Political Thought « Thoughts of a Conservative Mind

Mass. Bill: Chemo patients would have to collect own waste

This is an Article, in which I gave an interview for, about a Massachusetts Senate Bill that clearly “Shocks the Conscience.” It appeared in the “Waste and Recycling News” on November 29. Read the Article below:

By Jeremy Carroll | WRN reporter

Nov. 29 — Cancer patients in Massachusetts would have to collect their urine and feces for days after chemotherapy treatments to be disposed as hazardous waste, under a proposal by a state senator.

Senate Bill 1089 would order health care professionals to give chemotherapy patients the means to collect and dispose of bodily wastes following treatment. The bill was introduced by Sen. James Eldridge, D-Worcester.

“It would hopefully eliminate a lot of toxic chemicals from entering the public water system,” Eldridge said.

The senator said he is concerned that some chemotherapy treatments enter the patient and do not fully process by the time it leaves the body. It ends up being flushed into a community´s wastewater treatment facility or local septic systems.

“It´s a real concern that the people receiving these treatments are having a lot of toxic chemicals enter their bodies,” he said. “And these patients get discharged from hospitals or other health care facilities, [and] there´s no way for them to prevent those chemicals, through their bodily waste, from entering the water system.”

While any amount of chemotherapy drugs left unprocessed would be extremely diluted, Eldridge said the reason for the bill is because experts are unsure if newer drugs are surviving traditional wastewater treatment facilities.

“The answer is, we don´t exactly know,” he said. “So let´s try to prevent those chemicals from entering the water system to begin with.”

Jim Mullowney, CEO of Pharma-Cycle Inc., a startup company looking to provide treatment systems for in-home waste, is pushing for the bill´s passage.

He said the way materials surrounding chemotherapy drugs are handled tells you all you need to know about the dangers of them.

“The empty vials, the empty IV bags, the gloves nurses wear, everything that comes into contact with these materials, even in trace amounts, is being treated like it was a chemical weapon,” Mullowney said. “Yet, we inject it into a patient where it passes through the body in three or four days.”

He said not all chemotherapy drugs pass through the body unprocessed, but a handful do.

“If they took the same chemicals and put them down the drain at the hospital, they would arrest the CEO of the hospital and throw them in jail,” he said. “We wouldn´t stand for it. But for some reason, because we treat them as medicines, we ignore the chemistry.”

Mullowney said even trace amounts of these drugs can be extremely dangerous, as they are often given to patients in nanograms per liter, or one billionth of a gram.

“It´s really common sense,” he said. “How we let this happen is beyond me.”

Not everyone is supportive of the measure. Political analyst Mitch Baroody said it is unfair to pick out just chemotherapy patients, as other pharmaceuticals are often found in studies that search for those items in public water systems. Such a move to single out one type of patient may be unconstitutional, he said.

“The point here is, if you are going to put excessive regulations on cancer patients, then you should put those same excessive regulations on anyone that uses medicine [where the medicine] excretes through the body´s waste disposal systems,” he said.

The bill had a public hearing last month and remains in committee.

“It´s the first time I´ve brought the bill forward,” Eldridge said. “It´s something that is a concern for a lot of legislators, but I think there needs to be an education about these chemicals [to other lawmakers].”

He said he is working hard to get the bill out of committee. The Massachusetts legislative session ends in July 2012.

Marc Hymovitz, director of government relations and advocacy for the American Cancer Society in the New England area, said the organization does not have a position on the proposal.

“It´s not an issue we´ve looked at,” he said by email.

12/04/2011 | Categories: Political Thought, Uncategorized | Tags: Baroody Analyst, Baroody Conservative, Chemicals Water, Conservatism, Conservative Environment, Constitution Environment, Environmental Bills, Environmental Policy, Global warming Myth, Jeremy Carroll, Mitchell Baroody, SB 1089, True Conservatism, Waste and Recycling News, Water Supply | 1 Comment »

Could We Soon See the End of ITAR’s Chokehold on Space Exploration?: My Interview Below

Article Written by Daniel Sims, Columbia University, for Universe Today (NASA Endorsed Publication)

Jeff Foust of The Space Review may have said it best when he claimed that ITAR, a set of trade regulations regarding defense-related trade, was “an acronym that has become figuratively and literally a four-letter word in the industry given the costs, delays, and general uncertainty involved in dealing with those regulations.” No matter where you are on the political spectrum or no matter where you stand on the debate about what’s next in space, you will find people who hate the ITAR’s (~~International Trade Arms Regulations~~ International Traffic in Arms Regulations) influence on space commerce. Even in this time of great partisanship, Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA28] along with six Democrats and four Republicans have joined forces to craft a sword that, once given to the president will eliminate ITAR’s influence on space commercial enterprise.

The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is the name of the bill. Also named HR 3288, the act removes spacecraft and related components from the United States Munitions List which is a list of items which are controlled by ITAR. China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea have restricted access to US spacecraft merchants, easing fears that US technology would fall into the wrong hands.

HR 3288 has created much excitement in the space industry.

“Congress has the opportunity to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the U.S. satellite and space industries and ensure an innovative and thriving U.S. space industrial base,” said Patricia Cooper, the president of the Satellite Industry Association, in a press release. She added that they would be jumping for joy if it weren’t for the “outmoded and overly-restrictive regulation” they say they are under.

Why so much joy? Mitchell Baroody, law student, political analyst, advocate, speaker and told Universe Today that “while ITAR may have some positive effects on National Security, the detrimental effects of these ‘red tape-laced’ regulations cannot be ignored.”

For instance, according to The Space Review in 2006, U.S. Satellite Manufacturers have estimated losses from ‘$2.5 and $6.0 billion since 1999 due primarily to ITAR regulations.’

“When industries become over-regulated, this is what happens,” Baroody said. “As a result of ITAR, even…‘friendly’ foreign countries are weary of dealing with the U.S.”

This makes it difficult for our allies because spacecraft are listed after deadly toxicological agents and before destructive nuclear weapons with all three under the same trade rules. Despite this hilarious position, spacecraft’s removal is still, according to Space Politics, “an uphill battle, as Congress awaits the administration’s export control reform proposals as well as delivery of a final version of a report looking at the national security implications of moving satellite export control reform.”

This uphill struggle against protectionism might not be so bad because over the overwhelming need to create jobs. Baroody acknowledged that there are “many who are advocating protectionist ideals, like Donald Trump advocating increased trade tariffs of 25% with China in April of 2011.”

However, Baroody said, there are many more who know that in the present American economy, people are looking for any feasible solution to export control that has economic benefits. “Unfortunately, becoming more protectionist could have some very negative economic implications for the American consumer,” he said.

Baroody does not foresee this bill being stopped by the protectionist movement. “HR 3288 does not, in any way, benefit the one country who has been treating us unfairly, China,” he said. “This bill should not face an obstacle, in reference to protectionism.”

To Baroody, the thought “that idealists tendencies, which are not accurate, can dominate and win over more jobs, more freedom for American business, and more money in the pockets of Americans is…sickening.”

Some could counter-claim saying national security is at risk, but Baroody thinks the US government has gone too far.

“Before the satellite industry was given such a devastating blow in 1999, it is fair to say there was not enough oversight. However, putting satellites on the munitions list went way too far,” he said. “Now, American Manufacturers are winning with HR 3288 and American security is being preserved because the malevolent nations are excluded from being sold these satellites and components.”

Drilling down to the mechanics of the law, this is the only route Congress can take to export reform as Baroody explains: “Title 22 USC § 2778 (The ITAR) gives Congress oversight in munitions list removal. The President has to present any removals to Congress and cannot remove anything until 30 days have passed upon notification of the Speaker and specific committees. They specifically authorized the President to have discretion in removal. In HR 3288, Congress authorizes the President to remove the satellites and related components only if this does not cause a threat to National security.” In other words, congress can’t remove the spacecraft from the munitions list themselves.”

The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is not perfect. “The bill includes risk-mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards,” Baroody said. “Red-tape and regulations are always going to get in the way of commerce, regardless of whether it involves space or some other category of commerce. If you put aside the risk mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards and look at America’s tax system, the answer is obvious.”

“The red-tape a company has to go through to get a product to market, like a satellite, can also be just as bad as paying more for it,” Baroody continued. “Having to paddle through the exorbitant amount of regulations to ensure you are legally allowed to sell your product and your buyer is allowed to keep it, is detrimental to every business. We should have regulations, but they should be within reason and should make sense. Government should not babysit our industries but they should keep an eye on them to make sure no one is getting hurt and the American people are being reasonably protected”.

This bill even has international implications. In an interview for The Space Review Dennis Burnett, vice president of trade and export controls for EADS North America expressed that “You cannot build a big sophisticated satellite without US parts and components, you just cannot do it…Those components might comprise no more than five percent of the satellite, but still, it’s a very important five percent.”

Because of this international impact, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee on November 1st. This so called ‘Congress of specialists’ will, if they give the bill their time, study the bill then report on it. If the committee doesn’t give the bill their time, it will die there. Only after the committee’s review will there be a vote on the elimination of the ITAR.

11/28/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: GOP, SCGOP, Mitchell Baroody, Baroody Conservative, Space, HR-3288, Universe Today, Munitions List Bill, U.S. Munitions, China Trade, Trade Tariffs, ITAR, U.S. Space Agency, Space Review, Conservative Commentary, South Carolina Republican, Gingrich Nominee | Leave A Comment »

CONSERVATIVES DISH ON CAIN, RACE: My Interview Below

This is article appeared Sunday, June 13, 2011, in the Philadelphia Tribune and is written by Zack Burgess

For more than two weeks now, and especially since Herman Cain was hit with allegations of sexual harassment, several talk show hosts have rallied around him, using race and his conservatism as a way to ex:plain why he has encountered some of his recent troubles.

First there was Rush Limbaugh, who recently said on his show: that the article in Politico is part of a process to tear down a Black Republican. Then there was Ann Coulter.

“Liberals detest, detest, detest conservative Blacks,” Coulter said. “…This is now the second time a conservative Black has had outrageous, and what appear to be false, allegations leveled against him.”

The first, in her view, was Clarence Thomas.

She didn’t stop there, inferring that a cadre of women, who were quick to forgive Bill Clinton for his sexual transgressions, was now attacking Herman Cain. “If you are a conservative Black, they will believe the most horrible sexualized fantasies of these uptight white feminists,” she said.

This prompted radio host Sean Hannity to wonder why liberals were, in his words, so “threatened” by Cain. Needless to say, Coulter was blunt in her response.

“Our Blacks are so much better than their Blacks,” she said, speaking of Democrats. “To become a Black Republican, you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow… and that’s why we have very impressive Blacks in the Republican Party.”

There has been a collective response to the Politico.com report that GOP front-runner Cain had settled two sexual harassment lawsuits when he headed the National Restaurant Association, a lobbying group for the food industry, in the 1990s.

And given that Cain gave inconsistent answers to questions raised by the article and has refused to acknowledge his latest accuser, Sharon Bialek — he has only been his own worst enemy.

“People refer to Herman Cain as a “Black conservative” as if he is some alien species,” said political analyst Mitch Baroody. “While the NAACP means well in protecting civil rights, I find them to be very quick on the trigger in pulling the race card and setting up divides. By talking about whites and Blacks like they are so different, it effectively makes them different. It allows people to use race as an excuse not to perform or an excuse as a defense to criticism.”

Coulter evoked the Thomas parallel when she dredged up the famous phrase from his nomination hearings 20 years ago.

At that time it was Thomas who made the statement that effectively neutralized questions about inappropriate sexual conduct raised by attorney Anita Hill.

Keep in mind, Coulter has called the Rev. Al Sharpton a “fat, race-baiting Black man” and has defended the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens as being unfairly accused of racism.

“The rendering of Black people as the ornaments of diversity, rather than incarnations of it, is one of the essential reasons why Blacks clash with conservatism,” said Political analyst Yvette Carnell.

Cain’s rise to the top of the GOP presidential pool has set off a furor among conservatives who saw Cain and other conservative minorities as victims of the so-called-liberal media. Limbaugh compared Cain’s problems to those of Marco Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida who frequently told the story of his family fleeing Castro, which turned out to be untrue. Apparently the Rubios left Cuba several years before Castro came to power.

In a 12-minute exposition on the subject, Limbaugh called the reporting on Cain a “hit job.” “Anything good that happens to any Black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas,” he said.

Speaking of Blacks’ place in America, MSNBC contributor, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said in his just-released book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”: “The European and Christian core of our country is shrinking.”

He says that “Old heroes like Columbus and Robert E. Lee may be replaced on calendars by Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez.” He goes on to write: “The End of White America. Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.”

For 21 consecutive months now, MSNBC has been No. 1 among African-American viewers in prime time. So it’s no surprise that Buchanan, hasn’t appeared on the network since his comments.

The Huffington Post’s reported that Buchanan hasn’t shown up on MSNBC since Oct. 22, while doing the rounds on other stations to promote his new book.

“A Conservative does not change because he is a different color,” Baroody said. “A Liberal does not change his philosophy because of his color either. Color should not be a part of this debate. People should lean on the side of conviction and not outward appearance. But because people have put such an emphasis on color, it allows politicos to make excuses like, ‘the media doesn’t like me because I’m a Black Conservative.’ It’s disgusting that we have let our society come to this after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.”

ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, asked its members to sign a petition urging MSNBC to fire Buchanan, rattling off a series of questionable comments he has made over the years.

The Anti-Defamation League also chimed in, labeling Buchanan a racist and anti-Semite. Calderone even spoke with a station executive, who told him that, “the network is taking the concerns seriously.”

He also stressed that the decision to freeze out Buchanan was made long before the groups started rallying against him.

“To me, it’s disgusting,” Baroody said. “Blacks and whites are equals, only different in appearance. In the progressive age we live in today, Blacks and whites should be sticking up for each other more and calling out those that abuse the ‘race card’ as an excuse. Every time someone refers to a candidate as a ‘Black Conservative’ there should be whites and Blacks protesting this type of language because it sets up divides.”

Zack Burgess is the enterprise writer for The Tribune. He is a freelance writer and editor who covers culture, politics and sports. He can be contacted at zackburgess.com.

