RIP Andrew Breitbart

Yesterday, the Conservative movement lost one of it's greatest patriots, Andrew Breitbart. He reportedly died of a heart attack in the early hours of March 1st. Breitbart was, quite literally, one of the most outspoken Conservative leaders and exposed numerous scandals and stories that the mainstream media refused to mention. He was 43 years old, and leaves behind a wife and four kids.



^ Andrew Breitbart speaking at CPAC just a few weeks ago.

This was really saddening news. But whats equally as saddening--and disturbing--is many on the Left's reaction to his death. On Twitter I was really shocked by the cruel and brutal messages people were posting, literally celebrating Breitbart's death. These people really showed their true colors, and ironically, many of them are the sort of people who tell Conservatives to stop the "hate." Check out this article to see some of the "tweets" I'm talking about:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/liberals-celebrate-death-andrew-breitbart/403471

This is truly saddening news, and I hope more Conservatives everywhere continue the fight for truth in a world where it is silenced more and more every day. I know I will!

My thoughts are prayers are with Breitbart's family. To close, here's a quote that shows how passionate Breitbart was about his work:

"I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies."

George Washington's 280th Birthday

Today marks the 280th birthday of our nation's first President, George Washington! Here's one of my favorite paintings of America's first leader--we have a copy of this hanging over the fireplace in my house, and it's a good reminder of Washington's steadfast faith and reliance on Divine Providence.



I'm currently reading "Being George Washington" by Glenn Beck. I thought I knew a lot about Washington before I read this book, but I've learned so much more about the type of leader he was. We all, especially those who consider themselves political "leaders" today, could take a lesson from Washington's style of leadership. He was humble, and listened to others rather than thinking himself superior. He didn't expect gratification or praise for what he did, and reluctantly accepted the position as first President of the United States, though he would have much rather returned to Mount Vernon. There were numerous times when mutiny seemed imminent, but Washington's leadership kept his army together, and later kept our young country together when conflicts arose that could have ended the republic before it even began.

He truly served--not for personal gain or recognition, but because he felt called to do so, and he believed in the principles of freedom and liberty he and countless others had fought so hard to secure.

We could all take a lesson from Washington's humility, faith, and dedication. I'll leave you with a few of my favorite Washington quotes...

“I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God, who is alone able to protect them.”

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

“Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impression so immediately from the sense of the [people] as in ours, it is……essential."

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

The Freedom Sign

Hi everyone! I hope February is going well for all of you. I have a few things I wanted to blog regarding politics and society in general, but for now, I want to share with you a great site I found today. We've all seen the popular "peace sign" that was made so prevalent in the 60's. But check out "The Freedom Sign" ...



"The Freedom Sign" counters the peace sign--it stands for the "God-given right" of freedom endowed to all humankind, personal responsibility, and "success or failure based on one's own merits."

Says The Freedom Sign's website, there is no true peace without freedom: "Peace in and of itself is wonderful, but when it comes at the expense of freedom; it becomes at best submission and at worst, imprisonment."

Check out their website at www.thefreedomsign.com. It's a beautifully designed website with a clear distinction between the peace sign and the freedom sign, and what freedom really is and what it requires to allow for peace. Check it out and "like" The Freedom Sign's page on Facebook! I think I'll have to get one of their bumper stickers for my car... :)

Government and Morality

Hi everyone! School has kept me extremely busy these last few weeks, obviously, but second semester is going much better than the first. I wanted to share with you some thoughts that I’ve been mulling over the past few weeks, now that the GOP race is getting rather intense. Throughout my recent GOP-related blog posts, I’ve tried to remain factual and neutral, researching the candidates thoroughly to get an idea of who they are and what they stand for. But this blog post, and the questions I’ve come up with, don’t really have all that much to do with the candidates themselves, but their stances on social issues, and whether their resolutions to these problems will really strike the root of the problem or not.

