ProudConservative.com - The Blog

"The Republican Party has swung so far to the right and is controlled by conservatives."  I have read this comment so many times in the past year or so...maybe even longer.  But with the news of Sen. Specter jumping ship on Tuesday, so many of the political pundits are saying the same thing again.  I have to ask a question.  "Are you kidding me?"  The Republican Party has swung so far to the right?  If anything, the Republican Party has swung waaaaaayyyyyyyyy too far to the left.  The Republicans lost in 2006 not because they were too far to the right but because they were too far to the left.  Same thing in 2008.  I mean seriously.....John McCain?  Oh yeah.....he's really far out there on the right.  After Sens. Specter, Collins, and Snowe, McCain was probably the next worst leftie in the bunch.  Maybe Lindsey Graham was next.....but he was McCain's right hand man in the campaign!!! 

The conservatives are not in control of the Republican Party.  The conservatives haven't been in control in years and years.  And if you notice, the Republican Party has failed and floundered.   Look at all the wreckless spending by the Republicans when they were in the majority.  That's not conservatism.  The voters had enough of it.....little did they realize the Democrats were going to spend EVEN MORE than the Republicans.

It is my belief that people don't even know what a conservative is anymore.  Mitt Romney was hailed as some great conservative by so many in the Presidential Primaries.  Mitt Romney?  PLEEEEASE!!  "But Trent, you voted for Romney in the primaries!"  Actually I did.  I wasn't happy about it.  My candidate, Duncan Hunter had already dropped out of the race and at that point, I thought Romney was the only one who had a shot at stopping McCain.  McCain was worse than Romney.  However, I never claimed Romney was a conservative.  Same thing with McCain. 

McCain didn't lose because he was too far to the right.  He lost because he was too far to the left.  The only bit of spark that came to his campaign was when he chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate.  She was considered by most conservatives to at least be considered a conservative.  And then the McCain camp got a hold of her and screwed her all up with their liberal nonsense.  Very few people I know voted for McCain.  They voted for Sarah Palin hoping McCain would, for some reason, leave office after winning.  I didn't campaign for McCain and I sure as hell didn't contribute to his campaign. 

And that's my point!  So many of the Republicans don't excite the conservative base.  Yeah, you may get our unenthusiastic vote because you are slightly better than the Democrat you are running against, but that's about it.  Many conservatives stayed home, voted third party or didn't vote for President at all.  And that train of thought is only going to increase unless the party makes a humongous swing to the right. 

There are a few conservative Republicans in office and this is by no means a knock at them.  I am hoping they can find some like minded individuals and get them to run for office so that we can start getting rid of some the liberal Republicans in office.  

Too far to the right and controlled by conservatives?  Don't make me laugh!!!

Posted by Trent at 11:49 PM | Permalink

With the steady increases in taxation, regulation and entitlement programs over the past 80 years, I would say a "Tea Party" is looooong overdue.  However, many in this nation have already staged Tea parties and many more are still planned.  April 15th has been set up as a day for many Tea Parties to occur.  Some are small Tea Parties which may only draw 20 people.  Others are going to be huge Tea Parties which will draw thousands and thousands of people. 

I always hear people ask, "What can we do?  What can we do to stop the madness?"  Well, here's your opportunity.  Attend a Tea Party.  If there isn't any planned in your area, organize one.  If there is one within a few hours driving distance from your house, you have no excuse not to be there.  I, myself, will be attending the Tea Party in New York City on April 15th.  I am driving about an hour and a half or so to get there.  I have taken off early from work that day to make sure that I attend.  There are no excuses not to be at one. 

Is it going to change the country over night?  Probably not.  Did the Sons of Liberty believe their Tea Party would have such an effect that more than 230 years later, citizens of this country would still be talking about their actions?  Probably not.  But their Tea Party did change things for the better.  And the possibility that the Tea Parties we attend will change things for the better is great, so long as we take it seriously and show up in numbers that no one, not even the liberal media can ignore.  This is our chance to make history.  This is our opportunity to tell a government that they can no longer walk all over us and  confiscate our hard earned money through oppressive taxation.  This is our time to do something great.

