Last Friday, Newt Gingrich spoke at CPAC.  As I listened to his speech, I paid attention to the manner with which it was crafted.  I listened to how the issues he spoke of had been carefully picked to draw a response from the crowd.  I listened to his vision for America and his vision for the Republican Party.  I also listen to everything he didn’t say.

Gingrich is a man of ideas.  He is also a pragmatic man who understands politics.  He understands issues and he believes he knows what the people want to hear.  Gingrich tactically attacked the President on a number of issues to include national security, job creation, energy policy and the economy.  He invoked the memory of President Ronald Reagan and he alluded to national pride.

Gingrich is a man of ideas.  He is also a man, who failed to mention the U.S. Constitution, save in passing when he spoke about his vision to replace the Environmental Protection Agency with the Environmental Solutions Agency. You see, Gingrich is a man of ideas.

And finally, Gingrich is a man of ideas.  He is also a man who desperately wants people to forget that he participated in a Climate Change commercial alongside Nancy Pelosi.  He has since spent much time trying to explain away why it was he did it.  The second half of his CPAC speech was yet another attempt to do so by segueing from talk about our national energy policy into talk about a new green conservatism.  Like I said, Gingrich is a man of ideas.

Like so many politicians, Newt Gingrich has a problem.  He wants to be President.  And his solution to that problem is to 1) say what he thinks we conservatives want to hear, and 2) come up with new ideas.  Gingrich believes the solutions to all our problems lies in the future.  He wants to chart a new path for the Republican Party with new ideas and new approaches to old problems.

I want to hear a different solution, a solution that was developed over 200 years ago.  It’s called the U.S. Constitution.  I want to hear my next Republican Presidential nominee embrace the Constitution.  I want to know, not just hear it, that our next Republican Presidential nominee cherishes the ideals that are embodied in that document.

Newt Gingrich is a historian and more than any other person in the field of potential candidates for the republican nomination he should understand what it took for this nation to arrive at that sacred document.  He perhaps, above all the potential candidates, should be the one to embrace it.  Yet he does not.  I ask myself why?

The answer I keep coming back to is this.  Newt Gingrich, like so many other politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, like Barack Obama, desperately want make their mark on this world.  They want to craft a society in their image.  They want to be the one who everybody refers to when the people say, “Look what He did.”  All these people are “men” of ideas, but they have forgotten the ideas that made this nation great.

So many of our politicians speak about being conservative.  Only a handful of them actually look to the Constitution and govern by the rule of law outlined in that document.  Is that not true conservatism?  The framers of the Constitution were certainly men of ideas, but they looked to the past and took from the past, ideas that were already working in the States, to draft the Constitution. 

Yes, the concept that men could govern themselves was a new idea.  The concept that men could be free in their thoughts and opinions, that they could enjoy the rewards of property that a lifetime of hard work brought them, and that they could simply live without the burden of an oppressive tyrannical government.  These were bold new ideas, and our founders crafted a document whose sole purpose was to protect those ideas, the Constitution.

The framers were not opposed to new ideas.  They were the original “new ideas” men.  They however, cleverly understood that new ideas could not be simply implemented with each new Congress and with each new Presidential Administration.  They very carefully crafted within the Constitution a process for implementing new ideas.  That process was the Constitutional Amendment process.

I don’t want my next President replacing one horrible federal agency with another horrible federal agency.  I don’t want my political party to embrace mystical environmentalism repackaged under the new name of green conservatism.  I don’t want a President who will attempt to redefine the ideals embodied in Americanism.  And I don’t want a President who tells me what he thinks I want to hear.  I want a President who will tell me that he is prepared to embrace the Constitution and govern under the rule of law outlined in that document.

Now, when I listen to a so called conservative politician tell me why I should give my support to them for President, or any other office for that matter, I listen past the issues of the day they speak about, I listen past all the “new ideas” they have for our nation, I listen past all the bashing of their opponents, and I listen to what they have to say about governing this country by the rule of law outlined in the Constitution.

NOTE: If Newt Gingrich does ultimately win the Republican nomination I will support him.  I’ll support any republican over President Obama.  I would prefer it though if that republican were a Constitutional conservative.

Also posted at Protopolitics.com

Gabrielle Giffords (D) Arizona’s 8th District, believes she is being unfairly treated for a question she posed to General Petraeus on June 16, 2010 with respect to solar energy, fuel consumption in Afghanistan and how that relates to convoys.

