Santorum Equals Sanity

or

The Cap Times Published My Letter

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Cap Times Published My Letter

The Cap Times Published My Letter, which reads:

Santorum Family

Santorum Equals Sanity

Dear Editor: President Obama is out of control.

He is plagued by spending illness, and now it seems by delusions of grandeur, palling around with Russians in defiance of his electorate.

Mitt Romney is a giant question mark. “A political and cultural enigma,” according to Neil .Swidey.

Rick Santorum represents all the values most Americans have grown up with and admire: responsibility, thriftiness, honesty, truthfulness, faithfulness, and he’s a devoted .family man.

No wonder America is flocking to Santorum against all campaign spending predictions. If . Santorum wins, it will be proof that the Founding Fathers constructed a system that does . allow the people to control their own destiny.

Syte Reitz
Madison

.

Why did the Cap Times Publish a Conservative Letter?

When a liberal newspaper like the Cap Times, which is called the Progressive Voice of Madison, WI publishes a conservative letter endorsing Rick Santorum,  something is up.

• They could be filling a quota of “conservative” items to prove how “balanced” their reporting is.
• They could be setting up the conservative author for ridicule (a favorite pastime for Madison’s radical liberals).
• Or, they could actually be reporting in earnest, reflecting the fact that President Obama has really gone too far, and even the progressives of Madison are scratching their heads.

.

Unlikely?

Not according to the Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled Not-So-Smooth Operator, in which Peggy Noonan states that Obama is increasingly coming across as devious and dishonest.  She reports that the “broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right” is starting to dislike President Obama personally.  A dislike that is arising solely from Obama’s own behavior, that of an “operator who’s not operating in good faith.”

.

According to Noonan, this shift toward disliking President Obama started with his devious behavior over the contraception mandate, and continues to be fueled with recent events such as the open-mic conversation with Russian President Medvedev and with his personalization and manipulation of the the tragic death of Trayvon Martin.

.

Some of My Best Friends are Liberal

I am surrounded with liberals in Madison, WI, home of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

I am surrounded with liberals among my relatives, many of whom are products of University propaganda machines.

I myself was a product of a University propaganda machine quite similar to UW Madison; the State University of New York at Stony Brook.   And yes, the propaganda worked at first.

.

I am aware of the fact that most liberals are very nice and well-intentioned people.

But I am also aware of the fact that a radical element has taken over leadership among liberals, an element that is extreme and dangerous, and which is leading the Democrat Party, a party which used to be equally good/bad as the Republican Party, to ridiculous and dangerous extremes.

.

I have confidence in the good people of this country, the majority, the non-radicals, on both right and left.  We have more in common with each other than we do with our respective far rights or far lefts.

80% of us pray regularly.  80% of us are broad, stable, and non-radical. 80% of us look for logic and for reason.

.

Broad, Stable, Non-radical, Right and/or Left

Caught in own snare

My fondness of, and my confidence in my “broad, stable, non-radical, non-Marxist left” friends, has led me to blog on conservative issues, laying out the logic and explaining some of the foundations of  conservative thought which I have unearthed during my recovery from my University brainwashing.  Confident that truth and logic wins over reasonable people, I chip away at the misinformation spread by conniving radical leaders like Pelosi and Obama.

.

Now, based on Peggy Noonan’s argument, Obama is actually doing the job of dismantling his agenda himself.  Much faster than we could dismantle the lies the left has been spreading.  Obama is shooting himself in the foot; he is stepping into his own snares.  I do not enjoy watching a man self-destruct, any man.  But it does give me hope for the non-radical, normal and healthy future of America; a future determined by the people, not by a radical dictator.

.

.

Back to Reality

Back to my Cap Times letter.

Democrats Voting in the Republican Primary?

.

I know that the editors of the Cap Times are not likely to be broad, stable, non-radical left types like my neighbors, friends and relatives.

.

Yes, I know, there’s a fourth possibility, the most likely one: that the Cap Times decided that support of Santorum would be most damaging to the upcoming Wisconsin Primary, and that by publishing my letter they would influence voters, both conservatives and also the liberals who plan to sneak in to manipulate the primary as well, to vote for Santorum.  They think that Santorum will have a lesser chance of defeating Obama in November.

.

But they, too, will soon be stepping into their own snares.

That’s what radicals do best.  Set snares for others, but get caught in them themselves.

.

An Invisible Player

And, most important, there is a invisible player, God.  And God has a wicked sense of humor.

I am watching political developments with great anticipation, as America continues to pray.

.

It would be wickedly satisfying to see the Constitution of the United States, which was based on the Ten Commandments and on Judeo-Christian morality, and which was written by the Founding Fathers centuries ago, still allowing us, the people, to take charge of our own destiny and to defeat the efforts of power-mongers on both sides.

.

