Are we more polarized today than ever before?

One thing I get tired of hearing is people saying that we are more polarized today than ever before. We are a history of wars, and what is more polarizing than wars. You have people so polarized that they want to kill each other to get their way. We have fewer wars today than ever before, and, therefore, by default, we are less polarized today, not more.

So, you want to relate it to American history. What about the election of 1812 was between Thomas Jefferson democratic-Republicans and John Adams Federalists. Back then presidential candidates believed it was not presidential to campaign for themselves, yet their surrogates were very polarized in their comments.

They each called their opponents some vial names. Let me give you some examples. Both sides claimed that victory by the other would ruin the nation. I have heard such comments from both sides in nearly every election that I've ever participated in.

Federalists called Jefferson an undisciplined deist whose sympathy for the French revolution would bring similar bloodshed to America. Democratic-Republicans complained that the Federalists wanted the government to be too central and too powerful. They adamantly complained about the attack on individual rights by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Adam's Federalists wanted a large central government with the government having more control over people's lives, while Jefferson's Democrats wanted a small central government in order so that the people could have control of their own lives.

Why I'm a Classical Liberal

Classical liberalism (what used to be called liberalism) is what made America Unique. It's pretty much what every democrat president was from Thomas Jefferson down to Grover Cleveland.  Then progressivism happened, and the democratic party turned progressive.  When the term progressive became unpopular, they stole the term liberal to make their game look good.

So now we have to call what we are classical liberal, a.k.a. libertarian conservatism.  It's limited government, strict constitutionalism, and following the rule of law.

Here's why I am a classical liberal.

1. You can't spy on me
2. We can't have these never ending wars
3. You can't just throw me in jail without a trial
4. You cant kill me without a trial
5. You can't make laws that fine me for not doing something, such as not wearing my seat belt, or not eating the foods you think I should be eating, or not living a healthy enough lifestyle.  
6. You can't make me buy health insurance, or car insurance, or any insurance
7. You can't force me to participate in a social security program
8. You can't tell me I can't smoke cigarettes or sell marijuana or take hormone pills or experimental medicine 
9. You can't tell my kids they can't pray in school
10. You can't take away our public nativity scenes if that's what we choose to display at our courthouses or schools.

Obama's naive view of world leads to horrible Iran deal

It's official that the Obama administration, mainly Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama, has brokered a deal with Iran, the country whose leader has proclaimed "Death to America."  So why is this deal so great for Iran and so horrible for America?

First of all, per Fox News, here is what the deal entails:

• Requires Iran to disable two-thirds of its centrifuges
• Export/ Dilute 98% of enriched uranium
• Submit to international inspections
• U.S/ E.U., lift economic and financial sanctions
• Access to $100 billion of frozen assets
• Eventual lifting of arms and missile embargoes 

The idea is that this is a long term deal to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Micheala Dodge of the Daily Caller says this will not work because the deal only imposes temporary restrictions on Iran's illegal nuclear program.  After they expire, Iran will have better resources to pursue more advanced nuclear technologies and potentially build a nuclear weapon faster than would be the case had sanctions remained in place." 

The Heritage Foundation claims this is a bad deal and will take us closer to nuclear war for these four reasons:

1.  The deal leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure (most of which was obtained illegally by the way) largely intact.  We did not agree to inspections any day anywhere.  We ended up agreeing to inspections some times some places. We agreed to give up sanctions. Iran agreed to partially give up its uranium enrichment programs for research and development.  Its centrifuges and its ballistic missile program... will continue

2.  Sanctions relief could likely further destabilize the Middle East. Its' been estimated that $300-400 billion will now flow into the Iranian economy.  But that money isn't going to go into the pockets of the Iranian people, much of it will go into the pocket of the Iranian regime, and that means a lot of money can be funneled to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shea insurgents in places like Yemen. That will decrease our influence in the region but it will further increase that of Iran's.

3.  Iran's Arab neighbors in Turkey will now likely decide they need to begin uranium enrichment programs as well. That is only going to make a dangerous part of the world more unpredictable and more dangerous 

4.  This deal is temporary.  Eventually the freeze on uranium will go away, all the while Iran will end up doing its homework on how to eventually use that uranium to build a nuclear weapon. And that assumes that Iran waits. As we all know, Iran is a country that has broken its word before, and specifically when it's come to holding its bargain in nuclear agreements. 

