Can Our Republic Survive?

We must remember that our Representative Democratic Republic was formed with the idea that those voting for representatives to go to Washington actually knew:

A) What the important issues are for the country.
and
B) Where the different candidates stand on the different issues.

Sadly, more and more research shows the general American populace does not know enough to make informed decisions.

This is important because, without focusing on real issues and having a modicum of understanding concerning the candidates' position, we end up with demagoguery as the deciding factor in almost any political race. And even if appealing to the masses will get you elected, governing based on poll numbers will never be good for the country. Sometimes, to do what's best for the country, you have to buck the polls. Just ask G.W. Bush, who stuck it out in Iraq, knowing that a surge would bring more peace than retreat.

A Real Health Care Reform Aternative

After busting the myths associated with the Left's debate about why we need socialized medicine, this article by Governor Jindal in the Wall Street Journal is a natural step. He lays out some great points. If real health care reform is the goal of the Left, then these items he mentioned are worth debating. Jindal's suggestions would help decrease the cost of health care, while at the same time leaving choice for care where it ultimately needs to belong, with the individual.

What do you want to bet, though, that these items are not included anywhere in what the Democrats are proposing?

Another Screed Against Government Run Healthcare

This wonderful article, Health Care Mythology (also posted and linked here), should help people understand all of the points about the Health Care debate currently happening in Congress. There are several Myths, things that everyone just KNOWS are true. In this article, Mr. Asness points out how each of these several views is flawed.

One notion he keeps mentioning, one which has not received a lot of attention, is how the United States is currently absorbing the cost of invention for much of the world. The explicit example he provides is related to Canada and their "cheap drugs." Now, if someone else is paying part of your costs, is the real total cost of the product cheap? No

Read the entire article to help dispell the myths foisted on us by our Left leaning Congress and their helpers, the Mass Media.

Hat Tip - Crossfit

America, the Republic... Thankfully

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy. Thank God for that. Instead we have a Republic, based on a body of law that keeps everyone in check, including our political leaders and popular individuals. Because we are in a Republic, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted. Because we are in a Republic, some of Obama's origial cabinet choices were rejected for not following the law. The law works to restrict the power of government and gaurantee our individual rights.

This video offers a great definition about the American form of government.

The scary thing about this video is the details about the Fall of the Roman Republic. It happened when some of the rulers started disobeying the law for their own, and their constituents', benefit. This eventually led to Mob Rule (Democracy) and eventual Oligarchy.

As Benjamin Franklin stated, we have "A Republic... if you can keep it." Let's hope we can do the work necessary to keep it. This includes being informed voters and letting our elected Representatives know we want less government interference and the rule of law. Let's hope that's enough.

He's Exactly Who We Thought He Was

Well, in a previous post during the campaign, I had hopes for now-President Obama. My hope was that Obama's connections to the far left radicals marked him simply as a political animal who would use whoever was around him to get ahead. My fear was he would be more like a true believer and start moving this country to the left.

Based on what I read in this Washington Examiner article, Obama is a believer. It's interesting to note how Obama won the primary election by "out lefting" the rest of the Democratic candidates, and won the general election by moving back to the center. An important note in how he managed to do this was the coddling given to him by the main stream media. With the information they provided, people could hope for a centrist Obama who happened to be among a 'few' bad apples.

However, with his economic BS package and his new budget, Obama has marked himself as a liberal of the higest order. I can't say I'm surprised.

Definition of Conservatism

As a Libertarian, I have some pretty conservative views. Sometimes these views do not mesh with the behaviors of the Republican party. I am not a party supporter, who blindly votes for one party all the time. Instead, I seek candidates who strive to live by conservative principles.

The best description/definition I've heard of 'conservatism' came from a 13-year-old boy who happened to write a book. He recently gave a speech where he provided a short definition of the principles behind real conservatism.



It's important to note that his definition was simple and easily understood. All real principles are. I agree with his definition. In this video, the principles that he lists as defining conservatism are:

• Respect for the Constitution - This is the founding document of our country. We should acknowledge that it is the basis for our success and seek to understand what the Founding Fathers meant for the various clauses included in the initial document and the Bill of Rights.
  
• Respect for Life -This includes a respect for all other individuals who are fellow citizens with you in this nation.
  
• Less Government - The more government interferes in our daily lives, the less competitive and successful we will be as a Nation. Just review the recent problems with our economic woes, where there was too much interference by government, to see an example.
  
• Personal (and Corporate) Responsibility - This means that ultimately, each entity or corporation is fully responsible for themselves. No corporate bailout for companies that make bad decisions. By the same token, we should not have life-long government welfare for individuals.
  

