Tag Archives: Republican Party

What the Virginia governor’s race means to conservatives


Last night, I like a number of other conservatives, watched the poll results for the Virginia governor’s race with great anticipation. The election was much larger than the two candidates, Terry McAuliffe (D) and Ken Cuccinelli (R), for several reasons.  For the mainstream media, it had been billed as a referendum on the Affordable Care Act and as a showdown within the Republican Party between the extreme right and the more moderate Republican Party leadership.  Within the Republican Party, it was a wake-up call for grass roots conservatives  – the party leadership sent a message that it would rather lose elections than to support a conservative “Tea Party” leaning Republican than an establishment selected Republican candidate.

The election results were pretty close considering that Ken Cuccinelli had very little support from the national Republican Party.  After the final count last night, there were only three percentage points separating the two candidates – a far cry from the landslide that had been predicted for a McAuliffe easy victory (McAuliffe 48%; Cuccinelli 45%); McAuliffe, an Obama and Clinton campaign bundler, had access to a huge war chest of funds and the support of the Obama administration, but still should have been easily defeated had the Republican Party leadership provided the campaign support needed to assure a Cuccinelli victory.  Make no mistake about it, had the GOP leadership gone after Terry McAuliffe with a determination to defeat him, Cucinelli would have easily won; McAuliffe’s personal and political record speaks for itself.  Several websites chronicle the shady character of the now Governor-Elect of Virginia:

  • Terry McAuliffe Caught in Another Scandal – this article lists three separate scandals – one stretching back to the Clinton administration involving McAuliffe.

  • Do you really want this corrupt scam artist as governor? – not only does it provide additional documentation to the scandals reported in the above article, it links to three other articles citing McAuliffe’s numerous failed businesses and how he literally walked away with millions of dollars of investor funds and federal dollars in those business dealings.
  • Pro-Life Ken Cuccinelli Trails Pro-Abortion Terry McAuliffe by 7 in Virginia – although not exclusively focused on the scandals, it ties McAuliffe to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton as her leading choice for vice president.
  • Scandal Watch: Another Choppy Week for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia – This article states that in August 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an investigation into one of McAuliffe’s failed business ventures, GreenTech.  The company was to begin production of low cost alternative fuel vehicles and had actually rented industrial space along the Mississippi Gulf Coast to construct the cars. After taking millions in Chinese investments and a generous grant from the Obama Administration, the company ceased “production” and became insolvent.  Involved with the plan was Hillary Clinton’s brother and to some extent, the State Department under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There are literally hundreds of sites  that include a combination of “traditional” media sites and blog sites that have fully explored the background of Terry McAuliffe.  If organizations like Reutuers, MSNBC, and even Fox News can report on his questionable ethics, ties to corruption, and SEC investigations, then this should have been an easy victory for the Republican candidate and the Grand Old Party.  As I watched the poll results last night, I immediately started asking myself why the party walked away from this election and left another Republican candidate to lose an election to an opponent that not only lacks the experience necessary to be a governor, but has serious moral and ethical questions about his conduct.

48 Days Personality Profiles

Continued on next page.

Mr. Obama, the Democrats, and a painful lesson


Since the beginning of September, we have all been bombarded by the “news” coming out of Washington about how the Republicans in the House of Representatives are blocking the government’s abilities to pay its financial obligations.  The Democratic Party, with the assistance of the left-leaning media, began to lament that it was the extreme right of the Republicans in the House, those Tea Party Conservatives, that were ecstatic for a federal government shutdown.  Since those early days in September, we have heard stories about Social Security benefits, Veterans’ health care and benefits, and everything else being held up because of the extreme right that simply will not compromise with the President.

Just in the last two weeks, the stories included national monuments and parks being closed – and its now taking more federal manpower to keep them closed and unwanted American trespassers out than it did to just keep them open. We have heard about World War II veterans being faced with arrest when they attempted to visit an outdoor open air memorial that was dedicated to their service at a time when our nation asked them to exchange the carefree days of young adulthood for the horrors of war.  We have heard stories of Medicare and Medicaid payments being delayed to health care providers, and in some cases, these providers are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars by a system that constantly does not make its payments on time.  And while all this drama is unfolding on the national stage, President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that there will be no compromise on the nation’s fiscal crisis.  Since this moment, the mainstream media has tried to portray the Republicans within the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner, as being extremist, obstructionist, and blocking the will of the people, and even has gone so far to demonize Republicans by calling them terrorists, blackmailers, hostage takers, and so on.

If the truth is told, Mr. Boehner has just as much right to be obstructionist as Mr. Obama and the Democrats have a right to pursue their party’s agenda.  Yes, Mr. Obama was correct in ;ate 2009 when he predicted further Republican losses because of their lack of support for the Affordable Care Act.  After passing the legislation without any bipartisan support, Mr. Obama stated that elections have consequences.  No, he was not correct, the Republicans did not lose representation, but gained control of the House and made some minor gains in the Senate.  The mid-term election of 2010 did have consequences – America rewarded the Democrat Party for their blatant game of partisan politics by giving control of the House to the Republicans; the bulk of those new Republicans identifiable by their Tea Party or Conservative positions.  It was the first signal to the White House and Democrats that moving forward, a general consensus acceptable to both parties would have to be met to get additional legislation through.

