Hypocricy in the media

Romney makes a statement regarding the fact that 47% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax and the headlines attack Romney for creating more class warfare and alienating almost half of the country. Where are the headlines attacking Obama for repeatedly attacking all republicans? I, as a conservative, have spent the last four years feeling alienated by our president. He has not once addressed my concerns and he is constantly dividing the country right down party lines, yet the mainstream media has stood by quietly all along.

It disgusts me that while there is a growing crisis in the middle east where Americans are being murdered and allegedly dragged through the streets, military bases in Afghanistan are being infiltrated by terrorists, and the job numbers remain stagnant at best, Obama flies to Vegas to campaign and the headlines are about some remarks that Romney made at a private fundraiser in May.

Isn't anyone in the media concerned that Obama is addressing terrorists from the campaign pulpit, the pimp with the limps radio show, and Letterman? Are Romney's comments really the biggest headline of the week? You didn't build that is “taken out of context,” yet Romney stating that the people who support Obama who do not pay income tax will not support him is “offensive to liberals and conservatives alike”. Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media see their own hypocrisy? How can anyone make an educated decision regarding the presidential election with such blatant and obvious bias in the media?

Validating the extremests

Protests have errupted all over the middle east at American embassies and Obama goes to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, yet we cannot "politicize" the situation. Muslims are protesting a 15 minute anti-muslim video and we as a nation are apologizing for it. American flags are being burned and people murdered yet "we" are sending millions of dollars in aide and thanking these governments for their condolences. What has happened to America?

What we should be doing is cancelling all aide until these governments can ensure the security of our embassies and criticizing the extremest responsible for these actions. We should say that we won't apologize for the actions of a few people that do not represent the views of America and we will not take responsibility for these actions. We should be condemning both the countries and citizens for allowing the violence to escelate. And we should be holding Obama responsible for not taking appropriate precations on the anniversary of Sep 11 and criticizing his weak and ineffective approach to the situation.

These people are terrorists. They kill Americans and feel that a 15 minute video is justification to do so. Appologizing for this video simply validates their position in thier minds. Giving credibility to thier feelings and outrage only fuels thier cause. When are we going to realize that we cannot talk our way out of this? Peace is not an option with these extremests because they do not want peace. Terrorists will not be happy until they have destroyed the culture of America. I am not saying we need to bring on more violence to counter violence, but validating thier outrage is definately not the solution. I sympathize with people in those countries who do not side with the extremests, but I have to ask what would those people say if Americans stormed thier embassies, not because of a 15 min u-tube video, but because they murdered 4 of our citizens? They would be outraged and they should be, just as we should be outraged!

Obesity Unawareness

These days it is easy for a relatively thin person to point fingers at overweight individuals. With the increasing number of anti-obesity campaigns and "expert" analysis on the obesity epidemic there is a very clear message resonating in the United States, If you are overweight it is your fault and you are a drain on society. I recently watched Dr. Marc Siegel on Megyn Kelly state that he believes it is unfair to expect a young person to pay an insurance premium to compensate for an overweight diabetic's high medical bills. Most people would agree with Dr. Siegel, but I see this as a slippery slope. First of all, unbeknownst to many, not all diabetics caused their condition. The cause of Type 1 diabetes is completely unknown at this point, but one thing that is known is that it is not a result of poor diet or obesity. Often referred to as Juvenile diabetes, Type 1 can occur in babies under 1 year of age, obviously through no fault of their own. It is also true that although many cases of type 2 diabetes can be traced back to poor diet and unhealthy lifestyles, there are cases where the individual has lead a relatively healthy lifestyle. I also wonder if people who suffer from weight problems are that different than those who don't. We all know someone who is very skinny, but can eat anything they want without gaining weight. So are these skinny individuals who so quickly point their fingers at others, simply blessed with a faster metabolism? Granted, there are type 2 diabetics who have lived very unhealthy lifestyles, but I believe there are many who were just unfortunate enough to have been given a slow metabolism. Not to mention people who suffer from thyroid diseases, or other such illnesses which can cause obesity. Should these people suffer the burden of extreme medical bills if they have come down with a disease, through no fault of their own, simply because they are overweight? And how does one, especially the federal government, determine who is at fault for their weight gain and who isn't? Medical insurance works because the majority of people paying premiums are relatively healthy, therefore providing a pool of money to compensate for those who are unfortunate enough to have been burdened with a disease that costs a lot of money to treat. Diabetes, type 1 and type 2, are very difficult disease to live with. Many people are ignorant of the struggles that diabetics go through on a day to day bases. Type 1 diabetics take insulin injections every single day and are required to adhere to a strict diet every day for the rest of their lives. And that's the easy part. The hard part is getting the right doses to maintain the right blood sugar levels, which is constantly changing, managing low blood sugars, and avoiding highs, and compensating when illness, stress, hormones, or simply nothing causes blood sugar levels to increase. Yet you wouldn't know because many of them struggle in silence. To categorize these people as a drain on society and blame them for their illness is not helping anyone. I'm simply trying to say, try to walk in someone else’s shoes before you judge. You never truly know what someone is going through or why they may have put on a few, or a lot of extra pounds. Would we condemn a woman who turned to food after her husband was killed in Iraq? Or would we condemn a man who is overweight because he has quit smoking? I find it ironic that we are encouraging drug addicts and alcoholics to be granted medical coverage for their addiction, yet we are ready to abandon those who are overweight. Is overeating more of a drain on society than heroin or cocaine addiction? How is it that we can be sympathetic for someone who suffers from alcoholism yet we can't have sympathy for someone who is diabetic or overweight or both?

