About Me

Name:Justin Haskins
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Why Raising Taxes On The Wealthy is Not a Good Thing

Tax cuts for the wealthy is one thing neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton support; yet, it is possible that tax cuts for the rich, along with tax cuts for everyone else, is actually a good thing for the economy. First let's just think about the actual theory that goes into this: The main idea behind giving tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans is that they are the sector responsible for over 80% of our wealth and the majority of our jobs. This is, whether you like it or not, a simple fact. (And by the way, I do not like it.) But, if you give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% and small business owners, then what you do is give companies, small businesses, mom and pop stores, and virtually ever piece of America's economy more money to spend on expanding their businesses rather than using that money to pay taxes.

One of the first principles of economics is the idea that within a free-market economy such as our own, any taxes or expenses placed on a business will simply be passed on to the consumer through the price of the product. Therefore, if you tax big business at a higher rate than you tax the rest of Americans, then the cost of producing that product (which includes the taxes charged by the government) will automatically be included through the price.

Secondly, increasing taxes on the richest 1% includes small businesses, which means that it is not only the Wal-Marts and McDonald's of the world that are going to be hurt by increased taxes. Of the richest 0.5%, which accounts for 750,000 taxpayers, two-thirds report small business incomes.

During the Ronald Reagan years, (Hate him or love him, it proves my point) tax revenues increased 28% throughout the 1980's. The reasons deficits ensued is because spending increased by 36%, outweighing the gains caused by tax cuts.

Also, in 2005 and 2006, tax cuts on the wealthy led to increased tax revenues by 14% each year. Also, tax revenues at the beginning of 2007 had totaled 2.4 trillion dollars from 2006-2007. This total is $400 billion dollars higher than the collection peak of 2 billion dollars in 2000, the end of the Clinton years.

The economy is struggling now, but those struggles have NOTHING to do with tax breaks. The housing market, poor choices by consumers, and high gas prices are causing our current (or future, depending on how you look at it) recession. I'm not, by any means, saying Bush is doing the right thing. Spending is increasing year after year...but his tax cuts are the problem with the economy as the tax revenues prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In recent American history, high tax rates often lead to poor economies. Under JFK, who inherited EXTREMELY high tax rates, the unemployment rate was:

1961   6.7%

1962   5.5%
1963     5.7%

Following JFK's terrible death, the implementation of his tax program under Lyndon Johnson, which led to tax cuts for the wealthy led to very low unemployment rates:

1964:  5.2%

1965:  4.5%

1966:  3.8%

1967:  3.8%

1968:   3.6%

1969:   3.5%

Under Jimmy Carter, who had marginal tax rates up to 70% for America's wealthiest few, the economy crumbled.
Unemployment rates under Carter:

1978:   6.1%

1979:   5.8%

1980:   7.1%

1981:   7.6%

1982 (carried into Reagan's term): 9.7%

Under George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, the unemployment rate for the last three years has been under 5%, currently standing around 4.8%.

Only three of Bill Clinton's eight years in office had unemployment rates lower than the current unemployment rate.

Maybe taxing the rich at higher rates isn't such a good idea.
 
Justin Haskins
Author, Saving America
 

Forex Trading Polls
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Discussion on Gay Rights

In all fairness, I must disclose that I would not vote for Barack Obama for reasons regarding foreign policy and taxes...as well as other socialistic principles he holds dear. Also, I would never vote Hillary Clinton because I feel she is just an incredibly dishonest person and has a lot of policy flaws as well.

On the issue of gay rights, there are three distinct groups of people: Those who hate homosexuals or hate the idea of any kind of rights given to homosexuals, those who believe gays should have the same rights given to married heterosexual couples but not the actual right to marriage, and those who feel gay couples should be allowed actual marriage.

Barack Obama, who I have heard speak numerous times on this issue, is againt gay marriage but for providing all of the rights a typical marriage would provide a heterosexual couple to a homosexual couple. So my first question is: If you are a Barack Obama supporter, does it bother you that he does not support gay marriage?

I found it rather surprising that Obamites, who are often the most liberal of the liberal, have not made an issue of this? I mean if Obama was a Republican who supported gay rights, the base of the party would never nominate him. Why then are liberals and members of the DNC willing to let Obama win the nomination despite this?
 
Personally,  I believe that the government has absolutely no business determining marriage. Marriage should be between two people, their reigion, and their family. Why is the government getting involved with this at all? I understand that there are complicated issues that stem from marriage. Various rights, tax codes, and parental rights are just a few. However, it is my hypothesis that these issues could be handled with the signing of a simple contract at the time of marriage.

I find it rather interesting that Republicans talk about the idea that marriage is being "ruined" or family values destroyed because of the idea of gay marriage when the government already has swooped in and taken all of the meaning out of the word already!