The broad, stable, non-radicals of both right and left who value Christianity over Marxism, and who value real tolerance over imposition of radical values, could back a man like Rick Santorum, who does not advocate imposing his views on others, but advocates hands-off government.

.

Some think that Rick Santorum is too conservative.

But good, broad, stable, non-radical conservatives such as Rick Santorum (and such as me) do not try to legislate their views onto others.

They are tolerant.

Tolerant with limits: the Constitution of the United States defines the limits.

And that’s a very good thing.

.

Constitutional Limits

McNaughton: One Nation Under Socialism

The limits of the Constitution are Judeo-Christian limits.

These are the limits that radicals want to test and to reverse.

.

.

.

.

Mitt Romney’s longtime advisor Eric Fehrnstrom blundered by comparing the upcoming general election against Obama to an Etch A Sketch toy and claiming that Romney can “shake it up” and “start over again” in the fall.

This ignited a controversy, appearing to be a public admission of Romney’s willingness to change his positions for political gain. Some conservatives continue to question Romney’s commitment to repealing ObamaCare, as well as to other conservative principles, based on his previous support of “RomneyCare” and of abortion.  Romney has even been called a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by some. One critical example of Romney’s questionable committment to conservative values is his refusal to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s  Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, which most other candidates did sign: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul.

This can be contrasted with Rick Santorum’s views, which reflect the views of conservative Americans on life, on liberty, and on economy.  Rick Santorum’s views appear to be deep-seated and unshakable.

So here’s my endorsement and my campaign slogan:

Rick Santorum: UNSHAKABLE on Life, Liberty and Economy

Stand Up for Religious Freedom:  http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/

Locations near you :   http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

The Bigotry of the Left

or

Defending Rush Limbaugh

or

Knights in Shining Armor

.

Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke

Rush Limbaugh Called a Woman Names

Rush Limbaugh recently called a one woman a slut and prostitute on his radio program.  I happened to be listening to the broadcast at the time, and found his tirade to be “Rush Limbaugh.”   I did not think he meant it literally; he seemed to be doing it for comic effect.

I have never advocated dirty fighting or name-calling, and I make an effort to eliminate such tactics from my own writing.  But in this case, I must rush to Rush Limbaugh’s defense.  Rush Limbaugh’s name-calling was pretty unremarkable, given the 2012 cultural benchmark for salty language set by the likes of Ed Schultz, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, and even local middle school playgrounds in Madison, WI, where I live.

Transcript of Rush’s Offending Statement:

RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

Rush Limbaugh’s Message

Although Rush Limbaugh’s name-calling was not very remarkable, his main message preceding the comical name-calling tirade was remarkable.   The point that sexually over-active people are not making wise choices and that there is no reason the rest of us should be paying for their questionable recreational sexual activities, which we do not ourselves approve of or participate in, is a good one.  Rush’s passionate defense of traditional morality, under which people who behave promiscuously are regarded as sources of moral and medical risk, Rush’s defense of a morality which 70% of America supports, warmed my heart.  This man’s courage in stating the truth with some passion made him a knight in shining armor in my book.

Crucifixion by the Left

But the left, assisted by the (left-dominated) media, completely ignored the logical analysis Rush Limbaugh provided of government-guaranteed, free-of-charge, free-of-consequence government-encouraged and public school-taught sexual experimentation, which will only destroy our society if permitted to proceed. continue reading…

Mudslinging Santorum-Style:  Rombo!

.

Rick Santorum seems to be taking the lead over Mitt Romney in the Republican primary race.

Quite a few are surprised.

To some, it makes a lot of sense:

• Santorum halted his campaign for two days to stay with his sick daughter.  That’s American values.

• Santorum’s wife quit professional life to stay home with the kids. Smart lady. Lots of Americans do that, or at least wish they could.

• Santorum has a demonstrated history of upholding conservative values, values resembling Tea Party values.  He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. Tea Party will like that.

• Santorum is a dedicated family man, the model of a good husband and good father.

• Santorum’s faith is lived out in his politics.   Americans are religious; 80% are Christian, 80% say that prayer is important to their daily lives , and  65% support Prayer in Public Schools.

• Santorum is the only candidate who has avoided mud-slinging tactics in his campaign.  America does not like mud-slinging.

• Santorum is a gentleman.  Glen Beck has called him the next George Washington.

• Santorum has finally produced a “mud-slinging” ad; it doesn’t sling mud, except literally, and it’s funny.  America likes funny.

.

Rick Santorum’s latest funny, funny ad:

.

.

One more Santorum ad:

.

.

Santorum is what America admires

Americans are not Godless, promiscuous, radical, socialist, politically-correct, spineless people, as the radicals who dominate the media would like to make us think. We are not clones of what Hollywood has flooded movies and media with.

Americans are actually religious, faithful, conservative, democratic, and are courageous enough to resist being steered by radicals.  Remember, 80% of Americans say that prayer is important to their daily lives.  Is it surprising that Americans might choose a Godly man? Or that God might help him?