That question was:

“Through the last three years supply lines have increasingly threatened…umm…have been threatened by either enemy action or through international places. And in places like Kandahar, where we have a large presence, we have been plugged into a very unsustainable and really an incapable grid system. We know that a major part of the upcoming Kandahar offensive will include some serious repairs and upgrades to the energy system which will include small scale solar and hydro-power systems and also some solar powered street lights. I’m just curious whether or not there’s [sic] plans to utilize any of those same technologies at our bases around Afghanistan and wouldn’t that greatly reduce our need for fuel?”

In this question to Gen. Petraeus, Giffords asks if the military will be using alternative energy resources such as small scale solar and hydro-power systems and also some solar powered street lights on our military bases. I am not concerned so much with the hydro-power, but more with the line of questioning dealing with solar power.

It is a well known fact, and Gabrielle Giffords states it often herself, that she is infatuated with solar power. However, the capability of solar power to fulfill energy needs, especially in a combat theater where it is necessary to have reliable electric power at the disposal of our troops 24/7 is ludicrous. If I could come up with a better word than ludicrous that would accentuate how ridiculous this idea is, I would use it.

The mere fact that Gabrielle Giffords has anything to do with military matters as a member of the House Armed Services Committee is laughable. She has no military experience. Her knowledge of what goes on in theater is limited to what people tell her and reports to which she has access. She was never in the military. The likely reason she is even on a Congressional Committee that deals with the military is because she has two major military installations in her district and Nancy Pelosi appointed her so she could leverage that position to get re-elected year after year.

As a former member of the United States Army Intelligence Corps and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, let me tell you how important it was to me and the people I supported with intelligence operations to have a ready, reliable supply of electricity. Every day my colleges and I would collect intelligence to support our actions in theater. The best intelligence is fresh intelligence. Intelligence is moved electronically through computer networks. Computer networks don’t run without electricity. As it was, the power supply was occasionally unreliable. Can you imagine trying to rely on a solar system to provide even a part of the power necessary to keep information flowing in theater? I can’t.

When our power was down, it became increasingly difficult to report intelligence. If Giffords knew anything about the contemporary operating environments in which we are currently engaged, she would know that without fresh intelligence, commanders are at a disadvantage making decisions. That could ultimately cost lives.

In an attempt to save face for a glaring gaff she made in asking that question to Gen. Petreaus, Giffords released a statement to the press on September 1, 2010 in which she cites a joint statement from twenty former military service members and said in part:

“The bogus ad by Conservatives for Congress takes an issue of life and death for our troops and turns it into fodder for a cheap political attack. What a disgrace. Shame on them for disrespecting our brave men and women in uniform. As a veteran, I call upon Conservatives for Congress to take down their ad immediately and apologize to Southern Arizona’s veteran community for this garbage.”

Aside from the fact that Giffords is not quoted in this press release directly and the initiative of the twenty former service members is questionable as one of her campaign staffers probably prepared the statement and then contacted former service members and asked them to sign on to it, it is not substantive in any way with respect to reality. Her contention is, informing her constituency of her gaff in some way disrespects all the people who have served in the military. I didn’t feel disrespected in the least and in fact a number of individuals I know, who served in the military, felt her question to Gen. Petreaus was naive and irresponsible.

Giffords statement goes on to state, “Many U.S. troops have lost their lives or been injured on fuel resupply convoys; more than 170 in 2007 alone.” While it is sad that there were 170 casualties relating to convoys in 2007, it is audacious and disrespectful for Giffords to cite this in her press release and to use it for her political purposes. It is also disrespectful to all the military leaders who were in charge of the missions that resulted in those casualties, to side handedly make the assertion they didn’t do everything within their power to mitigate those casualties. Apparently, only Gabrielle Giffords and solar energy could have saved them.

It should also be noted that the language in her press release is deceptively vague. Giffords ends her statement about the convoy casualties with, “in 2007 alone.” What is this supposed to imply? What about 2001-2006 and 2008-present? Did Giffords purposefully pick out that year’s statistic because it supported her position the best? If so, that again is not only disrespectful but it is dishonest.