Clinton's view on gay marriage is, like Barack Obama, one that has her opposing marriage rights but supporting equal rights under a different name. However, Clinton has hinted multiple times that she may support gay marriage in various speeches. In an appearance early Wednesday evening in front of roughly three-dozen LGBT leaders, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated that she would not oppose efforts by Eliot Spitzer, the odds-on favorite to become the new governor, to enact a same-sex marriage law in New York.

The following is from a Paul Schindler article at gaycitynews.com:

"She also suggested that language she used when she first ran for the Senate in 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the institution's moral, religious, and traditional foundations had not reflected the 'many long conversations' she's had since with 'friends' and others, and that her advocacy on LGBT issues has certainly evolved.'"

So where do you stand? Are you for gay marriage, against gay marriage but for gay rights, or do you think the government should stay the heck out of our bedrooms and homes like I do?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Racism, Obama, and The End of "Hope": More Quotes From Dr. Wright

It has become increasingly more clear over time that Barack Obama is going to be the DNC nominee for the 2008 general election. I still feel, despite the recent troubles encountered by Obama, that Hillary Clinton cannot justify stealing the nomination away. This is actually a good things for conservatives, because I truly believe there is no way in God's creation that Obama can beat McCain.

However, let us imagine for just a moment a world where Barack Obama wins. What are the implications of this? What exactly is Barack Obama all about? Most importantly, is Barack Hussein Obama a racist?

Before we can enter into that conversation, the comments of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's personal pastor and "spiritual guide" for the last 23 years, must be examined. The church Obama has tied himself to must be examined as well. Beyond all of this, we must determine the character of Barack Obama in a way that uses fact and not rumor or hatred.

First, let's look at Jeremiah Wright. Of course, by now, you have heard the comments that have become incredibly controversial, but they need to be examined again with the most troubling aspects highlighted.

The following is an analysis of Jeremiah Wright's comments:

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” Jeremiah Wright (magazine article)
 
“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
 
“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
 
These comments, more so than any others (except perhaps "God Damn America"), are particularly reprehensible. The meaning behind these statements are not merely political opinions of the radical sort, like we have seen many times before from Wright and others. The comments listed above are filled with racism, hate, and anger.
 
For all of those who refuse to accept that Wright's comments are racist, notice how he continuously blames "white" Americans. Unlike other quotes where he speaks exclusively about rich white Americans or the government, Wright chooses to emphasize "white people" in these quotes. Wright, who has been known to associate with numerous anti-semites, has continuously made statements implying or bluntly calling Jews in Israel terrorists of the state-sponsored variety.
 
We have all heard comments from Wright before and we know now how radical he is, none of this is new information. What is new, however, is that Barack Obama was required when joing Trinity United to sign a document declaring his faith and beliefs in the "black values system". Within this system, includes the teaching of "black liberation theology" as taught by Dr. Jeremiah Wright and James Cone.
 
In an interview with Sean Hannity on the FoxNews show Hannity and Colmes, Hannity asked a series of questions to Dr. Wright beginning with, "It says, 'Commitment to God.' By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system. Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?"
 
Dr. Wright responded, "No, we would call it Christianity. We've been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we've been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we've been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles. We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America. That's not the issue; you're missing the issue. As I was trying to say to you, liberation theology...If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the ‘60s, black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian theologians, and Hispanic theologians...then you can talk about the black values system."
 
So then, let's look at Jim Cone and see what he has to say about "black liberation theology" and white America. In his book entitled Black Theology and Black Power, James Cone stated that "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
 
These kinds of ideas are dangerous for the future of America. Barack Obama signed onto them, maybe not specifically, but he did agree to the general concept of this "black liberation theology". This concept is scary. Even if Obama is nowhere near as radical as he is currently looking to most white Americans, Obama has proven terrible judgement by maintaining this ridiculous relationship with Jeremiah Wright and "black liberation theology". What kind of leadership has all of this proven?
 
Obama, just a few days ago, gave a very well-spoken speech regarding race. Some of his points were valid but he never truly denounced the behavior, nor did he acknowledge it was a poor choice. Instead he masked his mistakes and poor judgement in the name of "talking about race". It seems to me in all of these stories that the racists are these African-Americans denouncing all white people, not whites. What is there to say? Why is it that we are having a speech about white and black racism when the comments made, the issue being discussed, and the dilemna former supports of Obama are facing are all apart of an African-American racism problem? Are there white racists in this country? Yes! Is that wrong? Yes! Should it be reformed? Of course. But, how and why is the focus of racism being tilted to white Americans?
 
In addition to this, it has come to my attention that I do not believe Obama can win in the general election now regardless of what happens!
 
 

I have analyzed the 2004 election results, various polls regarding the current candidates, and the trends of past elections as well. Using this data, I believe it is clear that Barack Obama cannot win.