David Horowitzs would add to this list:

5.  Iran was in no way required to reveal the previous nuclear dimensions of its nuclear program -- to come clear on its violations --  in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations.  This means that there is no way they can be forced to dismantle them. 

6.  The deal does not require them to shut down all uranium enrichment plants.  

7.  The deal does not require Iran to shut down its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant. Instead, it will convert it under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this pledge, its commitment to build new water enrichment plants expires in 15 years.  Yet only a naive fool will believe Iran will honor any pledge, as it has rarely done so in the past.  Yet Obama actually believes that within this time frame a president should be able to convince the Iranian regime against obtaining nukes.  Obama said this.  He is a fool.  Sorry to say that, but it's true.  

8.  After 15 years there are practically no Iranian limitations on anything.  So even if this deal works, even if Iran is honest and trustworthy, this basically throws the can down the road, so to speak.  In 15 years our kids may be forced to deal with a potentially deadly Iran, a nation that has already sworn to destroy America and Israel.  So it's easy to see why Israel is ticked about this deal, and very concerned about it. 

9.  Iran has not been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow

10.  Iran has not been required to halt missile development

11.  Iran has not been required to stop research projects that might help them determine how to develop a nuclear program faster

12.  The deal does not require the international community to work out a strategy to deal with Iran should they (or for when they do) violate the deal and try to develop nuclear weapons despite it. This pretty much assumes it's expected they will violate it.

I can also add one of my own.

13.  Inspectors were unable to stop North Korea from secretly building a bomb, and inspectors were unable to determine that Saddam Hussein never had them.  So how can we trust inspectors to stop Iran from getting them?

14.  Obama said inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear facilities.  According to Western Journalism, Iran can object to inspectors access to any site which starts a 14 day countdown clock for arbitration.  Then an additional 7 days is added for the joint commission to come up with a solution, which then gives Iran another 3 days to comply. That's 24 days for Iran to move and hide anything they don't want inspectors to see.

15.  The deal does not free any of the American hostages still held in Iran.  In act, Kerry said this was not part of the deal because, if it were, the deal never would have gone through.  You'd think America, the Greatest Super Power in the world, would have the upper hand in these negotiations, making sure that these Americans all came home as part of any deal.

16.  The deal does not require them to condemn terrorist organizations nor require them to stop funding them.

17.  The deal does not require Iranian leaders to stop saying hateful things about Israel and the United States.  It does not require it to stop calling for the death and destruction of Israel and the United States.

Or as Mark Levin said, Obama has set the stage for WWIII.  He has made it possible for Iran to get nukes, for the Turkish to get nukes, for Saudia Arabia to get nukes...  Levin said that Obama justified his actions in a statement by saying that Kennedy and Reagan negotiated with the Soviets.  He said, "The fool doesn't even understand the point: they negotiated with the Soviets because they had nukes, not because they didn't! The Iranians don't have nukes today, but they will tomorrow!"

Think about this.  If it is true that Obama truly is a lover of the Muslim religion and a hater of Christianity and Jews as some say (and it is on record that he does not support Israel), then this is clearly his opportunity to give the the grandest supporter of terrorism in the world the upper hand.  If that thought alone is not scary, I don't know what is.

The bottom line is that this is a good deal for Iran and a bad deal for America and the rest of the world. This is what the Heritage Foundation says, but it's also what most of the people in the rest of the world with an ounce of commonsense think as well.  

So why did Obama agree to this deal?  To understand this you must first understand how liberals think.  You must understand that conservatives believe people are born flawed, and so society is made better by improving the individual. 

 Liberals, on the other hand, believe people are born essentially good and only become corrupt in order to deal with the circumstances they have been dealt by society.  In the case of Iran, they are corrupt because America is a materialistic bully that sucks up many of the world's economic resources at the expense of other nations.  

So they believe, and this is what Obama and John Kerry believe, that if America and its allies quick bullying Iran with sanctions, that this will improve economic circumstances for all Iranians and send them on a path back to peace.  They believe this is the way to a euphoria on earth where there are no wars and everyone gets along. 