Let me preface this by saying that I’m focusing on social issues here because I believe that the moral structure of America lays the foundation for the rest of our society, and determines much of our nation’s policy and principle.

For a moment, I want to look at Ron Paul and Rick Santorum’s stances on social issues, specifically abortion and gay marriage.

In a general sense, Ron Paul believes it is the role of government to protect liberty, for the government to remain separate from private life, and to ultimately follow the Constitution. He is ardently pro-life. As President, he would request that Congress remove these issues from the federal judiciary and return them to the states for them to decide on. An interesting quote of Dr. Paul’s: "Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership."

Rick Santorum is best known for his strong stance against abortion and for traditional marriage. He seems to be very focused on the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation and the preservation of those foundations by government. He favors a federal ban on abortion, and also a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He is arguably the most pro-family candidate that the GOP has seen in a number of years. He says this about marriage: “Marriage is a society’s life blood. Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself. This is an institution which protects our liberty.”

This is just a quick glance at the two candidates’ stances on these issues, to help you get a general idea of where they stand. You can read much more about their views on these sites:
http://ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php
http://www.ricksantorum.com/we-hold-these-truths

So, who is right? Ron Paul believes the federal government should not have any say in moral issues, but Rick Santorum believes the Constitution should be amended to protect the sanctity of life and of traditional marriage. I’ve heard numerous arguments against both candidates. Some of the most recent that I’ve heard have been against Ron Paul; it seems that many folks think that Ron Paul’s view of getting government out of private life will trample upon and demolish the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country. I’ve heard arguments against Rick Santorum, also; many think that the federal government and the Constitution cannot and should not be involved in maintaining our country’s founding moral and religious values.

Both, I think, are legitimate arguments worth discussing. I believe in small government and individual liberty, wholeheartedly. But I also realize the value and importance of our country’s moral and religious roots. My questions are, though, can our system of government rightly be involved in social issues? Did our Founders intend for the Constitution to address moral issues such as the ones we face today? And will either of the solutions proposed by Paul and Santorum really solve any of the problems we face/restore our country’s moral values?

One of my favorite quotes from John Adams is this: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Founders believed that government cannot make people moral and religious, but our system of government—self-government, as it was intended—cannot function properly if people are not capable of conducting themselves in a moral and religious manner.

When they drafted and ratified the Constitution, I don’t know if anyone at the Constitutional Convention could have predicted the types of problems their nation would face just a few hundred years into the future. But, I feel that they would have thought it a great overreach for the federal government and the Constitution to be involved in moral issues. Yes, our Republic and its success require a moral and religious people—but as Adams said, the Republic isn’t capable of controlling “human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”

This is what I’m having a hard time understanding. Ron Paul, a Baptist who I’ve heard speak of his religion as a very private matter, is very Constitutionalist and believes it’s the responsibility of the individual to govern themselves, and that the government has no place in private life. Rick Santorum is enthusiastically in favor of maintaining our moral and religious values, but by way of Constitutional amendments and federal bans.

Can people, in their current moral and religious state (which is arguably lacking compared to the last few decades/centuries), handle the type of liberty that Ron Paul supports? Will instituting federal direction on moral and religious issues, as Santorum supports, solve the problem, or make it worse?

Undoubtedly, as I’ve said before, it’s not hard to look around and see that the moral and religious state of this country is not what it used to be. In fact, I’d wager to say it’s crumbling right before our eyes. I think the solution to this, though, is not in government that would simply make something “illegal” without reaching to the root of the problem. (Please note: I’m pro-life, and believe that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.) But will making a law or amendment that says “this is how it’s going to be, like it or not” really teach people why abortion is wrong, and will it make people understand that the definition of the word “marriage” is the union of a man and a woman? I personally think the issues we face in morals and religion are solved within the individual. Instead of more laws and more government intervention, teach people about the sanctity of marriage and of the sanctity of life, so that eventually, there’s no question as to what is right and what is wrong. This is a very rudimentary example, and I know this would take a great deal of time and effort and faith—but I really think that our problems would be better solved by reaching out to the hearts of people to help them understand the definition and practice of true morality and righteousness.

