl's parents, the driver wasn't distracted by talking on the phone. He dropped the phone and instead of pulling over to search for it he searched for it while continuing to drive. That can happen if you are eating a sandwich and drop it. And how many of us have spilled coffee or soda on ourselves while driving? Will they next outlaw eating and/or drinking while driving?

This seems like nothing more than a money making scheme for the city. Why do I say that? Section (f) of the ordinance - the next to the last section. "(f) An offense under this section is not a moving violation and may not be made a part of a person’s driving record or insurance record."

They're not going to make it a moving violation or give you points for using a phone. They're simply going to fine you $200. I can't help but wonder if the police officer who pulls you over will say "Go and sin once more," after writing the citation...?

The other interesting section exempts all EMS personnel from the ordinance if they are on duty.

"(4) by a person who is an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle while acting in an official capacity;"

...because we all know that EMS personnel, whose vehicles are fully loaded with communications equipment from radios to computers, need to be able to make their calls while driving.

Fortunately, the law does allow drivers to call 911 to report an emergency or illegal activity. 

While I am OK with banning texting while driving (because it takes rapt attention to type a message on a phone), talking on the phone while driving, whether it's a hand held or mounted phone, is really no more distracting than having a conversation with a passenger or disciplining your kids in the back seat. Dialing the phone is distracting - even if you're using a mounted phone - unless you're using voice dial. But how many people do that?

Setting a GPS system while driving is just as dangerous as texting. And with this new law, even if I set my GPS on my hand held phone and set it on the dashboard I will be in violation of the law because I'm using a phone that is not mounted to the vehicle. How much sense does that really make?

People will undoubtedly violate the ordinance anyway. It's human nature. Cell phones have a tendency to make people feel self-important, as evidenced by people who use their phones in movie theaters, restaurants, etc., completely oblivious to what's going on around them. I doubt this law will change that. About the only thing it will change is the revenue for the city. But isn't that the idea?

Dear Republicans....

Congratulations on your big victory last night. Americans sent a message to the President, to the Democrats, and to you. That message is "We're tired of our nation going in the wrong direction and we want you (the Republicans) to do something about it." So what are you going to do?

From the conservative standpoint, come January things will be better for several reasons.

1. As of January Democrats will no longer be in control of the Senate. Bills will actually go to the President's desk. It will be up to him to sign or veto the legislation - each and every one.

2. The Republicans will be able to prevent the President's liberal appointments to various offices, including the Supreme Court.

3. Harry has made it OK to go with a simple majority vote of 51 on many things. That will be a plus for Republicans now (although I truly doubt he'll leave it like that. You'll be seeing that change back in December, I'm sure.)

OK. Those are good things. So what else can we expect?

Already there are calls for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed. That's a good thing except... what is your alternative? What will you offer the American people who have lost their current plans? Health care reform - doing something to curb the ever-rising costs of healthcare for the average citizen, is something that should be a consideration. What will you do?

What will you do to help create jobs? Corporate tax cuts, combined with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, will help. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. That's why so many jobs are going overseas. What are you going to do to fix that?

Anyone with a working brain knows that the "Republican war on women" is a creation of the Democrats. So that's not a problem. But honestly, forget about the whole abortion issue for a while. I'm not advocating abortion nor am I saying it's a good thing. However, I have serious doubts that Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned. The only way that will happen is if there is if all three branches of government are controlled by conservatives. That can't happen for at least two years. So focus on things you can do now, please?

What are you going to do about ISIS? The President's half-hearted air campaign is being waged to make him look like he's doing something. For the most part ISIS is laughing - and advancing. The White House has stated their goal is not to take back conquered territory but to stop them from gaining any more. ISIS apparently isn't paying attention because they keep advancing - even acquiring American made weapons from Syrian rebels that we are arming. They have established their caliphate in the Middle East with our President's blessing. What are you going to do about that?