The problem with this liberal view is that it is wrong and naive.  People are not born perfect, and a perfect world is not possible because, as conservatives believe, euphoria is only possible in heaven.  People are born flawed, and the only way make people better is by improving their morals.  

Considering the Iranians have a religion that calls for the destruction of people who do not join their religion, the only way for the Iranian society to improve, or to join America as an ally, is to find Christianity -- and that will not happen.  

The truth is that most of the people of Iran probably do want peace with the rest of the world, and this includes both the United States and Israel.  However, the truth is also that Iran's leaders are totalitarian dictator thugs who have no reason to stop supporting terrorists, and no reason to stop calling for the death and destruction of all people and nations who disagree with them.  

The Obama administration is naive to these simple truths, and it is for this reason this is a horrible deal for both America and all of the rest of the world.  The fact that Iran is out there celebrating is a tel-tale sign that they signed onto this deal with a proverbial finger crossing going on behind their backs.  Perhaps that's why we can still hear the snickering coming from Iran.  Iran is the clear winner here, and is not set to obtain the nuclear weapons it has always desired to become a superpower in its own right.  

There are many democrats who oppose this deal.  However, there is a fear that they will not reject the deal because they do not want to be responsible for wrecking the legacy of the first black president.  They hope this leads to Obama winning another Nobel Peace Prize.  Considering that members of the media are already claiming "this is historic!", "This is landmark!", and considering that Yasser Arrafat, a terrorist thug, once won the Nobel Peace prize, you can bet your dollars that's where this is heading (even though this deal is the antithesis of peace).

Some say this is similar to Munich in the 1930s.

So the deal is good for Iran and thug nations in the Middle East, and horrible for the rest of the world.  Still, the deal can only be stopped if a majority in Congress agree to stop it, and then for congress to override the president's veto.  Let us pray hard that they do come together as one to reject this deal.

Levin said none of this ever should have gone this far. He said the Constitution, Article II, Section II, Clause II, clearly states:  "(The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" So the Constitution says that two thirds of the Senate must concur with this deal.  

Levin said that rather than seek the approval of the Senate to ratify this deal that they never would have ratified in the first place, republicans let him just go out and do it.  And now they are forced to find the votes to override his veto.  Now Obama only needs one-third of the Senate to defend his veto.

So now, Levin said,  you are going to have republicans going on the media claiming they are going to do everything in their power to defeat this.  What they are not going to tell you is they allowed the democrats to create the scenario whereby the Senate is now rendered powerless to stop it.  This is the new precedent set by the Obama administration, and it's all the fault of republicans who allowed it to happen.

This also may have sealed Israel's fate.  Now, in the future, when faced with the decision of what to do when Iran is threatening to nuke Israel, Israel will have to decide whether or not to act.  And if it acts, it will be violating this treaty.  This will give the rest of the world the opportunity it has always sought to condemn Israel.

Look, Israel is a terrorist nation.  What that means is they don't follow the rules of war.  The supported radicals during the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers (National Review lists it at 1,000 military deaths since 9-11.  Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran has killed more Americans except for members of Al Qaeda.). So what makes people think they will now? 

This is horrible. It's horrible for those who believe the Constitution and the rule of law should be followed, and it's horrible for the future of this nation.

That said, this could be a great deal if Iran does everything it says it's going to do and the international world enforces it.  Do you think this will work?

Further reading:

• Heritage Foundation: The Iran deal is bad for America
• Micheala Dodge of the Daily Caller : Here's the truth about 6 of Obama's Iran deal claims
• Difference between left and right: part 1
• William Kristol: Weekly Standard: Special Editorial: Kill the Deal!
• David Horovitz: Times of Israel: 16 reasons the Iran nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe
• New York Times: Iran Deal Denounced by Netanyahu as 'Historic Mistake'
• The truth about the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
• CNN: Iran nuclear deal: What does it mean for Americans held in Iran
• Mark Levin: Obama just planted the seeds to WWIII
• Rush Limbaugh: It's All About Legacy
• Rush Limbaugh: Obama delivers victory to Iran
• Rush Limbaugh: Iran deal victory lap: Obama saves world
• National Review: The Iran deal is worse that stupid -- it's dishonorable
• National Review: Iran deal explained
• The Federalist Papers Project: How We Appear To Iran After Obama’s Nuke Deal Summed Up With These Cartoons
• Western Journalism: Watch: Netanyahu Goes On U.S. TV And Reveals What He Told Obama After Iran Deal
• National Review: Presidents Iran deal is the opposite of what he promises Americans
• Flashback: Networks Hailed Clinton’s 1994 Nuclear Deal with North Korea

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

Three advantages of Federalism, and why it should be respected

One of nice things about the United States (nice if you are a traditionalist) is Federalism, whereby two or more governments share powers over the same geographic region.  The U.S. Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government and the state governments.