11/17/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: ann coulter, ann coulter racist, Baroody Conservative, Conservatism, Conservative, herman cain news, herman cain race, Mitchell Baroody, NAACP, philadelphia tribune, philadephia news, racial divides, racial relations, racism in America, zack burgess | Leave A Comment »

CNBC Presidential Debate: Surprised Perry Remembered to Attend

The debate on CNBC was…revealing at best. Rick Perry, effectively, ended his candidacy for good tonight. Cain showed more signs of being human while the 999 plan became more annoying as the debate went on. Gingrich sounded more and more Presidential. Finally, Romney continued to seal his front-runner status without any major blunders. Here is an analysis and the grades I think they deserve.

The worst performance of the night goes to Rick Perry. Simply put, he’s through. Truthfully, he was through a long time ago but tonight sealed the deal for him. He would benefit by going home to Texas and allowing his staff to continue running the state for the rest of his term. Perry said he would eliminate three departments and stated “I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the — What’s the third one there? Let’s see.” He had to ask Ron Paul for assistance, Rep. Paul suggested the EPA, Perry obliged. Then he changed his mind and still could not remember.

This was, perhaps, the biggest blunder of the entire campaign season if not in the past 3 decades. This was painful for anyone watching, regardless of whether you support him or not. He’s like a mini-Bush but not as polished. I can’t believe I am actually saying that. I am expecting the headlines Thursday morning to read: “Perry withdraws from race, endorses someone but forgets who.”

Even with all of his money, he will not recover. There is no hope. If you support Perry, I suggest finding someone else because he will not be running much longer. If he does stay in, he is in for a terrible defeat in January. For the guy I thought could be President a few months ago, I have to confidently say he is through. He gets a D- tonight, only because his tax plan does make pretty good sense.

Bachman is largely an idealist and if I fact checked everything she said tonight, I am certain I would catch her in a few stories that are not based on fact. Her constituents think she is out of her mind, at least the constituents I have talked too, and tonight, she seemed slightly out-of-touch as usual. She likes to tell stories and uses fear mongering to win people over. It’s an old political trick that is somewhat effective..especially at tea parties. But on a national stage, saying we will be paying for China’s army..well, that is too much. She did make a few good points, especially on Tax Issues..she knows that topic well. Thank God she didn’t mention she was a “federal tax lawyer” for once..for that, I give her a C.

Santorum was so forgettable that I remember nothing that he said. He comes across as an irritated and disgusted Baptist preacher…except for that fact he is Catholic. I think it’s very clear that Santorum knows he isn’t going to be President, he wants something else. I’m not sure what, because Santorum as the VP would not necessarily bring in Pennsylvania and would not necessarily bring in any more Christian Conservatives than let’s say, Bachman.

He likes to remind people that he is the only candidate to beat democrats in Pennsylvania…but perhaps we should remind him he is also the only Republican to lose a big re-election to a democrat. At least Santorum wore a shiny blue tie tonight. That made him stand out. Unfortunately, he just shouts and does not connect. I’ve met him and talked with him…he does not come across in the way a President should. Nice guy, just not right to be President. I am not even giving him a grade…he’s Below a B, that’s about all I will say about him.

Gingrich is, by far, the smartest guy on stage. He handled the female moderator like she was a student in his college lecture. Nothing seemed to ruffle Newt’s feathers. He was articulate, spoke with conviction, and spoke with intelligence. These are three qualities that I feel Romney needs to learn in a hurry. Gingrich hit the nail on the head when he said we need to audit the Federal Reserve and investigate the people Bernanke has been bailing out. That was a huge plus. I don’t believe Gingrich is a nationally viable candidate at the moment though. His personality is dull and I really feel that he would be better at the bottom of a Presidential ticket, especially for someone lacking Conservative credentials.

Newt may surprise us and may very well rise in the polls. However, polls are not significant, the ground game in New Hampshire and Iowa is. Gingrich doesn’t have the organized ground game to win right now. We will see if these strong debates pay off for him. I will say, putting Gingrich on stage with Obama would be epic. This would be the first time in recent memory that a sitting President was completely humiliated on live television. It would be ratings gold. But imagine something even better…Gingrich v. Biden in the VP debate…that would be quality entertainment. Newt gets an A-.

Mitt Romney was great tonight and for the first time seemed to speak with real conviction rather than out of defense. But I do not like his flip flopping. I like a candidate who doesn’t change their mind to appease people. However, tonight, Romney had it together. His plans for jobs are sound and I feel like he has the tough rhetoric needed to fight China in the trade war that is brewing. I also liked his alternative bailout plan of bringing in private investors.

Given, I don’t enjoy listening to him talk because he acts like he is doing everyone a favor by speaking, and when he laughs, it seems too forced. But if I had to pick the guy who could put the economy on the right track, Mitt Romney would be my choice. I also liked hearing him say “I will never apologize as President of the United States of America.” Pretty good talk, let’s hope he doesn’t change his mind. He has the experience and has the plan. His wife is also a pretty amazing person, met her my sophomore year of college. Tonight, he did nothing to lose his frontrunner status, so he gets an A- as well.

Finally, Herman Cain. First of all, people booed when he was asked about the American people hiring a President with character issues. However, this was not a boo at Herman but a boo at the left-leaning moderator for bringing up this subject at an economic debate. Herman handled it well and Romney showed class by not responding, even though he had a chance to. Unfortunately, Cain is beginning to sound like a broken record. Hearing about 999, in almost every response, is too repetitive. I do commend him for getting back on message by talking about the economy. However, every time he talks about the economy, he has to mention the dreadful 999.

I should explain why 999 makes me so angry. This plan would cause sales tax to be 15-18%, not 9%. Mr. Cain fails to mention there is still a state sales tax. Without giving low-income and middle-class Americans pre-bates, I believe this plan is a disaster. He grew up in a poor family, he should know how hard it is to get by. He should have stuck with the Fair Tax. I felt like Cain did not give specifics but told generalizations on what he wanted to do. This is troublesome for a President. He needs to hire a competent staff and to surround himself with policymakers. I would also suggest he find himself a good Middle Eastern policy adviser because avoiding these questions is not Presidential. Truthfully, Cain is a feel good story but not someone that is ready to be President. Cain still gets a B+ tonight because things could have gone really poorly but he did a nice job.

I am not bothering to discuss Ron Paul because it’s just more of the same rhetoric that should be in a Harvard classroom rather than presented to the American people. The average American is not going to connect or understand most of the things Paul says. However, he is growing on people but will never become President.

Huntsman is brilliant but also a brilliant jerk. He comes across to stiff and too Ivy League. He is like that antagonist you always disliked in an 80’s cult classic. I’m not going to waste my time analyzing either because they are not going to be contenders or VP nominees.

If the Republican Convention were tomorrow, I would make the following predictions: Romney/Rubio, Romney/Gingrich, or possibly Romney/Cain. I do not believe Cain would win the nomination if the election were tomorrow. There are still too many questions about Cain, to realistically look at him as anything other than a Vice-Presidential contender. For the next week, I predict that Cain loses 1.5-5% in the national polls. Romney will probably stay the same and Gingrich will probably move up 2-8% points. The undecided will decrease by 1-2% points.

The most interesting development will be when Perry drops out of the race. Will his supporters go for Romney or will they rally around Cain or Gingrich?

Who is the biggest loser? That is Rick Perry and he didn’ t have to run 5 miles a day and go on a diet. Biggest Victor? Romney, Gingrich, and Cain because he did not blow it.

11/09/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Bachman, Bachman Tea Party, Baroody, CNBC Debate, Conservative Issues, Conservative Politics, CPAC 2012, DEBATE ANALYSIS, Gingrich 2011, Gingrich Rising in Polls, Gov. Perry, Hannity Debate Analysis, Mitch Baroody, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich Debate, Perry Blunder, Presidential Debate Analysis, Rick Perry, Rick Perry Gaffe, Romney Debate, Romney Economic Plan, Santorum Debate, SCGOP, Tax Plan, Tea Party Debate, Thoughts of a Conservative Mind | Leave A Comment »

The S.C. GOP Vice-Presidential Debate: Wait, I mean Presidential

This debate came with no surprises. If you missed it, you likely missed seeing one of the future GOP nominees for Vice President. I’ve called it. None of the candidates in this first debate will be the Presidential nominee. I’m sorry, I’m sure I disappointed a few of you, but I speak the truth even if it hurts.

I call this with about 80% certainty because you never know when someone is going to burst out of their shell and surprise you. However, I find it likely none will be taking front runner status from this debate. Here is a quick rundown of the candidates and my opinion of each candidate’s performance.

Ron Paul: He often seemed like a sleepy and agitated old man. His performance is no different than his performances in the past. He spoke as a strong libertarian would. He opposed “secret” military prisons and advocated for gay rights.

I found myself agreeing with him on many issues but I also disagree with him adamantly on defense issues and believe he has a very fatalistic outlook on securing America and our place in the world. He will have no greater chance at the Presidency this time than he did before. I hate to say that because I really like the guy and he has been really nice to me in the past. He’s a fantastic guy to sit down and talk with, as I have. However, based on content, I have to give him a B-

Gary Johnson- He rarely said anything but from what he said, he is 100% never going to be President or Vice-President. He won’t be on the cabinet either. He is wasting his money and time by staying in this race. He lacks the confidence, decisiveness, and charisma to be a world leader..another libertarian but he is no Ron Paul. Gary throws his hands in the air like an angry mother at her toddler eating mushrooms in the yard. It’s time for him to call it quits. I gave him a C- and I am being very generous.

Herman Cain- He responded as a true business man would. He advocated an objective and advocated knowing what the end game should be in any circumstance whether domestic or foreign. He is relatively new to politics and leeway can be given to him for this debate. I found myself saying “Amen” on several of his stances.

I think this guy is the real deal, don’t get me wrong. However, his lack of charisma at times and lack of foreign policy experience could be a negative. Mr. Cain could surprise us all, continue making great progress, and be a dark horse candidate in this race.

But my guess, if anything, is he will be in the running for Vice-President but will likely end up as a frontrunner for Secretary of Commerce in a new administration. I give him a B+ and I’m proud to do so.

Tim Pawlenty- decisive, knowledgeable, sure of himself, and ready to lead…as Vice President. He was spot on tonight with everything he said. However, he often lacks charisma, something needed to beat Obama. I am also unsure at how far his message can reach at the front of a ticket. Overall, he was pretty good tonight and he earned points with his rant against the Government for interfering in the Boeing deal in Charleston. However, his views on cap and trade have certainly hurt him. But I still give him an A- for tonight because in a weak crop of candidates, he is one of the stronger ones.

Rick Santorum- I am extremely undecided about him. His performance tonight was right on the money with the Conservative GOP message. He was the most confident out of all candidates tonight. However, he lacks the “wow” factor that will take him over the top in 2012. He can’t beat Obama..let’s face it. He may have beaten 3 other democrats in Pennsylvania races, but he can’t beat the biggest democrat in the White House.

However, if a more centrist and suspect -Conservative GOP candidate wins the nomination; he is an ideal candidate to boost conservative credentials on any ticket. I give him an A- for his performance, but I would like to see him relate better with other areas of the party rather than the hardcore, right wing side.

A quick wrap- Pawlenty and Santorum win this debate and who is better is just a matter of personal preference, Cain is the darkhorse, Paul is Paul, and Johnson needs to quit before he continues to embarrass himself.

Tonight needs to be considered a Vice Presidential debate and nothing more. The next President, by election, was very likely, not on the stage in Greenville. The big boys have yet to arrive. However, I search my brain hoping Gingrich, Romney, Trump and Co. can be considered big boys. I have my serious doubts.

It is going to take more to beat a sitting President. Many, including myself, relate Obama to Jimmy Carter. However, Jimmy Carter did not free the folks in the Iran-Contra affair. Obama has Bin Laden’s death to his name. That is the significant difference that could help pull Obama over the top if the GOP candidate is not strong, charismatic, decisive, and ready to be everything Obama was not.

Right now, the GOP crop is full of what the democrats used to have: Walter Mondales, Michael Dukakisis, and George McGoverns. As we all know, none of them reached much success on the national level. I hope someone steps up soon, or steps out of their shell if they have already stepped up, and lets the country know they are ready to be the image of the Executive branch for the next eight years.

05/05/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Conservative South Carolina, Conservatives for President, Fox News Debate Analysis, FOX NEWS REPUBLICAN DEBATE, GOP DEBATE, GOP DEBATE ANALYSIS, Greenville Debate, Greenville Presidential Debate, Herman Cain Debate, Herman Caine for President, Mitch Baroody, Presidential Debate Analysis, Republican Debate, Rick Santorum Debate, Rick Santorum for President, Ron Paul Debate, Ron Paul for President, S.C. Politico, SC Republican Presidential Debate, SCGOP DEBATE, Thoughts of a Conservative Mind, Tim Pawlenty Debate, Tim Pawlenty for President, Who Won the debate? | 1 Comment »

A Taxing Situation

I happened to check out The Hill today and as a result, my focus on unity, peace, and love for the Liberals in Washington quickly decreased. Obama and Co. can take partial credit for shooting a terrorist who needed to be killed, but it still doesn’t fix the biggest problems in our country: THE ECONOMY and now, SENATOR KENT CONRAD.

Senator Kent Conrad, a democrat from North Dakota. has a plan, and believe me, it’s quite a plan! As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, he is now pushing a new tax plan that will tax every American based on how many miles they drive. This differs from the current gas tax because the government will basically become more “Big Brotherish” and keep a closer look on motorists.

Why is this a “taxing situation?” Frankly, the way they want to keep track is pretty scary. These guys must be in cahoots with Steve Jobs over at apple. They want to put tracking devices in every American vehicle. These devices will keep track of the mileage and people will be required to pay the tax at gas stations.

Seriously? I mean, really? And no, this isn’t some tea party or government conspiracy talk, it’s true. It sounds more like something out of a Science Fiction movie but it’s here..electronically tracking us to pay taxes.

What is next, a tax on how many times we flush the toilet every day? I guess nursing homes will go out of business! Better yet, a tax on profanity. There we go. Every time you say “Damn” that is .25 cents. Worse curse words are taxed more heavily. I guess Joe Biden would be in big trouble if this were the case.

