Trump Looking Very Presidential

I have to be honest here folks.  I think I really, truly, honestly love Donald Trump.  I never in a million years thought I would ever say that, but it's true.  Every time I hear him speak now he says something that resonates with me; makes me feel proud.  I love him.

Look, I'm not endorsing him here. I just think he resonates with Americans like me.  There are things I've always wanted a presidential candidate to say, and Trump is the first to say them.  He is a man who speaks from his heart, and does't let political correctness scare him from the truth.  He's not going to let anyone walk all over him.  He is rich, and he doesn't apologize.  Instead he says things like, "I am rich, and I can make you rich too."

During the 2012 presidential cycle, you don't know how bad I wanted someone to say, "Obama is a socialist." No one ever did.  Not one candidate had the courage to speak the truth about Obama, and probably because they thought they'd be seen as racist attacking the first black presidential candidate.  So uninformed voters continued to think Obama was the solution to their problems.

I don't think we need to fear that Trump will hesitate calling Clinton a Socialist because she's a woman and it might be seen as offensive.  Nope!  Trump will call a spade a space, and that's what we need.

After the first debate where  Megyn Kelly tried to take out Trump, Trump did not disappoint his fans.  He responded with boldness and courage, and he did not apologize.  And, despite what the media thought, his poll numbers did not decline: they went up.

I think Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head when he defined it this way:

(Trump is) walking in uncharted territory... this stuff that he's doing, nobody's seen. In its own way, it's refreshing...  There's a percentage of the population that is totally fed up with the political class, including the media. And they have wanted things said to people and about people for the people they've been voting for for years and they haven't heard it. I mean, the media is not loved. The media in some cases is despised, and Trump is giving it right back to 'em in ways that many people in this country have dreamed of happening. And, as such, he comes off as refreshing.

Even when he's not on message or when he's not on issues, he comes across as somebody that says things they would like to say, things they have wanted to say, things they have hoped other people would say.  Cause, frankly, I'm gonna tell you, again: I don't think that a lot of these big players, including in the media, have any idea who their audiences are. Particularly the Drive-Bys. I don't think they have the slightest idea the size of and the amount of real anger out there directed at them. It goes so far beyond the fact that they're biased. It's way beyond that now. And Trump is the only guy addressing it, whether he's talking about issues or them...

There is real visceral anger over this amnesty BS. There is real visceral anger over what's been done for the economy. There is real visceral anger over what is being done to the health care system via Obamacare. The reason they don't know it is because they (the media) do not care to talk to the people who feel that way, so they never do features on them. They never go out and do man-on-the-street interviews with people like that.

Because they are interested in furthering the agenda that has made all of this happen. Now, they know there are gonna be some people that disagree with it, but they immediately relegate them to insignificant status. They're either bitter clingers or they're lunkheads or they're small in number or they're just old-fashioned ditties that don't deal well with change or what have you. But they're missing the real anger, and it's been 

The anger, you can see it in the midterm 2010, 2014 elections. There have been people have shown up in droves. The Democrats have lost over a thousand seats in those midterm elections, and part of those elections were Republicans being elected because the people voting for them wanted them to stop all of this, or at least try. And they don't see any trying to stop it. They don't see any effort being made, any serious effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

I think there's some real outrage in this country over what has been learned, was always suspected but now what has been confirmed was going on in those abortion clinics. There's real anger out there. And the one person that's come along that's tapped into it and that gives everybody the impression that he's fully aware of it and agrees with them is Donald Trump. As such, he's got a pretty wide berth here. He's got a pretty big margin of error.

You see, the media wants politicians, and anyone, to admit when they made mistakes. And Trump does not fall for it.  He does not apologize.  He will not apologize because he is rich.  Quite the contrary: he reminds people that he is rich and that they too can get rich.  If you apologize that changes the whole narrative, and that's why the media loves apologies and Trump refused to give one.

He will not apologize for calling out raving lunatic leftists for what they are: raging, lunatic leftists.  He is not going to apologize for calling out Rosie O'Donnell for being a raging, lunatic leftist.  He will not apologize for the fact he is rich.  He will not, as Obama does on a daily basis, apologize for America being great.

