A DEEP DISH DIFFERENCE

At last conservatives were treated to a somewhat fair debate in which the candidates, not the moderators, were able to characterize their political positions. I used the word, somewhat, only because some questions were fools fodder such as "Which Democrat do you most admire?" and also because the moderatos failed to control the time (Kasich) more equitably.

Governor of LA Bobby Jindal set the centerpiece on the debate table in the first tier by expressing that conservatism, itself, is under assault, by both the left and the right. Big bloated government is a product created by both political parties and unless a true conservative with constitutional values is elected little will change in Washington.

That theme carried into the frontrunner tier debates with Cruz, Fiorina and Paul all marking out a territory that defined genuine conservative principles as opposed to Republican-light policies. In fact, Rand Paul's debate within the debate of Marco Rubio's proposed child tax credit that would cost close to a trillion dollars, was an important voter compare and contrast moment, between the old establishment GOP thinking and the real ideals of conservatism.

Rubio may be young and articulate but his ideas are straight from the backroom, boardroom and Washington lobby-room that so infuriates American voters who feel betrayed by the beltway. Elitists conservatism isn't conservative and has only two purposes at its core, raising political money by pleasing donors and winning elections to keep the status quo safe.

Rubio keeps the IRS and the tax code safe and takes a page from the Democrat's give-a-way something for votes playbook, by calling for a child tax credit increase while slyly masking it to voters as not a new handout (which it is) but using his fast talking rhetoric to suggest it is a program to support family. Really Marco, does the government need to give Americans a tax credit to raise their families properly? 

The subterfuge of fraudulent politicians is not always easy for the voters to spot, which is why good debates that pit the policies of candidates rather than personalities of candidates, proves their value to voters. Rand Paul might not be your choice as a candidate but he was exactly correct to call out Rubio, and challenge him to explain how a big government give-a-way can be called a conservative idea. It isn't, and Marco Rubio may have a smooth tongue but on immigration, the economy and on foreign policy his candidacy is the lump of clay lobbyists hope wins the White House.

Voters also learned another key difference between genuine conservative and the faux candidates on stage. Jeb Bush and John Kasich would bail out the big banks and Cruz would not. Neil Cavuto looked at Ted Cruz with incredulity when he responded that he would not bail out the Bank of America if it were to fail, asking him the question again, as if to suggest that Cruz might want to change his answer given the financial hurt it would cause depositors.

That was when John Kasich interrupted, again, as he had all night long, like an obnoxious drama queen that had the loudest laugh at the party, making everyone ask "Who invited him?". Worse Kasich's answer to the bank bailout question was incomprehensible and had more gobble in it than the our upcoming Thanksgiving day bird. 

Still it was Ted Cruz who gave the correct conservative answer to the bailout question, which is a simple, no. The same answer to why General Motors should not have been bailed out.

Either you favor crony capitalism, corporatism and too big to fail socialism or you are a free enterprise promoter of a fair marketplace in which government plays its only role as an ethical arbiter through laws and regulations. Either you favor base-line budgeting or as Carly Fiorina suggested we have zero based budgeting where the government must do the same ledger math, as people and business do in the real world. Either you favor allowing illegal aliens to ignore our laws and still be granted citizenship as it seems Bush, Rubio, Kasich believe or you believe that they must suffer deportation which so far only Trump advocates. We did not hear from Fiorina, Paul, Cruz and Carson on the deportation question.  

Which leads to another criticism I had for the FBN Debates, which is on this very substantive issue as immigration certainly is, we should have heard comments from all the candidates on what to do with our growing illegal immigration problem. Perhaps some have some new ideas yet to be considered, but we need to hear all the candidates comment in order to choose wisely.

So who won the debate? Voters.

 

Clearly with a better panel of moderators, asking more substantive questions, allowed the voters to win this one. We certainly came closer to seeing the deep dish issue differences between the posers, frauds and faux conservatives versus the true constitutional based conservative ideals with freedom as one of its basic principles that founded our nation. One of these candidates will receive our approval to beat back the social progressives destroying the country. Will we chose a thin crusted pretender or deep dish principled advocate? The debate goes on.