Based on current polls and the 2004elections results, only five states will end up resulting as "close" between McCain and Obama, who I believe has sealed up his nomination. (There is no way in my mind that Barack Obama will be denied his nomination given that he is black and that would not bode well for the Democrats in this election and within their Ivy League/New York Times circles.....

 

The five states are, as you know, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

 

George Bush won the last election with a total of 286 electoral votes compared to Kerry's 252. Of the five close states mentioned above, Florida, Iowa, and Ohio are the only states that Bush and the Republicans won.

 

Perhaps the most important factor in the 2008 election is that Barack Obama cannot win in Florida. Florida was carried by Bush at a not-so-close margin of 5%last time around. Things have certainly changed throughout the country since, but Barack Obama has a great deal of trouble carrying Latinos and you cannot win as a Democrat in Florida unless you carry Latinos at a very high margin. Broward County, the most important county for Democrats in Florida is predominantly Latino. In addition to this, McCain, who has supported amnesty for many Latinos, has a good chance of luring many Latinos away from Obama. Racial tensions also play an important role in this; Latinos and African-Americans have significant problems between the two of them within low income communities.(Broward County's Latinos live mostly in low-income to low middle income areas)That fact, combined with Obama's inability to win over Clinton in the state....and the Jeremiah Wright comments, leads me to believe that Florida is completely out of the picture. If that is so, then that means that the democrats need to make up the 18 electoral votes they were short of in 2004. The following scenarios are the only way in which they can accomplish this feat:

1. Democrats win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. The current Wright comments hurt Obama tremendously in a state like Ohio and New Hampshire, where there are a large number of middle class Americans. This would give the Democrats an electoral win of 272 to 266

2. Democrats win Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, lose New Hampshire. This would give the Democrats a victory as follows: 275 to 263.These are really the only possible scenarios for winning. The Republicans, and McCain by extension, only need to do the following:

1. Win Ohio. If Ohio goes Republican, the Democrats cannot win regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. If the Republicans win Ohio and lose Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, McCain would still win 279 to 259.

2. Republicans win Pennsylvania. If McCain wins Pennsylvania, it doesn't matter if he loses Ohio, New Hampshire, and Iowa. He would still win at a count of 278 to 260.

3. McCain loses Ohio, loses Pennsylvania (Something that could very well happen) but he wins Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire. In this scenario, John McCain would win 270 to 268....and this is a very possible situation.

My conclusion regarding these races is clear; there is no way in my mind Barack Obama can win. There are far more ways McCain can win and his ability, whether conservatives like it or not, to bring liberals onto his side, makes him a formidable opponent. I do believe it is very possible we could se another election where the Republican wins in the electoral college and loses in the popular vote...Personally, I believe the count will be 279 to 259. I believe the Republicans will lose Iowa and will maintain Ohio...The election could end where the election began, in my home state of New Hampshire.

I'd like to thank Crawfish, from Crawfish's Swamp for pointing out some of the information regarding James Cone!
 
Justin Haskins
Author, Saving America: From Global Warming to Immigration
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (31) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Luck for Hillary in Michigan and Florida

With Hillary's ridiculous attempts to establish re-votes in Michigan and Florida, we have seen absolutely desperate actions from the once powerful Clinton political machine. These measures, however, are completely useless. There will be no re-votes and no re-evaluation. The reality of new situation within the Democratic Party appears to be confusion and chaos. There are some real grumblings within the superdelegates, according to an insider, and you have to wonder just how comfortable they now feel electing Barack Obama knowing that he probably cannot win in the general election due to the recent comments of his pastor Jeremiah Wright...and yes, I do think this has cost Obama a significant amount of votes. The battleground states in the upcoming election are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. All of these states are currently polling in favor of McCain in head-to-head matchups with both Obama and Clinton.
 
Upon examining the potential electoral battle ahead in the general election, it is obvious that the Democrats must win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan in order to win. In 2004, they carried Michigan and Pennsylvania by 2-3%. If the Democrats lose any one of those three states, the election is effectively over. (This assumes they don't win in Florida, a state the Republicans took in 2004 and McCain's polling numbers show a huge advantage in 2008 over the other two candidates for president)
 
So the dilemna is this: If the superdelegates pick Barack Obama, who now probably cannot win in Ohio, Florida, and possibly Pennsylvania, than they know their chances of winning key battleground states will be in dire straits given this new Jeremiah Wright scandle, which will most likely affect middle-class white voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania especially. It is also important to note that Obama lost or is losing in the polls currently in all of these states to Hillary Clinton. But, if the superdelegates led by the DNC choose Hillary with the expectation that she now has a better chance of winning (Which I also believe) than they risk losing a very large African-American vote. This could, in the end, cost the DNC Michigan and Pennsylvania. Therefore, there is no right answer for the Democrats. I do not think they can win. Obama has been exposed for the radical liberal he truly is...and I thought it would only happen in the general elections.
 
