Man, is this the strangest election cycle you’ve ever seen, or what? First, on the Democrat side, we start off with what I felt was sure to be a shoe-in with Sen. Clinton. I just knew that with all the money, name-recognition (which is something money just can’t buy), and with all the influential people the Clinton’s knew, that the road to the White House would be a cake walk for Hillary.

In all sincerity, who would have thought that at this point in the game, there would even be a contender still standing? Much less one that could “KO” Sen. Clinton at any moment.

And what about Barack Hussein Obama? This guy spends a little time at the U.S. Senate, and before the paint on his “This space reserved for Sen. Obama” sign in the parking lot is even dry, he’s running for president. The nerve of this man!

I would have never guessed in a million years that this guy would be running for president, and I certainly would have NEVER seen him winning it. And no, for all you liberal talking heads out there, I don’t say that because I’m a conservative redneck. I say that because it’s true. Here is a man who is brand new to the national political scene, has no national record on which to stand, and he’s flipping winning. It’s just incredible!

And on the other side of the aisle, things are equally as strange. We had a strong field in the Republican party this year. The only problem is, you can’t elect them all, and there hasn’t been a single candidate that could unite the party enough to really rally the troops behind him.

For this Christian Conservative, I would have liked to have seen Fred Thompson in the Oval Office. Sadly, though, it seemed like everybody except for Fred Thompson wanted Fred Thompson to be the president.

So, looking down the list, yes, Rudy Giuliani appeared he would be tough on national security…but that was it. He reminded me of John Kerry running against Bush where whenever things got tough, he would always come back to “but I fought in Vietnam.” Except Giuliani always came back to, “I was the mayor on 9/11/01.

So I went on down the list, and I finally found one that I was reasonably happy with: Mitt Romney. Here was my hope. I knew he had some changes of positions in the past, but I felt he was sincere, and I knew he was confident in what he was doing.

He had both the government background and the business savvy to make things happen. I felt that, regardless of the rumors of his church, he had the moral fiber to lead our nation. What’s more, I knew he had the strength of his convictions. Yes, he was THE man.

Gov. Huckabee was one that I never really gave a lot of serious consideration. I was, at best, skeptical of his social conservatism. And I was convinced that he was not a fiscal conservative.

So, I immediately set to work on getting Gov. Romney a new address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I started writing all kinds of articles praising his good works and dedication to the preservation of the United States Constitution. My writings on Romney, and on most of the 2008 presidential field, can be read in my new book, “Mr. Right Opinion- Unplugged and Unashamed” which should be available within the next week at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/. I hope you’ll check it out.

Anyway, I, and a whole slew of other folks, are hard at work trying to get Romney nominated when…BAMN! In his most Reagan-esque way to date, The Governor from Mass. Drops out of the race for “the good of the party.” I was disappointed by his decision, but I could respect it.

This news kind of knocked me back on my heels, as I’m sure it did many Republicans. It took me a while to figure out what to do next. I was not very impressed when the “Governator” Arnold gave John McCain his endorsement. Quite frankly, I don’t see Arnold as a Conservative. However, I knew if the Republicans didn’t do something, and do it pretty fast, we were going to be in trouble (ala today’s Democrat party). So I decided it was time to “rally round the flag” and support the man who would undoubtedly be our nominee: John McCain.

Since then, I have tried to point out positives about the Arizona Senator. You can go back to previous posts I have written about McCain, and you’ll see that I’ve said that even if you have to hold your nose to do it, if you are a republican, pull that lever for McCain.

But, John, you are NOT helping me here. Going to speak before a conference of La Raza, the pro-Aztlan and pro-illegal immigration group is not exactly a way to shore up your base.

And what about this little speech on global warming. Have you picked up a Science magazine lately? We are in the middle of a five-year cool down. Senator, I have honestly been telling people to hold their nose and vote for you because it would be better than a vote for Hillary or Obama, and it would.

But, sir, it is now reaching the point where we are not merely looking over a few disagreements. We are fast-reaching a point where, for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote for you, even if they are holding their nose, crossing their fingers, standing on their heads and doing a jig, is for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote against their own consciences. And I simply cannot do that.

PLEASE Sen. McCain, give us the kind of leadership we need so we can get behind you. If that’s not possible, then it looks like the Republicans are just going to have to miss out on a golden opportunity to keep the White House, even at a time when anti-Republican sentiment is so high that the cake walk that almost never happened may happen after all.

(An aside: when I refer to and quote the United States Constitution in this artcle, unless otherwise noted, the information and quotes come from www.usconstitution.net)

In his trip to America, Pope Benedict XVI has said many profound things. However, this single sentence jumped out at me, and now I cannot get it out of my head. The latest Pontiff was quoting his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. And the entire quote from CNSNews.com’s story, “Pope Hails America’s Founding Principles“, by Terence P. Jeffrey, went: “Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II," he (Pope Benedict XVI) said. "In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time and again that 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation,'

and a democracy without values can lose its very soul.