DEBATE OR DE BAIT?

Once again the liberal media shows no respect as it demeans and debases conservative candidates in an effort to start a brawl rather than a debate. Their bias and open hostility towards opposing views is now interfering with the undecided voters right to understand the differences of GOP candidates on the issues, and this tar and feathering is getting old, frustrating and downright perverse.

It is another debate in which the public is treated to a reality television show where the object of the game is to dishonor and make fools out of not just the candidates, but the viewers, who are expecting that media will ask simple, direct and relevant questions. Instead the bias that once was done in subtlety by a liberal loving media is now an open shameless farce of impartiality.

The recent DNC debate put on by CNN did not ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tough questions nor did Anderson Cooper ask humbling questions, such as CNBC's first question to the GOP candidates; "to name their greatest weakness", which was intended to set up the candidates for criticism.  

About the only thing fair about the debates was that the liberal media was equally inhospitable to all the GOP candidates, unlike the first GOP debate when Fox news targeted Donald Trump, CNBC tried to spread the acrimonious attitude to every conservative on stage equally.  

However beyond the awful bias there was good news, such as when one candidate namely Ted Cruz, arched his back, leaned into the microphone and challenged the smarmy attitude of the impertinent moderators and with grace and style swatted the left and praised his fellow rivals. That caused the rest of the GOP hopefuls to also grow a spine and push back against the scripted hammer slammer fest.

This was when the voters clapped and sang around the political hat, knowing that if the GOP stands up to the press they become impotent and flaccid. For far too long the GOP politicians have tried to ingratiate themselves with these boorish media types that are only aroused at the sound of their leftist voices, in the hopes that they would be treated with class. Instead, their public images get trashed as cavalierly as junior high school girls, by frustrated and insecure boys unable to secure a date so they impugn the girl's reputation rather than admit their dating defeat to peers.

You can't fix stupid, and you can't redeem the dishonorable. Cowering to those that mock you is self flagellation and stupefying, much like Obama praising his Iran deal while the Iran leaders shout "Death to America". It is weak, demoralizing and gutless along with being one of the main reasons conservatives fret over the fate of the GOP party and its inability to fight for the causes it professes to believe in.

Yet, there is hope. Some of those candidates on the stage showed courage. Dare I say it, leadership qualities that have been so lacking in Washington and today more than ever are desperately needed.

Conservatives, Christians, blue dog Democrats, patriotic Independents and libertarians may be treated by the liberal media as lepers, but we don't have leprosy, we have sanity. We may be maligned by an extremely divisive President but we are not victims, we are seafarers in search of a real captain. We might be prodded like cattle by party leadership, betrayed by congressional backroom deals and taken as pushovers, but we possess inner fortitude and strength that comes from truth over lies.

We must not debate with ourselves any longer or be baited by liberals to feel shame for our patriotic and religious beliefs just because they hold over our heads the threat of calling us racists, bigots and homophobes. The liberals may have the power of the press but power is only daunting if one fears it. How can we be afraid of those so corrupted by their fleeting power that they pretend to be gods by denying and mocking those that love God? 

We should be proud Americans unafraid of differing views and impervious to the political correct bullies seeking to undermine our culture, our religion, our heritage and our system of government. This debate highlighted to all reasonable citizens, that given the current atmosphere of political narcissism, given the  expediency of the political establishment and given the grave challenges the future holds for our country, there is one quality above all others that our next president must have, it is political fearlessness.

  

Time to stop being the left's bait, time for patriots to ask the right question of every candidate seeking to sit in the oval office. The question: Do you just want political power or do you love America enough to restore her from the left's socialism, and fearlessly lead her back on the constitutional road our forefathers intended?   

DEMOCRATS DOUBLE DOWN DUMB

Listening to the DNC debate on CNN without a picture on your television, hearing just sound, one would be hard pressed to know what year it was, or frankly in what decade these left-wing candidates are living.