While the price of gas is rising to nearly historical levels, the democrats in D.C. apparently want to move towards another historic move: The extinction of automobiles. I cannot wait to see how liberal scientist Bill Nye will try to explain this. It’s easy. I’ll help him out. It’s a cataclysm called “Liberalistic Geo-shifting of the Transportation Infrastructure.”

There Bill Nye, hope that helps. Seriously though, how do they think Americans will afford yet another tax, to increase the cost of driving, that will supposedly benefit our highways?

For states like South Carolina, Maine, and New Hampshire, the funds collected will go to bigger states like California and New York. Have you driven on a road in South Carolina any time lately? They are horrible. Part of this is the state legislature’s fault in South Carolina and part of it is the Federal Funds South Carolina gets, go to putting Jim Clyburn’s name on various universities instead of paving the roads. Just saying.

It doesn’t make up for the simple truth that roads in other parts of the country are fantastic. Don’t think for one second that a tax like this would restore the roads in a smaller state like South Carolina. The money would never see the light of day in small states.

In conclusion, this assault on the American pocket book is just another liberal plan to cripple an already decaying economy to the point of no return. If there are benefits, I would certainly like to see them. Unfortunately, by the time any benefit are seen, no one will be driving on roads to enjoy their restoration!

Thanks Kent Conrad! Way to help out the American people. Better get used to being chauffeured around piggy back style!

By MEB

If you want to read more in depth about the plan, check out: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

05/05/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Bin Laden, Conservatism, Conservative Thought, Donald Trump Tax, Environmental Conservative Issues, Gasoline Tax, GOP Primary South Carolina, Haley Reinhart, Kent Conrad, Mileage Tax, Mitch Baroody, Nikki Haley S.C., North Dakota, Obama Birth Certificate, Political Rhetoric, Politics, Republican Tax Stance, Republicans, SCGOP, Senator Kent Conrad, Tax Issues, tea party, Tea Party Tax Issues, The Hill Mileage Tax | Leave A Comment »

Trouble in the Middle East: Lebanon Next?

The Middle East is in an uproar and no one has much of an explanation besides, “Radical Muslims are trying to overturn governments.” Wow, impressive..how many years of American university education did that take you?

The biggest problem with current American Foreign policy towards the Middle East is simple: There are too many university educated advisers and not enough authentic Lebanese, Egyptian, Libyan, etc. people doing the policy making. Before I rant about policy makers, let me explain my view of the situation.

First of all, people in the Muslim Brotherhood and in other radical sects do not understand democracy. There is no democracy in radical Islam, that has to be understood. There is not but one law, Sharia law, and there is not but one god, allah. That is how they think. So, before believing anything else, to understand what is going on, we cannot be naive and believe this is about democracy. It’s about everything but democracy.

A stronger Islamic presence in each of these governments means a weaker tolerance for Jewish and Christian factions in each country. It also means zero tolerance for the Jewish state of Israel. If you think people are negative and show too much hatred towards Israel now, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Christians will suffer a great deal because of these riots. However, the real suffering will be done by the country of Israel. The underlying purpose of fortifying Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and basically every other Middle Eastern country, with radical Islamic regimes, is to push for the destruction of the Jewish state so that the Palestinians can take over. Right now, Muslims believe that is quickly approaching. They are also looking to the skies for the return of their “hidden Imam” which they think is coming in the midst of this.

As for the country of Lebanon, things will be getting very interesting. Hezbollah’s presence in the country has grown to extraordinary depths. The people of Lebanon don’t have weapons, so they cannot defend themselves against Hezbollah’s weapon caches. Many members of the Lebanese Parliament are intimidated into supporting and joining Hezbollah. Yet Hezbollah claims to promote peace in Lebanon? Hezbollah is another radical Islamic sect just like the Muslim Brotherhood. Their goal is to take the country over and eventually attack Israel again and get their land back from the Sheba Farms area of Israel.

According to an unnamed source who may or may not be in Lebanon, on March 13, protests are apparently being held in Lebanon. But this force is anti-Hezbollah and for a truly unified Lebanese government. People are tired of Hezbollah pushing them around and these protests will likely spur even more international attention on the issue. However, given the current turn of the tides in the Middle East, do not be surprised if these protests turn violent, quickly. Hezbollah does not like to be challenged and their leader, Hassan Nasrallah. is a force to be reckoned with. This could be the next hot spot of activity. I would bet on it.

The problem with a protests and riots, even for a good purpose in Lebanon, is that it makes the Middle East even more unstable. Another country this close to Israel, with instability, only makes Israel more defensive in its parameter. If the riots happen, the U.S. needs to be quicker in coming out with a response. We must stand behind the Lebanese people in their fight against Hezbollah. This will help quiet Israel as they begin to get defensive to growing unrest in Lebanon.

If Lebanon becomes more unstable and if another country closer to Israel erupts as well, I see Israel being provoked into war with Syria and perhaps Iran at even the slightest test of their patience. That is if the U.S. doesn’t intervene in some manor.

Let’s not forget, Lebanese Hezbollah is funded by Iran and Syrica. If Israel is to sustain itself, even though God protects it, they must gain a foothold in Syria first. Second, they must keep Iran off their back. This could cause President Obama to show his hand. Will he stand with Israel or will he be the first President to sit back and watch the Middle East explode.

This decade will certainly give us the answer to what the future of the Middle East will look like. It may also result into one of the biggest and nastiest wars in the worlds history. As Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” I believe now is a very appropriate time to pull that quote out. What we are about to see happen is happening in biblical proportions.

First, as a country, we have to stand with our ally, Israel, and we have to push our other allies in the Middle East to stand with Israel or lose us. Next, we need to start immediate drilling off of our coasts. We have got to become energy dependent because America’s oil consumption depends on Middle East stability..the stability doesn’t look so good right now. Next, the State Department and President Obama need to stop relying so heavily on American academics and more on people that have actually have ties to the Middle East. People that have been held captive by radical extremists, people that understand the thinking of these people. This is the biggest change that needs to be made immediately.

Unfortunately, in the end, we may be provoked into war. But another Middle Eastern war, can we handle this? The bigger question is, can our economy recover from another war?

02/28/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: American Foreign Policy, Analysis of Middle East, Analysis of Riots, Baroody, Baroody analysis, Baroudi politics, Biden Middle East, Conservative, Egyptian Riots, Foreign Policy Middle East, Israel provoked, Israel War, Lebanese, Lebanon Riots, Lybia problem, March 14 Riots, Middle East, Middle East Turmoil, Middle Eastern authority, Muslim Brotherhood, Nasrallah, Obama Policy Middle East, Republican, Return of Imam, Sheba Farms, Tunisia, World war III | Leave A Comment »

Social Media and Technology: Don’t Get Bogged Down, Avoid The Mud

Lately, I find myself analyzing political candidates or the Middle East, making far leftist liberals or Muslims mad with something I say that doesn’t line up with their worldview, or just not writing or speaking at all when it comes to politics. Recently, I had a few people come to me and ask me to write about my predictions and thoughts on Social Media and the future of political campaigns. This article will probably not interest most of you, just a forewarning. But if you are a consultant, politician, or someone interested in the subject, read on.

I’d like to start with talking about my first computer. I was in 2^nd grade and the only computer I had used was one in my 1^st grade computer lab. Then one day, my dad told me to “look out for the cow box from Gateway.” When it arrived, I realized…I got this huge tower computer with awesome games like “Myst” and this awesome program called Encarta Encyclopedia 95. I thought, “ wow, this is as good as it gets or will ever get. I am in heaven being able to type out my homework and play super awesome games that only take 8 minutes to load.” The hard drive was tiny, under 10 Gigabytes and the memory was absolutely pathetic. But at the time, no one could see anything better.

Those that saw the future and invested in companies like DELL and especially Apple in 1995, would have really seen a tremendous pay off now wouldn’t’ they?

So back to social media. Today, politicos, politicians, the media, Jimmy Fallon, and of course, members of the Jersey Shore just love to talk about social media. Twitter, Facebook, Four Square…must I go on?

Political folks think that social media is the way of the future and if you don’t get on social media now, then you are missing out and way behind. The first problem with that is simple…if you get on now, it’s already too late to make an impact. Those that got on social media early, I’m not going to say any names but *cough* Barack *cough* Obama sure did, really reaped the seeds of their harvest. You win Presidencies and you win elections, period, by staying ahead of the trends, not joining them as they are on the decline. The problem with social media and technology, period, is their unkind expiration date.

Most people will call me crazy and think I’ve lost my mind if I say Twitter and Facebook are on the decline…but I have to admit, they are. But all current technology is, so don’t’ think I’m discriminating solely against social networks. For any politician and/or consultant reading this, pushing social media is effective to stay up with the status quo and to build your list of contacts, but getting active in a social network now is not going to give you any advantage at all because you have already missed out on the trend. It’s just like the stock market. Get on in the beginning when it isn’t popular, ride it to the peak, sell, and let others fail miserably as they watch it drop.

Now you are wondering, what does this idiot think political campaigns or politicians of the future should be focusing on if they don’t focus on social media and current technology? Well, the real issue and the ongoing issue since the beginning of political campaigns is this..Getting the candidate in front of the voters as frequently and positively as possible. If you didn’t get on the social network boom when it first started booming, you missed out, not totally, but you missed out.

Just like the computer that I had in 1995, bigger and better things were being made when I opened that cow box from Gateway. My mind was so focused on how good the present was, I forgot ALL about the future and what it could hold. Those caught up on social media can’t believe there would ever be better technological advancements that could make their campaign life better. Did anyone ever think Myspace would be fifth to anything?? It was huge for a while, now look at it? While those of you that I describe above stay stuck in your glaze, others are out there innovating and will beat you in newer, technologically growing future elections. The Obamas of the world tap into new things while the McCains catch on a little too late…yeah, hate to say that, but it’s the truth.

So, using this thought, politicians and political campaigns of the future will have to remember three things in order to succeed in the ever changing technological environment: 1. Look towards the technologies of tomorrow and not the ones of today while maintaining the campaign status quo and staying equal with your opponent’s presence on networks. 2. Spend your resources on new and innovative ways to get face time with voters and/or constituents, not on currently popular but expiring Social Media Networks 3. Don’t be afraid to take a risk on unproven campaign technologies and out the box advertising methods.

In short, there will always be some value to mailers as long as the post office is still running. Campaign signs, while I think they are pretty ineffective, still give name recognition. So, as long as people can read, still do signs for your campaigns. Stay on facebook and twitter because people will still use these networks but they will not be used as much in the future. But the focus of future campaigns and constituent service should be on the newer technology. I divide that up in 2 groups: 1. Literally, the new technology. 2. Out the box advertising that is not commonplace.

What is this new technology you wonder? The technology boom of the next decade, which we are lightly experiencing now, is 3D technology. Most new TVs are being produced with 3D technology now. Computers will have this as a common feature by the end of the decade if not the middle. The ability to watch TV on a cell phone is huge as well. If TVs, portable devices, and computers all have 3D compatibility, a campaign should harness this technology as soon as it is available. This will allow for a more personal experience in the homes of voters. They will see their candidates coming through their tv, portable device, or computer monitor. How personal is this??? Think of the potential.

The other piece of technology that we are not far from having widespread, is holographic technology. This is when the entire structure of political campaigns changes completely. You think I sound crazy like Walt Disney? Catch this: the air force already has it on a light scale and so does CNN. Only the democrats know about that though! Once it gets here for personal use, future campaigns better grab onto it no matter how much it costs. The first presidential candidate that is likeable and presentable enough, that harnesses holographic imagery to reach out to voters, will have a tremendous advantage, no doubt. It’s here, we are just waiting for it to be in the homes of the voters.

Why? Because people want to touch their candidate, understand their candidate, and connect with their candidate. And no, their candidate should not be on e-harmony nor is this an advertisement for THAT social network. Holographic technology eliminates the need for door to door campaigning and the need for mailers. If the voter can put their candidate in their living room any time, why would that candidate need to knock on their door?

Widespread 3D technology and Holographic Technology will eliminate the need for many outreach methods…perhaps even social networks. These are just two ideas.

As for innovative advertising. Well, in the past elections, I witnessed the same, boring, old campaign ads. “Hi I’m blah blah, vote for me because of blah. Thank you and God Bless America” I told a candidate for Governor, when they asked my advice, to think out the box and quit putting up boring policy ads.

See, no one wants to hear that crap. I’m sorry, I know it’s tempting but stop it, please. If you want to succeed in the future and win an election with an ad, make your ads like the non-political ads on television. THEY WORK! Be creative, be innovative, even add some humor to take attention from the carpel tunnel you have received from putting so much emphasis on the expiring twitter. It’s okay to be funny, it’s okay to be out the box, it’s okay to be different. I wonder what would have happened for this candidate had they listened to me and been different.

The point of my entire article is to say one thing bluntly, STOP GETTING GIDDY OVER EXPIRING SOCIAL MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY AND START LOOKING TO WHAT THE NEXT BIG THING IS.

02/24/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Advice for Campaigns, Baroody Conservative, Campaign Strategies, CPAC 2011, Democrats, Facebook's Future, Gingrich 2011, Mitch Baroody, Mitt Romney Technoogy, Neautral Political Opinion, Pawlenty President, Political Consultant Strategies, Republicans, Social Media, Social Media Bust, Technology Boom, Twitter Future | Leave A Comment »

The Little Rascals: Spanky and the Gang

Tomorrow is the big day. The day everything changes or…..just begins again.

We will be electing more little rascals to follow a new Governor, their Spanky.

There are a lot of people asking me about this candidate and that candidate and who to vote for. So, I am going to give you my recommendations for the overall, BEST CANDIDATE for each job.

Governor:

Andre Bauer: Andre, the next Spanky, has the most common sense approach to fixing our problems. It starts with common sense, it ends with more jobs, economic growth, and South Carolinians that are a lot less government dependent. Andre walks the walk and he talks the talk. He’s one of the most transparent people in S.C. Politics. He has the experience to do the job right and you won’t be sorry if you vote for him.

Side note: Any of the candidates are better than train wreck in the waiting, Nikki Haley. Please do South Carolina a favor and avoid voting for her. She preaches transparency but she isn’t transparent, missed 70% of the House votes for transparency related bills, and she doesn’t know how to work with people (sounds eerily familiar to Mark Sanford) which is why she was reduced in leadership in the House.