What an insightful statement. What a prophetic use of language which should be a warning to us all. Not just the Chinese, who systematically suppress individual freedoms, not just the Taliban who suppress, or at least did, and are still trying to, an entire population under the guise of religion, an not just to the Castro brothers, who continue a brutal dictatorship under the guise of an equality for all system known as Communism.

No, this message must not be lost on the ears of Americans as being some very profound words that a lot of OTHER nations could really use. Folks, we could use them here at home, too. Maybe here more than anywhere as, we see the morality and teachings of our forefathers slowly, but steadily, slip away.

The United States of America was founded on certain basic Judeo-Christian ideologies which, in recent decades, have been totally turned on their head. One by one, we systematically pluck out truth from our society and replace it with lies, all in the name of progressive (i.e. liberal) ideals. One by one, we are undermining the very footers upon which this nation was built.

Was every forefather at those conventions perfect? Of course not. Did they sin, just as we do today? Naturally. They drank to excess, they murdered, both the enemy and each other, I’m quite sure many of them stole to feed their families, and some of them even committed what Barack Hussein Obama termed “America’s original sin”-- slavery.

However, that does not mean that the writings which laid down the very principles upon which this country was built were anything less than Divinely-inspired. But we, as a nation, have lost sight of that divine inspiration.

For instance, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. The Founding Fathers wrote: “Becoming a citizen

 

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character. (http://www.usconstitution.net).

Nowhere in that original document did I see anything about being able to sneak across the border long enough to be given amnesty! We have lost track of the truth!

Another lack of truth when studying the Constitution is that the President does not have the power to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.” While this is a broad statement, it does, in fact, give the president the authorization to most-definitely strike Afghanistan, who, outside of your Michael Moore types, is known to be behind the tragic events of 9/11/01. Thus, the constitution absolutely gave President Bush the right to attack Afghanistan in his capacity to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.”

This, obviously, brings us to the question of Iraq. Did the president have the right to, along with a “coalition of the willing,” attack Iraq and bring down it’s regime?” Please allow me to enter Exhibit ’A’ if you will: S.J. Res. 23:Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill) found at: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html.

The act says, verbatim:

“Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate. “

Once again, we have to look at the truth. Now obviously, you and I will never have access to the intelligence reports, at least the non-redacted ones, to know exactly what they said about Iraq’s involvement in plans to attack America, although there is plenty of taped evidence suggesting that they had plans to do just that.

Regardless, the TRUTH, as the Pope pointed out, “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” And the TRUTH, as hard as it is for some liberal…oops…progressives…to believe, is that Congress unanimously said that, “Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

Having read Congress’s words, there is little doubt thay they gave President Bush the “`Authorization for Use of Military Force,” in SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, and in SECTION 2. “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.”

Yet we have lost sight of this truth, and as a result, and as the Holy Father said, 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.' And indeed, in losing what the truth on Iraq was, we are indeed losing our very foundation.

Just look how divided we are as a nation. We have the religious right-wing coming out that McCain isn’t’ conservative enough, we have moderate Republicans saying that he’s too conservative for their liking. And then there are the ‘Progressives’ or, as I still like to call them, Liberals.

They are just salivating to see which Democrat will screw up next so they can try to move in for the kill. It is a sad situation.

And the majority of this bickering could stop if we just take a lesson from the Pope and see that without truth, freedom loses its foundation. Think about it.

Don’t forget Mr. Right Opinion’s upcoming book “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed.” It will soon be available through authorHOUSE at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/.

 

 

 

 

Well, all I can really say about the latest economic news coming out of Washington is that I hope all the folks that voted in a Democrat House and Senate are happy with their new tax hikes. For they are about to see “the single largest tax increase in the nation's history” according to an article from CNSNews.com entitled “Congress Says Yes to Tax Hikes,” quoting House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

Last week the House passed a budget blueprint that will raise taxes for all taxpaying households earning over roughly $32,000.00. The House and Senate both voted against making the Bush tax cuts permanent. In my judgment, they are missing the big picture in doing this.

I realize that the economy is currently tanking. Believe me, when it costs me $50.00 fill the gas tank (and no, I don’t have an S.U.V.), I feel the pain of a near-recession. However, I also remember that it wasn’t long ago that the Dow was at a record high. Remember that? Apparently, Congress does not. At least, not the Democrats.

Look, we are in the middle of two battle-fronts in the War on Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan are costing huge amounts of money. I know this. I also know that this will not last forever, and that you can’t solve national economic problems by raising taxes. Presidents Reagan and Bush forty-three have both shown us that the economy can actually improve with lower taxes.