The Democratic Party has little or no chance of winning in November.  Whether you like it or not, these are the facts and there is no disputing them.  Perhaps it is true that Barack Obama is not a racist like some statements from his minister Jeremiah Wright may imply, but the association between a person and Jeremiah Wright, who clearly holds within him anti-white and anti-Americans sentiments, is enough to remove him from the opportunity of holding the highest office in our great nation.  I'm not even certain that Jeremiah Wright is as racists or anti-American as his own words imply.  I believe, based on the evidence, that Wright has accomplished tremendous works within his community.  I am not discounting the good he has done but it is obvious that the man has no business affecting the future of our country.  If he has in fact influenced Barack Obama, then there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama should not be considered for the office of President of United States of America.
 
Justin Trask Haskins
Author, Saving America: From Global Warming to Immigration
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (27) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain and Nader....Allies?

It's hard to imagine someone as far to the left as Ralph Nader being allied with the likes of John McCain. It is true than many conservatives, including a great deal of bloggers within these forums, see McCain as a liberal anyway; I suppose to them it wouldn't be very surprising at all. But in all fairness, based on the record of John McCain's career in Congress since the days of Ronald Reagan, Senator McCain has a far more conservative record than Ralph Nader. In many aspects of policy, especially those relating to the economy and foreign policy, McCain and Nader differ greatly...and yet, liberal blogs are ripe with stories on a possible Nader and McCain connection.

What is this based upon? Apparently Ralph Nader, according to a New York Times article back in 2004 stated that a former member of the Federal Elections Commission and a prominent lawyer by the name of Trevor Potter was sent by John McCain to Tallahassee, Florida to assist the Ralph Nader campaign in legal battles over getting on state primary ballots. Democrats, and Democrat-leaning governments, attempted to remove Nader from ballots following the 2000 disaster in Florida(for Democrats it was a disaster obviously....I loved Nader for it!)
 
McCain also helped the Ralph Nader campaign through the use of the Reform Institute, a think tank that John McCain is chairman of. The Reform Institute went on to support Nader in the name of open elections in states like New York and Florida. According to Trevor Potter, the lawyer hired by McCain's Reform Institute in 2004, George Bush also urged and lent his support toward Potter's goal of placing Nader on as many ballots as possible. So the question now becomes, once we realize that Nader's campaign in 2004 would have been completely non-existent without the help of McCain (an embarrassment I'm sure), is Nader now returning the favor? Was McCain planning this all along? We will have to see how this plays out...but you must admit, whether you support McCain or not, his political planning for this election has been astounding. It appears as though Mr. McCain has learned from the 2000 election.
 
Justin Haskins,
Author, Saving America
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thank You Nader!

Yet again, Ralph Nader has decided that putting his own wildly selfish ambitions in front of the party that best represents him is more important than having a liberal president. What is wrong with the field of DNC candidates THIS time around? I mean come on Ralph, we have an African American socialist who wants to battle business, a woman who bears the name Clinton, and we even had the Latino southern governor Bill Richardson. What is Ralph so upset about? Does he really feel like Barack Hussein Obama will be too conservative? I just do not see it! And you know what? I do not care. The bottom line is that Ralph Nader entering this presidential is a huge leap forward for John McCain. The only thing I fear now is that Mike Huckabee may think this is a great idea and act impulsively, egotistically, and foolishly to destroy the GOP chances in 2008.
 
Justin Haskins
Author, Saving America: From Global Warming to Immigration
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Puerto Rico Will Decide Democratic Primary? What a Party!

   Puerto Rico? Could it be that our friendly Caribbean neighbors will be the FINAL say on who the nominee is for the DNC? According to the primary schedule, Puerto Rico, which holds 34 more delegates than Rhode Island, is dead last on the list of primary elections. The voting is set to take place four full days after the last two state primaries on June 6th. Hillary Clinton, who has appeared to lose all of her momentum in recent weeks should win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Those three states just happen to be the three largest states remaining...which means Hillary should be able to make up a good portion of the deficit she currently has. If you project out the likely scenarios that may occur, it is MORE than plausible that Clinton could be within 50 delegates by the time the Puerto Rican election rolls in. For Barack Obama, who has done very poorly amongst Latinos thus far, this has to be a major concern...or at least it will be!
 
   If this likely scenario plays out the way it should and probably will, then it is very possible that Puerto Ricans will choose the DNC nominee and NOT actual Americans!

   What does this say about their party? About their Values? How ridiculous is it that a future president could be determined by people who are not even Americans? What a ridiculous system the DNC has forced upon our country. Is it entertaining? Yes, but even more so, this entire scenario is scary.
 