Update: 8:09 PM Larry Marchant has passed a lie detector test confirming his physical relationship with the married Nikki Haley. This is the second lie detector test that has been released today. Lt. Gov Andre Bauer passed his test to confirm he had nothing to do with the spinning of the Haley affair. Looks like the wall is coming down on Haley guys!

Lieutenant Governor:

Ken Ard or Bill Connor: I worked for Ken and he is a smart businessman and he will do a great job for South Carolina. Ken knows business, he knows jobs, and he knows how to work with people. I have a lot of admiration for him and think he would do a good job.

Bill Connor is a fellow Citadel Alumni and he is a solid Conservative. Lately, he has taken a lot of heat from Larry Richter. The heat he has taken was not deserved and was WRONG. Larry has been disrespectful and anyone that has served in the military of any service or academy should be extremely upset. Bill was brave and served our country well and wants to be the same kind of leader in our State Senate. He would definitely shake things up. I urge you to read Ken and Bill’s websites to learn more about them. This is truly a preference position.

Side Note: DO NOT vote for LARRY RICHTER. His past of underhanded dealings, bribery accusations, removal from his judgeship, and accused drug use makes him a poor candidate. But his recent disrespect to Bill Connor makes him even worse. He has no respect for our military men and women. DO NOT give him your vote.

Attorney General:

Alan Wilson is hands down the best choice (read my article below for more details). His personality, military service, prosecuting experience, and burning desire to keep us all safe is just a few reasons that make him an incredible candidate.

His two opponents are great lawyers and would do a fine job as well. The difference in this race is that Alan Wilson won’t do a fine job, he will do a FANTASTIC job. South Carolina is better than fine. This state deserves FANTASTIC.

Superintendent of Education:

If you are looking for someone with more executive experience and a track record of success in fixing education problems, Gen. Mick Zais is your best bet. If you want a new type of candidate, a school teacher and conservative, Kelly Payne is a great choice.

Treasurer’s Race:

Curtis Loftis is the most conservative and responsible choice. Converse Chellis has wasted tax payer dollars for far too long, definitely isn’t a Conservative, and he was also sued for fraud, sexual harassment, and a poor work ethic by his former business partner (reportedly settled for over 250,000). However, Chellis is a pretty nice guy. Unfortunately, being a nice guy isn’t enough. Loftis is the Conservative and responsible choice S.C. needs.

SC 1st Congressional District:

Carroll Campbell III is the best choice for this position. He has the business leadership that will bring jobs and I-73 to Myrtle beach.

He is a solid Conservative, believes in his father’s philosophy of “Building Relationships” to get business done for his district.

Unlike other people running this election cycle, Carroll IS NOT a career politician. A great guy and he will be a great congressman.

SC 6th Congressional District

Jim Pratt: I shouldn’t be giving this race any credibility at all by posting it on here but I have been asked about it. There is no chance a Republican will EVER win this district. It hasn’t happened, it won’t happen this time, and it won’t happen in the future. It doesn’t matter who you are, how famous you might be, or how much money you have…it cannot be won! With all this in mind, if you have to pick someone, Jim Pratt is about as sane as it gets. Another positive note, he doesn’t refer to himself as “The Clint Eastwood of Marion.” Vote Pratt if you don’t abstain.

This is the rundown as I see it. I tried to be as fair as possible. Tomorrow, your vote is power. Exercise it wisely and remember, the choices you make have the potential to improve or cripple the Republican party. No longer can we afford to take steps back or continue doing the same failed policies of our current Governor. We need to move forward, reform our government, and get things working right for once. Most importantly, don’t believe someone’s lies just because you don’t want negative stuff about them to be true. In the end, the wall a lie rests on will not only crumple itself but those that stand near it.

By MEB

06/07/2010 | Categories: Uncategorized, Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Mitch Baroody, Republican, Politics, SCGOP, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Andre Bauer, McMaster, Nikki Haley, Gresham Barrett, Henry McMaster, Carolina, Bauer, Haley, Bill Connor, SC Politics, Barrett, Alan Wilson, Leighton Lord, Carroll Campbell, Tim Scott, Paul Thurmond, Ken Ard, Larry Richter, Curtis Loftis, Converse Chellis, Mick Zais, Kelly Payne, Jim Pratt, GOP Primaries, Lie Detector, Scandal, SC Scandal, Sex Scandal, Haley Scandal, Thoughts of a Conservative Mind | Leave A Comment »

S.C. First District Congressional Race: Campbell’s Soup v.s. Scott Paper Towels

Truthfully, I never planned to get involved in the race for Congress in the First Congressional District. But I felt like there was a candidate that shined out above the others and couldn’t resist. I never cared for Rep. Henry Brown. Yes, I did attend his barbecue where half of the attendees got sick. That was probably to help them forget the less than memorable job he did in Congress.

When I would walk around the House office buildings in the U.S. Congress, I would sometimes see Rep. Henry Brown wondering around, lonely and confused. I once saw him sitting in a house meeting room, by himself, hours before the meeting began. I walked in and looked at him. He looked at me confused. I looked at him wondering why a Congressman wasn’t busier. I don’t think he had the passion to do his job and this was in April of 2009.

This was before his big barbecue and before he ever announced his retirement. I knew he had reached his peek. His lackluster performance and staleness had reached a point of no return. The first district needed a savior.

The first to arrive on the scene was a name familiar to me. People in South Carolina referred to his father, Gov. Carroll Campbell, like most Republicans refer to President Reagan. In fact, I often consider Gov. Campbell as the Reagan of South Carolina. The name I kept hearing about was his son, Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell.

I was thrilled to have heard someone had the bravery and courage to stand up to an incumbent that had been in Congress several terms. After hearing from people who worked for him and from seeing him myself, I knew Mr. Brown would never serve another term. Tumpy Campbell led the charge to bring the representation the first district deserved. But then, the race slowly but surely, became James and the Giant Peaches.

There will certainly be a runoff in this race. The top three contenders for this seat are obviously Tumpy Campbell, State Rep. Tim Scott, and Paul Thurmond. I want to focus on Campbell and Scott, so let me briefly dismiss Thurmond. Paul Thurmond lacks the energy, drive, and enthusiasm to be effective in Washington. His commercials have shown his lack of enthusiasm. I have learned very little from following him besides who his father was and his “desire” to focus on issues rather than “the name.”

Paul got in the race a little later than others and he has not built the enthusiasm he needs to overcome the incredible grassroots support of Campbell and Scott. After Tuesday’s election, Tumpy Campbell and Tim Scott will be battling it out. I have no doubt things will get real “crabby” in this low country debacle.

I saw Tim and have met him a couple of times while I worked and advised one of his opponents for Lt. Governor. While many find themselves in awe of his presence, I wasn’t impressed. He is enthusiastic but I find him to be overly cocky. I would be too if I had been in four races in two years. That is some experience. But that is the experience of a political opportunist, not a statesman of the people.

Many give reasons for not supporting Scott, some crazy, some not so crazy. I’ve heard everything from “He’s Actually Gay” to “This is just another stepping stone for him.” Regardless of everyone’s speculations, I don’t think it has to be that complicated. Even if he is a an opportunist, that has run for Council, State Representative, Lt. Governor, and now Congress, there are other reasons not to vote for him. Perhaps, he just isn’t the right guy for this job.

We need jobs in South Carolina and in our country. The answer to these jobs isn’t through bailouts and more government spending. Tim Scott and Tumpy Campbell both understand this and I applaud them for that.

However, there is a key difference. Tumpy Campbell is a small business owner with incredible experience. Tumpy knows business because he grew up learning from one of the best business men in recent memory, his Father. He has met a payroll and knows the sacrifices businessmen have to make. Tim Scott is a great speaker and believes in attracting business. The problem is, businessmen relate better to businessmen not career politicians that have never owned a business.

I respect Tim for his efforts, his great story that he tells so much, and for being able to hold two elected positions, possibly three if he had stayed in the Lt. Governor’s race. However, for our economy and the current needs of our state, the U.S. Congress needs more than a career politician. Washington needs a common sense, CONSERVATIVE, Businessman to lead the charge for government reform and responsible economic reform. One that knows how to bring jobs because he has a track record of creating them.

Tumpy Campbell, one who doesn’t have to live in his father’s shadow like other candidates, sets himself apart with his business savvy. He sets himself apart with his incredibly structured 10 point job plan. He sets himself apart because he is real and not a career politician. He found true conviction when he saw Rep. Brown not doing his job.

His two daughters have meant the world to him and for them to suffer at the hands of More Government, sickened him. He is running and will win for the right reasons. Not because he wants to further his career, but because he wants to further prosperity in South Carolina.

While Scott may look nice on TV, may sound nice in front of a crowd, and may be a really good Conservative, he isn’t the right candidate for the first district. If the district is to prosper, it needs Tumpy Campbell to go to Washington, gather resources and support, and grow it.

This is a tough time for the economy of the first district. It has hit everyone hard. Tumpy understands this a little better than Mr. Scott and he will lead the way his father led so honorably.

When voting this Tuesday, think about Campbell’s soup and Scott Paper Towels. Campbell’s soup nourishes you, fills you up, and makes you prosper with your day.

But Scott Paper towels don’t nourish your body, prosper your day, or even absorb everything they should; they just stick around for the next big mess and fall on it. Vote Tumpy Campbell for U.S. Congress, in your heart you know it’s right!
By Mitchell E. Baroody

06/04/2010 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Republican, Politics, South Carolina, SCGOP, Conservative, Conservatism, Tumpy Campbell, Carroll Campbell, First Congressional District, SC 1, Tim Scott, Paul Thurmond, Strom Thurmond, Congress, Campbell's Soup, Paper Towel, political opportunist, club for growth, U.S. Congress, Charleston Politics, Myrtle Beach Politics | 5 Comments »

The Race for S.C. Attorney General: Who Will Put the Joker Away?

While the feet of gubernatorial candidates are shuffling as controversy rises like smoke from a burning Rome, another race is a lot quieter but just as important. This race is for Attorney General of South Carolina. There are three candidates as many of you know: Alan Wilson, Leighton Lord, and Robert Bolchoz. All three of these guys are great people. They all know law like they know their wives. They would all do a great job at putting bad guys behind bars. The problem is, South Carolina needs one Attorney General, not three. Let’s get down to business.

I will immediately knock Bolchoz out of the race. He doesn’t have the name recognition or the likability factor to garner the votes this Tuesday. His polling hasn’t been very good and his message has come across as extreme to many. While many agree with him on most issues, his positions would be better suited towards a run for Congress.

I can confidently say this race is between two people: Wilson and “The” Lord. Following in the footsteps of two incredible Attorney Generals, Henry McMaster and Charlie Condon, is going to be quite difficult. What many thought would be hard for McMaster became quite simple. His impressive and almost legendary work against sex offenders has put his predecessor, Charlie Condon, in Columbia’s shadows. The question is: who can take over this office and make McMaster look “average”? Is that even possible?

Leighton Lord touts his experience running triathlons. He uses this as an outreach to kids. When he talked about this experience and his outreach, his hopes were to show how much effort he has put into caring about South Carolina children. Isn’t that nice? However, while “The” Lord has been running triathlons and reaching out to underprivileged kids, Alan Wilson has had his own outreach program.

See, Alan Wilson knows a thing or two about running. He ran as bullets were shot his way in Iraq. He protected Iraqi children from the harsh dictatorship they were used to. He protected kids in Iraq who, compared to America’s underprivileged, were much worse off. Alan put his life on the line as he ran and deflected bullets for children. He doesn’t have to run a triathlon to prove he would protect children in South Carolina, he just puts on his camouflage and shows his medals.

The next experience factor is with prosecuting. Leighton Lord worked in Washington and did a great job putting away “Asian” gangs. He hopes to put “Asian” gangs away in South Carolina too since there is such a problem with them (news to many of us). Leighton was a hard fighter against organized crime and he is a brilliant attorney. There is no question as to his incredible skills, he is truly brilliant. He touts his experience working with prosecutors and telling them what to do while in Washington.

Alan Wilson, on the other hand, knows what the role of a prosecutor is because he was one. Leighton has never prosecuted a case to put a bad guy away. Alan has been assistant attorney general and has helped a “GREAT” attorney General put sex offenders behind bars. Alan didn’t have to work for a Senate Committee, even though he could have, to know about being a prosecutor. He has seen the worst of violence whether in Iraq or on our dangerous streets. Alan has gotten his hands dirty for the people of our state and our World. He knows the only effective way to stop crime is to cut it at crime’s throat. If you don’t believe me, believe the sixty prosecutors around the state that have endorsed him with open arms. Sixty!

Leighton Lord often talks about knowing the proper roles people should play and directing them to do so. He knows what but Alan Wilson knows what and how. Leighton may be a great lawyer who can negotiate a questionable deal with Boeing, but Alan Wilson is a worker than won’t always delegate, he will do. .

Finally, no offense to veterans, Leighton Lord reminds me a lot of the war in Vietnam. It was fought with a bunch of people in Washington that were far away from the battle. They said what to do, but they didn’t know how. This turned out to be a terrible disaster as you may remember. Alan Wilson is an example of the brave men that fought that war, not the bureaucrats that tried to run it. He knows what and he knows how to win no matter the situation. We do not need any more quagmires now do we? Whether he is under fire or is putting a sex offender behind bars, Alan knows how to make us safer.

Many say Alan is “too young and inexperienced.” I have also heard, “this isn’t Alan’s time yet; it’s Leighton’s turn.” But I ask a simple question. Had MANY Republicans not said, “It isn’t ______’s (fill in 2008 Presidential Candidate other than McCain) time yet; it’s McCain’s turn,” our country would be freer and a lot safer right now.

Let’s not make the same mistake many made back in 2008. Even if Alan is young, he has the experience to protect each and every South Carolinian. He has done it on the battlefield and in the court room. His opponent knows how to direct and be a lawyer. But South Carolina doesn’t need another bureaucrat and just another lawyer. South Carolina needs a leader and a fighter too. I hate to say it, but this is something “The” Lord knows little about when it comes to working outside of his law practice.

After knowing, working with, and walking with Alan’s father, Congressman Joe Wilson, I know the set of values and integrity Alan has. He comes from a father that has fought for his country and stood up for his people, even when it was unpopular, against a corrupt President. Alan isn’t his father. Alan has a different drive. He has different goals.