Besides, apologizing does not change the fact that you said what you said.  If you apologize, then you are saying you screwed up.  For instance, if you are apologizing for America, you are saying that America isn't truly great; it's not truly exceptional: and it is great; it is exceptional.

Look, Trump is not afraid to speak the truth.  He does not care what people think.  He understands the truth hurts before it makes you better.  He understands all this.  And, the best thing about trump, is that you don't have to worry about some media personality embarrassing him.  You don't have to worry that he won't have a good response: because he is a great speaker; a great at articulating thoughts, opinions and facts.

For example, regarding Lindsey Graham he said: "Lindsey Graham, a total lightweight. Here's a guy in the private sector he couldn't get a job, believe me. Couldn't get a job! He couldn't do what you people did. You're all retired as hell and rich, okay? He wouldn't be rich. He'd be poor. And then I watch this idiot Lindsey Graham on television today, and he calls me a jackass! (imitating Graham) "He's a jackass."

For example, regarding Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton he said:

"Bush said my tone is not nice. My tone. I said, 'No, we need tone. We need enthusiasm. We need tone!' It's true. But they said -- and actually Hillary Clinton said (imitating Clinton), "I don't like his tone." We have people having their heads cut off, Christians in the Middle East! We have people that are being dumped in cages and drowned, in the Middle East."

Trump has a great point.  Here we are all concerned about the Confederate flag offending people. We are concerned about words spoken by politicians.  We are concerned about apologies.  And yet we have terrorist dictator thugs out there cutting heads off of people who don't agree with them philosophically and religiously.

The point here is that anyone who tosses criticism at Trump, Trump is going to stand his ground, defend his territory, defend what he has said, defend his position, defend his opinions, and he will fight back. He will fight back.  As a conservative watching a debate, or listening to a speech, by Trump, I won't have to worry about him not being able to articulate.  There will be none of that type of fear if Trump is our candidate.

Yes! Trump is reading our minds. He is finally the man we have been yearning for for years to run for president.  A true man of the people.  A man who says, "I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong and so powerful and so great… that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s gonna mess with us.”

As Limbaugh said, "His personality is not to rise above it and ignore it. His personality is to deal with it head on and just send it right back at 'em."  Still, the best thing of all about Donald Trump, is: "It isn't an Act," said Limbaugh. "It's genuine!"  It's Donald Trump.

Further reading:

• Fox News:  Trump Delivers Remarks To Thousands At Alabama Rally
• Real Clear Politics: Trump to Megyn Kelly: "I don't have time for political correctness."
• Rush Limbaugh: Trump Resonates Because Millions of People Are Sick of Political Correctness, Phony Outrage and Phony Apologies
• Articulating Ideas: Trump: 'We don't have time for political correctness'

Trump: 'We Don't Have Time For Political Correctness'

The first debate of the 2016 presidential cycle was held on August 3, 2015, on Fox News.  Donald Trump was leading in the republican polls at the time, and so he had center stage.  To the dismay of many republicans, the Fox News debate moderators did their best to take trump down.  Trump responded as only Trump can, and instead of going down he stepped up.

Consider the following exchange with Megyn Kelly and Trump.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account--

DONALD TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

TRUMP: I'm sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account (This was said to raging applause by the republicans in attendance) has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentimes it's fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn't do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.

Emphasis added by me.  And for saying this, the media figured Trump was going to tank in the polls.  But that didn't happen: he went up in the polls.  At the present time, as of August 22, 2015, Trump leads with 24% of the vote, with Jeb Bush in second with 13%, Ben Carson with 9%, and Marco Rubio with 8%.  

What the media failed to understand is that the people in the country are fed up with political correctness. Indeed, rather than angering voters with what he said, he inspired them. Trump was actually feeding into the anger in this nation.  In essence, what he was saying was exactly what voters wanted to hear. 