So you can sit back and let other people do it.  You can sit back, stay at home, watch t.v. and find any excuse not to go to a Tea Party.  OR....You can make sure that you are at one no matter what you need to do to get there.  What can I do?  What can I do?  Stop asking and start doing.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TEA PARTIES, CHECK OUT:

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

Also, as I stated above, I will be attending the New York City Tea Party.  My friend Andrew Wilkow, host of Sirius Satellite Radio's The Wilkow Majority, has put together a pre-Tea Party party at The Patriot Saloon.  The pre part is from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 or so.  The NYC Tea Party is from 7:00 - 9:00.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE PRE-TEA PARTY PARTY, CHECK OUT:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=72934736770&ref=ts

And one other note, there are rumors that idiots from MoveOn and Acorn and several other liberal groups have been dispatched to cause disturbances and run interference at as many Tea Parties as possible.  There are also rumors of them posing as conservatives and trying to get people to sign their "petitions" which will then be used to fake support for Obama's policies or worse, to collect information on anyone attending these events.  So, PLEASE, be very careful about giving out any information to anyone at any Tea Party.

I am looking forward to spending several hours with thousands of people that love this country and the principles it was founded upon.

-Trent

Posted by Trent at 12:51 AM | Permalink

Posted by Trent at 12:20 AM | Permalink

I know this is a bit of old news, but it is still relevant. And I continue to get e-mails asking me what I think about how it happened. I've listened to various pundits and talk show hosts. I've done my own research and I've asked the opinions of a few people I know in the industry. The following is the best I can describe what happened and why.  This is a very basic explanation, but enough to give you an idea of the events that led up to the meltdown.  If you need a more detailed explanation.....just do a little research.  There is tons of information on the web.

It all began back during the Carter administration with the Community Re-investment Act.  The government decided it was going to tell the banks who they had to loan money to in order to try revive the decaying cities.  The original intent was to get more low income people to become home owners.  A lofty goal, but perhaps not a wise one.  (And by the way, this is not really a discussion of whether the government should be doing any of this anyway, because most of you know my thoughts on that.  If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government should not be doing it.  Fact is they did it and that is what I am discussing here.)  Throughout the late 70's, the 80's and the early 90's, there was not a whole lot of damage nor a whole lot of good done by the CRA.  It did however lay the foundation for what would happen in the mid to late 90's and 2000's.  

Under Clinton the CRA was expanded.  The government really got more involved and regulated the banks into making loans to people who did not qualify for loans.  They were required to make risky loans their normal standards would stop them from making.  Again, the goal was to get more people to own homes.  The problem is, many of these people couldn't afford to own homes so in the end it really wasn't such a good deal for them.  Yes, they were technically home owners for a short time, but in the end many of them ended up in bankruptcy and foreclosures.  If you ask me, I'd rather rent until I could actually afford a home rather than own a home and be forced into bankruptcy....but hey that's me. 

These practices went on for years.  The default rate shot up as everyone knew it would, but politics being politics, the politicians were more concerned with being re-elected so the regulations on the banking and lending institutions stayed in place.  The politicians could claim that under their watch, there were more home owners.

As time went on, the government decided in order to keep the practice going, it was going to have the quasi-federal agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee the loans that the banks and other lending institutions were making.  This opened a whole new can of worms and is really where the crisis was formed. 

With the government in effect guaranteeing these loans, the banks and mortgage companies felt the practice of making these risky loans was no longer so much of a risk for them as the loans were now essentially backed by the federal government.  They were free to make loans to people that couldn't afford them with very little risk to their own balance sheets.  If the people couldn't afford to make their mortgage payments, the banks could just sell those mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And that's exactly what they did in huge numbers.  But wait that's only part of it.

With more people "qualifying" for mortgages, there were was a larger pool of home buyers.  What happens when demand outpaces supply?  You got it, the price goes up.  So now instead of 2,000,000 people looking to buy a home out of 2,500,000 homes on the market, there were 3,000,000 people looking to buy those same 2,500,000 homes.  (These numbers aren't the actual numbers.....simply numbers to explain what was happening.)  The law of supply and demand kicks in and those 2,500,000 homes go up in price.  So now instead of a home selling for $250,000.00,  it goes on the market for $300,000.00.  And as the cycle continues with more and more people getting these loans, that $300,000.00 house now becomes a $375,000.00 home.  So now you have people who originally may have bought a $250,000.00 buying homes that cost $375,000.00.  This process continued and spiraled out of control.  Can anyone say housing bubble?  

So now there are more and more people buying homes they really can't afford and they are paying much more for them.  The banks and lending institutions are making these loans knowing they can just "bundle" all these risky mortgages and sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Sooner or later Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would hit the toppling point where these bad loans were hitting unprecedented default rates and these two agencies simply could no longer stay afloat.  It was a recipe for disaster.

In comes the federal government once again to "save" everyone with a bailout.  They came in to save everyone from a problem they created.  If they had kept their noses out of the banks' business, this crisis simply would never have happened.  The banks would have continued to makes loans based upon standards that would minimize their risk and maximize their profits.  People who could afford to get loans would get them and those not ready to buy homes financially, would be denied the loans....saving them from future misery.