But he has the same personal bravery, integrity, and call to duty for the people of South Carolina. I have no doubt that Alan will stand out and will stand up for South Carolinians. He is a leader and a fighter. He is the stand up guy our state and our family’s need. Alan is the “Batman” to put every “Joker” away. He will be getting my vote on Tuesday, I hope he gets yours.

By Mitchell E. Baroody

06/04/2010 | Categories: Uncategorized, Political Thought | Tags: Alan Wilson, Army Veteran, Attorney, Attorney General, Baroody, Batman, Bauer, Bolchoz, Carolina, Citadel, Condon, Conservatism, Conservative, GOP, GOP Attorney, Governor, Haley, Joe Wilson, Joker, Leighton Lord, McMaster, Military, Mitch Baroody, Political, Republican, SCGOP, South Carolina, Thoughts of a Conservative | 2 Comments »

A Night with the Governor Candidates: The Good, The Bad, The Contradictory

Tuesday night’s Gubernatorial debate was not the heated explosion some may have hoped for. However, this debate effectively represented each of the candidates for who they are….or who they think they are.

The following is a summary of what I gathered from each candidate: Bauer is confident, knows what he wants, and he wants to cut government waste and stop generational dependency; Gresham Barrett loves God, wants jobs, and has 8 ways to bring them;

McMaster touts his proven leadership abilities, has no clear and decisive plan for anything, but believes he is the only candidate that can effectively execute the laws from the legislature to the homes of the people; finally, Nikki Haley hates government, anyone that disagrees with her ideas, will intimidate those that disagree with her, and is basically Mark Sanford on steroids.

Before I begin a thorough analysis, let me say this. Bauer, Barrett, and McMaster deserve a pat on the back for staying after the debate, answering many questions, and greeting those in attendance including young children that recognized them from TV and school. I will have to say, I am quite disappointed in Mrs. Haley for not taking the time to greet the people in attendance, especially the kids. She obviously thinks her current “Front Runner” status exempts her from meeting the people in Florence, especially kids.

Now for the analysis. First we will start with Gresham Barrett. Barrett was impressive and VERY unimpressive on certain issues. He was one of the few that actually mentioned a plan for bringing jobs. He mentioned his 8 step plan and actually knew what each step was.

He identified himself as a job ambassador and constantly referred to former Governor Campbell as someone to idolize himself after. While bringing jobs sounds nice, let’s look at one way he wants to do it. He said that tourism is crucial to making our state grow, especially marketing areas like Myrtle Beach. He mentioned bringing 2,000 jobs by building an oil rig off the shores of the Myrtle Beach area. For this….I say really? Common sense says this is a bad idea right now.

After the disaster in the Gulf, should we truly continue putting faith in offshore drilling, miles and miles from the coast? What if another company messes up and floods our coasts? This will screw up tourism for years. The Myrtle Beach economy would have quite a lot of trouble recovering. This has disaster all over it. These candidates, especially Congressman Barrett, cannot be for beach tourism and for offshore drilling. Gresham continued to indirectly refer to no child left behind, and the bush tax cuts that put our country into an incredible deficit (along with the war).

This only reminded me of one thing, his bailout vote. He seems more and more like the non-conservative President Bush was. I cannot see Gresham as anything more than a Social Conservative. I give him that because he talks the Christian talk. Overall, he’s a nice guy but he didn’t win the debate. Even though I disagree with a great deal of what he says, I give him 2nd place for being decisive. As a candidate, he’s pretty good. But some of his stuff is just hard to stomach.

Attorney General McMaster is another story all together. While he is a friendly guy, amusing to listen to, and fun to watch, there is no way this guy is going to be governor. I’m sorry to bust the bubble of so many, but he isn’t going to do it. This election year is very, very important for our state. People are listening more than ever. When you listen to Henry, who I often refer to as General Lee, he does stay on message.

The bad thing is, his message has nothing to do with actual policies. He touts his experience as an executor, putting sex predators behind bars, and making everything safer. He makes it sound like he is the only one that knows how to do the job because of his tenure bankrupting the state Republican Party and doing a pretty fantastic job as Attorney General. Being Governor and being Attorney General are two different ballgames though. Henry was given the chance to show himself as a true conservative candidate.

All he could say was “I want a strategic plan” for economic development. In other words, there is no plan. His connection to Reagan and his past performances as an executor will make everything fix itself…apparently. I was disappointed most in Henry because he really had a chance tonight…but he failed…not just a fail but a miserable fail. He was fourth place tonight.

While I was very disappointed in Nikki Haley’s sudden rush off, after the debate, I found myself agreeing with her on certain points. For once, we do need to audit every government agency. We need to find out where and why our agencies are losing money.

I agree with her on this. She wants to put more energy into small business. I completely agree with her that an environment for small business is necessary. She spoke against the corruption and lack of conservatism in the state house and will fight it. She will also bring more accountability and transparency to the table. Hold up…wait a minute…let’s go back to the corruption first.

She wants to fight corruption in the state house. She said she will exert her influence on legislators that will not support her reform efforts. In other words, she will intimidate legislators into backing her agenda. If they do not, she specifically said, she will expose them in the media through lists. This doesn’t sound too nice. She is going to be a dictator?

I guess having an opinion other than your Governor will no longer be allowed. Furthermore, checks and balances will be history under Nikki. If you disagree, you better just quit or you will be exposed as a burden to the taxpayers.

Next, she spoke about accountability and transparency. Wow….that is all I have to say. Nikki wants more accountability for the legislators. However, according to a credible but unnamed source of mine, she was absent over 70% of the time for these votes in the house. This includes one of the votes that would increase accountability and transparency. Unbelievable huh? It gets better. For a woman touting transparency, she isn’t very transparent.

There is a VERY well known “secret” that was just let out about her and blogger, Will Folks. Many claim it isn’t true. Many of the same people that were talking about how true it was several years ago are now claiming how false it is. The best way this could be solved is if legislators were transparent, right? That is what Nikki would say, correct?

But when asked for her emails and logs as a legislator, she will not clear the air by releasing them. She is talking the talk but not walking the walk. What is the conclusion based on this and her not filing legal action against the alleged accuser? The conclusion is simple. The affair probably happened, as I heard it did several years ago, and she is probably not being very truthful right now. I look forward to seeing more evidence in the upcoming weeks.

As a candidate, she is nothing more than Mark Sanford on steroids. She has the ideologue politics, she may or may not have the mastress, and she doesn’t practice what she preaches. Yikes, four more years of this? She said we need an accountant as Governor. I agree, that would be helpful at times, but the answer isn’t Accountant Haley. A businessman with experience balancing budgets and saving money would be just as effective. Despite everything on the table, she still did better than Henry. I give her third for this debate. Unfortunately, it looks like she will probably lead the pack for first in the primary. But there are still a few days left!

Andre standing under Calhoun in State Senate

Finally, Lt. Governor Andre Bauer. While I have been kind to Andre on my website before, my purpose has been to be very objective in this article…with only slight subjectivity. Andre hasn’t changed very much. He continues to tout the same message he has always been bringing. He wants to bring us out of the Stone Age. Andre said, “The answer to our school systems isn’t throwing money at it.

The answer is to fix the discipline system.” He continued to talk about saving money, how he has always conserved money and in fact, given 400,000 dollars back to the state. He claims to have been the only member to travel and actually sit down with companies to bring them to the state.

If anyone knows how to be a jobs ambassador, Andre does. He only speaks common sense. Everyone can identify with what Andre said tonight. You don’t ever find yourself questioning what he says.

The problem for many is that he makes too much sense. People can’t understand why a politician would be so incredibly upfront. Tonight, he was so confident he answered one question with a simple, “No.” Andre has served in both houses and is a TRUE Conservative.

However, Andre is not the conservative ideologue Nikki Haley is. Andre knows how to work with the legislator to get thins passed that will help the people immediately. Unfortunately, he had to sit and watch Mark Sanford lock the door on communication for eight years. If anything, he knows how NOT to govern.

He pushed off the questions about his personal life saying, “Everyone already knows it. I have nothing to hide.” I thought this was another show of his grace, calmness, and confidence. Tonight, Andre established himself as the one to beat. He spoke common sense with clear plans. His ideas are so innovative like his plans to make South Carolina greener and energy efficient.

There are other ways to fix the energy problem than drilling offshore and hurting tourism by having an oil spill on the coast of our state. Most importantly, he doesn’t shy away from tough issues or even questions.

After the debate, I overheard him being asked a question. The lady asked, “What about homeschoolers. Will you give us tax credits?” His response showed the condition of his conviction. He replied, “You bet. Homeschoolers save taxpayers money. Anything it takes to save taxpayers money, I’m up for it.” Andre talked the talk and walked the walk tonight.

For this, I gave him two thumbs up and can honestly say, in a tight debate, he set himself apart. I think there is little certainty, he won it tonight.

As for the primary, I think what we will see is very simple. Barring overwhelming evidence of an affair coming out against Nikki Haley in the next few days, she makes the run-off with Andre Bauer. Truthfully, it all depends on how much they are all seen and what type of television ads they put on the screen. The next few days and tonight’s debate in Charleston will continue to give a clearer picture. But I don’t’ think it gets clearer than a run off of Bauer and Haley.

06/01/2010 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Accountability, Affair, Andre, Attorney General, Baroody, Barrett, Bauer, Conservatism, Conservative, Debate, Democrat, Drilling, Fitsnews, Francis Marion, GOP, Governor, Gresham, Gubernatorial Debate, Haley, Henry, Jobs, Leadership, Liberal, lt. governor, McMaster, Mitch Baroody, Nikki, Oil, Republican, Sanford, SC, SC Governor, SC Politics, SCGOP, Sexual Affair, South Carolina Governor, Transparency, TV-13, WBTW, Will Folks | 3 Comments »

Keep Your Politics Off My Football

By Brad Turner

What role do politics play in the world of sports? The answer: None. However looks like the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus has forgotten this. After the news got out of the possibility that the University of South Carolina was going to lose its lone black Board of Trustee member, the Black Caucus got on the phones. And who did they call? Ghostbusters? Well they might as well have because they sure didn’t call anyone who could do more about it. They called the 2010 recruiting class for the South Carolina Carolina football team. That’s right, they called out of state TEENAGERS.

This call to arms is headed by Democratic Representative Todd Rutherford. For whatever reason, he has come to the conclusion that in order to fix a perceived problem in the legislature, he would try to make kids stop coming to college in South Carolina. Needless to say this isn’t good for anyone.

First off, Rutherford apparently doesn’t realize the potential damage he could do if these future student-athletes listen to him. They are under a contract to come to USC at this point. They have signed their letters of intent back in February. In order for them to be able to go to a different school they would have to be released by the program then sit out a year. Apparently Rutherford doesn’t care what happens to these kids, even if that means losing a year of their scholarship and football career, as long as he gets his point across.

His complaints stem from the “lack” of diversity of both the University and its board. African-Americans make up 14% of the student body at USC. This is actually the same or better than a number of schools in the Southeast including the University of North Carolina (11%), University of Virginia (8%), University of Tennessee (9%), University of Georgia (8%), University of Florida (10%), Louisiana State University (10%), University of Mississippi (14%), University of Kentucky (5%), and instate Clemson University (8%). In terms of diversity in the Southeast, USC is progressive!

Telling black students to not come to USC is counter-productive to say the least. Rutherford complains that the student body of USC does not reflect the racial diversity of the state. However, he is telling black students not to come. I don’t see how this makes things better. Instead, you would think the logical solution would be to encourage the black population in South Carolina to apply to USC and thus add the desired diversity.

Now for a slightly more pointed message I want to get across. Can he prove that the loss of the lone black board member is in any way, shape, or form a racial attack? No. He only points out that there would no longer be a black member. Leah Moody is currently the only black Trustee. She replaced Samuel Foster II when a bank fraud scandal forced him to resign on July 1, 2009. Foster was the first elected African-American to be elected on the board. Moody is now facing Alton Hyatt Jr. for the spot. House Speaker Bobby Harrell of Charleston has clearly expressed that the election is not a case of race. “What everyone should be thinking about is who’s the best person for the job, regardless of race?” That makes sense to me.

Picking someone just because of race is wrong, no matter their color. If Hyatt is not the best person for the job then he does not deserve to be on the board, simple as that. But if he is, then elect him. We need to help our schools in any way possible. If a less qualified person is placed on the board simply because of race, we are moving in the wrong direction. The black caucus should be spending their time finding candidates who are more qualified for the position rather than try to threaten the state when they don’t get their way.

The backlash from the attack on South Carolina’s football program has come hard and quick. I have to give it to Rutherford, He knows how to get peoples attention. However, the negative attention is probably not what he was looking for. Much of the talk on the sport radio networks have all been the same; this is a political problem and it does not need to be intertwined with athletics. Rutherford defended himself by saying, “Gamecock fans should not be calling and threatening black legislators. Call the Republican leadership.” Well Mr. Rutherford, it looks like you brought this on yourself. The Gamecock nation is not going to sit idly by while you try to blackmail their beloved football program and their University. Most people can plainly see that the football program cannot effect the Board of Trustees in any way. Why can’t Rutherford?

I will admit, I feel bad for Moody. She has come out and said that she does not support calling the recruits, “The race is in the General Assembly.” She is running on her own merit instead of her race. And good for her, she gets it. I’m glad she is distancing herself from this nonsense. She knows that she should be elected on what she can bring to the Board of Trustees. Rutherford should shut up for a minute and listen to her. This is her race to win, not his. If he wants to help, talk to the representatives who have a say in this election and convince them that she deserves this spot by what she can provide to the University and not because of the color of her skin.

Mr. Rutherford, it is time to stop using race as a talking point to get votes. Here is your chance to step up to the plate and back a candidate based on ability. Leave the student-athletes of the University of South Carolina alone, and if you want to make a change, talk to the people who can do it.

03/26/2010 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: African American, Black Caucus, Bobby Harrell, Brad Turner, Carolina, Conservative, Democrat, Diversity, General Assembly, Leah Moody, Mitch Baroody, Racism, Republican, Todd Rutherford, University of South Carolina, USC | Leave A Comment »

Who stole my Constitution?