For this reason, his poll numbers went up not down.  He is not politically correct, and tells it like it is.  And the voters are ecstatic, thinking things like: "It's about time!"  The media doesn't understand it.  The republican establishment doesn't understand it.  But Trump continues to be honest, and he continues to lead in polls.

Quite frankly, people are sick of political correctness.  They are sick of people telling us we need to be offended by words and flags, when we aren't.  We are told we must filter our words and our symbols, when we don't want to.

References:

• Real Clear Politics: Trump to Megyn Kelly: "I don't have time for political correctness."
• PollingReport.com: White House 2016 Republican Nomination

Must the GOP cave on social issues to win in 2016?

So it's 2 a.m. on a Thursday night at work.  I'm sitting with a couple nurses at one of the nurses stations.  This is a time when we are tired enough that we get loose-lipped; this is a time when we start conversations we wouldn't normally start.  But here we are overly tired, and so we get loose-lipped; we get brave.

So we talk about a variety of things, and the conversation, as it often does, segues into politics.  One of the nurses starts to talk about how she is tired of conservatives pushing their social agenda on the rest of us.  She said, "She is just sick of it."

As I so often do, I stay out of the conversation.  Surely sometimes I like to participate, but sometimes I just like to listen so I can get ideas for my blog.  The idea is that if I interject the course of the conversation will be impacted, and if I don't interject I can get a true feel for what other people think.

So I say nothing: I listen.  The conversation goes on to the modern world and the Internet.  The liberal nurse says, "Our parents and grandparents have old fashioned social views because they lived in a bubble; they didn't have access to all the information we do.  If they had access to what we do, they wouldn't be so old fashioned."

"Oh, yeah!" I wanted to say, "I can disprove your theory right here.  I have access to all the same information you do, and it only strengthens my religious believes; my social views.

And I also wanted to say, "Conservatives don't push social issues, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives defend, liberals try to change tradition."

"What do you mean," my liberal friend would have said.

I would have replied, "Conservatives want to conserve culture.  We want marriage to stay in the traditional sense of marriage.  We want to make Detroit better by encouraging men and women to not have premarital sex, and to get married before having children.  Then black children will enjoy the same benefits as the rest of society.  Statistics show that children born of a mother and father are 80% more likely to be productive members of society; they are 80% less likely to end up in prisons, and so on and so forth.  The studies are overwhelming in this regard."

I would have added, if given the chance, "As it is right now, 9 of 10 black children are born to single mothers.  Black teenagers are having sex, and they are having kids out of wedlock.  This means that these kids are growing up with no dads to teach them culture.  They are growing up with mothers who are too busy working to teach them culture.

"So these black kids don't grow up with the same advantages as kids born to a mother and a father.  They end up in poverty, and they end up in jails.  However, as a society, we enable impoverished blacks by giving them foodstamps and welfare and trapping them in their own poverty.  They cannot get out.  They are trapped.  It's a never ending cycle.

"Instead of encouraging marriage and tradition on the poor black communities, we enable them by saying it's okay to have sex before marriage, and it's okay to have kids out of wedlock.  So they never break out of the system.  They never get better.  So call black cities like Detroit go bankrupt."

Of course if I say this the liberal will get mad at me and the conversation would be over.  I would be called radical or old fashioned.  I would be called insensitive to poor black people, even though my actions would give them a better chance of improving their lot in life than anything a liberal would propose.

A similar discussion was started on the blogosphere when Business Insider published a post on June 13, 2015, by Linette Lopez, "Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans running for president."  The article begins:

"For years, when it came to presidential candidates, Wall Street made huge compromises in order to support the Republican Party. The money men in New York City set aside their socially liberal views in order to support fiscally conservative candidates because that was the only way to get on the same page as the GOP base. The result has been a series of candidates Wall Street's big donors didn't really want.

"It seems those donors are getting tired of that outcome. Hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman recently vented his frustration with this arrangement on an episode of Wall Street Week. 'I tend to be more Republican in my views, but socially very liberal. I'm going to have trouble with any Republican that does not disavow a fixation with social issues,' he said."