Giffords’ assertion is that alternate energy sources, such as solar, would reduce the dangers encountered on convoys by reducing the number of convoys needed to supply troops. While there certainly are dangers in delivering fuel and materials overland, Giffords grossly overstates this as a problem, possibly to promote her own political agenda for solar. “No room for politics,” she states in a response to the Conservatives for Congress Committee. However, isn’t it her political agenda to promote solar she’s trying to defend?

What did Gen. Petraeus say in response to her question with respect to the difficulties they were encountering with supply lines? This:

“If I could, I might note that the supply lines actually have worked well. The lines of communication through Pakistan, yes there periodically are attacks, and there was one a week ago, but that followed a period of months and months, if not a year or so since the last significant attacks; and it’s much less than one percent of all of the cargo that goes in through Pakistan that is affected by these various attacks. And we’re up now to some seventy percent of all supplies not necessarily all material, all supplies coming in through the north through this carefully constructed northern distribution network that we’ve been able to establish over the course of the last year in close partnership with U.S. Transportation command. The State Department enables us to bring items in through Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and into Afghanistan and then even through some of the other countries and there are other routes including one that comes out of Iraq through Turkey and then turns east.”

Gen. Petreaus straightforwardly told her that it is practically not an issue in the south and the majority of resupply is coming through the north. Giffords’ overstatement of the supply line problem to promote her own solar political agenda is troubling. We should expect a higher degree of honesty from our elected representatives, however, I will give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she was just uninformed.

Giffords, in her initial September 1st press release recounts the opinion of Gen. Petreaus from his 2006 Counterinsurgency Manual that, “the development of a stable electric supply is part of a successful counterinsurgency strategy,” and again in her response to the Conservatives for Congress Committee, recounts the opinion of Gen. Petreaus and Gen. McChrystal that, “our battlefield energy supply, totaling more than 60 million gallons of fuel a month, is a critical vulnerability to our deployed forces” and, “the military’s use of scarce electricity resources undermines our standing and that of the Afghan government in an area called the birthplace of the Taliban.” She utilizes these statements out of context in an effort to back up her assertion that solar energy would alleviate the need for so many convoys.

In the first instance, Gen. Petreaus is most likely referring to an infrastructure problem in Iraq. Anyone who spent any time in Iraq knows there have been problems supplying power to large sectors of the populous due to a lack of power infrastructure. That resulted in extended periods of power outage for various sectors of major cities, such as Baghdad. This most certainly contributes to a situation of unrest amongst the population and would indeed affect the level of insurgent activity. It’s not the kind of problem solar will, in the immediate future, ever be able to effectively solve in any reasonably cost effective manner. In any event, Giffords uses this out of context in an attempt to shore up her argument about supply lines.

In the second instance, Giffords merely restates the obvious, another statement about populous support and insurgency used out of context. Again not the kind of problem solar will, in the immediate future, ever be able to effectively solve in any reasonably cost effective manner, but Giffords still attempts to use these statements to shore up her position about the supply lines and the need for solar to alleviate that problem.

To be fair to Giffords, there are some limited applications where solar probably is appropriate. For example, she mentioned solar lighting. I was able to find an example of an instance where 1200 solar powered lights have been installed near Fallujah, Iraq along a 22 mile stretch of roadway. These lights probably do make that stretch of roadway safer, because they don’t rely on the power infrastructure to stay lit at night. However, the third phase of the project cost the taxpayers 2.9 million dollars. I was not able to find the cost of phase I and II.

Even Gen. Petreaus acknowledged to Giffords that, “We do use solar power in some cases, again, where that provides a benefit to us, we did that in Iraq as well, by the way, I might point out quite considerable use of that, and again that’s the case in Afghanistan as well.” Nevertheless, that does not negate the fact that solar is not a realistic solution to most energy issues in a theater of combat.

Here is a short list of reason why I believe trying to implement most instances of small scale solar energy collection as a means to offset energy use in a theater of combat would be imprudent.

1) Solar arrays, even small scale ones like the kind you would find on a personal residence, typically have a large footprint; in effect, they take up a lot of space. Therefore, they would make an easy target for the enemy.
2) While it is true that we have some permanent style bases in Afghanistan, as we do in Iraq, there is no guarantee that will always be the case. How will you pick up your solar array and realistically move it 20 KM down the road? You can do that with fuel and generators quite easily.
3) Who will install the solar technology? Our own Army Engineers (I’m sure they could figure it out, but are they currently trained to do it?) or Civilian contractors and how much would it cost to even purchase the equipment? Solar is not inexpensive even with the massive government subsidies propping up the industry.
4) How will you get the solar equipment to the bases? Supply lines perhaps? The cost of security for fuel supply lines drives up the cost of each gallon we use, why wouldn’t it also drive up the cost of the solar equipment? Will the Taliban see the convoy of solar equipment and say, “Oh no boys, that’s green energy. Don’t attack. The Americans truly are our friends. They are trying to reduce their carbon footprint to save Afghanistan!”