The “trickle-down economics” of the Reagan administration proved that lowering taxes on those who actually create jobs helps to bolster their confidence, and encourages the creation of more jobs. The more jobs we have, the more income the federal government can generate. And the more jobs we have, the fewer the people that are on welfare, unemployment, etc.

This point seems to just go right over the heads of Democrats. And if they were honest about it, Democrats would tell you that they really don’t want to create jobs. The Democrat ideology is the fewer jobs we have, the more people must depend on the federal government to meet their basic needs. And the more people must depend on government, the more secure congressional jobs are.

It is a vicious cycle that keeps people in poverty, and offers Democrats job security. Conservatives believe in allowing, and really forcing, those who are capable of being self-sufficient to do so. The liberal mantra is just the opposite. The true way to get ahead in a liberal world is to have another baby so you can collect more money off the federal dime.

I know that sounds illogical, but it’s true. As I point out in my book, “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed,” which will be coming out in late April/early May, and will be available at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/, the proof is in the pudding. Just look at an excerpt from the book, in an article entitled “Conservatives, Liberals And Welfare Reform:”

“Firstly, though, in order to see the truth on this issue, it is imperative to realize, and accept, that welfare reform is mostly the responsibility of Congress. While the president can sign or veto all legislation, it is ultimately Congress that crafts the laws which either move us forward, keep us stagnant or send us spiraling downward.”

From 1970-1995, poverty rates in this country remained high, and the welfare rolls continued to swell. And although they controlled Congress during all but three years of that period, Democrats did nothing to improve this situation by reforming the welfare system.”

In 1994, in what has been dubbed ‘The Republican Revolution,’ Republicans wrested control of both houses of Congress from the clutches of the Democrat party. This marked a new era in the annals of American legislative history.”

From 1994-1996, Democrats in Congress opposed this legislation. Eventually, however, half of congressional Democrats capitulated and the act passed. (Then) President Clinton, having already vetoed two previous versions of welfare reform and facing a reelection bid, signed the act into law.”

The results of the Republican-led reform proved that the conservative ideology was the true way to improve economic conditions for the impoverished. The reforms resulted in lower welfare rolls, higher employment for single mothers, and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers and black children in U.S. history. Yet Nancy Pelosi and her ilk want to return us to the “good old days.”

This reasoning defies all logic. Will we never learn from history? As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. And it looks as if we are in repeat mode.

The budget proposed by House Democrats last week will ‘foist a $683-billion tax hike on American families to fuel the Democrats' ‘reckless spending agenda,’ Blunt complained,” according to the CNSNews article.

While Pelosi maintains that the Democrat-proposed budget “values families and their economic future,” it is hard to believe. If they really valued families and their economic future, they wouldn’t be raising taxes on families that earn just $32,000.00 per year. Her rhetoric is absurd.

Another interesting little tidbit about this Democrat-controlled House of supposed Representatives is that the liberal House Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored plan to place a one year moratorium on earmarks, a.k.a. “pork-barrel spending.” Now isn’t that interesting? Democrats say that Republicans are wasting money, and they are, yet the Dems won’t agree to forego pork barrel projects for one single year.

Further complicating matters is the fact that House Democrats want this 683 BILLION-dollar tax hike, and still they offer nothing in it to address the problem of Social (in)Security and Medicare insolvency that is looming large in the not-so-distant future. Hey, Nancy, what exactly are you all solving up there?

On Friday, the Senate also voted to raise taxes on the majority of Americans, while also shooting down a moratorium on earmarks. While Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted for the moratorium, Senators Clinton (D-NY) and Obama (D-IL), both of whom are running for president, voted against the moratorium, and thus for more wasteful federal spending.

Live it up, those of you who voted this Congress into power. And “ask not for whom the bell tows, for it tows for you!”

Now, I know that the title seems to state the obvious. But, before you accuse me of being a dirty old man, I am not talking about anatomy here. I am talking about NERVE. It is rather unbelievable to think that the wives of these politicians don’t have enough self-esteem to refuse to stand next to their cheating, no-good husbands after they have been caught fooling around.

Naturally, the immediate reason for this article is NY governor Eliot Spitzer. But, he is certainly not the first, and I dare say, not the last, to employ this political strategy. We all remember Hillary Clinton going on Good Morning America, 20/20, or one of those shows, and assuring America that she was not a “Tammy Wynette-Stand By Your Man” kind of woman. However, we all saw her “stand by her man” all during the Lewinsky, Flowers, Jones, etc, scandals.

Yes, it is unfathomable, at least to me, that these women continue to stand by their men during these most humiliating moments. I cannot imagine staying with my (former) wife, had this problem come up during our marriage. And I certainly can’t see her standing by me had I cheated on her. What a humiliation and a thievery of personal self-esteem and security that has to be. And ours was a private divorce.

Can you imagine what a strain such a public humiliation must be on the spouse of an elected official? It would be horrific enough to experience this in private. But to have to do it under the scrutiny of the media spotlight adds exponential stress.