This is similar to members of the media claiming that the republican party cannot win in 2016 unless it changes it gives in on social issues, to give up our core principles, in order to win.  This is essentially saying that the republicans need to be the same as democrats on social issues to win.  It's poppycock!

The truth is that republicans must not cave on social issues.  They must continue to convince kids to hold on to traditional principles that are proven to work, as opposed to going with the consensus opinion of the times because that's the best way to avoid controversy.

Many of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that our culture is rotting.  It's not rotting where traditional views are held on to; it's rotting where liberal social views have grown roots.

Further reading:

• Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans running for president
• Media wrong about 2016 GOP prospects
• Fiorina supports civil and traditional marriage

Carly Fiorina supports civil and traditional marriage

I'm not sure she can win, but I certainly like Carly Fiorina's political views.  Here is her answer to a question by Katie Couric what her views were on gay marriage.

COURIC:  Let's talk about gay marriage.  What do you hope the supreme court decides?

FIORINA:  Government should not bestow benefits unequally. I’ve always been a supporter of civil unions. I provided benefits to same-sex couples when I was a CEO at Hewlett-Packard, and I also believe as so many do, that marriage has a spiritual foundation. Because only men and women can create life. I hope that we will come to the point in our country where we can accept those two view and tolerate each other.  That the government shouldn’t bestow benefits in a discriminatory fashion, and that people who believe marriage has a religious foundation, those beliefs should be respected. I hope we can come to that point.

COURIC:  But as you well know gay people think they have a right to actually be joined in marriage just like heterosexual couples

FIORINA:  And they are being in civil unions.  That's what's been going on.  And government bestows in those states where civil unions are legal benefits are being bestowed to those gay couples and I support that.  And the supreme court is now going to decide if that becomes the law of the land. 

COURIC:  So you support civil unions but not gay marriage?

FIORINA:  I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation. And I think there are people who believe that, and I'm one of them.  Why can't we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.  

COURIC:  But I guess that, because many gay couples think that is tantamount to discrimination

FIORINA:  Well, but it isn't.  

I would have answered that last question this way:  "Isn't it discriminatory against religious people to force them to change the traditions they believe in? No one seems to ask that question.  

Overall, I really like her response here.  I think we can keep both sides of this debate happy by creating civil unions and not messing with traditional marriage.  I truly think that would work.

Watch the full interview

Carly Fiorina floors Katie Couric on abortion

Carly Fiorina is at the present time the only female republican presidential candidate. She is former CEO of Hewlet Packard, former republican candidate for the senate, and current chairperson of Good360.  I have now listened to a couple interviews she gave and she appears to me to be a very intelligent conservative candidate. I'm very impressed.  I especially loved the way she schooled Katie Couric on abortion.

COURIC: Let me ask you about the GOP and the trouble it's had among female voters. As you well know, in the last midterms, women were ten points less likely than men to support Republicans. It's the largest gender gap in decades. How do you shore that up for the GOP?

FIORINA: A lot of times, women will come up to me and say, "You know, I'm very uncomfortable with the extreme position the Republican Party takes on abortion." And so, I'll say, "Do you know what the Democratic position is?" Most people don't, by the way. The Democratic policy is any abortion, any time, for any reason at any point in a woman's pregnancy, right up until the last minute, to be paid by taxpayers. Barbara Boxer described this policy as, "It's not a life until it leave the hospital." How do you feel about that? Most women are horrified. If I ask women: How to you feel about the fact that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning Solon, but not to get an abortion.  Most women are horrified by that. How do you feel about the fact that a tattoo parlor is more rigorously regulated and inspected than an abortion clinic. Women are horrified by that. The truth is, most Americans, most women, most young people, most most Americans, have now come to a point of view that an abortion for any reason at all after five months is a problem.  So lets take that common ground. I think our tone matters.  We can't be judgemental.  We can't be angry. But I also think we have to make sure people understand the extremity on the other side. 

COURIC: But you say after five months and you oppose abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. 

FIORINA I'm pro-life.

COURIC: So – But what you're saying is that most Americans support it –

FIORINA: Right. So, let's find common ground.

COURIC: So, what is the common ground?