Justin Haskins,
Author, Saving America: From Global Warming to Immigration

Polls
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poll! Mitt Romney Endorsement? Help or Hurt?

A lot of criticism for John McCain's policies have led many in the GOP, as well as conservatives in general, to oppose McCain regardless of the candidate for the Democratic Party. This could all change now that Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain and may end up within McCain's cabinet. So the poll question is, do YOU feel that the Mitt Romney endorsement helps John McCain's chances with conservatives or hurts them?
 

Polls
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poll: Vote or Stay Home for McCain! VOTE

   A great polarization is dividing the Grand Old Party and as a conservative who WILL vote for McCain...I am wondering how many of my fellow bloggers are willing to vote for McCain to prevent a Barack Obama or, dare I say, Hillary Clinton administration?


Polls
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney Gains Cabinet Seat and Bid In Next Presidential Election

There is absolutely no doubting, at least in my mind, that Mitt Romney has sealed up his seat in the John McCain cabinet once he wins the presidential election.
 
   In a press conference today in Boston, Romney praised the strength and leadership ability of McCain. Romney then went on to give his full endorsement, along with his 280 delegates, to the senator from Arizona. This awkward union of once former rivals is based on political advantages for both, rather than a true endorsement based on policy. So what does each man have to gain from this odd marriage of sorts? McCain gains a clear conservative endorsement, as opposed to the many "moderate" conservative endorsements he had attained previously. In addition to this, McCain will receive a huge chunk of delegates that ends the election completely and allows him to focus almost exclusively on the upcoming national election in November.
 
   It is also clear that Mitt Romney (R. MA) will have a great copious of advantages as a result of this union. It is my guess, one that is shared with numerous others within the conservative community, that Mitt Romney will get a cabinet position or possibly the vice-presidential nomination. In addition to this, Romney will also receive a lot of clout within the party itself. Instead of putting up a fight that could have embarrassed McCain, Romney dropped out of the race. Romney also threw his delegates toward McCain to avoid continuous embarrassments caused by the high anti-McCain votes in various primaries in the way of votes for Michael Huckabee (R. AK)
 
   So which cabinet position will Romney occupy? There are currently 15 executive offices within the Executive Branch of our government. Of these positions, I believe there are only a few possibilities: Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Treasury, and the very prestigious Department of State. Any of these positions would fit Romney's very successful past in the world of international and United States business. The only position I believe Romney could receive that would not fit his financial background is the Department of State position. I do believe, however, that Romney's presence, his success dealing with the Olympic Games, and his reputation as an international businessman make him a candidate for this office as well. Also, I feel as though Romney may want to prove himself in other areas of politics outside of those revolving around the economy.
 
   There is no doubt that even if Romney is denied the chance to have a cabinet position or vice-presidential nomination, he will still remain in excellent standing with the Grand Old Party. When it comes time for another presidential election, he could end up as the front-runner for the future, along with Rudy Giuliani of course.
 
   No matter how you feel about McCain, you have to admit that you would feel better about voting for him knowing that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani could both be apart of the administration.What a fantastic group of executives that would be!
Polls
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney Out, McCain In...Obama and Hillary Negotiating?

    At the Conservative convention known as CPAC last week, McCain almost officially became the nominee for the GOP when leading contender Mitt Romney essentially gave up his bid by "suspending" his campaign. Without Romney in the race, McCain, who probably would have won the nomination regardless, is now nearly officially the nominee for president. THIS NEWS ESSENTIALLY ENDS any real chance of a true conservative on the side of the GOP.

    On the DNC side, rumors are emerging that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be negotiating some kind of deal to avoid a brokered convention that may end up hurting the party. (See my previous article on this very topic)

    So now the question is...will conservatives unhappy with the John McCain choice still come out and vote to prevent Clinton or Obama from winning? I really hope so. Clinton, Obama, or Clinton and Barack Obama would be a terrible thing for this country.

    So I am begging conservatives to re-evaluate the situation at hand. The Democratic Party very well might bring Obama and Clinton together...which means conservatives will need to come together....

"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."-Ronald Reagan  1964

What would Reagan do?
    "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Justin Haskins
Author, Saving America
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Is OFFICIAL, Democrats Have a 1% Chance of Winning the Presidency in 2008;Brokered Convention Will Ruin Election Bid!

    Here we are yet again, stuck in another campaign season where the Democratic Party's nomination for president has absolutely no chance of winning in the national campaign. First there was Al Gore, who was just a little too liberal for the country, and then John Kerry came along in 2004, still too liberal and now you can add a big fat dose of boring to the picture as well. Attempt number three is rapidly approaching and it appears as though democrats are trying to learn from their previous failures by putting Hillary Clinton, who is constantly portraying herself to be a moderate, at the top of the party. Hillary has the name, the gender, the money, and the ability to get more money. 