The borders of our country are nearly non-existent and the President is threatening to make things worse. He has already stated he will sign an Executive Order to get what he wants in immigration reform. He really only has two options - to stop all deportation or to order the Border Patrol not to do their jobs. Or both. Both of them would be impeachable offenses since he took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the land. He hasn't upheld them very well so far. What are you going to do about it?

Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to repeal Common Core. A great idea if you have an alternative plan. Our public schools were not doing well before Common Core. They won't do well after it unless you have a plan to improve them and the education system. What is your plan?

Conservatives in Washington have two years to learn to communicate their message of conservatism to the public and to lay out their plans for 2016 and beyond. You need a spokesperson who can connect with the people. Who might that be?

The Republican party is happy and united today. But what about tomorrow? In-fighting, attacks on Tea Party Republicans by the establishment elite, even underhanded tricks like getting Democrats to cross party lines to vote against your Tea Party challengers all are leading to the destruction of the party as it is supposed to be. Over 50% of Republicans believe the party needs to return to its conservative roots yet the new conservatives (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee) are ridiculed and condemned by the likes of John McCain and Thad Cochran, as well as by Republican pundits like Karl Rove. The American people want unity and conservatism, not progressivism and in-fighting. Get your act together!

The economy still sucks and we are nearly $18 trillion in debt. What are you going to do about that?

You won a major victory last night. But what's important is what you do from here. I would remind you that you won the House in 2010 but Barack Obama was still re-elected in 2012. We will be watching.

Again, I ask you.... what is your plan?

We Voted!

Last night my wife and I set our alarm for 6am so we could get to the polls early. The polling places opened at 7am and we wanted to beat the crowds. When the alarm went off I was awake but Arden wasn't so sure she wanted to get up early after all. By the time she got up, we got dresses and had our coffee it was nearly 8:30. (Who can vote accurately without coffee...?)

Anyway - we traveled the five miles or so to our rural polling place and discovered we were the only ones there. Our neighbor directly across the street greeted us at the door. She was a volunteer polling assistant. We showed our IDs and our voter registration cards, signed our names verifying we were who we said we were and making an official notification that we were voting, and went to the voting booths. It didn't take long and as we were voting, more and more people arrived.

Our neighbor said we came at the right time. She said at 7am the line was out the door. That worked out well for us.

Today my wife and I cast our votes for a stronger Republic that is the United States of America.

We didn't cast our votes for socialism, more welfare and food stamps, bigger government and greater entitlement programs. We cast our votes for individual freedoms and the responsibilities that come with them.

We didn't cast our votes to allow our borders to remain open and for people to continue entering the country illegally. We cast our votes for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws.

We didn't cast our votes for continued and ever-increasing political correctness. We cast our votes for the freedom to disagree with anyone without being called a racist or some kind of "phobe" (attach your own prefix.)

We didn't cast our vote giving politico-religious groups the right to take over our nation and/or vilify anyone in the country who disagrees with them. We cast our votes for religious freedom that does not advocate violence against non-believers.

Today we voted for the separation of powers between the three branches of our government so that no one branch, particularly the executive branch, can do whatever they want whenever they want.

We voted against amnesty for illegal aliens and against any executive action that would lead us closer to that.

We voted against the government sticking it's hand even deeper into our pockets to take more money for those nearly 47% of Americans who depend in the Obama administration and the Democrats for a living.

We voted against the evil that is Obamacare.

We voted against a Justice Department that selectively enforces the laws of the land.

We voted against an Internal Revenue Service that targets political groups that oppose the President.

And we specifically voted to take control of the Senate from the irrepressible majority leader, Harry Reid.

We voted today to take back our country - not from a black skinned President but from the policies he and the Democrats have pushed in this country that have kept our economy from growing, kept us from expanding our own natural energy development (that doesn't involve the failing green energy programs), left millions more unemployed and out of the work force, and has reduced our overall national security.

We voted against President Obama and the Democrats. And we're proud of it.

We voted for the Republic that is the United States of America!