For example, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, grants the U.S. Congress certain powers, often called enumerated powers, such as coining money, regulating interstate trade and commerce, declaring war, raising an army and navy and to establish laws of immigration.

Things the states cannot do are listed in Article I, Section 9. Among these, states are forbidden from coining money, entering into treaties, charging duties on imports and exports and declaring war.

Under the 10th Amendment, powers not enumerated by the Constitution, such as requiring drivers license, defining and creating rules for marriage, creating laws regarding abortion, creating and maintaining an educational system, or powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states or the people to decide.  

Federalism was an ingenious plan for a couple reasons.  

1.  It gave the Federal government just enough power to establish and maintain a stable infrastructure, such as creating and maintaining a postal service, a military, to regulate commerce to create a stable economic environment, etc. 

2. It prevented the Federal government from making laws that would infringe upon state and natural rights.  In essence, it told Congress what it could rule upon (enumerated powers) but what it could not rule upon (10th amendment). 

3.  The founding fathers thought Federalism was a good way to prevent the federal government from passing laws that created risky programs that might bankrupt the nation.  They knew it was okay for a state to create risk because the federal government would be able to bail out the state.  Yet if the federal government took a significant risk and failed (and Obamacare is a great risk), protections created by the Constitution would likewise fail.  It is for this reason only states are allowed to create laws regulating abortion, healthcare, education, etc. If one state does well, others may copy.  Yet if one state fails, others won't copy.  That's a major advantage of Federalism, allowing sort of a trial and error system within the states. Yet if the federal government fails, who will bail us out?  The founders thought of this, and that's why they created a system of Federalism. 

Bottom line: Federalism was a system to limit the scope and power of the Federal government, and to protect state and individual rights. It was meant to prevent the federal government from getting out of control.

Will Obama force people to vote

At the City Club in Cleveland, on March 15, Obama toyed with the idea of passing a law requiring mandatory voting. He said, "“In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.”

Of course it would also mean taking away the right not to vote, which would mean that Americans would be giving away one more freedom.

For a country that is the leader of the free world, no person should be forced to do anything. No person should be forced to by health insurance, and no person should be forced to vote.

A person has a right to make bad choices, though. For instance, if you choose not to have health insurance, a hospital should have a right to refuse to treat you if you are not willing to pay for whatever procedures you need.

That is my opinion. I don't believe that a free nation should make any law forcing people to do things they don't want. However, that does not mean that a nation should make laws that take away personal accountability for one's actions either.

What are enumerated powers?

Enumerated powers are those powers given to the federal government that are specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 grants the U.S. Congress certain powers such as coining money, regulating interstate trade and commerce, declaring war, raising an army and navy and to establish laws of immigration. 

Many enumerated rights are also listed in the Bill of Rights. The reason there is a Bill of Rights is that a majority of the colonies were unwilling to accept the Constitution (to ratify it) without a specific, enumerated list of rights which they feared would not be respected if they weren't specifically included within the Constitution. So, the first 10 amendments were added and the Constitution was ratified by the colonies. 

According to the 10th amendment, all powers not enumerated by the Constitution are left to the states to decide. In this way, establishing rules for marriage, abortion, driving cars, education, Internet, etc. were left to the states to decide.

This system is called federalism. It's where two governments rule over the same geographic area. The Constitution establishes these two governments as the federal government and the states.  The federal government (meaning Congress and the president) can only pass laws regarding the enumerated rights.  If it is not an enumerated right, it is left to the states to decide.

This system was essential, because many of the states had religious schools, and they did not want the federal government telling them they could not have these. There were many other differences between the states, and federalism allowed each state to maintain its own sovereignty, or the right and power to govern themselves without intrusion by the federal government.  