In almost all of the foreign policy questions posed to the candidates they referred to the Iraq war and the Bush presidency in complete denial that Obama exists. The troop withdrawal in Iraq, the bombing campaign in Libya to oust Kaddafi , the Benghazi tragedy, the rise of ISIS when Obama claimed months before he was re-elected that "Al Qaida is decimated" and the multiple problems caused by Syria's expanding war, were largely ignored. I guess, because George Bush was according to them the cause of all the Mideast strife. 

When the domestic issues were asked, such as the state of our economy, they again beat the Bush to get around commenting on Obama. We heard Bush again blamed for the real estate mortgage stock crises with poor Obama inheriting a collapsed economy. Hillary went so far as to suggest she warned the Bush administration that the real estate bubble would burst. 

Funny, but it was Bill Clinton that changed the banking laws in this country, (repealing Glass-Steagall) on the books since 1933, for the sole purpose of increasing home ownership by low income minorities through Fannie and Freddie Mac. When Hillary claims she warned Bush about potential crash, did she talk to Barney Frank, who refused to hold hearings in the House (requested by Bush) to determine the solvency of this quasi private public mortgage lending program?

But what happened to "What difference does it make?" Why are the Democrat candidates allowed to ignore the current state of the state and instead dig up the political bones of the past? Is it because their management of both the economy and foreign policy that has proven time and time again to be disastrously lame is why they need to blame Bush? Note to Democrats: Barack Obama is President. Barack Obama is in his second term as President and Barack Obama has inherited Barack Obama's foreign policy and economic malaise. 

The Bush deflections aside, one is curious as to what new refreshing ideas these Democrats bring to the political table, for voters to mull over. Did they propose a debt solution? Did they propose a bold new foreign policy position? Did they even have one criticism of the current administration and what they would do differently? 

No, the Democrats continue to ignore the debt and are doubling down on giving away the government cheese while reviving their old standby punching bags, big banking and the Wall Street wealthy. Their new slogans are not new ideas but the same old, ineffective and economically flawed proposals such as, raising the minimum wage and passing more and more business killing regulations.

New ideas? Some may want to count as new ideas, Hillary's government paid college tuition and family leave promotion but we all know that socialists want the government to be our daddy, and we also know Democrats like to pander for votes with their famous four letter word.

What's the four letter word? It's the word that you learned as a child trying to achieve maturity. It's the word you as an adult understand is fraught with strings attached. It's a word that only the irresponsible thinks exists without a price paid by someone else. The word is free.

Democrats are trying to offer more "free" programs to roil the pander pan for votes and hope to answer little in the way of specific details except that the rich will fund these give-a-ways. However, the road to the White House must pass by Greece, meaning, no candidate can ignore the looming debt and the inevitable need to fix America's insolvency. 

Worse for the Democrats is that their "free" healthcare, Obamacare, is about to shock voters with its actual costs that are expected to skyrocket by 2016 for policy holders. Millions of Americans in the country are about to see how expensive "free" really is to those trapped in the socialized snare.

Our economy has been put in a straight jacket and locked inside a vault under the Obama regulatory regime and like good little Democrat minions, most all of the candidates on the stage (except Jim Webb) want to stick the long knives into the economy. They want more regulation, stricter EPA standards and of course, they believe as does Obama, that Climate change is the biggest threat to our nation.

It is in a word, astounding. Astounding that anyone would support policies that are mythically born, factually fraudulent with the evidence of failure abundantly visible. How many times will America buy the lies about government controlled business reaping more benefits for workers? How many times will we allow the tax and spend liberals to shrink the Middle Class? How many times do we have to learn the lesson that more government is the problem, not the solution?

How many times can Democrats double down on dumb lame policies and win support? I guess as long as some selfish voters believe that the fairy godmother left the money under their pillow, that melting icebergs are more dangerous than Iran shooting off nukes and when free stupidity that occasionally is the beneficiary of dumb luck, proves itself to be, too expensive.

STOP FEEDING THE BEARS

Unlike Obama's belief that more guns laws governing law abiding, God fearing gun owners, will stop mass murders, most Americans know there is no cure to crazy loons seeking fame through killing innocent people. In fact, it's Obama's liberals and the social justice nonsense that has given empowerment to those unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own plight in life.  

