This Is Not My Grandpa's Democratic Party

I had a discussion with my cousin earlier today regarding some left wing nonsense he had on his Facebook page. He is a little older than me and I've always looked up to him. We rarely discuss politics because he is from the democratic side of the family and we really love each other so we usually refrain. Be that as it may, our ego's got the best of us and we traded political punches.

 I hit him with "Grandpa would not be able to stomach today's democratic party".

 I love this because I'm putting words in the mouth of a deceased democrat and declaring it as a fact.

 Cuz had a cleaver response: "I know he hated Reagan".

 True enough, he did detest the Gipper and was not shy about letting everyone know it. He was a lifelong democrat as far as I know, a proud member of the party that fought for the working man. He was white, catholic, middle class, hardworking, grouchy, a tad racist and had no use for laziness. The era he grew up in produced a lot a great Americans just like him. The working man in the past didn't have the the laws we have today that protect workers and they did not have agencies like OSHA. They had to fight for decent working conditions, fair pay, and decency in the workplace. This is very different than the work environment today. I cannot walk into our plant without proper ear and eye protection paid for by the company I work for.

 The democrat party has gone from that of the working man to that of the non-working man. It is the party that protects the guy who doesn't like to work, non-traditional working woman, environmentalists, and the academic elite. They say we are a bunch a grouchy old bastards who refuse to change with the times. They view our constitution as a living document rather than the law of the land. Today's democrat sees all problems solved by government and other peoples money. They detest any mention of religion and associate all Christians with the Puritans who executed the witches in Salem.

 Catholics have gravitated to the democratic party for years largely because of the their commitment to feeding the poor. The abortion issue causes some discomfort for sure but Catholics have been able to stomach it believing the good outwieghs the bad. However, with Obama making a play to force Catholic employers to pay for contraceptives and abortions, many are beginning to flip.

 Something smells fishy when grandpa's democratic party is all too happy to pay the lazy to stay home. Oh did I say that? I must be a hater! Sorry, my dad and grandpa both said if you refused to work, you were a useless lazy peace a crap. This used to be called values, today it's hate speak. In the Obama economy we are expected to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and head to the welfare office. Oh brother...

11 O'Clock Blues Break

Welcome to the 11 O'Clock Blues Break.  Taking a break from conservative politics and relaxing with the best  Soul Searching, 

Ain't Got o Money,

Your Baby just left you,

Blues...

Good Night Folks.....

Let's Not Get Cocky!

This is not a time for conservatives to rest on their laurels even though the latest polling looks good for Mitt Romney's chances of winning the White House.  The latest New York Times/CBS poll that President Obama could be loosing support from woman voters and independents.  Democrats are sounding the alarm and scrambling to pull it together!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/alarm-grows-among-dems-about-obamas-chances/

While Obama continues to pander shamelessly to woman and gay voters, they seem to checking their own pulse rather than listening to the democratic talking points which seem to be far flight from reality.  The polls are showing that Obama has lost 5 points among women moderates, and independents.  Despite the hope America once had in the smooth talking man from Chicago, he is being held accountable as he expected.  

Democratic strategist James Carville warned Democrats back in September of 2011 that Obama needed to fire someone. He said: “Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63573.html#ixzz1uyO0L2QN

Again last week, Carville warns Democrats to WTFU which stands for "Wake The Fuck Up." 

However, something smells fishy when the Democrats publicly appear nervous rather than arrogant.  We must continue on with the same intensity as though we are loosing by 25 points.  OSU coach Woody Hayes was asked why he went for a two point conversion when his team was winning by a very large margin. 

 He replied "Because they wouldn't let me go for three!" 

Gay Marriage: A Different Conservative View

Conservatives may want to consider a few things when taking a position on same sex marriage.  I was pretty vocal for many years about my opposition even to freinds and family members who are living an alternative lifestyle.  I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament and one not to be taken lightly.  My wife and I were married in the catholic church where sacraments are a top priority.  It seemed that same sex couples cannot be married unless we change the definition of marriage.  While I maintained my position, I truly have no ill will for gay and lesbian couples.  I don't believe that God hates anybody for any reason and we are all brothers and sisters in some sense.