President Ignores Democratic Process

Amidst accusations of scandal with fast and furious and security leaks, bad economic recovery, and poor polling results Obama has come out with his latest political stunt. In an effort to draw attention away from his many problems and drum up support from the hispanic community our former Constitutional Law Professor turned President has anounced that he alone is changing the immigration policy without congressional approval. Declaring that this is not an amnisty or immunity program Obama has secured a two year reprieve for illigal immigrants under the age of 30, just long enough for him to be re-elected, because he says it's the "right thing to do". It is a sad day for American democracy when the president can arbitrarily change laws because he deems it the "right thing to do". Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, every American should be outraged at this blatant disregard of government procedure. You must ask yourself, where does it end? If one president is allowed to simply declare something that is in direct contrast to the laws of this country what kind of precident are we starting?

The "Electable" Candidate

It has been argued that the California governor recall election of 2003 can be used as a comparison to the current republican primary election. I believe that this is an appropriate comparison, but argue against the common analysis. Many argue that Schwarzenegger’s opponent in the primary was a more conservative candidate and therefore would not have been able to win the election against Davis. Therefore, conservatives did the right thing in supporting Schwarzenegger’s election, even though his term in office did nothing to reverse the liberal movement in the state. Many use this argument in support of Romney because he is the more electable candidate and the main objective should be to oust Obama, not to vote for the most conservative Republican. I could not disagree more. As a Californian, I was extremely disappointed in Schwarzenegger’s governorship and do not believe that we are better off as a result of the recall election. All Schwarzenegger accomplished was to extend the democrat’s control of the state and to further their liberal agenda through his own inaction and weak stance on issues. I believe that by electing a weak conservative, as Schwarzenegger turned out to be, the state of California simply continued business as usual and when his turn was up the democrats were able to put in place a more liberal candidate, arguing that a republican had had his chance and it was time to put a democrat back in control to fix things. Electing any Republican seemed like a better alternative than the Democrat, however this only made it easier for the Democrats to further their agenda under the guise of a Republican governorship and take back control later . I fear that the federal government is currently heading down the same path as the state of California and if we elect a middle of the road conservative, such as many believe Romney to be, he will not be strong enough to reverse the direction we are headed in. This could very well lead to slow economic growth and much of the same problems we face today, allowing another Obama to bring forth a platform of “Change” in four years, further extending the socialist agenda being installed today. This process of allowing a “Republican” in office every so often will damage the Republican message and slowly infuse a more socialist ideal in our society. The only chance that this country has is to elect a candidate that will reverse Obama’s socialist programs and institute an agenda that promotes Capitalism and adheres to the ideals originally expressed in the founding of this great nation. Furthermore, if the majority of voters cannot see the damage Obama is doing to this country, or even worse agree with Obama’s socialist agenda, then maybe we need another four years of Obama to open peoples eyes and see the reality of his plans. Perhaps the “electable” candidate is merely furthering the development of a more socialist society.

Why Does Newt Gingrich Terrify the Republican Establishment?

Every “non-Romney” candidate has been demonized, attacked, thrown under the bus, whatever you would like to call it, by many media and establishment figures. As the current “non-Romney” candidate, predictably, any and all real or fabricated dirt that can be put out there about Newt Gingrich is being thrown about. On and on there is a prevalent force against any success that Gingrich has, yet still he is gaining in the polls. There is something about Newt that is resonating with the conservative base and terrifying the establishment.

Inarguably, Gingrich is a man who gets things done. He was instrumental in developing the contract for America, welfare reform , and balancing the budget in ‘98 among many other accomplishments throughout his career. He comes across as very knowledgeable on all issues especially on foreign policy and economics and is an excellent debater. His personal past is ugly, but marital issues do not seem to be enough to inflame such negative attitudes as being presented among pundits and politicians in the media. So what is it that has the republican establishment so afraid of Newt?

Gingrich had a very successful political career up until the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996. After which his popularity suffered greatly, he became known as a controversial politician, and ethics violations were brought up against him. This appears to be the turning point for Gingrich. The ethics violation was a tax issue. There were a total of 84 charges brought against Newt, 83 of which were dropped, leaving 1 penalty for “a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich]. Were the other charges dropped because they were invalid, or is there more to the story? Let’s face it, the republican establishment is not very popular at the moment, so perhaps it is better to nominate someone who isn’t in their back pocket. I, for one, would really like to know what the grievance is so t hat I may be able to make an educated decision when it comes time to vote. Unless something substantial is revealed it appears that Newt has done nothing more that step on the toes of the Republican establishment.

The political process appears to be determined not by who is the best candidate, but by who has the most money and friends in high places. This is what is driving the force behind Newt. People are tired of being steered in the direction that the establishment and the media want them to go. People want to be inspired. They want to vote for someone who speaks out for them, who says what they believe is the right thing, and who is willing to put it on the line regardless of who they might offend. Perhaps Newt is playing us all by being this man, and if elected he will cow to the party line, but his record does not imply this. The establishment does not seem able to control Newt and that has them terrified.