After careful consideration and what I would characterize as an extremely fair account of the proceedings that took place in that June 16th questioning session and after carefully reading what Gabrielle Giffords wrote in both her September 1st press release and in the response she made to the Conservatives for Congress Committee, I have to conclude Giffords is trying to cover up a legitimate complaint her constituents have for something she did.

Again, it is no secret that Giffords has an affinity for solar energy and uses any and every opportunity to support her solar energy agenda. I think her assertion that she was doing this to benefit the troops in Afghanistan was secondary to her motivation to promote her solar energy agenda. It was convenient for her to use this situation politically after the fact to promote herself as a big supporter of the troops while calling the Conservatives for Congress Committee names and falsely accusing them of dishonoring the troops. I think Giffords manipulated information in both her press release and her response to the Conservatives for Congress Committee to support her own gaffs and to divert attention away from her.

It is unfortunate that the military ends up being the pawn used by Giffords in her attempt to smear a legitimate organization’s members for exercising their right to question their government representative on something that was very questionable. Instead of responding in a civil manner, she rounded up former military men and woman to sign on to a political statement which, in quite offensive language, besmirched the people who opposed her. I find it highly suspect that twenty former military members just marched down to her campaign office after seeing the ad and demanded to make some sort of joint statement. It just defies logic.

I work around both former and current military members every day. Some of them talk about Giffords and her so called credibility on military issues. They see her as lacking credibility on military issues, because she was never in the military. On this issue, Giffords really made it clear how little she does know about the military and how unqualified she is to represent military men and women in the 8th District. Please Gabrielle, call me a disgrace and tell me I am disrespecting our brave men and women for suggesting that they deserve to have someone sitting on the House Armed Services Committee who has actually served in the military.

Giffords’ September 1, 2010 press release

Conservatives for Congress Committee response to Giffords’ Sept. 1 press release and copy of Giffords’ response back.

Conservatives for Congress Ad

Raw Footage of the Committee hearing

Cross posted at Protopolitics.com

     The new united States Constitution was also carefully crafted to protect the States and the People from ever falling under a Tyranny again.  A system of checks and balances was purposefully crafted into the Constitution to counter ‘the nature of man’, or the shortcomings we as humans have to our egos, greed, power and corruption.  These negative qualities were as well known in 1787 as they are today, however, we can thank the noble men of that time for crafting a document that placed Liberty and Freedom above all.  I dare say, if some of our current politicians were in that room during the fateful months that culminated in the creation of the Constitution, we would not be so free today.

     Today, 223 years later, this country stands at the precipice.  We are one election away from utter salvation or utter annihilation.  The ultimate check placed on our government is not the vote; it is the consent of the people.  The people exercise that consent through their vote, but en mass they can retract that consent by simply not following the laws of this nation.  We are a nation of laws and the people give consent to the government every day when they follow those laws.

     The people of this country who do follow the laws of this country expect the laws to be enforced.  When government officials either elected or appointed do not enforce the law, they are in effect saying, “I don’t give my consent for this government to have any authority anymore.”

     The Supreme Law of the Land is the United States Constitution.  When we send a representative to Congress or elect a President and that person willfully violates the Constitution or ignores the original intent of the Constitution, that person is in effect saying, “I don’t give my consent for this government to have any authority anymore, my authority is supreme.”  This is what many of our elected officials are doing and have done for many years.

     I for one never gave any of my elected officials the authority to make that decision.  Only the People or the States have that authority.  Elected and appointed officials acting on behalf of elected officials, only have the authority to carry out with due diligence the duties outlined for them to do by either the Constitution or the laws passed by Congress in accordance with the Constitution.