Essentially, enumerated are those powers granted to the federal government.  These are the powers Congress can make laws upon, and the president can sign into law.  Any laws made by the federal government that are not based on enumerated powers granted by the Constitution should be made null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Negative action has doomed the republican cause

Negative action is doing the opposite of what you believe in order to make people think you are not evil and wicked.  While such negative action has become popular among republican lawmakers of late, it has resulted in a poor public image of the party, inhibiting the parties ability to capitalize on an unpopular president.

Negative actions have doomed the republican party.  For example, there are christian republicans who love all people but do not support gay marriage laws.  However, some of these folks have become convinced republicans are not winning elections because they are seen as anti-gay.  To remedy this they support gay marriage laws.   In essence, they do the opposite of what they believe in order to get votes.

Most republicans are in favor of shoring up our borders in order to prevent immigrants from illegally coming into this country.  They also favor the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. They believe this is necessary to reduce the financial burden to states, and keep criminals and diseases outside our borders.  Yet since there are those who believe amnesty would secure the Spanish American vote, some republicans, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, support amnesty programs.

There are many people who believe Obama should be impeached because he has violated the Constitution with all his executive orders.  They believe this is unconstitutional on the grounds that the constitution allows this executive privilege so a president may take action in the face of emergencies when Congress is not in session.  Yet in order to not offend voters they have resisted attempts at impeachment.

The result of such negative actions is that we end up with laws the people don't want.  This should help explain why Congress is so unpopular.  It should also help explain why the checks and balance system created by the founders has not been able to stop the president from abusing his powers,

Negative actions also cause obscurations, or things that hinder people from learning the true power of what a person, or faction, can do.  When this happens, people lose the ability to see whether a politician is truly a conservative or a liberal.  A good example here is Mitt Romney, who ran for president as a conservative, but because he used negative actions to become governor of Massachusettes, many saw him as a liberal, or moderate, republican.  This might explain why conservatives were not excited about a Romney presidency.

Obscurations, therefore, create more ignorances.  The more ignorant a populace is as to the potential that could be obtained by voting for republicans, the less likely they will vote for them.  For instance, by telling the people you are for amnesty because you think people Spanish Americans would be more likely to vote republican, fewer Spanish Americans vote republican. Why would they change their vote to republican when both parties stand for the same thing?

By taking the negative action of blocking impeachment attempts you are in essence enabling ignorance on the errors of our president.  This is because, lacking impeachment, there will be no effort to educate the people as to the unconstitutional behavior of the president.  When people are not educated, they continue to remain ignorant.

By taking the negative action to not deny funding to Obama that would allow him to advance his agenda, Obama has no incentive to stop using his pen.  Lacking funds his pen would become academic, yet republicans don't want to do this because they think inaction would cause the public to hate them less.  However, the public continues to hate them due to their inaction or, more specifically, their negative action.

So, negative actions may cause obscurations that result people thinking worse about republicans, and not better. Negative action causes people to remain ignorant.  Negative action does not win people over to the cause.  Negative action does nothing more than weaken your position and draw fewer people to your side.

You see, polls show that Obama is unpopular right now.  Most people don't like Obamacare, they are upset about the way he has handled the economy, upset about how he has handled immigration reform and border security, and upset about how he has handled the Ebola crisis.  Yet republicans have not capitalized on this because they have a public relations problem that has essentially been caused by the constant use of negative actions.

Reports have it that, after the midterm elections, Obama wants to take executive action to create give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already inside this country. If republicans want to stop him they must take positive action in order to educate the public as to the worthiness of their cause.  Republicans could win on this, because, as CNN reports, 75 percent of Americans are already opposed to amnesty.

Reports have it that he wants to cut back on our nuclear stock because he thinks it will show other nations we don't mean them any harm, thus encouraging them to set down their weapons.  Yet republicans claim, and history shows, that other nations will do the opposite: they will stockpile and destroy a weakened and naive United States. This is what thug nations and terrorist factions do.  Just look at what happened in Israel for a good example.  If republicans want to stop this behavior, the only option they have is to take positive action against the President.

The lesson learned here is that republicans have a public relations problem, and it has been caused by too much negative action.  The simplest remedy for this is for republicans to simply stand up for the principles they believe in by positive actions, or actions that support the causes they believe in.