Now I just want to discuss the blame on this issue.  I have heard a lot of excuses and explanations from a lot of liberals and even from some conservatives.  Many people blamed the lending institutions for being greedy.  They claim they caused the entire crisis.  I, myself, blamed the people for taking out loans they knew they couldn't afford.  And to a high degree, I still stand by that.  I also blamed the government for getting involved in the first place.  And I still stand by that as well.  However, I do now also place some of the blame on the lenders.  To me, the fault begins with the government mandating that the lenders make these loans by threat of fines if they do not.  The main blame falls on the people that took out mortgages to buy bigger homes than they could afford.  The government may have forced the banks to make these loans, but no one forced people to take mortgages for more money than they could afford.  So the bulk of the blame falls on these people.  As I said, I do now place a little of the blame on the lenders as well.  Yes they were mandated to make these loans by the government, BUT they took advantage of the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy all these bad loans from them.  They came up with loan programs that only exacerbated the problems.  Again, though, the really culprit is the borrowers who took loans for more money than they could afford.  I don't care what the banks told them.  I don't care what programs the banks offered.  In the end, it was these people that signed the loans and they were not forced or mandated to do so.  I, myself, bought a home while a lot of this was going on.  I was approved for a lot more money than the mortgage I decided I was comfortable with.  I took at as my personal responsibility to take out a mortgage for an amount I felt reasonably comfortable I could repay, regardless of what the banks told me I could afford.

The one other complaint I heard was that the banks were racist and that's why the government had to get involved.  These same people would yell up and down how greedy these banks were.  So I had a simple response to that.  The main purpose of a business is to make a profit.  Call that greed, call it whatever you like, but that's fact.  Now if a business is greedy, it wants to make as much money as it possibly can right?  Well then it wouldn't matter if they were making money from white, black, brown, yellow or red people.  They would make loans that would profit their business.  The CRA had nothing to do with racism as "greedy" banks were making loans to "qualified" minorities as well as "qualified" white people.  That was their business and that's how they made money.  These same banks were also denying loans to "unqualified" minorities as well as unqualified white people.  In other words, race didn't matter.

The lesson is that when the government gets involved in issues it has no authority under the Constitution to get involved in, bad things happen.  This whole crisis would have been averted and the federal government wouldn't be once again engaging in unconstitutional activities by now bailing out these institutions and agencies.

-Trent

Posted by Trent at 03:47 PM | Permalink

I've made my decision about the election next Tuesday.  As you may or may not know, I have been struggling to come to a decision on how to vote this year.  And I want to go back and discuss some of my thought process and then finally how I came to my decision.

As the Republican primaries began and the debates began, I wasn't sure who I was going to support.  As the debates rolled on and the primaries began, I was open to 9 of the 10 candidates.  I watched what they were saying and compared it to what they had actually done.  In the end, I made my decision to endorse Rep. Duncan Hunter.  To me he was the best conservative in the running with the record to back it up.  Unfortunately, by time the Connecticut primary rolled around, Rep. Hunter had already dropped out of the race and Sen. John McCain looked as if he was well on his way to winning the nomination.

This was the first time this election season I had to make a decision I didn't really want to make.  Do I vote for Duncan Hunter because he was the best conservative on my ballot or do I vote for someone else in order to defeat the one candidate I did not want to win the nomination?  And yes, you all know by now, if you've been a regular reader of ProudConservative.com, the candidate I was not open to and the candidate I did not want to win the nomination was John McCain.  I chose to vote for Gov. Mitt Romney in my primary soley because I thought he was the one candidate who could stop McCain from winning the nomination.  Mitt Romney was not a solid conservative, and not my ideal choice, but he was an acceptable alternative to McCain. 

Well, as we all know, Mitt Romney dropped out shortly thereafter and eventually the few candidates left in the race, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul did as well.  John McCain won the nomination.

So began my internal struggle.  The one candidate I did not want to win....the one candidate who angered me more than most any other Republican in the Senate, was the nominee for the Republican party.  How could I, as a proud conservative, vote for this man?  I couldn't.  I looked into some of the third party guys.  And I liked some of the stuff some of them were saying, but I also disagreed with many of their stances on certain issues.  I had basically come to the conclusion that I was most likely going to write in Duncan Hunter's name.

As the Democrat primaries were finishing up, it eventually became clear that Sen. Barack Obama was going to be the Democrat nominee.  As I did some research on him and the multitude of stories came out about him and his radical associations and as I heard his wife talk and I realized not only is this man a liberal, but he's a damned marxist, I started rethinking what I was going to do.