FIORINA: Well, the common ground, clearly, now, if you look at the polls, the common ground is that people believe abortion after five months for any reason at all is wrong. So, good. Let's take the common ground:

COURIC: But what about – What about – So – So – Where is the common ground?

FIORINA: Let's take that common ground.

COURIC: So, you oppose it, except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. So, what about those who feel it should be legal for the first five months?

FIORINA: You see, Katie, I think you're just jumping over what I just said. So, what the political class on both sides has done for way too long is argue at the extremes. And in the meantime, there is real common ground. So, we can argue at the extremes here or we can say, you know what –

COURIC: No, I'm curious what is the common ground?

FIORINA: The common ground is if you look at every poll, the majority of Americans, the majority of women and the majority of young people now believe that abortion after five months for any reason is now wrong. So, let's pass – there was a bill in front of the House. Let's pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That's common ground.

COURIC: So, what is your position on abortion though? Your – as a candidate?

FIORINA: I'm a pro-life candidate because I believe that science is proving us right every day..We've been doing successful surgery in utero on fetuses as young as four months for quite a long time. The DNA in a zygote is precisely as the DNA the day you die. But I understand and respect, Katie, not everyone agrees with me. What I think, is even while we don't agree on everything, let's come together and solve a problem where we have common ground. The truth is there are lots of children being aborted after five months.  That Americans now agree that maybe we should step in and save them.  So let us do that.

COURIC:  So do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?

FIORINA:  You know, Roe v Wade right now is the law of the land.  Can we take on common ground right now.  Let's just get that done.

COURIC:  So, is that answer to that question no?

FIORINA:  Let's get common ground done first.  

Transcripts compliments of CNN

View entire interview at youtube.com

Why do democrats hate success?

So on April 14, 2015, at a round table in Monticello, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said, "“There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the American worker.” This statement bothers me and I'm going to explain why.

I do not know if CEOs actually do make 300 times more than the average American worker.  However, what I do know is that CEOs make a lot more money than the average worker.  Many CEOs make six figure incomes.  

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she sees this as unfair. She would like to do something to bring CEOs down to the same level as everyone else, perhaps by taxing them more.  

It seems to me this is quite common among democrats.  They see people who succeed and they want to punish them; tax them; bring them down to earth.  They say things like, "It's not fair that they make so much money," or, "This is why I hate capitalism, because greedy people get rich at the expense of everyone else."

I see such statements as odd. I think we should put people who succeed up on a pedestal, and instead of scolding success as the result of greed, they should show other people how they can succeed too.  Instead of punishing the rich and talking bad about them, we should teach other people how they too can get rich.  

I think democrats actually think there is a limited money supply. They think if one person is rich it's at the expense of other people.  But this is not true.  There is enough money in this world so that every person can become rich.

You know, in order to get rich you have to spend a lot of time and money on a good college education.  You'll have to work hard and take risks.  You'll probably have to be willing to relocate yourself and your family where the jobs are.  And while they make a lot of money, there is a lot of responsibility and a high risk you'll be fired if you fail.

These are things most of us are not willing to do, so that's why most of us make average wages.

So we should put them on a pediatal, not chide and punish them with federal regulations and taxes

The government can try to make everyone equal, but the government cannot make people rich.  Surely, if you read any history book, you'll see that it has been tried a hundreds of times throughout history, and has failed every time.  Liberalism fails time and time again.  

But government will not make people rich, only the free market system can do that; only capitalism can do that. Government makes people poor.  If you tax people who succeed so they make the same as every one else, then everyone will be poor.  This has been proven again and again and again over the years.  

Look at the Soviet Union as a good example. They had the perfect fascist government over there that was supposed to make every person equal.  The only problem was that there was no incentive for people to do the work, so food did not get planted, and food that was planted did not make it's way to plates.  

Like money, there is plenty of food in the world too.  The way to put food on plates, and the way to put money in banks, is to get the government out of the way, to create an economic environment where any one who makes the effort and takes the risks has an opportunity to succeed.  