This is what has been on my mind these past few weeks. I hope I’ve laid out my thoughts clearly enough, and I welcome your opinions and comments on the candidates and their stances on these issues.

As always, thanks for reading ☺. And don’t forget about the GOP Primary coming up this Tuesday for all my Missouri readers! Hope everyone has a great weekend!

http://www.ricksantorum.com/we-hold-these-truths
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Santorum/Abortion.php
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Gay_Marriage/
http://ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php
http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html

The Facts on Newt Gingrich

Hi everyone! As you can tell due to my lack of blog posts, school is back in session and my classes are keeping me quite busy. This week, though, I had a little free time and decided to do some research on a candidate that I haven’t discussed on Present Day Patriots yet—Newt Gingrich. He won South Carolina with 40.4% of the vote, and has continued to maintain something of a lead, close to Mitt Romney. Until now, I’d only heard bits and pieces of Gingrich’s political views and his past record. I took some time to do a little in-depth research, so I’ll share what I found.

Newt Gingrich was born in 1943 in Harrisburg, PA and grew up in a military family. He went to Emory University and Tulane, and got a Ph.D in Modern European History. For several years, he worked as an assistant professor of history and geography and West Georgia College. He married his first wife in 1962, divorced her—married his second wife in 1981, divorced her—and married his current wife, Callista Bisek in 2000.

In 1978, he won a House seat after losing in 1974 and 1976, and was subsequently reelected to Congress ten times. Gingrich is credited with energizing the “Republican Revolution” in 1994, when the GOP won back a majority in the house after decades of a Democrat majority. Gingrich was named Speaker of the House in ’94.

http://www.biography.com/people/newt-gingrich-9311969

In debates and in the news, I’ve heard quite a bit about the “Ethics Violations” that Gingrich was supposedly guilty of. The whole situation seems to have been a complicated, partisan mess. While serving in Congress, he taught a class from 1993-1995 called “Renewing American Civilization” at two Georgia colleges; it was funded by a tax-exempt organization called the “Progress and Freedom Foundation.” Critics said the class “had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.” A Georgia Congressman who was defeated by Gingrich, Ben Jones, brought the whole ordeal to the public sphere and requested that the House Ethics Committee investigate it. Gingrich eventually made a “limited confession of wrongdoing in 1971 for not getting advice on a tax lawyer for the funding of the course, and for providing “inaccurate and incomplete” information to the House Ethics Committee. He was fined $300,000 and reprimanded. A quote from his attorney at the time regarding Gingrich’s confession: “The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing.”

Later, the IRS further investigated the situation to see if the class was political or educational in nature. They reviewed student evaluations and listened to recorded classes, and eventually, it was determined that it was purely educational; Gingrich was exonerated of the charges.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

The GOP lost a great deal of House seats in 1998 and Gingrich received much of the blame—for this, he resigned as Speaker and from his position in the House in 1998.

From 1999 to 2008, Gingrich associated with Freddie Mac—the infamous mortgage lender. The released contract specifically indicates that Gingrich position is not that of a lobbyist, but he “advised the company’s chief lobbyist on business and public policy issues.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71930.html

There you have a basic summary of Gingrich’s past. Something that particularly caught my attention with the former Speaker is his apparent admiration—or obsession?—with the Roosevelts. He identifies himself as a “Teddy Roosevelt Republican” and really, really loves FDR. Numerous times, he’s expressed his belief that FDR was the greatest, most effective President of the 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was certainly “effective,” but I, personally have never been a huge fan of FDR because of his contributions to the growth of government and entitlement programs. Here are some of Gingrich’s statements on FDR:



In researching his past and current political views, it was at times difficult to pinpoint his opinion because his opinions on many things have changed. I’ve heard people say that Mitt Romney has “flip-flopped” on many issues, but I think it’s fair to say that Gingrich has, as well.