It came time for McCain to choose his running mate.  Now at this point, McCain had been trying to talk a good game to conservatives, but I wasn't buying a word of it.  As a conservative, I didn't believe any of the conservative talk coming from him.  However, I said that if he picked a solid conservative vice presidential running mate, I would hold my nose and vote for him.....or in reality, vote for the vice presidential candidate.  And to my shock and surprise, not only did he pick a solid conservative in Gov. Sarah Palin, but he picked one of my top 3 choices.  I made up my mind.  I was going to vote for the ticket.....not necessarily McCain....but the ticket.  I figured I was going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt now that he had actually proven to me he was trying to "make-up" with conservatives by putting Palin on the ticket.  And I decided if a vote "for".....and yes the "for" is in quotes on purpose.....McCain meant that Palin would get her foot in the door at the White House, and it would most likely give her the nomination in 2012, I could live with that.

But then the debates happened, and John McCain opened his mouth with some idiotic statements and policy ideas.  Then the so-called "mortgage crisis" happened and McCain voted for that awful, unconstitutional bail out bill.  He also through out the idea that he would direct the Treasury to buy up bad mortgages.  His handlers were ruining Palin.  She had to spout McCain talking points about issues she clearly disagreed with him on.  It was all getting ugly to me. 

I began to go back to considering writing in a candidate, perhaps even Gov. Palin herself if not Duncan Hunter.   I got a lot of flack from some friends and was told that I was going to help elect Barack Obama.  I was told that a vote for anyone other than McCain was a vote for Barack Obama.  I was told I was wasting my vote.  I was told I had to get on the McCain bandwagon.  I was even told, by someone who has extremely similar politcal views to me, that my conservative principles didn't matter in this election and that I had to vote for McCain. 

I countered with, and I still hold these beliefs to be completely valid and true, that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.  If I chose to write in a candidate, I would not be helping elect Barack Obama.  The only way that I would help elect Obama was if I voted for Obama and that was never going to happen.  If I chose to write in a candidate or vote third party, my vote would be cast for that person and it was not a vote for Obama.  I own my vote.  The Republican party does not own my vote and certainly John McCain does not own my vote, so therefore, if I chose to vote third party or write in, it was not a vote that John McCain lost.  It was a vote he never had.  And I said principles ALWAYS matter.

So for the past 2 to 3 weeks, I have been really struggling about what to do.  I was reading some stuff on the internet.  I listened to some talk radio.  I was trying to find that one thing that just set the lightbulb off in my head and gave me the answer.  And then it happened.  I saw one of my very own ProudConservative.com T-shirts in my drawer.  It was the "Priorities" design which says, "AMERICAN, CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN....in that order." 

The truth is, as a Conservative, I don't have a candidate in this race.  As a Republican, I hardly have a candidate in this race.  But as an American, which is what comes first to me, I have to do what is right for America.  This election comes down to voting for a candidate, and not only a candidate but basically an entire party, who wants to turn the dream of our founding fathers into a socialist nightmare.  Our founders were for limited self government.  They drafted our Constitution purposely as a document that limited the powers of government.  It is not a document of rights.  It is a document that limits the power of the federal government.  Sen. Obama and the Democrat leaders in the Senate and Congress want to completely ignore what the Constitution says.  They want the federal government to use it's power and turn this great nation in to a cradle to the grave nanny state.  They want to raise taxes on those that work so that they can give "tax rebates" to those that don't work.  A rebate is when you pay something and then you get some of it back.  When you pay nothing and still get money back.....that's called welfare.  They want to redistribute wealth.  They want to socialize our helath care industry.  They want to impose windfall profit taxes.  Since when is making a profit a bad thing?  They want to raise capital gains taxes and income taxes and corporate taxes.  They want to slash our military budget, in these very dangerous times, by 25%.  They are against our nation becoming energy independant.  They will ruin this nation as we know it and I have to do what I can, not as a conservative.....not as a Republican.....but as an American, to stop them.

Sen. John McCain is not my ideal candidate.  He's not even close.  But just as I did back in the primaries, I am going to vote for the candidate that has the best chance of stopping the candidate I don't want to win from winning.  I know I will be in major disagreements with him very often.  I will fight his policies that I don't agree with with everything that I have.  At least I will not have to fight him on every single issue though.  All of that said, and truth be told, this is more of an anti-Obama vote than anything else, but I have decided that, as an American, I will vote "for" John McCain this November 4th.

