Kelly Clarkson backs the crazy uncle

My respect for Kelly Clarkson has gone way down. No, not for her singing, but for her backing of Ron Paul. When my mom and I were talking today, she said Paul sounded like a nice, easy-going man. I told her, he reminds everyone of their crazy old uncle. Everyone has or has had one, the one that can sound so comforting and smooth and sweet, but as soon as you hear his opinion about something, you realize how crazy he really is. Don't believe me? This is a man that thinks that drug regulations are unlawful. No, not only the drugs you get over the counter, but those a local dealer would sell. Think heroin is okay? He doesn't, but sees nothing wrong if someone wants to use it. The same with any other drug. I wonder how he'd feel if the pilot of the plane he was on or his doctor the night before surgery thought there was nothing wrong with using drugs? See a problem in the world that we might want to do something about, like hunger and AIDS? Rep. Paul says they need to help themselves, that no foreign aid is needed or should be given out. Defend our friends like Israeli? No, that is out, too. Our military is only to defend our country here, not to help our friends. That also means if a country wants to acquire nuclear warheads, well, he has said all countries have the right to have them. But yes, that isolationism will shrink the military budget, and make it easier to balance the budget. Own a business and want to decide who you can serve to, discriminating against everyone you don't like? You can do that under Paul's plan for our government. Now if you're discriminated against due to any reason under his idea of the government, like sex or race or sexual orientation, too bad. That owner will have the right to do business with whom he/she wants. Women, get raped and want an abortion, or have a pregnancy that endangers your life and want an abortion? Now, under his idea of America, you can't do that, as all abortions are illegal, with the penalty of prison for either performing it or having it done. And this is only part of Rep. Paul's ideas for America.
Kelly, I hope you keep making wonderful music, but are these your views, too? If not, look into Rep. Paul's views, and read his pamphlet, which you can google. Take his views to a conclusion of what would happen if he got his way and see what you think. If you have, and you agree, then I will be one of the few to say that I will continue to listen to your music. But I and many others will never want to buy your CD or see you perform. You have the right to your opinion, and we have the right to choose how we spend our money. For this, in that way, will always be America, at least I hope so.      

What's a Tea Party to do?

With less than a week until the Iowa caucus, it looks like there are several scenarios that could happen, but they all lead to one conclusion: Either quickly or after a long battle, Mitt Romney becomes the Presidential candidate of the GOP. Either he wins Iowa, or comes in the top 3 in a very fractured caucus, then wins New Hampshire. He then goes to South Carolina, where he has the backing of the governor. But besides Newt, who else will campaign there? Will Paul? I'm sure he will. Perry? I think so, as he has the money. And either Bachmann or Santorum who gets very good in Iowa, one of them will campaign in South Carolina. So there's still 4 people that will vote by the Tea Party. So Romney might win in South Carolina, and then he'll win most of the states. But then, what will the Tea Party do? They don't like Mitt, so will they want a 3rd party against Democrats and the GOP, or will they not vote? I don't know. Probably, they don't know, either.   

1 Event- 2 Views- 3 Elections

As we look forward to 2012 and the election, I think it is important to look back. No, not at 2011, but at an event earlier that is still reverberating in our elections. And when it happened, nobody saw how it would affect our national outlook and have a great effect on our political system. The event? Hurricane Katrina. What no one could see was how we as a nation would look at our government afterward. And it isn't just that we look at our government one way, but how two camps have such a different view. One, which is held by the left and most of the center of America is that government had gotten ineffective, and the main culprit was President Bush. These people hold that government has many things that it can do for the people, but they must be done efficiently and with effective regulations. This camp sees that corporations, running rampant, pay for the government to tilt the scales in their favor, either by loosening or eliminating certain regulations or by having regulations enacted that limit competition and keeping taxes low for themselves. This camp voted for President Obama, and elected Democrats to majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2008. But this was just one point of view. The other was that government itself was the problem, and that the least government intrusion from Washington was the best, with the ideal being no federal government. This is the view of the far right, and some in the middle. And this camp voted in the Tea Party members into the House majority in 2010. And this brings us to now, and the 2012 election. Which camp will win this battle of different points of view and set the country on the path for the next few years? This is the question of 2012, and although jobs, foreign policy, monetary policy, entitlements and all the other topics of the day will be talked about, it is the view of the country, and the course it will take, that will be decided this election. And that makes the 2012 election a watershed event for America.      

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

To everyone who follows me on one of my blogs, on twitter, and/or facebook, I want to wish all of you Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. I am old enough to remember when Happy Holidays wasn't meant or thought of as a denigration of Christian beliefs, but as a way to convey good wishes to all throughout the season, and that is the way I send it out to all of you who read this. May you all enjoy the season, and may 2012 be a wonderful year for you and your family.

Boehner, when you save face, you still lose

Well, the Speaker of the House caved in and there is a deal on the 2 month tax cut extension, but Speaker, even now you lose. Every national cable news station (other than the 1 you can guess) is ripping the Speaker for his about-face and his ridiculous stance on why it happened. Oh, you're right, Speaker, it wasn't the smartest political move, but, admit it, it was the worst move you could have made. You've caved into the right-wing of the Tea Party, and when you were shown to be completely out of touch with the American people, then you caved into those people in your own party that realized how wrong you were. So, you got off your high horse and won a small battle, but you didn't win the battle, did you? The Democrats, and Senate Tea Party members, made you look like the small and petty person you are, and you gave into their compromise bill. So by winning in trying to save face, you lost the battle, and you're losing the war. Not one person from a non-Fox News station is giving you any credit for doing anything right. Saving face for you was one step forward, and you took 4 steps back at the same time.

Another Tea party mistake?

Rep. Eric Cantor of the Tea Party once again has stepped in it. Today, he said that he hoped that President Obama would not start his vacation until the tax cut was approved. Say what? President Obama has already said that he will be in town until the bill is passed, so what's the problem? You say the President shows no leadership, but yet, it was reported that when Speaker Boehner told the far right wing of the Tea Party about the 60 day extension, and pictures of the Senate Tea Party members high-fiving themselves after their vote, they told the Speaker that they would not vote for a 60 day extension. This made him come out and say he couldn't vote for the bill, and even change the language to pass/turn down the Senate bill. One member of the Tea Party even went on TV (I"m sorry I can't remember her name) and said she was glad that the Speaker gave in to their demands. So Speaker, this is leadership? You cave into less than 1/3 of your Tea Party, and you complain about the President's lack of leadership? Another Tea Party mistake? No, just a repeat of the same one you continually make: Thinking that just because you say it, it must be true. And every time you repeat the mistake, fewer people listen to your lies. That's why the Tea Party has gone from a 27% approval rating in the summer to 19% now. Keep talking, and soon you'll be in single digits, just like Congress.     

Newt, you know history?

I am constantly amazed by the Tea Party and its ability to have facts say what they want rather than what it really means, but now history is getting the Tea Party treatment thanks to Newt? The federal courts,with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, aren't the decision-makers on which laws are within the Constitution and which ones aren't, and therefore are illegal? Isn't that their role in the government, Newt? Didn't Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 decide that was its job? Wasn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation written so that it effected none of the slaves in the states that were part of the union? Wasn't this done just so that the proclamation wouldn't go against the Dred Scott decision? That Supreme Court decision was never changed, and slavery was still allowed until the Constitution was changed, and therefore vacating the decision? It took me less than 5 minutes to look up these 2 cases and find these facts. Newt, how long did you study history, and are you sure you know history?