Here are few notes on the issues—past and present— that I found pertinent:
• Gingrich is pro-life (except in the cases of rape and incest) and opposes same-sex marriage.
• He appeared in an ad with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi saying how our country needs to take action to address climate change. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154). He was, at one point, for cap-and-trade, and then later said it would lead to corruption and would harm the economy.
• He was for the formation of the U.S Department of Education.
• Supported the TARP Bailout
• Wants to replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” to “incentivize green technology” rather than regulate it.
• At one point he was for a federal mandate on health insurance, but then later called it unconstitutional

This article has a few more of Gingrich’s “flip-flops”: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/newt-gingrich-flip-flops.html .

During one of the many, many debates that have been held thus far, Gingrich said this regarding how the United States should handle Iran and their efforts to go nuclear (beginning at 2:37):



Personally, that aggression does not sit well with me. I don’t think that kind of aggressive foreign policy would be in the best interests of the United States. But Gingrich has a sort of “aggressive” air about him at all times, especially in debates, and especially when he is going after Mitt Romney. (It got pretty ugly in last night’s CNN Debate!)

I hope this has given you a little more insight into GOP candidate Newt Gingrich. I don’t know if he can honestly run as a “Washington outsider” as he’s clearly been in politics for most of his career. Further, I question whether Gingrich is capable of beating Obama—nearly every Obama vs. Gingrich poll I’ve found indicates Obama leading by a huge margin. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html)

Your thoughts on Newt Gingrich?

I have several more topics I want to address on Present Day Patriots—some political, and some not political in nature, so keep checking back for updates! Thanks for reading, have a nice weekend! ☺

http://www.newt.org/solutions/protecting-life-and-religious-liberty

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/10/gingrich_4/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/gingrich-feels-heat-global-warming-ad-pelosi/

The Facts on Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney stole the New Hampshire Primary victory by a mile with 39.3% of the vote—not surprising, since New England is his home turf and he dedicated a great deal of time to the state. Ron Paul was second with 22.9% of the vote (with 37,000 more votes than he had in 2008 in NH) and Jon Huntsman was third with 16.9%.

For this blog post I want to focus on Mitt Romney. Since even before the 2012 Presidential Race really began in earnest, Romney has led in the polls and has seemed the first choice of many Republicans. The man gives a good speech, and certainly looks like a President… and some of the things he says during debates have sounded promising, as if he really does represent Conservative ideals, contrary to the current administration. But does his past back up his claims of the present? Is he Conservative “enough”? Will Republicans “settle” for him because they think he is the only candidate capable of beating Barack Obama?

Romney is a businessman, and without a doubt he was successful in the private sector. He started Bain Capital in 1984, a private equity investment firm, and invested in or acquired companies like Sports Authority, Brookstone, and Domino’s Pizza. Bain & Company, the parent company from which Bain Capital was a spinoff, began to suffer financially and Romney became the CEO in 1991. Also of note: Romney and Bain Capital were given a $10 million bailout from the FDIC in 1993 when the company ran into financial trouble. Bain & Company’s finances were turned around and Romney was the CEO until 2002 when he became the President and CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.

While at Bain, Romney says he created over 100,000 jobs in the companies he worked with (i.e Sports Authority, Staples, Domino’s). What his critics (Newt Gingrich!) are quick to point out: “But like Romney’s work on all the businesses Bain invested in, the primary goal with these companies wasn’t job creation but making them more profitable and valuable. This meant embracing aspects of capitalism that have unsettled some Americans: laying off workers when necessary, expanding overseas to chase profits and paying top executives significantly more than employees on lower rungs.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mitt-romney-bain-capital-and-the-gospel-of-creative-destruction/2012/01/09/gIQAfRKEsP_story_1.html

Keep in mind that profits are the first concern in capitalism, not creating jobs. Though Romney created a lot of jobs, many employees in the companies he worked with were also laid off. Please don’t think I’m bashing capitalism—I’m definitely not! I’m probably one of its biggest advocates. I’m simply trying to bring to light that the fact that Romney did lay off employees could come back to haunt him in debates against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee.