By Brad Turner

“We the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States is possibly the most important words in all of American history. It outlined what role of the government was to play in America. However, if our founding fathers knew how our government was taking advantage of their original purpose for the Preamble and the Constitution, they would be rolling over in their graves. Obamacare has violated the Constitution and put government directly into the lives of Americans in a way not seen since FDR and the New Deal.

The phrase “promote the General Welfare” has been taken out of context to point where its meaning has been completely lost. The key to this phrase is “promote,” which has on multiple occasions been replaces with “provide.” TV talking heads and government officials have been guilty of this for a while. This is not a simple case of breaking open a thesaurus and interchanging words; it’s a complete alteration of meaning. The government’s role is to promote the general welfare for her citizens, not out right give it to her. When it comes to health care, we have abandoned the true meaning of “promoting the General Welfare” and replaced it with “the government will give you General Welfare at the expensive of everyone around you.”

Obamacare is forcing “general welfare,” if you can even call it that, on Americans. If Obama was doing his true job, he would promote change he thought was needed to better America. For example, encouraging change through tax relief for insurance companies who allow for pre-existing conditions would promote change without forcing it on Americans. Tax cuts for business that provide insurance is also another way to promote the general welfare. The government has PROVIDED a change that is not within the true confines of the purpose of our Government.

That is also something else that I feel the liberals in Washington have forgotten. It’s OUR government. They have hijacked it from us, doing what they think is best for us. Personally, I have never talked to Nancy Pelosi. How can she possibly know what is best for me? The few hundred men and women who are working in Washington D.C. have forgotten that they are put into power by the people, and can just as easily be removed from that power.

The federal government has acquired an unquenchable thirst for control. The Bill of Rights has been thrown out the window. The Tenth Amendment says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now, reading through the Constitution, I cannot find one place that allows the government to force a policy on me that is not for the well-being of the entire Nation. This policy does not even help a majority of the nation (at the same time everyone is paying for it)! So according to the Tenth Amendment, it is unconstitutional. The states are not leading the charge in this, and the people are definitely not. So then how can they justify taking up this cause? Simply put, they can’t. They are blatantly telling the American public that they know what we need, even when we know we don’t. They are defying the public openly (i.e. walking straight through protesters on their way to vote on the health care bill). And while I don’t support physical confrontations or racial slurs, they wonder why they are encountering it. This is why it is that much more important to support leaders, such as South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who are taking on Obama and his band of far-flung liberals who are taking over our lives.

The schism that this new policy is going to create may take generations to heal. Many Representatives have committed political suicide to push through an agenda that the American people do not want, nor need. The elections in November will indeed finally show that Americans do not want the government injecting themselves into our lives. Here’s to hope that our Constitution comes back to the PEOPLE!

Want to see what different states around the country are doing to counter this new law? Click Here

03/23/2010 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: 10th Amendment, Barack Obama, Constitution, General Welfare, Healthcare, Henry McMaster, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Preamble, True Conservatism, Universal Healthcare | 2 Comments »

Who is taking care of you now?

By Brad Turner

So it finally happened. The government turned its back on the American people and their wishes and they are doing what they think is best for us. Healthcare passed in a late session in congress, and the liberal forces who are in charge of our country are giddy like a school girl. So what have we gotten ourselves into.

I was hoping to write my first article for Mitch on the education system in this state, but I feel this is more important at the moment. Our government has taken over healthcare. We cannot sit by and let this happen quietly. If it’s gonna happen against our will, we need to go down kicking and screaming.

The government has taken over a system, that with all of its faults, has worked out for most people. Saying the insurance companies got it right all the time is far from correct, but thinking that the government can do better is absurd! This is the same government who is in control of our education system, which at the best of times is adequate. How can we expect a new bureaucracy to take over and do anything productive. The dangerous slope we are falling down now can only get steeper and we will only pick up more momentum if we do not let our representatives know how we feel.

The idea that the government can step in and require a business to give healthcare to its employees reeks of socialism. The free market system that has carried this country since its foundation is just that, FREE! The government should not be able to step in and tell a business what it has to spend its money on. If an employer wants to provide insurance, then it should have that option, but if it chooses not to then more power to them. An employee has the option to work for that company or not. Nobody is forcing them to work for them. If they find a company that is willing to give them healthcare then work for them. It is the loss of the company that is at stake.

Now I do appreciate some points in healthcare. Helping children who cannot help themselves is great. I’m all for that. However, once someone turns 18 then they are a legal adults. If they want healthcare then they can get it for themselves. The American people are smart enough to choose for themselves insurance. I don’t need their help, and neither do you!

One of the most ridiculous comments I have heard so far has come from South Carolina’s own, Rep. Jim Clyburn. He has the nerve to compare this piece of legislature to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950′s and 1960′s. First off, I see no comparison. The civil rights movement was for basic human rights. The idea that all people are created equal. In no way, shape, or form does healthcare provide RIGHTS for anything. It provides a service for people paid by other people. If anything it is a violation of rights, taking my money and giving it to people who don’t want to spend their money on healthcare.

Finally, the abortion executive order that is suppose to be added on with Obama’s signing of the bill is complete and utter BS! Selective abortion should not, under any circumstance, be covered by tax money! I am morally opposed to abortion. My taxes should not go to the girl who can’t keep her legs closed and gets herself pregnant!

The pride that liberals have in defying the wishes of the American people is beyond belief. The beaming picture of Obama, as the vote passes, worries me. Do we have a president who only cares about pushing his own agenda? I held out hope that maybe he cares for ALL Americans, but it seems that he cares for less then half of them. Here is your change, how do you like it?

03/22/2010 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Biden, Conservative, Democrats, Doctor, Freedom, Government, Health, Healthcare, Hospitals, Insurance, Jim Clyburn, Medi, Medicare, Obama, Obamacare, Progressive, Republican, Socialism, Tragedy | 1 Comment »

Evening Joe: A Heated Debate with One Clear Winner

This past month has been dogged with the Late Night crisis between Jay Leno and Conan O’brien. But apparently, the winds from NBC blew crisis to Charleston on Thursday night. Boy, was the beginning of the Gubernatorial debate interesting.

I sat down in my lazy boy, put my popcorn in my elephant container, and began munching down to Joe Scarborough’s sarcasm. Then a bunch of screeching, scratching, hair pulling, and silence took place. Not to mention, all of Nikki Haley’s speech was silenced. The TV then went blank. I thought of a few reasons this could have happened.

1. CBS affiliate executives have cut down power to preserve it for the upcoming “winter storm disaster” that is expected to hit South Carolina with ice and snow this weekend…we all know the dangers of 1-3 inches.

2. Maria Chapur became angry that she was not invited to be Mark Sanford’s female companion at the SCGOP luncheon in Charleston on Thursday. So, she made her presence known by knocking out the sound guy and hijacking the debate.

3. President Obama’s renewed hope and change from the state of the union was just to divert our attention from the 100% regulations he would now be having over TV stations. That means no more Republican debates and especially no more long narratives from Attorney General Henry McMaster.

4. The only other reason would be that they just had poor sound quality and they didn’t have it all together at first.

So, I stuck with the fourth reason, and it came back on at 8:30. All four of them ready to lead our state into the next decade or were they? So let’s go through each candidate and analyze their performance tonight.

First, I will start from the bottom with Gresham Barrett. As a Citadel colleague, I was really disappointed in his performance. Not that I was even supporting him, but you wish each other the best. Congressman Barrett was less than confident, and sometimes seemed more like a Southern Baptist preacher rather than someone ready to lead our state…amen?

What bothered me most was the defense of his vote for Socialism in the bailout/tarp saga. He consistently defended this vote and refused to back down. I am in disbelief that anyone claiming to be “The 4^th most Conservative Congressman” could stand behind a vote like this.

Many in South Carolina’s conservative circles spoke with him the night before he voted and warned him…but he apparently knew best. Barrett went on to not answer questions, beat around the bush, and really did not establish himself as a credible candidate.

He seemed just like acurrent U.S. Congressman should: Uninformed and Out of touch. I am sure that is how many South Carolinians see him as well.

Next, let’s talk about General Robert E. Lee. Excuse me, I mean Attorney General Henry McMaster. Where do I begin…. the other candidates seemed to get tickled every time McMaster would speak. This in return, made things interesting. The only statement that stands out in my mind about him is that he has “the most executive experience” out of all of the candidates. I hear him say that in the midstof his Southern charmed, rambling. While he comes across like a Southern Gentleman, not even waving but bowing at the audience, he too seemed out of touch.

While I appreciate and respect his Conservatism and think he has been one of the best AG’s in S.C. History, I do not believe he showed he could effectively win against Vince Sheheen or Jim Rex tonight.

Often, he didn’t answer the questions, he went on random tangents, and he couldn’t break out of the box and be real with the people. He seemed too much like a polished politician and not a personable statesman that the people will need to move forward with the state’s problems.

Yes, the state should be open for business, but I have a feeling General Henry may open it for business by delegating a lot of the responsibility the way he does in the AG office. While it works as Attorney General, as Governor, we have seen the Department of Commerce’s unimpressive performance. We can’t afford another four years of relying on them.

He finally went on to talk about how he did a great job as Chairman of the Party to bring Republicans to victory. While this may have been true, he failed to mention the financial mess he left when he ran for Attorney General. After his performance tonight, I know one thing…I’m not lovin’ it. So, I don’t think I can “back that Mac” because it may look good, but the intentions it has for each and every one of us may not be so beneficial.

The biggest surprise of the night was Nikki Haley. The “daughter of immigrants” was on top of her game. She did very well. However, I will bring up a few shortcomings. She should have never answered the question about censuring Lindsey Graham. She said she would have! This makes her seem like she is not a compromising figure, something our state greatly needs in the Governor’s office. This is the one thing I will agree on with Senator Robert Ford, yes a democrat.

This also shows the lack of distance between her and Mark Sanford. She continues to keep herself close to “Sanfordesque” positions such as not accepting stimulus funds. The Nikki Haley Campaign analysis is pretty simple. Let’s look at the election between McCain and Obama. People were tired of Bush and tired of anyone similar and too close to Bush. McCain was not different enough. People voted for change because they were sick and tired of the same ole, same ole.

The same principle will apply to South Carolina this election cycle. The non-Sanford candidate is going to be the only hope for Republicans. Nikki Haley is too much like Sanford and will most certainly fail come primaries as a result of it. I see her poll numbers improving a little but she will never make it to the top when the general election comes around in November. Her message will resonate with tea party people and could surprise us come June, but she will never beat Sheheen if he wins the primary (which it looks like he will). However, her performance tonight should be admired. It was something to be proud of.

Finally, tonight’s winner……..Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, a true non-Sanford candidate. His confidence, clear and direct answers, and composure show his maturity from the last few years. Tonight, he was in his element and proved victorious. First, the bad. The hosts ganged up on the poor guy and pulled out all of the bad about him. They mentioned his recent “Animal-kid” comment and his driving record. Andre displayed a bit of arrogance to the female co-host when she lambasted him about the animal comment. He stated that a minority preacher asked him to speak at his congregation.

In response to the female co-hosts continued bullying, he replied, “I’ll give you his number if you want.” Even with this comment, he showed something special…”Straight Talk.” While John McCain often said he was all about straight talk, he hardly showed it. Tonight, a new bearer of this title is Andre Bauer.

When asked which Senator shared his ideology, he quickly stated “Jim DeMint.” He had an answer for everything. They were concise and easy to understand. No elaborate stories, no monologues from “God’s and Generals,” no over-doing religiosity, but just Andre speaking his convictions.

This is the type of Governor South Carolina has been itching for. Tonight, Andre Bauer showed his seriousness about the race. For a while, I had my doubts, but tonight I know he is ready to become Governor of South Carolina. There is no doubt.

If Republicans want to win in November, there must be a lot of thought to who that candidate will be on the other side. If it is Vince Sheheen, which I feel it will be, it will be a tough fight.

All jokes aside, these four candidates are great people. They all have excellent qualities with great intentions. However, when it comes to the difficult opposition this November, in the aftermath of Mark Sanford, the field will be extremely difficult. Too tough for the likes of Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett. I believe the Attorney General and Lt. Governor are the only two that will stand a chance. While the Attorney General showed he is a good candidate to beat Sheehen, Andre Bauer showed he is the best candidate to not only beat the democrats, but lead our state with honor, integrity, and great vision for the next decade…for this…I salute the Lieutenant Governor.

Click The Link and Take The Poll! Pick the next Governor..
You Pick The Next Governor of S.C.

01/29/2010 | Categories: Uncategorized, Political Thought | Tags: Mitch Baroody, GOP, Republican, South Carolina, SCGOP, Obama, Conservative, Democrat, Andre Bauer, Mark Sanford, Nikki Haley, Gresham Barrett, Henry McMaster, General Robert E. Lee, Republican Debate, SC Debate, Governor Debate, Governor's race, Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe, Carolina, Maria Chapur, Jay Leno, Controversial Politician | 4 Comments »

Nero Watches While Rome Burns: A Commentary on South Carolina lawmakers

The more I look at the landscape of South Carolina politics, the more I feel like I am watching a History Channel special on Nero observing Rome burn to the ground. The state lawmakers, especially the Republicans, are watching from the second floor of the capitol enjoying and taking part in the show. There are some serious problems in South Carolina right now. The double digit unemployment rate is bad. The ballooning size of the federal government is worse. Tremendous challenges exist in South Carolina education. Is there no one to give attention to these issues or is there focus going to remain on political war?

Being a South Carolina lawmaker comes with a South Carolina responsibility. These are big shoes that have to be filled. For instance, John C. Calhoun once fought the federal government over unconstitutional laws in his Nullification Debate. I can look at the entire legislature and tell you, there is not one John C. Calhoun present.

However, that may be a result of still having the voice voting system in the Senate. We may be surprised who will pop up when transparent voting takes place there. Instead of fighting the biggest problem this generation will ever face, state lawmakers find Mark Sanford to be a much more viable target.

This is the type of Political cleansing done by the Republican Party elite. This is the type of cleansing that makes me ashamed to associate with some members of the Republican Party. Is it a social club or is it a group dedicated to serving the interests of the people? When a Governor makes a point to bring pigs in the statehouse, utilizes a horse and buggy, plays the hard line with stimulus funding, and does not bow to the pressure of other Republicans, he marks himself in the eyes of Republican leaders like Glenn McConnell, Bobby Harrell, and even Jakie Knotts. Our lawmakers are merely sparring and bottom feeding on their own like a bunch of aggressive Beta fish. Is there no clear voice to lead us towards a better South Carolina?