    Let's be honest though...Clinton is not what she portrayed herself to be before she was officially running for president. (She's been unofficially running for president for years!) Clinton's plan of victory had always been exactly what Bill Clinton's plan for victory was: Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and continue to lie until people believe you are vastly more moderate than you actually are. Hillary is not a conservative, not a moderate, not even left-center...Hillary is a full-blown Berkeley liberal, which is GREAT if you support those ideals. Her plan of portraying herself as more conservative than she actually is was working until that pesky Obama showed up, forcing her to take liberal stands on issues she would have rather taken a more moderate approach on. 

    Obama is a well spoken, honest, is a tremendous speaker, and able to command powerful audiences throughout the nation. Most importantly, the media loves his JFK-like radiant glow that he gives off...And yet still, he is a liberal...an inexperienced liberal who really does not have a chance in a national election because he just too far to the left.

    Super Tuesday proved just how divided democrats are on these two candidates. Both the delegate count, which really matters, and the popular vote were nearly identical for both Clinton and Obama...Which is why neither can win this primary outright until the convention....which means only one thing: BROKERED CONVENTION.

    A brokered convention on the part of the Democratic Party will all but assure the Grand Old Party a victory in the national election. Clinton will not back down, and why should Obama either? They both should feel pretty confident about their chances. In the end though, I honestly believe that Hillary and Bill Clinton have far more political connections and favors owed to them than Obama does, thus, making it near impossible for Obama to win a negotiation at the brokered convention that is inevitable to occur.  

    According to the latest numbers on the election: Hillary Clinton currently has 1,012 delegates. Obama has 933 delegates. This means Clinton has won 52% of the delegates to Obama's 48%...excluding the previous drop-outs.

    That margin of 4% is not even close to what either candidate would need to win. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to win the nomination for the DNC.

    Clinton, the front-runner, would need a total of 1,013 more delegates, and Obama needs 1,092 delegates.

    So how many remaining delegates are there left? There are a total of 457 Super Delegates remaining, which are cast by members of the party, politicians, etc...Thus far, Clinton has won 62.224% of these special delegates. (211 of 339 thus far) Obama has won 37.758%. (128 of 339) So let's just say for the sake of great political debate that Clinton wins  60% of the remaining Super Delegates. This would give her an additional 274 delegates, bringing her total to 1,286 delegates. Obama, after factoring in ONLY the remaning Super Delegates, and assuming he wins 40% of the remaining group, will have a total of 1,115. (The increase for Obama and decrease for Clinton is likely in this category because Edwards is gone, Obama's numbers in state elections will go up slightly, and Obama's popular support has been rising, which makes him more attractive to Super Delegates.) 

 

    Now let us factor in the state elections remaining. There are a total of 23 states remaining for Clinton and Obama. So far, in terms of state elections, Clinton has won 801 delegates. Obama, in those same states, has won 805 delegates. Obama is actually winning more delegates. According to the polling data, Obama is likely to win a good percentage of the remaining delegates in state elections. There are a great deal of states with high percentages of African-American populations still remaining (D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina) Let us assume then that Obama wins 55% of the remaining delegates. That would give him an additional 938 delegates, bringing Barack Obama's total to 2,053. Clinton, winning 45% of the delegates, could win 767 delegates...Which would mean Hillary Clinton's total delegates at the convention would be 2,053.

    
Will the numbers work out perfectly this way? No. The reality is, however, that the election will most likely end up so close that a brokered convention will be forced. So what does this have to do with the national election chances of the democrats?

    A brokered convention would look awful for the party. Clinton, who would most likely win the brokered deal, will look exactly like the typical Washington D.C. politician that she actually is. The same will go if Obama wins in the convention. Democrats are the same people who complain time and time again about fair elections and the Al Gore vote of 2000...They will, however, have to swallow a tough pill of watching backdoor politics decide who wins their nomination, rather than a clean election. If Hillary and Barack refuse to drop out of the race for president, they will both suffer as DNC is split so dramatically amongst the two candidates that a chunk of their supporters may actually not participate in the election of their candidate wins. This is increasingly more true amongst African-Americans supporting Obama. The data I have seen from various sources shows that many of them will not show up to vote at all if Obama is not their candidate, especially after Clinton's recent controversial remarks.

    Unless either Clinton or Barack Obama realize that their campaigns ruin their party's chances, there is no way that either one can win. They need all the combined support they can get, and a brokered convention will splinter support throughout the party. Even if Obama leaves before a brokered convention can occur, it is still possible his supporters may stay home on Election Day out of hatred for Hillary.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Obama is a Socialist...Well, Almost

As defined by Merriam Webster's: Socialist: an adherent to a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
  
    Barrack Obama is a Socialist. We need desperately, for that very reason, to put our conservative differences aside and rally around John McCain. 