Still surprised at Rick Santorum’s recent success?

.

The Cardinal and the President

Coming soon…

.

See A Tale of Two Presidents – Timothy and Barak

and

A Tale of Two Presidents – the Drama Continues

(click for original article)

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

Syte’s summary:

• Scientists are split on global warming; there is no agreement on whether it is occurring or not.
• Skeptics of global warming include an Obama-supporting Nobel prize winning physicist, editors of climate research journals, and numerous very prestigious and acclaimed scientists.
  
• There has been no evidence of “global warming” for over 10 years now.
• CO2 is not a pollutant.
• Alarmism is of great benefit to many politicians.
• Many young scientists doubt global-warming, but are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry… continue reading…

Herman Cain: Guilty or Not Guilty?

and Why Does it Matter?

False accusations should be punishable by law.

Herman Cain Suspends Campaign

Two Possibilities

The recent attacks on Herman Cain, the swiftness of his “trial” by media, and his rapid exit from the Republican presidential primary race have left many bewildered.  There lingers an uneasiness, as though a lynching had just occurred, and nobody objected.

There are two possibilities; that Herman Cain is guilty of recent accusations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity, or that he is innocent of these accusations.  We simply do not know which is the case.

If Cain were guilty, that would be unfortunate. His moral integrity would certainly be blemished.  However, to be fair, it must be pointed out that similar issues did not get in the way of Gingrich’s, Clinton’s, or JFK’s public careers.  In a society that has just removed the ban on bestiality in the military, with the White House laughingly declining to comment, surely Herman Cain’s weakness would not be as staggering as such transgressions might have been in the past?

Gingrich, Clinton, JFK

If Cain were innocent, however, then the extent of the coordinated slanderous attack on Cain would be historically significant and unnerving.  If President Obama’s campaign was prepared to coordinate such a vicious and fallacious attack on an opposing candidate, that really would make a story dwarfing other stories of political ethical misconduct, including Watergate and the more recent Blagojevich affair.

continue reading…

Recall Walker?

or

Wanted: one Veto-Man!

.

.Nobody likes to have salary/privileges cut, so it’s not surprising that first reactions to Walkers budget cuts in March 2011 included rebellion and threats of recall.
But beyond the initial frustration of living through budget and bargaining privilege cuts, recallers should consider where a recall would steer us.
Suppose the recall is successful; what happens next?

Will the recession go away?

Answer: No

Who will replace Walker?

What politician would consider the politically suicidal prospect of governing with both legislatures controlled by the opposition?  Little other than a long list of vetoes would head his/her potential portfolio of accomplishments.

Is there a delusional narcissist, a fictional masochistic super hero to be found in Wisconsin who would find this proposition attractive?
Classifieds:  WANTED: One Veto-Man!

Recallers are already struggling to find a replacement.
Russ Feingold has already said no.

Further down the line

What other jobs would the Governor’s replacement face? continue reading…

Taxing the Rich

or

Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Neighbor’s Cow

or

Does President Obama Know How to Count?

.

Brainstorming for a title for my article on the merits of  “taxing the rich,” I stumbled across an article entitled “Killing Your Neighbor’s Cow: The Defining Sin or Our Times.” The relevancy of this concept to my article was so striking that I borrowed it.  I am grateful to Charles Colson of Catholic Exchange for his perceptive article, which is well worth reading.  (We’ll get to the cow later. Or scroll down.)

US and China Deficits

.

.

Outlining the Problem

• The US has a two-pronged financial problem; an annual deficit, and an accumulated debt.
• Obviously we must find solutions to the problem.
• Continued borrowing is destabilizing our international status and our economy.
• Our national debt is 34 times higher than China’s.
• We must stop spending or find a new source of income.
• Political leaders like Wisconsin’s Governor Walker try to reduce spending and are vilified and threatened with recall.
• Political leaders like President Obama try to find new sources of tax income with popular slogans like “tax the rich,” a concept which, not surprisingly, seems to have much public appeal.  The concept of dipping into Scrooge McDuck’s seemingly limitless wealth is, on the surface, quite attractive.

.

Is “Tax the Rich” a Realistic Solution to the Problem?

Scrooge McDuck

Kevin D. Williamson analyzed the possibilities regarding taxing the rich in the United States in his National Review Online Article

Define the goal:
National Debt: 15 trillion  ($15,000,000,000,000)
Yearly Deficit: 1.3 trillion ($1,300,000,000,000)

Define the rich:
Definition A:  households earning $250,000 ($250K)
Definition B: households earning $1,000,000 ($1 million)

The “Rich” as Those Who Earn $250K Annually

There are 2.2 million households in the US earning more than $250K.  To raise enough money to wipe out the annual deficit of 1.3 trillion, each of these households would have to pay $600K per year ( more than twice their entire income). continue reading…