There is much more to the issue of same sex marriage when we consider the tax codes, laws, customs, and personal liberty.  The tax code has evolved over time and married couples have been given certain advantages over single folks.  The reason is mainly political rather than logical.  Our tax laws have been created based on getting votes for our law makers instead of common sense or fairness.  Ask yourself:

• Did our founding fathers intend on one group of Americans paying more taxes than others based on their marital status?
• Putting the same sex marriage issue aside, should single Americans pay a higher tax rate than married couples?
• Does a same sex couple present a higher risk to an insurance company than a married couple?

  I was perplexed when a man I knew was dying in the hospital and his partner of many years was not able to access any information regarding his condition because they were not "family". The doctors would not talk to him and I found the whole thing really disturbing.  The hospital was bound by laws and could not release information and the dying man (who was in a coma) had nobody else to look after his affairs.

 I also wonder why the government issues marriage licenses anyway.  If marriage is a religious sacrament, why does the government have any say in it at all.  This sounds like our government is taking a stance or affiliating itself with the establishment of religion.  My thoughts are simple marriage license = tax revenues.    To many Americans, marriage is more of a contract than a sacrament.  The non-religious get married for a whole host of reasons including tax advantages, insurance advantages, estate and financial planning ect.  They also stay single for similar reasons especially if they are on public assistance.

The new amendment in North Carolina seems to go beyond protecting marriage as a sacrament.  It does not allow rights to be achieved by contract or civil union either.  Do we seek to punish gays in the name of conservatism?  Do we believe all men are created equal or not?  How can we defend the constitution and all the personal liberties associated with it while disallowing a segment of our citizens to struggling to manage basic financial matters.  Simple boiler plate contracts could be very helpful in helping gay and lesbian couples solve some basic issues without offending social conservatives.   Insurance companies, lead by market driven purpose, could allow gay and lesbian couples to enroll with the same benefits as traditional couples.

Bottom line:  What do I care if a gay couple has a church that will marry them?  What if they have a contract or civil union to help them manage their lives?  I'm not mad at them, I don't care what their sexual practices are, and I frankly prefer to mind my own business.  I'm a political conservative who believes in a smaller less intrusive government, personal freedom and liberty, lower taxes, and personal responsibility.  I believe the federal government should do only those things the constitution empowers it to do.  I don't believe in trying to legislate morality since it is so deeply steeped in religion for some and not at all for others.  I welcome your comments whether you disagree or agree.    

Voter ID Is Not A Hardship.

The politics of voter identification are a hot topic and require getting past all of the left wing hype regarding voter suppression.  The right to vote is certainly held in high regard but also is the importance of election results that are dependable and accurate.  The left would have you believe that requiring an ID is unreasonable and designed to suppress the minority vote.  Rep. Tim Ryan-D says 25% of blacks do not have proper identification and asks "where is the Tea Party" on this issue.  I ask why are blacks not outraged at the assertion that they are too poor, too stupid, or too incapable of obtaining a drivers license or state ID?  I don't believe that 25% of blacks cannot meet the basic requirements of cashing a check.

I have to show my ID to buy a had gun. Is this an infringement to my constitutional rights?  Sure it is and there is no limit to the number of guns I may own as a US citizen.  However, with voting I may only vote once per election. It is perfectly appropriate to confirm the identity of each voter.  States that require voter ID have gone out of their way to accommodate those who need to obtain identification.  North Carolina will pick people up and take them to get their ID, if needed. According to the states governor, only 17 people have taken advantage of this program. Ohio will issue ID's at no cost to those who claim they cannot afford it.

Something Smells Fishy when the Democratic Party, who has a record of voter fraud, makes such a stink about protecting voters rather than the accuracy of elections.  Makes me wonder if they have a plan to steal the 2012 election.