In other words, we should respect and honor CEOs for making more than the average worker.  They have very important jobs, and work very hard to get where they are.  They take risks, and when they succeed they get paid heavily.  Instead of talking bad about them, and instead of calling them names like "Greedy," we should show others how they can do it too.

This is yet another reason why I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

Scott Walker: A republican with balls

Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin. He has created a blueprint that defeats liberalism, and democrats have called him everything from a racist to a sexist.  Yet he has defeated them time and time again, even winning three elections in four years to remain as Wisconsin's governor.

He had all the powers of the democratic party throwing every tactic they had at him.  He had unions against him.  He had the Federal judiciary against him.  Yet instead of appeasing them, he continued on and stood up to them.  He knew what he wanted to do and he trudged forward with his agenda.

This is a lesson to be learned by the republican base.  Here the republicans won in one of the most massive midterm landslides in 2014, and instead opposing Obama's agenda tooth and nail, they work to compromise with him.  Instead of opposing Obama's amnesty agenda, they try to compromise and write their own amnesty laws.  If the people wanted them to compromise with democrats, they would have just elected democrats.

What this country needs is not for someone to cater to the conservative base of the republican party, only to give in and cater to democrat causes once elected.  We need someone like Scott Walker, someone who stands up and fights for the cause of liberty.

Right now we are at a time in this country where have seen the progressive agenda for all it is, and they are tired of it.  We have legislatures writing laws forcing us to take certain actions because, as they say, "it's for our own good."  Yet such laws are the antithesis of liberty, as they force us to sacrifice our liberties.

Walker's agenda for Wisconsin was to defeat liberalism at the core.  He attacked the way they ran schools, he attacked their school curriculum, he attacked unions and the way they were ruining Wisconsin.  He fixed them.  He got Wisconsin running again.

And for his reward he was attacked tooth and nail by all the powers of the democratic party.  They hated him, and did everything they could to destroy his image.  Yet the people of Wisconsin stood behind him all the way.

His objective was to defeat them, in their schools, in their school curriculum, in the way the unions, public and private, were ruining Wisconsin, and he has succeeded.

This is exactly the kind of person the republican party needs as its leader.  This is exactly why Scott Walker is leading in early polling for republican for president. Republicans need someone with balls, and Scott Walker has balls.

Also see Glenn Beck's discussion of Scott Walker.

Democrats and Republicans both created an imperial president

You can decide for yourself if this is true, but I heard, from a little ferry, that every time Obama opens his mouth a conservative grows its wings. Another ferry modified this and said that every time Obama opens his mouth another conservative is born.

The general consensus here, however, is that Obama continues to push forward his agenda despite the complete voter rejection of it during the 2014 mid-term elections. In other words, Obama continues to push forward his agenda, even though it is extremely unpopular.

I'm not trying to be offensive to my readers who love Obama's agenda, because regardless of whether you like it or not it's not popular. The reason it's unpopular is because Americans cherish their freedom: they do not want to be told what to do.

The whole premise of Obama's agenda, which is progressive, is for the government to make tough decisions so people don't have to. In other words, they believe sacrificing some liberties is for the benefit of the state.

Of course then the state gains power, and it has to enforce this power.  So now people are getting fined, arrested, or jailed, (and this is not all Obama's fault, rather the fault of the progressive movement) for doing things that they shouldn't be arrested for, such as smoking or drinking in public, taking certain medicines, not paying taxes, not buying health insurance, not sending your kids to state-run schools, etc.

It's gotten to the point that we have given up enough personal liberties.  Plus the government has gotten so large and so powerful that those in power are abusing it, something the founding fathers warned against.

A perfect example is how Obama used his executive power to push a health care bill through Congress that a majority of voters did not want.

A perfect example is how the Obama administration used its power to spy on conservatives who said they belonged to the tea party, a party that was opposed to the Obama agenda.

As what occurred in the 1920 election, people are tired of laws to perfect society. People want their liberties back. They want to scale back the government, take away some of this power, and take back liberties.

So the people send Obama a message in the mid-terms, and he continues to push forth his agenda.  Today it's all over the news how he wants to improve relations with Cuba, a communist country with a dictator thug as a ruler.