    Tonight, Barack Obama impressively won all three of the primaries for his party. He swept Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana with relative ease. In a victory speech given this evening in Richmond, Virginia, Obama spoke with great candor and passion of the goals he hopes to complete if he becomes president. As I watched the one-term senator from Illinois speak, I could not help but admire his incredible talent of oration.

    I find it ironic that he mentioned several times the fathers of this great country and their revolution; His policies are in total opposition to what thousands fought and died for. Furthermore, he is gaining more political steam each and every single day. His lead in the delegate count, excluding superdelegates, is continuously growing. He is raising more money, speaking in front of larger audiences, and gaining more momentum. Not until the actual convention are the nearly 800 superdelegates, made up mostly of politicians or powerful members of the party, forced to make a final decision for whom their vote is passed. Therefore, it is logical to assume that if Obama's momentum continues, superdelegates may go along with him. 

    What makes this so incredibly scary? Unlike Clinton, Obama has a great deal of appeal to the "independent voter". There is also a love affair between Barack and the media. These two vital pieces of information make Obama more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. So, let us look at what you will be getting if Barack Obama is made the President of the United States of America:

1. Universal Healthcare: Obama is going to provide government sponsored healthcare for every single American. Why is this bad? 1. The federal government cannot run ANYTHING except the military properly. Would you like the same people who handled the Hurricane Katrina disaster or work at your local DMV running your healthcare when you need heart surgery? 2. An increase in TAXES would be NEEDED to pay for a program like this. Yes, it is true that the richest Americans in the country would handle this burden, but it is also true that the richest Americans control American business and job growth. If they are over-taxed, the economy will go into a recession. 3. Why should taxpayers pay for other people being irresponsible? For instance, let us say that your neighbor down the street from you drinks a little too much one night and stumbles down the stairs of his house. He injures his knee, which requires surgery that you will pay for with YOUR taxes or possibly YOUR job. Then, your neighbor needs physical therapy to help properly heal his injury, which you will also pay for. What about a person who chooses to eat poorly their entirely lives and now has heart disease? Or a person who started smoking ten years ago, well aware of the risks involved, and now they need a new long because they have lung cancer. Should taxpayers have to pay for these people? Should there be no responsibility? 4. A universal healthcare system will destroy any competition, which will lower standards, quality, and potentially raise costs.

2. Raise taxes on wealthy Americans. Yes, wealthy Americans can afford to pay more than the middle class. However, it is important to note that if you raise taxes on business owners, job growth, economic growth, and consumer prices will suffer.

3. Tie the minimum wage to inflation. Essentially, Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when inflation goes up. Well, that sounds great! Except, inflation is, in part, already tied to the minimum wage. For instance, let's say you raise the minimum wage from 9 dollars to 10 dollars. What this means is not only will the person who was making 9 dollars an hour get a pay raise, but so too will the person making 10 dollars an hour, because they won't work for what is now the minimum wage after they had been working for 1 dollar over the minimum wage when it was 9 dollars. Wages go up, producers raise their prices because people have more money. This leads to an increase in the cost of living, which causes more salaries to go up. In addition to this, more currency will be in the marketplace. All of these factors will cause inflation more rapidly than it has been occurring already. Under Obama's plan, the minimum wage would continue to go up to counter the rising inflation, which would, in turn, cause inflation to go up again. A plan like this shows he is lacking in a fundamental understanding of economics.

4. Illegal Immigrants. The illegal immigrant problem will continue to become more and more of an issue for working Americans.

5. Foreign Policy. Barack Obama has no foreign policy experience, at all. Not only that, but Obama's plans for Iraq and battling terrorism are essentially to deal with it diplomatically. Good luck! Does anyone else realize how ridiculous it is to attempt to negotiate with terrorists?

The list goes on, and on, and on, and on....

In the end, would you not rather have John McCain as president or do you want to live with this kind of madness?

Maybe Barack Obama is not a full blown socialist...he does not want the government to control all of business outright (Just the billion dollar medical industry)...He, like all liberals, know it is easier to just take your money instead.

Justin Trask-Haskins
Author, Saving America:From Global Warming to Immigration

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Super Tuesday! A Potential Romney Upset!