As he stated, the principles are the key to setting any policy, regardless of the Party of the individual trying to pass a specific policy. If you adhere to these principles, you help protect the people and the people's rights, which is what the Constitution was ultimately about.

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Why can't he just admit he's wrong?

This video is very enlightening.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

An honest, upstanding man, one who truly wants to serve the nation well, would readily admit when they are wrong. When confronted with obvious errors, an honest man will say, "You're right. I was wrong." However, Harry Reid is not an honest man, nor a great statesman. Instead he shows himself as a grasping, self-serving politician who wants to attribute all successes to himself and blame others for all failures.

Remember, Harry Reid was the politician who pushed hardest for us to leave Iraq as soon as possible. He stated that the surge was a failure and would not secure the region. Even in his review of the current issues in the Middle East, where he talks about the "destabilizing" of the region because we invaded Iraq, he makes monumental and factually wrong mistakes. (For instance, Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush and the US Congress agreeing to attack Iraq.)

I will agree with Harry on one thing, though. Patreaus is a genius. He had the intelligence to correctly guage the high morale of our troops, understand the mindset of the enemy and discern the correct path. He knew that the enemy would rightly see this as weakness on the part of America. Of course, the one Senator who supported and fought for this surge strategy ran for President. Unfortunately, another politician, one who had similar views to Harry, was elected. At least he had the grace to admit the surge worked.

The Filibuster is Safe... For Now

HotAir had running commentary of the Senate race in Georgia. Based on how it's been reported by the AP, Republican Chambliss will win. Why is this important? It's a big deal because, as the article explains, this ensures a filibuster can still work to help protect Americans (that's you and me) from extreme partisan laws that may be put forth by the House with assurances of being singed by a Democratic president.

Remember the post I wrote about how the filibuster saved us from some bad laws? This is what we need to protect. We need to help ensure no one party is in control of everything. Not the Democrats and not the Republicans. This will help ensure we have the "best" government we can expect.

Thank you, Sir!

Wow! As I read this article, I kept finding myself saying, "Thank you for providing this succinct and well written piece. Thank you for providing a collection of evidence that, as you yourself state, "every single word of it be true."

The article in the American Spectator clearly delineates why voting for someone shouldn't be about whether you like their personality, or whether you think they're a good speaker. The question of who to vote for is about who has demonstrated the capabilities to lead this Great Nation.

Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. The article clearly states that "Obama is a radical with very few real achievements," and should thus not be a serious candidate for the presidency. Only John McCain "has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world."

Again, why would anyone even consider Obama?

McCain's Uphill Battle

A noted writer (and Democrat), posted an interesting article about the causes of the current financial crisis. The article provides some details, although nothing that hasn't noted before. However, his posting raises a bigger spectre, that of media bias and malfeasance.

This is not an isolated incident. Other bloggers have noticed quite a bit of media bias in favor of Obama, with a lot of animosity towards the Republicans. This means the Republicans and the McCain campaign have had to work twice as hard to get even decent coverage from the media.

Why is it so hard for the media to simply reporting the facts? If the Fourth Estate does not wish to be seen as irrelevant, they should work harder to actually inform the public about what is happening. As Card states, "You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know."

We need more basic facts and the honest truth from our media.

Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself

So I won't even try. Take a look at this very comprehensive listing at Hot Air about why Obama is a dangerous choice for America.

This is a very well researched piece. Notice the writers never try to put words in Obama's mouth. Instead, they simply show video of what Obama stated about specific issues. Where their comments are particularly useful is dissecting what Obama says and why it is important.

And remember, these are simply Obama's own words about how he really feels and what he really plans to do. The definition of gaffe comes to mind. "Gaffe - When a politician tells the truth. "

Let's have more truth.

And these people can vote?

First things first. Listen to this short MP3 file.

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

Now, listening to this, my first thought was, "They let these people vote?" I'm surprised not because the interview was Harlem. I'm surprised because the people they interviewed were so ill informed. These people didn't know where any of the candidates stood on the issues. They didn't even know who the VP candidate was, for heavens sake.

The power of democracy isn't the same as the power of the mob. Our Founding Father's wanted an informed electorate. They intended the republic to select leaders based on informed review of the different candidates positions. They didn't intend for demagoguery, sophistry and personality to be the deciding factors in an election.

For this election, things seem to be exactly backwards. Obama won the Democratic nomination because he represented himself as someone farther left than the other candidates. Suddenly, during the national campaign, Obama has reinvented himself as a more centrist candidate. All of this based on his rhetorical position.

At least with McCain, he won the nomination based on the positions he has espoused. His positions have been pretty consistent over this long campaign. In addition, he has an established history that shows he not only talks the talk, but walks the walk.

Actions we can trust. Words... not so much.