Lawmakers, including a majority of Republicans, try to impeach Gov. Sanford because he got caught sinning. I ask these men and women, are you without sin? If this is about sin, let’s impeach every single lawmaker in the state and federal government. Since when was being without sin a qualification to be a lawmaker or even Governor? This isn’t even a qualification to be a priest.

I guarantee you none of them are perfect. If there was one perfect man, he would have all of the solutions and be able to pass them to fix our decaying state. This is about far more than Sanford’s affair with “beautiful Maria.” This is about his hard-line stances and his true Conservatism.

I find it to be a rarity for any lawmaker to stand up for the best interests of South Carolinians. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst doesn’t count. Mark Sanford, truth be told, knows that limited government is the best form and was willing to make it as limited as possible before his affair. Don’t crucify the man for obeying the true meaning of our Constitution. Also, don’t make a legislative session out of a sin many consistently commit and many lawmakers have committed. There has been a target on his back for years.

The only reason his indiscretion is brought up is because he got caught and that is a convenient target for his opponents. There are much bigger problems to worry about than Sanford’s indiscretions and possible “Ethics” concerns.

This debate goes much further than just Mark Sanford. Senator Glenn McConnell has made it his prerogative to ruin the career of a noble jurist, family court judge Charlie Segars-Andrews. Since her votes may not have always gone to elect McConnell and his friends, it appears they believe she does not understand the laws enough to be a Judge anymore after 16 years on the bench. Therefore, she is being cleansed by South Carolina politicians, notably Republicans, because she isn’t in the good ole boy system. This is a South Carolina tragedy and just another example of how our leaders do not lead.

These personal attacks have gone far enough. Many South Carolina lawmakers are more concerned with personal problems than the dire problems our state faces. Who are they going to attack when our state is succumbed by the Federal government? I would like to see them try and remove Hillary Clinton when her ideology doesn’t mesh well in the future North American union. That is a Jihad in itself.

If these personal attacks are going to continue, why not take them to those that are not serving South Carolina’s best interest? I know beyond any doubt Gov. Sanford and Judge Andrews are not the real problem. Rep. Jim Clyburn and Rep. John Spratt are two of the enormous problems. Why don’t they get any criticism? They consistently vote to increase our national debt by funding extraneous programs like bridges to nowhere, socialism in America, and vote against the sovereignty of our state. Governor Sanford stood up for sovereignty and responsible spending at one time. Look where it got him!

Then there is Rep Bob Inglis who couldn’t be more out of touch with what his constituents actually want him to do. He even voted against a Congressman who embarrassed the state but still should be commended for taking a stand. Go after those that are truly hurting the state not those that do not mesh well with the GOP establishment. Unfortunately, this will not happen because our lawmakers act out of revenge for hurt feelings and hypocrisy rather than integrity and principle.

South Carolina is burning to the ground and one would think it is because of the unemployment rate and because of the growing federal government’s hand squeezing our necks. However, the match that lit the torch was done by the GOP establishment sitting in the halls of our capitol. Political cleansing has hurt our state’s potential. We have succumbed to politics instead of truly making a difference and taking a stand with principle. The people of South Carolina are tired of it. Where is a true leader at?

Why can’t our state begin standing up against the Socialist Obama Administration? Where are the John C. Calhouns when we need them? What we have is a mob of Romans plotting against each other and several Neros fiddling as they watch our “state burns” to lower levels of mediocrity. How much further will this go before a true leader stands up and says ENOUGH?

Help save South Carolina from Partisan politics. Sign the petition to help save Judge Andrews:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/judgeandrews

12/02/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Clyburn, Conservative, Democrat, Governor, Partisan, Party Politics, Political, Republican, Sanford, South Carolina, Spratt | 3 Comments »

He’s No Reagan

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. Communism finally fell, freedom and democracy that Ronald Reagan pushed, prevailed. It was a special moment in the hearts and lives of anyone that supported the fall. It was something that should have never been forgotten. Unfortunately, on its 20th anniversary, it is put at the bottom of the list for remembrance. I ask myself, “If President Obama were President in 1989, if the wall had fallen, would he be picking up the pieces to put it back together?”

There used to be a time when America had leaders that would celebrate this moment each year. Reagan started the movement, the fairly odd couple (George and George W.), and Bill Clinton continued it. Now, the President puts remembering the fall of communism at the bottom of his agenda, even below using his power to advocate for the “Chicago Olympics.” Funny how he still acts like an Illinois Senator at times.

So, Today, there is no Celebration coming from the United States’ highest office. While the fall of Communism is celebrated abroad, the start of Socialism is started domestically. Our President continues to push his aggressive, big government agenda, one that if continued will not give much degree of separation from that of the former communist regime in Germany and the Soviet Union respectively. Although his plans are Socialist and not Communist, Socialism is the first step towards communism.

What would President Reagan say about this snub of democracy? I can hear his gentle, calming voice saying, “Mr. Obama….Shame on you.” On this day, I think every American, Republican and Democrat, should echo the words Reagan would say and tell President Obama, “Shame On You.”

The video above is the closest we will get to spreading democracy for a while. Let’s enjoy what America used to be so that we can temporarily forget what it actually is now.

11/09/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: 1989, Baroody, Berlin Wall, Communism, Conservative, Democracy, Obama, Reagan, Republican, Socialism | 1 Comment »

Breaking The Divide: Changing The GOP Brand

Branded…that is one word I cannot stand. When you are associated with one group, it is believed that you live like and believe like that group. Being branded by a political party is one of the worst problems in politics today. If the political parties knew what they actually stood for, it may not be that big of a problem. However, both major parties in today’s political spectrum have members that seem very displaced and disillusioned with their platform.

The Republican Party couldn’t be further away from knowing where it stands. Does it go Conservative or does it go Moderate? Senator Olympia Snowe consistently shows her moderate views as a Republican; always moving across the aisle to back liberal, progressive reforms. Then there are Conservatives like Jim DeMint who stand their ground and hope for the party to move further to the right.

The Democratic Party is on the biggest move towards the left in its history. Although, the New Deal programs were a pretty big push as well. Every day, America hears of a leftist initiative coming out of the White House and the Democratic controlled Congress. However, they have disgruntled democrats that are commonly called “Blue Dogs.” Whether they disagree socially or fiscally, they still line up with many Republicans just the way Senator Snowe lines up with many democrats.

The question is, where is the median and how do the parties provide separation so that one can clearly stand apart? While the Republicans struggle with moderates and the Democrats struggle with blue dogs, I don’t foresee either leaving their respective parties or forming new ones. A three party system, while a great idea, is not realistic in our country.

Therefore, which party can come on top right now and gain superiority from the disarray? I think it is the Republicans that will come on top if they are willing to make some big changes in the future. There is one key part of the Republican Party that I think is wrong and is continuously being done wrong. If it is not corrected, the party will remain in a quagmire state of disarray. It could grow and become “The Party” if one simple adjustment is made. That is with social issues.

The Republican Party needs to reach out to Fiscally Conservative Democrats and bring them over. They also need to make amends with Socially Moderate liberals within the GOP. Social Issues have been killing the GOP for some time now. It is time to get over them.

First of all, a new stance on the right to life must be taken. While moving towards Conservatism, the Republican Party should move towards a Pro-Choice stance on Abortions. I am sure you have already read my reasoning behind Conservatives backing a Pro-Choice platform, but please hear me out again clearly please. Being Pro-Choice is being Conservative. However, the Party must move towards defining a fetus at conception and giving it rights. Therefore, any abortion would be murder under a new Federal Law. Yeah, this is the roundabout way of eliminating abortions. However, it is the Conservative way of doing it.

Don’t call yourself a Conservative unless you believe a Woman has the right to choose what she does to her body as long as it is not Murder. True Conservative Principle 1, a person should always have the choice to do what they want to their body; the government should NEVER regulate that. However, if there is an embryo in that body, it should not only be defined as a person but its rights should be protected from detrimental procedures just like every other person in this country.

Second, the Republican Party must embrace Domestic Partnerships for all Americans. This should apply to couples of all sexes. Moving towards Conservatism is moving towards keeping the government’s definition of personal lives very minimal. If two women who don’t ever plan to get married and are not lesbian, want to live together in order to make it by, give them the same benefits as a normal couple whether they are gay or not. It is fair.

The government should be equal and fair. Taking these rights, only because of a marriage certificate, is not fair. True Conservative Principle 2, the government should never be bias towards its citizens. The Republican Party should push domestic partnerships because they believe in less government in the lives of Americans. Marriage should be done in a church and is something between heterosexual couples with God. Receiving benefits is a different story.

These two social issues are enough to sway some Conservative Democrats over to the GOP. If the Republican Party did a 180 degree turn on these issues, majorities would be seen all over the country in 2010 and 2012. Many voters are democrat because of social issues. Change the platform, win the voters. To do this, religious Conservatives will finally have to admit that being a Conservative is being anti-government regulation even in the right to life and the right to partnership. Keeping the government out of a woman’s body and a couple’s partnership is also keeping the government out of religion! It works well for everyone!

I believe victory for the Republican Party lies in a move towards a Conservative stance. However, before that move can take place, Conservatism must be redefined from its present meaning. While it may not be popular for a while, it is what Conservatism truly is and it will make the Republican Party the majority party again. Until then, social issues will be the mark of defeat for the Republican Party.

11/02/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Abortion, Baroody, Blue Dog, Brand, Conservatism, Conservative, Democrat, Fetus, Goldwater, GOP, Moderate, Politics, Pro-Life, Republican, True Conservatism | 2 Comments »

GITMO Moving to Charleston: Citadel Cadets to Guard Prisoners?

GITMO I can see the headlines now, “CITADEL CADETS CALLED ON BY STATE TO ASSIST IN MANHUNT.” At four A.M., ten terrorists escaped from the navy brig in Charleston and are on the loose. The South Carolina Unorganized Militia was called on by the Governor to track down these evil men. Led by professors of all walks of life, many who don’t know the proper way to salute. Then the cadets who have no experience shooting weapons, only carrying them, and they have no experience making arrests, only writing punishment slips for each other when their rooms aren’t clean. They do have experience shouting loud at football games and other situations that we won’t speak of. This provides the intimidation factor that will allow a quick victory over the terror that has escaped in Charleston. They will get the job done!

Okay, so this is probably a long shot of what may happen in the near future, but it is possible. I am not trying to make this website entirely based on South Carolina, don’t’ get me wrong. However, after last night’s article on CNN, I couldn’t’ help myself. Charleston has been picked for a trial run to hosts a friendly, kind, and warmhearted group of prisoners from GITMO. These terrorists are incredibly good people, I don’t know what city would be better to bring them to than the one with amicable southern hospitality like Charleston.

I know Mayor Joe Riley (D-Charleston) is jumping up and down with excitement. For a city already rich in tourism,I bet they will line the terrorists up downtown and have a terrorist petting zoo. This would give Charleston the ability to put up another “boastful” billboard promoting its tourism. Given, most people have never seen a terrorist before! Everyone is posing the question, how did Charleston get so lucky?

This takes me back to a bigger issue. Why the heck did you close a good thing in Cuba Mr. Obama? This was the perfect place for us to have the world’s most evil people. A place for people that commit the most evil offenses and kill our brothers and sisters in the armed forces abroad. There was a place, far away from civilization, somewhere that women and children couldn’t come in contact with them.

President Obama closes that place and wants to bring the prisoner to Charleston? I mean common. There are places in Alaska and in the West, far away from people, yet the military wants to bring it to a thriving port city? Maybe this is a slap in the face to Charleston for starting the Civil War, or it is just another example of THIS administration extending unbelievable rights and comfort to more of America’s enemy. I guess it isn’t that unbelievable. President Obama did bow to the King of Saudi Arabia.

You think you can stop torture based on location? No. Torture is going to happen whether Mr. Obama, John McCain, and any other person likes it or not. It won’t be written and it won’t be spoken of. However, when it comes to the life of someone abroad or the lives of American citizens in U.S. cities, this is sometimes the only way to get answers. Bringing it to Charleston doesn’t solve the problem, it actually creates more of one.

In the event these prisoners do escape, what will Charleston and S.C. do? Terrorists aren’t regular gang members or bank robbers. cadets They are a different kind of prisoner. Do you call on the Charleston police? What about the National Guard? Wait, that would scare people to death seeing the military on the street. That would almost be martial law. Then my idea, the old Citadel and their cannons.

I am sure that would scare the prisoners really good. Although, it would probably scare the people just as much. Not only did the cadets and their cannons “start the civil war,” the cannons sure scares me every time I hear one go off on campus. Every internal organ I have shakes with fear. Somehow, I don’t think it would do the same to Rafiq and Omar the terrorists. Gives you something to think about.

10/31/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Charleston, Citadel, Conservative, GITMO, Jail, Military, Obama, Prison, Republican, South Carolina, Terrorists | 4 Comments »

My Theme for the Gop: Fresh Start for Government, Fresh Start at Home, Fresh Start Abroad

gop-no-ideas2 In the midst of the ruckus in Washington, some wonder if there is any room for optimism towards the future. The answer is clearly very subjective. If you ask a Democrat if there is room for optimism, they are going to say yes because of the majority in both houses, the white house, and the initiatives that they plan to pass. As for Republicans, it depends on what day and what democratic initiative is about to pass. Some Republicans will say they are optimistic because the democrats under the leadership of Obama have failed at all of their initiatives thus far and the American people now see the light. Then there is the faction of Republicans that is close to building underground shelters for the “ongoing” and “Soon-to-be” communist takeover of America. So they say.

So where do I stand? First, I think both parties have a lot to be proud of. There hasn’t been a great depression, the terrorists haven’t blown up the entire country, the monetary system hasn’t failed yet, and a Russian professor’s prediction of a total collapse starting in October doesn’t seem to be in the works yet. Whoever is in office would be blamed for these consequences, so it is a victory for all Americans, Republicans or Democrats.