     President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the respective leaders of two branches of our government have willfully ignored the Constitution by passing The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring people to purchase something whether they want it or not. The Constitution gives them no authority to require a person to purchase something.  This very same law, Nancy Pelosi wanted to slide through Congress by deeming it to be passed when she didn’t have the votes to pass it with a roll call vote, an intent to violate the Constitution.  President Barack Obama as the Chief Executive in this nation is required to enforce the laws of this nation and protect the States from invasion, yet the borders remain porous and thousands of people from foreign countries come across our border every day, in violation of our immigration laws.

     These are just a few of the things we have been forced to endure from this group of Tyrants who have usurped the Constitution and will continue to do anything and everything to violate it and the laws of our country.  If that is not a Tyranny, then I don’t know what one is.

     Earlier I stated this nation is at the precipice.  We are the ultimate check on this government and it is now in our hands to place that check on those elected officials who have only disdain for the Constitution and the United States under that Constitution.  If we as a nation do not do this, I believe the future for this country is lost.

     When I entered the military in October 2001, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We now have domestic enemies in our midst and we must now defend Our Constitution.  I will do so now and every day until November 2^nd when I remove my consent for the person currently representing me in Congress and give it to her opponent.  I hope all Americans will do the same in their respective Congressional district elections and State Senatorial elections.  The future of Our Country depends on it.

Cross posted at Protopolitics.com

All around the country Democrats are attacking Republican challengers on Social Security, a scam signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.  This scam has been going on since the first taxes were collected in January 1937 and the first benefits were paid out in 1940.

Pay attention to this:  Democrats are playing offensive defense this year. Democrat incumbents have money to spend and Republican challengers tend to have less.

The strategy: Make their Republican opponents spend their money responding to ridiculous accusations instead of attacking the incumbent Democrat on their record.

This is an ambush.  In the military we are taught to fight through an ambush or else you are most likely assured to wind up dead.  Republicans who only defend and don’t attack will be drained of cash and won’t have as much money to call the Democrats on their record, just what they want.

How to Fight Back

A good example of how to fight back is a television ad recently employed by the Republican in Arizona’s CD8 race, Jesse Kelly.

 See Jesse Kelly’s Television spot here

1) He calls her attacks for what they are, a diversion.  2) He points out why she is being defensive. 3) He promotes his agenda.  This occurs all in the same ad.  I would go further by expanding the attack portion of this ad in an attempt to set the agenda of the campaign.

Republicans must not fall prey to the Democrat’s strategy this year and they must remain true to themselves.  They cannot allow the Democrats to define the campaign as they are doing with Social Security attack ads.  Republicans around the nation have a distinct advantage this year in that they can fully set the agenda of the campaign.  They just have to do it.

Here’s a great example of setting the agenda. Thank you Allen West:

See Allen West’s video here

Cross posted on Protopolitics.com

“However, he still has no plan for how current retirees [sic] benefits will be met if younger workers stop fully paying into the system.” – Gabrielle Giffords (D) AZ8 press release statement referring to her opponent, Jesse Kelly, on the Social Security Program.  (From her campaign website)

From   http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm  (yes this is a government website)

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

What is a Ponzi scheme?

“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.”

Gabriell Giffords (D) AZ 8^th Congressional District continues to attack her opponent for standing up to the largest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated against the American people, Social Security.  Even Bernie Madoff didn’t have the gall to pull off a scheme of this magnitude.  Yet Giffords continues to support it while she continues to attack her opponent, Jesse Kelly, for daring to suggest that Social Security is in serious trouble and this country needs to make realistic changes to the idea of this “entitlement.”

On June 10, 2010 Reuters reported the following:

Fed’s Fisher-Fed won’t rescue Social Security

(Reuters) – Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher on Tuesday said the U.S. central bank will not rescue the country from its obligations to underfunded government retiree and health care benefit programs.

“It’s a standard political reflex… if you can’t solve a fiscal process, you turn to the monetary authorities to turn on that faucet and print their way out of it,” Fisher said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “And I’m here to tell you that neither I nor (Fed Chairman) Ben Bernanke nor anyone who sits on the Federal Open Market Committee will countenance that behavior,” he added.

The Social Security and Medicare programs are projected to run enormous deficits as the retiring Baby Boom generation swells the ranks of pensioners.

This Entitlement, which some say, has the federal government on the hook for as much as $65,000,000,000,000 (yes that’s 65 Trillion dollars) in unfunded mandates, is the poster child for the Democrats as they try to scare senior citizens into believing Republicans want to take their retirement money.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reality, conservative Republicans realize the federal government cannot sustain this system forever and the program will eventually cause the government to default.  That is why serious people need to make serious changes to the federal government.