Why would Obama do this?  The answer is quite simple: The Progressive Agenda is a sister Agenda to Cuba's Communism.  They are both fascist parties that believe the state should make all the tough decisions, even when it means the people sacrificing personal liberties.

Look, it's not just Obama who tries to push forth the progressive agenda, as the disease has infested the republican party as well.  Sure George W. Bush did a lot of good things, but he also doubled the national debt, adding $5 trillion to it.  This was because he created progressive programs, vetoing only 12 bills, the lowest total since Warren G. Harding (and that's not even fair, because Harding never even finished one term).

So why did Bush add to the problem he purported to oppose?  Well, your guess is as good as mine.  Yet one might "assume" that he used the power of the pulpit to buy votes.

Yes!  This is, one might say, the exact reason Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term and 170 in his second.  Cleveland knew he could use his power to move forward his agenda, but he didn't want to give future presidents the power to trample on the Constitution for their own political gain.

Cleveland understood, as the founding fathers understood, that people have a natural tendency to abuse power.  This, as we have seen, is exactly what happened in Cuba where Castro became a dictator.  The same thing happened here in the U.S. where the president has gained imperial powers, being dubbed by many as the imperial president.

In essence, what is occurring in Cuba is exactly what progressives want to happen here.

It's the fault of both parties, though. Surely the democratic party is infested with fascist liberals, but the republican party is infested with them too.  Allow me to name a few: John McCain, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham.

If any of these guys runs for president, we might as well let Hilary win so the republican party doesn't get blamed for progressive failures.  And if the democratic party decides to save face and nominate a conservative, then we had better vote democrat.

We can look back at past presidential records and see that there have been just as many great democrat presidents as republicans.  And we can also see that Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive, and he was a republican.  In fact, in the 1912 presidential election, Roosevelt was more progressive than democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Surely Obama's agenda has added $6.103 billion to the national debt, nearly doubling it. The second worse is not another democrat, however, but George W. Bush, a republican, who added $5.840 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it.  Compare this with Bill Clinton, who only added $1.86 trillion, or Jimmy Carter who added only $299 billion.

Both of our political parties -- republicans and democrats -- have created imperial presidents who take money from voters and spend it on programs aimed at helping the minority at the expense of the majority.  And, as they usually say, they do it for our own good, while secretly doing it for their own political gain.

Yet the bottom line is that they abuse the power they are given in order to get re-elected and advance their agenda.  This is exactly the type of thing that George Washington warned against in his Farewell Speech in 1796.

Yet Obama gives us hope, so the ferry's say.  By continuing to advance his agenda, he his earning the ire of the electorate, indirectly creating new conservatives/ libertarians each time he opens his mouth.  While voters might hope he stops, his not doing so is empowering his enemies.

Mitt Romney a viable republican presidential nominee

Might the third time be a charm for Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney said recently that "circumstances can change" when asked if he'd run for president in 2016. While he is not my favorite candidate, sometimes we have to play it safe to win, and I'd much rather have him than risk another Obama-type presidency.

A Romney-Ryan ticket would look appealing

I also like the concept of another Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket. I think that knowing right off the bat who the presidential and vice presidential candidates are would be a good seller.
Plus, and perhaps best of all, I think that all the dirt about Romney has already come out, of which there really isn't much other than the fact that he's run as a moderate republican and supported state-run healthcare while governor of Massachusetts.

However, he has the business and economic expertise from his past experience to run a country and get our economy running again.

So there's actually lots to like about the prospects of a Romney-Ryan ticket.  Now, we do not know for sure the he'd even choose Ryan again, but the prospects that he would sounds good anyway.

However, there are reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney, and one of the main ones was noted by Rush Limbaugh during his show on August 4, 2014.  He said:

If the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?

He added:

A, Romneycare, Obamacare, they cancel each other out. But with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare lingering, with everything that was known -- Benghazi and everything that was known -- if poor Mitt was not able to capitalize on the absolute worst four years of a presidency we've had in my lifetime, what in the world makes people think he's gonna be able to do it again? I mean, history is history.