On that note, the democrats have made a growing majority of Americans angry and fearful. Taking insurance from 85% of the insured in exchange for a government option isn’t a very good idea. Putting generations into debt, that is democrats including Rep. BOB INGLIS (R-S.C.), with stimulus plans that stimulate rats in San Francisco just don’t get the job done for most Americans. Young men and women dying in Afghanistan without a clear strategy or a Commander in Chief leading, doesn’t sit well with most Americans. Powerful democrats like Rep. Barney Frank openly admitting to plotting the takeover of freedoms and instilling more government regulation in our everyday lives just doesn’t sit too well. The American people are waking up and see what is on the agenda. This, I will have to say, shifts the enthusiasm and optimism to the Republican side.

However, I don’t think the Republican Party is able to lead the way quite yet. There is nothing but bickering, power struggles, and a people identified by an elephant not knowing what their platform really is across the country. Unfortunately, it is a party still creating an identity for itself after losing it during the past election cycle. If the party is going to succeed and take over the country, as the Democrats hand over the reins after failing to make it better, I think they need to consider an achievable battle plan. After a lot of thought, I have created a three-step roadmap or “battle plan” to seeing “Red” these next two election cycles.

It starts with the platform. When Michael Baroody, one of my heroes, wrote the Republican Party platform in 1980, people had a reason to shout “We See Red.” Republicans knew what they stood for and they had a leader that could clearly articulate it. Instead of being a party of “Straight Talk” and “Mavericking” it is time to go to a three-fold message that we don’t compromise with. A message that goes back to the basics of conservatism and what a Republican really is. I propose the theme, “Fresh Start for government, Fresh Start at home, Fresh Start Abroad.” The fresh start for Government calls for less government, less regulations, more transparency in government, and more accountability in government. The fresh start at home calls for more jobs, energy independence (by drilling offshore, coal and nuclear energy, and preventing any increased energy taxation), welfare reform, lower taxes that help boost the economy, and stronger incentives for joining the military. Finally, the fresh start abroad initiative brings tax payer dollars, given to foreign countries that fail to stand with the U.S. during crisis, back to the American taxpayer, reduces U.S. troop levels across the world, calls for “accountability or abolition” with the U.N., and reaches out to Israel to restore ties destroyed by the Obama Administration
After a clear platform (above) is created, building enthusiasm and energy across the grassroots level around it is key. Gathering around the candidate will come with time, but knowing what we stand for is the most important thing.
Myself with Energetic Young Republicans Chelsie Paulson and SCGOP 3rd Vice Chairman Adam Piper

Campaigns to energize young people are one of the biggest parts of building this energy and enthusiasm at the grassroots level. If we use technology and many of the techniques our opponents used in the past, we will be seeing a lot of “Red” at the grassroots level. This will bring momentum unseen to the Republican Party in decades. Focusing on our future and not our past, while pushing our platform, will energize all bases and allow the party to pick the best andidates and not the compromise candidates.
Picking the RIGHT candidates will be a breeze if we accomplish the first two steps. Knowing what we stand for as Republicans and building momentum around the foundation will bring forth energetic leaders that share our values and can promote them as President, in Congress, and in other elected positions. There will not be any “Compromise” candidate as John McCain was. There won’t be any need to stay home at the polls because the candidate just doesn’t share the right values. If candidates back the platform, it will energize Republicans, and energize those seeking office. Therefore, this will energize our government and allow us to see “Red” in the near future.

The likelihood of any of this happening anytime soon is probably dim. From a South Carolina perspective, it has been great to see the reorganizing of county parties and the energy at tea parties. However, all of these organizations and protests are pointless without a clear plan and a theme for the future. Right now, I see none in the Republican party at least nationally speaking. While I think my plan is great, I am sure a great many would disagree. As for now, I’d call it anybody’s ballgame. Speaking of which, it sure is a shame the Phillies and the Yankees can’t both lose the World Series. I don’t want to cheer for either one! Go Braves!

Myself with Energetic Young Republicans Chelsie Paulson and Adam Piper

10/30/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Conservatism, Conservative, Democrats, GOP, Government, Liberal, Michael Steele, Party Platform, Politics, Republican, Republican Beliefs, Taxes, Washington | 2 Comments »

Senator Graham: I expected Better

Lindsey Graham- a once promising Senator, friend of Strom Thurmond, and at one time, considered to have a bright and long future as his predecessor did. One day, it all stopped and his future seems just as bright as America’s the day President Obama was elected; it became very dim, almost as if the moon was our new home. Graham proposed loosening restrictions on illegals, married a very liberal Republican in John McCain, and voted for Eric Holder’s nomination as Attorney General. Then, the Senator had the audacity to come to my institution, The Citadel, and rudely yell at men and women for how they asked him questions. It hasn’t been at The Citadel alone. It has been all over the state. Something has gotten in to Senator Graham. He is now appearing more like an angry Senator Robert Byrd in a senile- old aged, demented, racist rant. Finally, Cap and Trade came up and all of a sudden, South Carolina’s Senior Republican Senator is working with Liberals like John Kerry to get a bill passed and forgetting what the people that sent him to D.C. actually want. It is unfortunate that Senator Jim DeMint only gets one vote. With all of this taken into consideration, Senator Graham, I expected better.

Let’s get a few things straight. I do not profess to be a Lindsey Graham supporter. I used to think a lot of him if that is worth anything. I have never voted straight party and never will. I believe voting straight party and voting for the incumbent is why we don’t have a Conservative or even a “True” Republican in our Senate seat right now. Take that as you may, but I am not happy and haven’t been for some time with him.

Before I continue going on the offense, I am going to go on the defense for Senator Graham. I applaud him for pushing more nuclear energy and offshore drilling. Becoming energy independent is the only key to a successful future where our gas tanks are not controlled by Saudi sheiks. These two ideas are fantastic and are definitely a step in the right direction. That is why he should have presented his own legislation that would do just that. Since he has so much “Bi-Partisan” support and friendship, he should have no problem getting it through the Senate. But Sen. Graham only signs on and sways, he doesn’t initiate too much now does he?

As for Cap and Trade, according to the study from the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation, gasoline prices in the United States are projected to increase by $1.01, which is a 26 % increase . The NAM‐ACCF study also estimates that electricity prices in South Carolina will increase by 53 %. This will likely be in the Cap and Trade bill that the Senator is hoping to pass as long as it includes his nuclear energy and offshore drilling additions.

While we don’t know exactly what will be in the final bill the Senator will vote for, it is clear he is ready to work with democrat elites like John Kerry, to make sure this bill gets through the Senate. If this bill gets through in any form, one thing is certain, JOBS WILL BE LOST. Secondly, our taxes will go up regardless of the language because it wouldn’t be cap and trade if it didn’t push America towards renewable sources. Raising taxes keeps us from purchasing fuel which spurs renewable sources to rise in popularity. I hope the Senator gets out of his grumpy state soon and realizes his people aren’t too happy with him. Cap and Trade is not just a mistake, it will nuke the American taxpayer like never before. With this bill, the Democratic Senate and Senator Graham has basically proclaimed War on the American people. Yet we still keep electing them? When will we learn our lesson.

Call Senator Graham at (202) 224-5972 and let him know we do not want new energy taxes and job loss. Tell him to start listening to South Carolinians instead of following the liberal lead in the Washington beltway.

10/29/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Republican, Politics, South Carolina, SCGOP, Conservative, Lindsey Graham, Cap and Trade, Energy, Green, Oil, Offshore | 1 Comment »

Symptom Care, Not Healthcare: What is Real Reform?

070810_Heathcare_Cartoons_Tease.300w Last week, I walked into the MICU at a South Carolina hospital and talked to a physician. He said, “Something needs to be done about this healthcare crisis. I don’t know what though.” No one has the exact answer, but I do know what isn’t the answer and that is a public option healthcare system.

The question is, when discussing healthcare reform, are we headed in the right direction? If you read my writing much, you probably already know what I am going to say. So, for those that don’t, No we aren’t going in the right direction.

First of all, 85% of Americans are insured. Wow! Therefore, Harry Reid’s plan to include the public option is going to hurt the majority of Americans and put them under a moving van while backing up to repeatedly run them over. It is a true American tragedy. The majority screams for no public option yet the minority continues to push it. Would it be too extreme if I called this a Healthcare Holocaust? Maybe not so much.

However, being uninsured isn’t the real problem in healthcare. One of the real problems is Torts. Tort reform is one of the real ways to revitalize our healthcare system. Our brilliant masterminds and architects in the Senate totally left physicians, healthcare professionals, and insurance companies in the dust. While I worked a brief stint in Risk Management at a hospital, I saw everything. People will sew for the smallest things even if they suffer a scratch in a hospital hallway. This causes hospitals, healthcare professionals, and insurance companies to pay out money that is needed to pay for the real problems that happen. Everyone in healthcare and insurance is getting ripped off. TORT REFORM! It is one of the incredibly clear answers.

However, the biggest problem I find is not with tort reform or insurance at all. It is with the way we practice medicine in this country. When I was young, every time I would go to the doctor, I would come home with an antibiotic. Now I’m immune to certain ones and germ resistant bacteria can now take over my body. Maybe that is a slight exaggeration. I just watched my grandmother suffer and I brought home 35 medicines from the nursing home that she used to take daily. I know, you probably think that is a joke but it isn’t. I am confident the medicine only made her sicker and the side effects killed her. We treat every ache and pain with a medicine that does not heal, but takes away the symptoms temporarily. This puts an incredible burden on insurance companies and on the taxpayer. What kind of healthcare is this? It isn’t healthcare, it is symptom care. Drug companies know many cures to diseases, many could release this but the ever so powerful FDA and Drug Companies want MONEY and POPULATION CONTROL, not healthy people! Furthermore, dying people are given treatments that only prolong their suffering and their death. This raises hospital bills that the American taxpayer pays after they die. Much of that money is just assumed by the hospital putting them into debt. What kind of responsibility is this in our system?

We need broad reform, that is true. However, the focus should be taken to our medical schools and not necessarily to the insurance industry. I don’t think an 85% insured rate is so bad. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, right? In the free country that we supposedly live in, let people be who they are without government intervention. Everyone cannot be the same, we would eliminate the freedom that many of us love if that happened. If someone cannot buy insurance, it is a shame, but it is a necessary evil for our constitutional republic to stay free. So, let’s fix what is broken, the torts and the way we practice medicine. This, in itself, will make insurance and being a healthcare provider much more affordable.

10/27/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, FDA, GOP, Healthcare, Healthcare Reform, Insurance, Medicine, Obama, Obamacare, Physician, Political, Republican, Socialized Medicine | Leave A Comment »

What Does Being a Conservative Really Mean 2: Defining “True” Conservatism

limited government I thought I would go back to the article I wrote on Monday for further discussion. I would like to thank Jim Lee, candidate for U.S. Congress in the upstate, for his comment. He’s a solid Conservative and good guy. Jim’s comment has spurred me to further clarify my convictions on being a “True Conservative.” I want to make sure I am being very clear. Many who call themselves a hardcore, nail hammering, trench fighting “True Conservative,” have very little understanding of what it means. Sure, there are common stereotypes, but the social issues are the problem.

I cannot call myself a blood biting “True Conservative” because of the social issues. I am a Pro-Lifer, Anti-Gay Marriage, and an Evangelical Christian. You may be thinking, wait, this guy is a hardcore “True Conservative” then. But no, I’m not and neither are you if you agree with me on these above stances.

A “True Conservative” believes in limited government, limited government programs, limited regulation, and tons of Freedom. So what does this mean for social issues?

Pro-Life- Most will say they are Pro-Life and this is the conservative point of view. I disagree. Most Republicans and Christians are Pro-Life, but this does not mean they are Conservative. In fact, they are very far from it. Being Conservative is believing in limited government control over private lives. Limited government control means “control over what is only necessary to sustain the country.” Therefore, regulating whether a Woman can have a medical procedure or not is violating this “limited government” approach that Conservatives claim to believe. If you are a “True Conservative” you do not won’t the government telling you what you can and cannot do to your body; you want them out of your life! So, make sure you don’t say you are “VERY CONSERVATIVE” or are a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE” unless you are willing to accept being Pro-Choice.
Gay Marriage- The practice of marriage is celebrated in many religions. It has become of paramount importance to our society. However, a “True Conservative” should never want their government to support this religious institution. By the government supporting marriage, they are establishing a religious practice. In effect, this establishes a religion over ever citizen under that government, giving the government the power and control to license and say who can and cannot be married. This type of government control prevents members of the same sex from seeking marriage. Not only does it push traditional religious views on homosexuals, the government controls a very personal area of their lives. For this, a “True Conservative” should NEVER support even the institution of Marriage as it is because they stand for limited government control. A “True Conservative” should call for the institution of domestic partnerships, marriage to be abolished as it is, and for Marriage to still be an important practice in their respective churches (not in a legal sense), just like baptism.
Church and State- This is where it gets heated. I am right there with you when you say the country was founded on Christian principles. I do not doubt it and I strongly believe that. However, saying you are a “True Conservative” means that you are willing to sacrifice this belief for great freedom. As Mr. Lee said, “the separation was to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion.” However, having religion in the state will have a certain eliminate of bias. It is human nature to be bias, subjective individuals. Therefore, certain denominational traits will be displayed by these religious views in government. As a result, they will discriminate against the citizens that live in the respective country. This leads to government saying what is acceptable religiously and what is not. Subsequently, people in the country will be lead by a religious leaning they do not stand for. This is why separating church and state is vital. Many wars have been fought over religion and government. The Muslims blow each other up every day because of it. A “True Conservative” does not want their government to favor one religion over the other because this is government favoritism and negatively effects the way they will live their lives under new laws and regulations.

Be stunned if you want to. A Republican who says “True Conservatives” actually believe social issues like a liberal. I said it, I wrote it, and I stand behind it. However, I don’t call myself a “True Conservative” just a simple to moderate Conservative. Next time you are amongst friends or anywhere for that matter, make sure you know what you are saying when you say you are a hardcore “True Conservative”. If you are one, don’t make excuses for why you don’t want to believe in the Social Issues the “True Conservative” way. The reality is, the three social issues I discussed are being a “True Conservative” in its purist form.

10/21/2009 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: Baroody, Conservative, Controversial, GOP Carolina, Liberal, Obama, Politics, Republican, Right Wing, Young Republican | 4 Comments »

Thoughts of a Conservative Mind Explaining the Truth About Conservatism One Post at a Time