 Super Tuesday is the "Super Bowl" for political junkies. In fact, it is even bigger than the Super Bowl. Millions of people throughout the nation have put their hearts and souls into a candidate that may be broken or raised to a higher level as a result of the ballots cast on this day. History, at least in part, will be made today. We have seen a large surge over the last few weeks from both Obama and Romney. In California, the nation's largest gathering of delegates for both the Democratic Party and the GOP, the trailing Mitt Romney has closed a once very wide gap into an average of a .3% lead. In the Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby poll, Mitt Romney has actually grabbed a 7% lead as of this very morning. Despite this, however, Mitt Romney will need something resembling a miracle in order to win the GOP primary. Is it possible? Yes...but not likely...not even in the real of what can be considered rational. The truth is that this race was won and lost in Florida. McCain is going to win enough states today to sew up the nomination. Even if Romney wins more delegates in California and other large states, McCain will still win a large chunk. In addition to this, McCain leads the polls nationally on a margin of about 18%, on average. Essentially, McCain has enough states throughout the country to end Romney's chances today. 

    On the side of the Democratic Party, a very interesting turn in this election has taken place. Since the departure of John Edwards, Obama's numbers have seen a dramatic shift in favor of his campaign. It is a very real possibility that Obama, despite being behind in the delegate count, has made up enough room to catch up to Clinton. The reason for this is that Clinton, who leads in more states than Obama does, is only winning the majority of her states by a small number. The only exception is New York and Tennessee for her. Obama, who appears to be in the same situation, is leading by extremely large numbers in Georgia and Illinois. The deficits within those states may just be enough to catch up a little on the delegate count. In addition to this, the DNC, in their infinite stupidity, have made it so that there are no winner take-all states. This is creating an extremely close race. 

    What does this have to do with conservatives? Everything. The closer the democratic races are going into Super Tuesday, the more likely it is that more independents will vote in the democratic primaries rather than the GOP primaries. This is John McCain's greatest fears. If more independents than anticipated either stay home or vote for a democrat, then we could see a huge upset in favor of Mitt Romney in several vital states. Obama's success, at least in my opinion, hurts John McCain. What so many conservatives and political pundits watching the race thus far have not caught realized is, and this includes myself up until this point, is that Obama's surge may actually raise up Mitt Romney.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attacking McCain is NOT What Reagan Would Do

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."-Ronald Reagan 

    Perhaps the most disturbing and ironic event to take place in the last few weeks of the GOP campaigning season is the relentless attacks on Senator John McCain by the conservative media. Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter, to name just a few, have all come out in vicious attacks against McCain's record on numerous issues. In particular, the two main pieces of legislation that had drawn the most criticism from many conservatives are the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and the McCain-Kennedy attempt at what many feel is amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens. 

    It is becoming increasingly more evident that the candidate of choice amongst these McCain haters is Mitt Romney, who has policies regarding illegal immigrants and campaign finance that follow traditional party lines. Many within the conservative media claim McCain is merely masquerading as a conservative and that true "Ronald Reagan values" are nowhere to be found when speaking of the senator from Arizona. 

    However, it is important to note that the perception that many of the biggest and most power names in the conservative media have on John McCain and his policies are inaccurate, at least in part. All of the John McCain critics are, as they should be, incredible supporters of Ronald Reagan. Few occasions pass where you will not hear Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity speaking about the importance of the works of Ronald Reagan. Reagan to the conservative media is as revered as Abe Lincoln was to freedmen following the Civil War or JFK is to Irish-American Catholics. Yet, the conservatives criticizing McCain and praising Reagan are missing one fundamental piece of information: Reagan would probably have voted for McCain. 

    On the issues of abortion, taxes, and terrorism, there really is not much of a difference in policy between McCain, Romney, and what you would expect Ronald Reagan to support. Therefore, you can automatically remove those from the spectrum. What are the main differences between McCain and Romney then? Immigration, issues on "torture", drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, negotiating across party lines with liberals, and age are the main differences. These differences are the reasons cited by the conservative anti-McCain media for why the senator is no conservative at all. 

    Yet, on most of these issues, Ronald Reagan would side with McCain, not Romney. Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants in 1986, supported measures against the use of torture, crossed party lines on numerous occasions to pass legislation (Without ever sacrificing his conservative principles), and Ronald Reagan was nearly 70 years old when he took office, so I am certain he would have little problem with McCain being 73 at the time of the national election in November of this year. 

    "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."-Ronald Reagan 

    In fact, I imagine Reagan would even give the edge on foreign policy to McCain when you consider the fact that McCain is a war hero and has had an outstanding amount of foreign policy and military experience. The only disagreement Reagan may have had on a major policy issue is ANWR drilling for oil. Reagan would have supported it.Perhaps the greatest irony of all in this story is that the very conservatives who oppose McCain are breaking the greatest Reagan rule of all: "The 11th Commandment". 

    "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."-Ronald Reagan 

    How can conservatives who follow Reagan's principles avidly oppose John McCain so vehemently? Even if Reagan, for whatever reason, supported Romney instead, he certainly would disapprove of GOP members attacking other GOP members during a critical election period in a time of great international danger. 

    Justin Trask Haskins 
    Author, SAVING AMERICA