 Now brings us to the current crisis.  Mr. Obama is demanding that not only the Affordable Care Act be fully funded, in spite of its obvious shortcomings, but that the debt ceiling be suspended indefinitely. According to the Obama Administration, this is the only reasonable course of action for the nation.  Even the mainstream media has reported that the Republicans in the House are willing to compromise, providing that the administration delay the implementation of the individual mandate until next October – the exact same delay that has been given to employers.  Since the passage of this hallmark legislation, the administration has given exemptions and extensions to political allies and supporters while demanding the American public comply with the full provisions of the law.  In reality, the executive branch has no such authority to pick and choose which people can be given an exemption – the law must be equally enforced.  This is not the first law enacted that the Obama administration has either ignored or interpreted powers for itself that never existed.

48 Days Personality Profiles

Boehner and the Republicans in the House of Representatives do have the legitimate right to refuse the president’s demands and agenda.  According to Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, the legislative branch is divided into two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Yes, although rudimentary political factions did exist during the days that the drafting of  the Constitution did happen, there is no mention of party or party affiliation within the document.  This was intentionally done to prevent the emergence of factions that had occurred within Parliament and as a means to protect the concept of the democratic-republic. No president is entitled to enact their agenda just because their party is the dominant party and in control of the presidency and Congress.  It is not a “simple majority rules” construct and is designed to assure that the rights of the minority are also protected.

Continued on next page.

A bad law, its growing unpopularity, and its possibilities


In less than a week, a handful of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, will begin to impact the national economy.  All over the nation, the reports have already begun to indicate that this law has not lowered medical insurance costs but has actually increased them for much of the nation.  A recent article from the Washington Examiner, “Tennessee: ObamaCare will Triple Men’s Premiums, Doubles Women’s” stated that premiums were expected to increase dramatically under the new ObamaCare guidelines.  According to the article, men are expected to face a 197% increase in the cost of a basic compliant policy; women could expect to see a 92% increase for the same coverage.  In a separate article featured on Breitbart, “ObamaCare Triples Kentucky Family’s Insurance Overnight,” a Kentucky couple with two young sons had their portion of the family’s employer offered health care plan rise to $965 a month from its much lower $333 per month.

Each day, Americans are horrified to read of the many hidden provisions in ObamaCare, such as one that sets criteria for regular in-home follow ups to individuals and families as defined by statute, direct access to banking accounts of Americans, and end of life counseling for those over 65 or suffering from terminal illnesses or injury.  And these are just the provisions we know about; the Affordable Care Act contains 2,407 pages that was passed into law with another 7,642 pages of additional rules and regulations that have already been written by the Department of Human and Health Services.  Bloggers and pundits have stated that one of the many provisions in the Affordable Care Act that required six pages of legislation required an additional 429 pages of additional regulations defining exactly how and when the legislation will apply.  This means that there are potentially thousands of other restrictions, invasions into privacy, and governmental oversight into the lives of the American citizenry.

There are several reasons why the Affordable Care Act is bad law. Beginning with the most obvious first, this law financially strains the American citizenry at a time when it can least be afforded.  Over the last year, we have seen numerous companies change their employment model from offering full time positions shifting to an all part time workforce under thirty hours a week.  For many working class families, this now means that it will take two or more part time positions per adult family member to recover what has been lost since the enactment of these provisions.  Additionally, annual inflation since 2008 has been around 1.20% or greater, depending on whose estimates and reports you use.  Inflation, plus high fuel prices, high food prices, and increases in local and state level taxes are having a profound impact by reducing the amount of disposable income families and individuals have to spend.  Instead of lowering healthcare costs and creating more disposable income for the average family, the Affordable Care Act increases the premiums for families and will reduce the amount of disposable income. It is estimated that the Affordable Care Act is going to add an additional $7,450 in healthcare costs for the average family of four per year once the entire law is enforced.  This places a financial burden on working and middle class families and upon our consumer driven national economy.

Another reason this is bad law is it can serve to restrain individual freedoms. The purpose of any insurance policy is to reduce financial risk to the individual. While financial risk comes in many forms, the Affordable Care Act’s sole purpose is to reduce the financial risk of individuals and families through a series of laws that will reduce the cost of medical care (or that is the pretense for which the law was passed).  Since under ObamaCare, the risk is to be transferred to state and national exchanges, the government becomes the bearer of risk. Within the insurance industry, financial risk and liability is managed through increased premiums paid by the consumer, or through the offering of incentives that encourages the consumer to modify high or risky behaviors.  With this understanding, it is easy to understand the potential invasion into individual liberty and freedoms that the government deems too risky or too costly to cover under the state or national health care exchanges.  There is the potential for the government to regulate diet, exercise, recreational activities, number of children, and any other decision that before have been considered as issues of self determination.

Continued on next page.