Current polling has this race tied at Giffords (D) 46 Kelly (R) 46.

“Resistance to the collective is futile,” seemed to be the message of President Barrack Obama when he spoke to an audience in Cleveland, OH on September 8.  In typical fashion, this speech was pure campaign mode material chock full of the usual doublespeak that he is so famous for. 

The model:   [Lie about the past] + [blame the Republicans] + [class envy statement] + [Conservative sounding statement] + [but] + [Abraham Lincoln quote] + [collectivist statement]

Example:

[A few weeks ago, the Republican leader of the House came here to Cleveland and offered his party’s answer to our economic challenges.  Now, it would be one thing if he had admitted his party’s mistakes during the eight years that they were in power (lie)]  +  [But that’s not what happened.  There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner.  There were no new ideas.  There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power-- the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: (blame)]  +  [Cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations (class envy )]  +  [I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient.  I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (conservative sounding statement)] + [but (but)] + [in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Lincoln quote)] + [And that means making the long-term investments in this country’s future that individuals and corporations can't make on their own:  investments in education and clean energy, in basic research and technology and infrastructure..... And that means providing a hand-up for middle-class families (collectivist statement)]

It’s easy to write a speech when you have the basic construct down.  It’s just plug and play.  This is the same model Obama used throughout his campaign for President and most likely will be the same model he will continue to use.  The great thing about this model for him is that some people will just hear what they want to hear out of this, and that’s what he wants.

There was another important speech given on September 8, however this one occurred in 1858.  Perhaps Mr. Obama should quote this one sometime; it’s from Mr. Lincoln so it could fit in his above model.

“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” –   Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Debates, 1856-1858 – Abraham Lincoln

Millions of Americans have Mr. Obama’s number.  His actions over the past year and a half have tainted his credibility and I for one do not believe he will be able to go on fooling most of the people in this country.   As for Lostupidous of Borg’s attempt to bring me into the collective, resistance is not futile.

                “Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.” – AL GORE, speech at National Sierra Club Convention, Sept. 9, 2005

                Grandiose fear mongering claims, such as the one in the above quote from former Vice-President Al Gore, have fueled the debate over global warming in the United States and the world.  Many believe our earth is in peril and without swift action by the governments of the world we will all be doomed to face the consequences of our so called poor stewardship.  Whatever you personally believe about global warming, the reality is, there are many hard core believers operating within all layers of our government, Federal, State and Local, who have bought into this idea, and will stop at nothing to use government to accomplish their objectives.

                Certainly government elected officials and government appointees are trying to wield government power in a multi-prong attack against our society and our way of life, all in the name of the Global Warming Crusade.  Cap and Trade, the demonization of the Petroleum Industry, Renewable Energy, the indoctrination of our children in schools and even those swirly little annoying florescent light bulbs they want us to buy are all examples of “fronts” on which we are being barraged daily. 

                I believe some politicians, such as Al Gore, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama, have championed the Global Warming Crusade for what it can bring to them, more power through government control.  I believe other politicians though, such as Gabrielle Giffords (D) AZ 8^th District, a member of the Science and Technology Committee in the House, are willing dupes to do the bidding of people like Nancy Pelosi, because they have fallen prey to years and years of constant noise from the liberal eco-left, telling them the world will end if they don’t take action. 

                In Giffords case, she has willingly taken up the “front” of Renewable Energy, more precisely, solar energy.  Constituents in her district are regularly fed press releases from her congressional office about her efforts in Washington to promote the solar energy industry, or they are forced to see news snippets about her in the local media when she schedules in-district solar related photo ops.  In 2008, Giffords supported and voted in favor of the The Energy Improvement and Extension Act  (H.R. 1424), and in 2009, Giffords supported and voted in favor of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  (H.R. 1).  Both acts expanded subsidies to homeowners for the purchase of renewable energy production devises, such as solar cells.

                Subsidies, in the form of a personal income tax credit for 30% of the cost of a renewable energy production devise, are given to homeowners as an incentive to buy into fledgling technology.  Without such subsidies, demand for alternative energy, like solar, would be insignificant against traditional energy sources because these technologies in their current state of development and efficiency would be cost prohibitive.