Before Romney took over, the Olympics were falling $379 million short on revenue. He reduced budgets and increased fundraising and oversaw a budget of $1.32 million. The games cleared a profit of $100 million.

Romney ran for Massachusetts senator in 1994 but lost, and later served as the governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, the only political position he’s held. When he took office, Massachusetts faced a deficit of $3 billion. While in office, he cut spending and balanced the state’s budget each year he was in office. He’s proud to say that he turned Massachusetts around fiscally without raising taxes. Romney raised government fees (marriage licenses, gun licenses, court filings, other state licenses, etc.) and imposed new ones (33 new, 57 increased). This brought in revenues of $240 million.

Massachusetts, under Romney’s leadership, also adopted universal health care for the state (“Romneycare”) in 2006. This mandated all citizens of Massachusetts to buy health insurance, or face a penalty. Here’s an excerpt from a Cato Institute article on Romney’s healthcare plan:

“Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it? …

Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product. …

The subsidies may have increased the number of Massachusetts citizens with insurance, but as many as 400,000 Massachusetts residents by some estimates have failed to buy the required insurance. That includes the overwhelming majority of those with incomes too high to qualify for state subsidies. Fewer than 30,000 unsubsidized residents have signed up as a result of the mandate. And that is on top of the 60,000 of the state’s uninsured who were exempted from the mandate because buying insurance would be too much of a financial burden.

The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year [2008]. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney- Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html

Romney stands by his decision to enact universal healthcare in Massachusetts, saying: “…our plan was right for our state. …The plan is not perfect, there are things that I’d change in it, but I’ll stand by the things we’ve done.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-defends-romneycare-will-do-what-i-think-is-right-for-the-people-i-represent/

In the past, Romney’s views on social issues have changed. He went from being pro-choice to pro-life, from being a supporter of gay marriage to an advocate for the traditional family. He embraces the fact that his opinions have changed over the years. Specifically on the issue of abortion: “He supported abortion rights when he ran for Senate in 1994 and for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. But when he was in office, Romney said, an embryonic stem cell research bill came to his desk that ‘would have created new life for the purposes of experimenting on it and then destroying it. I simply could not sign a bill that would take life,” Romney said. “I recognized that was a very different course than I’d expected.’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-says-changing-positions-can-be-a-good-thing/2011/12/22/gIQA9TeUBP_blog.html

Well, there you have it—the facts of Mitt Romney’s record (also, if you haven’t yet, check out my blog post about campaign contributors to GOP candidates—it’s the post below this one). Now to discuss the question, is he electable? I think Romney is the person the Republican establishment wants to elect to run against Obama, and he’s heavily attacked by only a few, mainly Newt Gingrich. He may look like the strongest candidate right now, but when standing next to Obama, will the left try to paint him as “disconnected with the average American” because of his corporate connections?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/09/donna_brazile_lets_the_cat_out_of_the_bag_dems_want_to_run_against_romney

Here are Fox News’ Exit Polls from the New Hampshire Primary. Take a minute to scroll through the results. The wealthier voters seemed to favor Romney, and the Independent vote was split quite close between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

I hope this post gave you some insight into the record and past view points of Mitt Romney. What do you think? Is Mitt Romney “Conservative enough” for you? Will Romney connect with voters of all or of varying demographics? Can he beat Barack Obama?


http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/01/10/sarah-palin-and-rush-limbaugh-agree-mitt-romney-is-obamas-candidate-of-choice/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/09/the-i-holy-cow-i-candidate/4196/3/
http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=843
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checker-biography-romneys-fiscal-policies-as-governor/2011/10/27/gIQAoJUmPM_blog.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536,00.html