But while the spouses’ behavior is incomprehensible, it defies human imagination how these “public servants” have the testicles to make them do it. I could not imagine being caught cheating on my wife, who is the mother of my children, and then actually demanding that she appear with me to try and lessen the severity of the public scrutiny of my behavior. I wouldn’t have the anatomy to ask, much less demand.

Yet there are untold numbers of politicians who have either asked or demanded that their wives do this. Spitzer is just the latest. Off the top of my head I can name many. Spitzer, Clinton, Larry Craig, former KY Democrat Gov. Paul Patton, N.J. Gov. Jim Mcgreevy, Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick, I could go on, but you get the point.

I do want to say that I feel very sorry for the families of these scum. Spitzer, for example, not only has a wife, but THREE, count them, THREE daughters. As the father of two girls myself, I can’t imagine what they would be going through mentally, not to mention all the whispers behind their backs in their social circles. Kids can be cruel to other kids, and they are blameless in this.

Politicians, and other would-be cheaters, take note. You didn’t need your wife and kids to arrange sexual liaisons with prostitutes, so don’t you dare try to hide behind them when you get busted! And that’s the Right Opinion!

Well, it’s not late December, and it’s not back in ‘63, but I think it’s fair to say, “Oh What a Night.” Super Tuesday-Part Deux proved to be just that…super. The Republicans finally can say they have a nominee, and Democrats can say they have mass confusion.

Congratulations go out to Sen. John McCain for clinching the Republican nomination with a clean sweep of Tuesday’s primaries. And I guess it’s only fair to congratulate Gov. Huckabee for his hard-fought campaign. I know I called on him to drop out long ago, and I still think that would have been the thing to do. But he had every right to stay in until the end, and, driven by principle, he did just that.

On the other side, I don’t think it could get much more interesting. As I write this, Hillary has definitely won two states, and it looks like Texas will probably go her way. The spinners for Barack Hussein Obama are trying their best to downplay Hillary’s major wins by saying that the delegate count won’t shift much, and they are right about that.

However, Sen. Clinton has accomplished a much larger feat than winning a few delegates tonight. She has put the brakes on the momentum of the Obama express. Democrats are finally coming to their senses about Barack Hussein Obama and are starting to actually think about the substance, not just the flash, of their choices.

I believe it was me that said that Obama was copying a page straight out of the Democrat playbook: pie-in-the-sky promises with no way to actually achieve them. I told you, my fellow Opinionators, that his campaign was an aberration, and that it could not sustain itself. And while it is far from over, I truly think that, with seven weeks to go before the next major contest in Pennsylvania, Hillary has turned the “mojo” on Barack.

Please do not take my little push for Sen. Clinton as support; it is not. However, Barack Hussein Obama scares the devil out of me. The mere thought of someone as liberal as he, almost to the point of Communism, sitting in the Oval Offiice, literally makes me start mourning the death of America. I’m serious, he is that dangerous.

I don’t like very much at all about Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I don’t think she would destroy the country in under four years. I do think that Sen. Obama could, and most likely would.

And while I’m on the subject of support for Hillary, indulge me, please, as I do a little commentary on one of “our own.” What in the world is wrong with Ann Coulter? I think this election cycle has literally put her over the edge. Short of Hitler becoming the Republican nominee, I would NEVER behave as she is now behaving.

I saw her today on Cavuto (I think) and heard more of the same unbelievable bile that she has been spewing lately. She was again saying that she would support the Democrat candidate in the general election if Sen. McCain is the Republican candidate. As I have stated previously, and will state again, that kind of rhetoric is childish and asinine. I find myself totally dumbfounded when I hear her speak these days.

She did say that if Mitt Romney were McCain’s running mate that she would probably vote the Republican ticket, because that would give Romney a better shot in 2012. I just can’t figure her out. If she is truly fighting for the conservative cause, what purpose does this silly talk possibly serve? Does she really think that Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama would be a more conservative president than John McCain? If so, she is delusional and needs psychiatric care immediately.

Once again I would like to point out Mr. Right Opinion’s mathematical equations. One Republican who decides not to vote at all in the general election = one vote for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican). One Republican who chooses to actually vote for the Democrat = two votes for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican, and one more vote for the Democrat).

Think about it, Republicans. Like him or not, Sen. McCain IS the Republican nominee for president in 2008. If you sit it out this time, or even worse, actually switch sides, you are helping either Obama or Clinton get the keys to the White House. Do you honestly think that America would be better served by one of them than by McCain? The answer is obvious.

All I can say to Ann Coulter, and to anyone of like mind, is that it’s time to grow up and stop acting like children. The stakes for our great nation have probably never been higher. I know Republicans could have done better in our choice. But, it is what it is, and we, as alleged adults, must accept the reality and stand behind our candidate.