                Lawmakers like Pelosi and Giffords believe it is the federal government’s role to prop up speculative business in the United States by creating artificial demand for products like solar.  They do this to support their global warming (or climate change) agenda.  However, what they really accomplish, by design, is to create a culture of dependence on the federal government.  Dependence on the federal government is their end game in all matters of government involvement.  This has become brutally apparent over the course of this current congress and under the guiding hand of the Obama administration.

                At the time of this writing, Congresswoman Giffords has the following quote on the solar energy page of her official Congressional web site:

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” –Thomas Edison, 1931

                Giffords, perhaps, would have us believe that even a great American entrepreneurial hero like Thomas Edison would have been on board supporting the government subsidies to fund the development of fledgling technologies like solar.  Perhaps he would have, but the reality is, Edison, who held 1,093 individual patents, including one for the now doomed incandescent light bulb, accomplished this all with the help of private investment, not government.

                Another prominent example of the private sector entrepreneurial spirit was Henry Ford.  He started his vast automobile empire with $28,000 privately invested by friends and associates.  Ford created a demand for the automobile and he created a system of bringing that product to the consumer at a price that was affordable, the assembly line.  He didn’t rely on the government to prop up his business until he could get the costs down to a reasonable level.  He used genius and ingenuity to make it happen.

                Politicians like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi seek to create a nation of needy reliant people.  Politicians like Gabrielle Giffords are at best unwitting accomplices in this crusade to make the American people reliant on big government for everything.  They accomplish this in small or large steps but the end result is the same.  If we are ever going to take back control of this country and throw off the bonds of government, as our Founding Fathers did, we must do so in November.  We must vote politicians out of office that wish to drag our country and our American industrial spirit down, or relinquish ourselves to becoming a nation of “Once greats” and “Has beens.”

            Gabrielle Giffords wasted no time attacking Jesse Kelly after he won the Republican Primary on August 24, 2010.  She launched a political hit piece straight from page one of the Democrat’s Playbook.  What’s on page one?  Let’s take a look.

The Democrat Playbook

Page 1

1)      Scare old people

2)      Call your opponent too radical

3)      Pray November gets here quick

Let’s take a look at the ad she put together: 

AFTER ALL – Giffords Hit Piece

 (Video opens in new window) 

              This is a typical cookie cutter 30 second spot and she followed step one and two precisely.  However, if Giffords thinks that a spot like this couldn’t be made about her, she has her head in the clouds.  Just for fun, I put the following spot together to show you what it might look like. (Keep in mind I don’t have all the fancy computer software or sound equipment to make this look professional, so all you libs out there that want to flame me about the quality, I got it.) 

Gabrielle Giffords AZ8 on Obama’s Health Care Bill August 7, 2009

 (Video opens in new window) 

            Gabrielle’s political hit spot against Kelly is just plain stupid.  She associates the privatization of Social Security with the recent stock market performance and tries to play on everyone’s fears of Wall Street.  Who does she think has contributed to Wall Street’s poor performance of late?  She can’t blame Bush for this; she’s been in office since 2007.

            Wall Street’s poor performance has been a result of a number of factors, perhaps not all the fault of the Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration, but they are playing a huge role.   Congress continues to spend money and increase the deficit.   Businesses across the United States are not hiring new employees or investing their capital for fear of new ominous regulations coming from Congress.  Unemployment remains high.

            What has Giffords done about all this?  She continues to go along with this Congress passing huge spending bills that have done nothing to help economic recovery, such as the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 and passing far reaching federal government controlling legislation like the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.

            On another note though, Giffords suggests in this political spot that Wall Street is not a safe place to put your money.  She is basically saying in this spot that if privatizing Social Security means putting your money in the stock market, that’s stupid.  There are about 1.4 million individuals in the active military that have access to the Federal Government’s savings program called the Thrift Savings Program.  Three of the funds in that program allow service members to invest their retirement savings in securities traded on Wall Street.  Is Giffords prepared to tell all the service members who are currently invested in these funds that they are “too radical” or just plain stupid?

            Lastly, I wonder if Giffords has ever had an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or other investment account where she invested her money in a mutual fund or individual securities traded on Wall Street.  If she has or currently does, why would she think that’s a good idea?  Maybe she is smarter than the rest of us.  Maybe she invested in real estate.