Rush said that one of the main reasons Romney lost was that he was afraid to attack the first black president, afraid to paint the first black president for who he really was: a failure.  People would call that racism, even though it's not.

During the last election Romney didn't have a chance, Rush said, because people didn't want to send the first black president packing, even though they had to know he was a failure.  And this time around, in 2016, Romney might be running against the first female presidential candidate, which would result in the same thing all over again.  Would Romney be able to paint Mrs. Clinton for who she really is: a hard-core-out-of-touch-with-common-Americans-liberal?

Rush also added a disclaimer about a Romney candidacy:

You won't find, in terms of just a nice man, you won't find anybody greater. Morality and family, you won't find anybody better. But it takes more than that. And there was a lot. Obama was screwing up left and right big time. There are some who think that 2012 should have been a slam dunk Republican landslide. And I'm close to being one of them. 

In the meantime, Rand Paul would best protect natural rights, and I think Rick Perry is the most presidential.  However, Paul would be a dark-horse candidate, and Perry already has people out to find dirt on him, even if they have to make it up.

So, the safe bet for 2016 might be an already run and tried Mitt Romney.  His skin has got to be tough as rubber by now, something that would help him retract all the mudslinging he'd face for being a republican president.

Morris predicts who will win 2016 GOP nomination

Will Rick Perry win the GOP nod for 2016.
Dick Morris says he's set up just right for it.

As a former pollster and political campaign consultant for Bill Clinton, Dick Morris is an expert on how to win elections. In a recent column, "To Get GOP Nod, First Lose," he explains how the GOP is a a "monarchic and legitimist institution," with the current leader handing off the reigns to the next leader.

In other words, in order to win the nomination a candidate must first have lost a bid to gain the nomination.

He said:

The Republican Party is, at heart, a monarchic and legitimist institution. Party leadership is handed down in orderly succession. Rebels and insurgents are typically given short shrift.

He explained this further:

In the beginning, Thomas Dewey begat Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower begat Nixon. Nixon begat Ford. Reagan lost to Ford and then, it was his turn. Then Reagan begat Bush-41. Dole had lost to Bush-41 and then, it was his turn to try. Bush-41, literally, begat Bush-43. McCain lost to Bush-43 and then, it was his turn. Romney lost to McCain, and then, his turn came.

The democratic party is the opposite, he said, with only Al Gore previously losing a bid for the Presidency before he eventually won the nomination.

So, he said:

What does this predict for 2016? Of the defeated candidates left over from 2012, Rick Santorum is probably too focused on social issues to win. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann can be dismissed as flashes in the pan and the problems that knocked them out of contention have not gone away. Romney probably won’t get a third chance — even Nixon only got two. Newt Gingrich inflicted too many wounds on others and on himself.

That leaves Rick Perry. He’s acceptable to Latinos, based on his Texas record. He draws strong Tea Party support without being defined by it. A Southerner, he is clearly ready to play on the national stage. A big state governor, his record on jobs has only gotten better. Perry can’t be dismissed.

Of course, as Morris readily admits, Perry is not the perfect candidate. He said:

Will his debate brainlock disqualify him? Not if he doesn’t repeat it. Bill Clinton recovered from a disastrous 1988 convention speech. He’s probably had enough time to recover from his dismissal of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” in his book.

But Perry has to develop a truly national perspective to win. He can’t forever be repeating “in the state of Texas” before each line.

He needs to know more about issues other than energy. In 2012, he showed the same lack of depth and laziness in issue preparation as Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he wasn’t caught as easily because he’s a man.

So, we'll lock this in as Morris's prediction.  Let it be known, for the record, that he predicted, in a book nonetheless, "Condi vs. Hilary,"  that Condoleezza Rice would be pit against Hilary Clinton in 2008, and, while he was close about Hilary, he was not even in the ballpark with Rice.

Morris, however, has been very right about many of his predictions regarding presidential elections, and, so right in fact at times, that he may have been the sole reason Bill Clinton won twice. So his predictions should be duly noted.