   

This punk has the same modus operandi as many others before him. He was a social misfit, had Asperger's syndrome, came from broken home and was suffering the same scourge all too common in America's liberal counter culture, entitlement, also known as, selfish me-ism relevancy.

The prelude to his rampage was not evident to those that knew him. His eccentric view of himself and the world was not enough to expect people who casually saw him, to suspect him capable of this sudden act of devilish mass murder. These slimy souls live with two faces, the outward presentation that appears harmless and the inner demonic face that seeks attention and retribution if their desires are not met.

Is there any curative to these satanic fame seekers? Is there a clue to their sociopathic illness? Does society have the right to strip them of their constitutional rights based only on suspicion that they might commit a crime of this nature? Would refusing to sell them a legal gun thwart their depraved plans of mass murder/suicide? The answer to all these questions is a resounding, no. 

There is only one thing society can do to stop these events from happening, stop breeding them.

We are told not to feed wild bears, why? Because it creates three reflexes to this apex predator. One, the bear loses fear of humans, two, it becomes reliant on a free food source and three, it then bites not only the human hand that fed it, but every human hand it comes across. Feeding that bear conditions it to feel entitled to a meal when it approaches any human, and if you don't feed it, then you become the food.   

Pampering the bear creates a man-eater. Pampering our kids creates spoiled disaffected pleasure seeking youth that struggles to accept disappointment and is ill prepared to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. In essence, they blame society if they can't make friends, blame teachers if they can't learn, blame women if they can't get a date, blame the world for their lack of happiness.

Our modern atheistic society has re-invented community, re-invented family, re-invented marriage and most importantly re-invented individualism. Most youth today understand individualism to mean, self- expression and the freedom to be different. Nose rings, tattoos and exotic hair-dos are forms of that age old need for youth to distinguish themselves from a societal crowd and say "look at me, I am different."

There is nothing wrong with the freedom to be different, and or unique self-expression but, it is only half of the definition of individuality. The problem lies underneath the hair and the tattoos for some of our youth, that are not taught the other half of the definition of individualism, which is self-reliance and personal accountability.

If Mummy and Daddy are paying for your tats, piercings, haircuts and or subsidizing your eclectic self-expression by allowing you to live at home rent free, then guess what, you are flunking the crucial part of individualism; self-reliance.

In fact, personal accountability in your heart, mind and soul is the measure of a true individual with or without any outward appearances that might measure you in a crowd. Not conforming to society's unwritten dress code doesn't mean one should abandon all conformity. You are not an individual unless you conform to a moral set a values exacted by inner accountability, in which you understand that the blame as equally as the praise rests on you alone. That accusatory finger of failure should always start waving at oneself first, and foremost, before anyone or anything else is blamed. 

 

Therefore the message of entitlement is equivalent to feeding the wild bears. Parents need to be teaching their children gratefulness for being alive, not prizes or privileges just because they grow another inch taller and another year older. Parents need to intercede and require their children face accountability and responsive  introspection when they do the wrong thing and want to blame everything but their own willful lack of self-control.

Parents need to not only set a strong moral example but to instill a sense of responsibility in their children's lives by requiring chores, volunteerism and expectations of more and more self reliance as a child matures. It is important to teach children that adults don't need money, fame or praise from society, to be a whole, healthy and happy individual.

Helicopter parents create childish adults. Parents that parent out of guilt and never want their children to grow up, don't realize that by clipping their child's adult wings they make them ill prepared to face a challenging world, which not only perpetuates their failure to mature, but also damages their self-esteem.  

It isn't tough love, it is rather true love, when parents selflessly raise their children to take moral accountability, (no age too young) to act with respect for self and others, to not blame others for their own inadequacies, giving privileges only when a child demonstrates responsible actions and always encouraging them to fly on their own.

Will this stop all the mass murderers? No, but given the singular similarity of signature presented by these self-absorbed sadists, whom all have the same thing in common; blaming society for their own inability to find happiness, we can reduce their numbers.

  

The recipe for a peaceful society has not evolved or changed in eons, nor will it ever change no matter what modern technology and ideas are forced into the mix, the ingredients are still faith, family, charity, love and personal accountability. Time to stop feeding the bears and breeding selfish sadists.