            The bottom line is this.  Giffords simply cannot run on her voting record.  Voting for that “Health Care Bill” or “Solar Pipe Dreams” and running up the deficit with every ridiculous appropriation she and the Congress vote on will not sell this year.  She won’t be running on her record, she’ll be running from it and Giffords will resort to the old stand-by, The Democrat Playbook.

                Tuesday’s primary election results (August 24, 2010) in Arizona’s 8^th Congressional District, while not official yet, demonstrated what many have felt for the better part of a year, the republicans are fired up.   Unofficially, over 80,000 republicans cast ballots in the primary election, far in excess of the 64,076 ballots cast in 2006, the most recent contested primary, and eclipsing the 52,671 ballots cast last election cycle in 2008.  Their selection of Jesse Kelly, a strong conservative republican with weighty support from the local tea party movement, suggests it was conservative republicans who were strongly motivated to get out and vote this cycle.

                In comparison, democrat turnout was flat.  Unofficially, about 50,000 democrats turned out to support their candidate, Gabrielle Giffords, who has been under fire for her support of President Obama’s spending deficits, universal healthcare and her lack of action on illegal immigration.  Turnout for the democrats is only slightly up from the previous cycle, in 2008, where only 46,223 ballots were cast and down from the 2006 election cycle, in which she won her initial primary battle, where 61,409 votes were cast.

                The primary turnout across the state was up dramatically for republican voters.  Over 500,000 republican ballots were cast statewide versus the 360,894 cast in 2008 and the 333,604 cast in 2006, the most recent similar election cycle.  For the democrats things weren’t as rosy.   About 250,000 votes were cast statewide.  Again these numbers were flat compared to 2008 where 274,698 votes were cast and in 2006 where 246,876 votes were cast.  All signs indicate this was not just a local phenomenon.

                Kelly, who ran a very energetic primary campaign, has vowed to hold Giffords accountable for her record, something the voters in the 8^th District seem to be eager to do as well.  In fact, nearly 1000 write in votes were cast against Giffords in her unopposed primary election, an early indication that even the democrats in the district are not happy with her votes in Washington.

                The 8^th District has more registered republican voters than democrats; however, Giffords has been able to maintain her seat by raising substantial amounts of money, by positioning herself as a “Blue Dog” democrat and by remaining fairly low key throughout her term in office.  This cycle however, all bets are off.  Yes, she still maintains a tremendous war chest, but she is no longer the “Blue Dog” because of her votes in Congress (some are calling her a “Red Dog”) and she won’t be able to duck the criticism for her poor performance over the past two years.  Jesse Kelly and the republicans are on a rampage.

                Giffords ran puff piece ads in 2008 because she knew she could coast to an easy victory.  This cycle look for Giffords to attack Kelly on his lack of experience either directly or indirectly.  Yes I said attack.  She is behind.  She can’t attack Kelly for being true blue “Red, White and Blue” and upholding the values and ideologies written into the Constitution.  She can’t attack him on any positions he’s taken during the Primary Election, not without drawing attention to her votes for spending, healthcare and her utter lack of effort on the illegal immigration issue.   She has tied herself to the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  She votes like she doesn’t have her own brain or any sense of what the 8^th District wants or cares about.  She has not represented the people in the 8^th District, who are largely conservative whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents.   She is in trouble and she knows it.

                Kelly has the upper hand.  Even if she tries to make an issue of his experience, it won’t stick.  The primary voters made that clear when they selected him as their nominee.  He ran against a formidable opponent, Jonathan Paton, who had legislative experience as a State Senator, and Kelly won by a sizeable margin.  Kelly is energetic and he energizes voters.  He has an expansive volunteer base of eager supporters and he is a relentless campaigner.  He has developed into a good public speaker and he is spot on in debates.  Giffords has her work cut out for her if she actually shows up to debate him.

                One final point, Giffords has long touted her connection with the military, a point she’s tried to sell to the voters, because of the two major military bases in the district, but she’s only married to a military officer.  She was never in the military and never really had any credibility on this issue.  Now she will look foolish if she even tries to bring it up because she’ll be facing a Marine combat veteran.    Yeah, Jesse was actually “in” the military, did push-ups, slept in the dirt and all that stuff.

                Giffords is in trouble this cycle.  Most of the indicators point to her defeat.  I’m guessing the final result will be somewhere in the neighborhood of Kelly 52% Giffords 48%.  Yes that’s about 4 points and this is Giffords’ last stand.