-Trent

Posted by Trent at 10:19 PM | Permalink

Posted by Trent at 08:28 AM | Permalink

Gov. Sarah Palin is expected to make the speech of her lifetime tonight.  For those of us who watch politics a little more closely than most, Gov. Palin has been on our radar for several months.  For the rest of the country, they are about to meet the next Vice President of the United States during coverage of tonight's Republican National Convention.

I suspect that after tonight's speech, you will see a sizable bump in McCain's polling numbers.  This woman is the real deal for conservatives and may be just what the doctor ordered to revive the Republican Party into the conservative home it once was.

You know the liberals are scared to death of this woman.  Look at all the mud they are throwing, just to see what sticks.  Seriously, is there anyone in this country that was thinking, "Wow I really liked that Sarah Palin until I found out her husband had a DWI 20 years ago!  I'm now voting for Obama!"?

The liberals have even gone so far as to ask, "What kind of mother is she?  She has a newborn and she's running for Vice President.  Who is going to take care of her child?"  Oh geez, I don't know.....How about Dad?  Suddenly, the libs think a woman's place is at home baking cookies?  What happened to championing strong successful woman?

The liberals and their co-horts in the media have even gone so far as to attack Palin's 17 year old daughter.  "My God, her daughter's pregnant!  What kind of mother is she?"  I'll answer that.  She's the kind of mother who has taught her daughter the morals she believes in.  And when her daughter made a mistake, as all children do, she is supportive.  It's not the mistakes we make, it's how we react to the mistakes.  Her daughter is choosing to have the baby and get married tot he father.  It's a happy ending.  The liberals are upset because her daughter chose not to kill her baby through abortion.  They are upset that she has chosen to get married instead of going on welfare.  Our role as parents is to teach our kids the difference between right and wrong and when they cross the line, again as all kids do, it's our job to be supportive and to get them back on track.  It sounds as if that is exactly what is going on in the Palin household.

They've made fun of her for being from small town America.  Obama even called the town that she was Mayor of "Wasilly" instead of Wasilla.  The Democrats are imploding and showing their true colors.  They are showing their disdain for small town America.  If you are not an elite, you are a joke according to liberals like Obama and Biden.  Keep up that line of attack boys.  There are only so many big city elites...not enough to elect you.

Their desperation has gone so far as to dredge up a picture of her from a college dorm room in which she is wearing a shirt that says, "I may be broke, but I'm not flat busted."  Again, as if that is going to  stop anyone from voting for her ticket.  It's so laughable.

They tried the "She has no experience" line, but failed to realize she has more experience than their number one guy, Obama.  Palin has been mayor of a town.  She has been Governor of our largest state.  She governs a state that is a major energy provider for our country.  She has cut wasteful spending.  She has fought corruption and won.  What has Obama done?  He gave a few good speeches and wrote a few books.  WOW.....that is experience!  Hardly.

Governor Palin has the conservative base energized and in the campaign for the first time since McCain won the nomination.  Sarah has had more scrutiny of her record and of her life and family in 5 days than Barack Obam has had in 18 months.  Oh yeah, BELIEVE IT!  She scares the Democrats to death.  I love it!

Continue reading "GOV. PALIN SCARES DEMOCRATS TO DEATH" »

Posted by Trent at 02:48 PM | Permalink

I have gotten so many emails in the past 36 hours...it's almost shocking!  They all ask the same question..."What do you think about McCain picking Palin?"  I am going to answer that here as well as express my thoughts a little deeper.

I am absolutely thrilled with his pick.  I recently wrote an editorial saying that McCain must pick a conservative V.P. because talk is cheap.  In that article I stated, "There are several candidates the conservative base will be happy with.  There are even a few choices we’d be thrilled with."  Sarah Palin was one of the choices I had in mind when I said there were a few we'd be thrilled with.  Bobby Jindal was another.

There have been few harsher conservative critics of Sen. McCain than myself.  I have not made it a secret that I was not happy he won the nomination.  I have given my reasons over and over again.  The choice of Gov. Palin has given me some comfort though.  This does not mean all of a sudden that I think McCain is a conservative.  It doesn't mean I will not continue to fight him when he is wrong.  It doesn't take away all the horrendous bills he has supported and/or wrote.  What it does mean is that I can give him the benefit of the doubt now when he says he supports certain conservative issues.  It means maybe he has learned something and maybe he has truly changed his views on some issues.  It means he has taken his conservative rhetoric and changed it into conservative action.  This was the whole premise behind my editorial about McCain picking a conservative running mate.  There is no doubt that McCain has sounded more conservative on certain issues in recent months.  Up until now, it has only been words though.  I used President Ronald Reagan's words, "Trust but verify."  With this choice, he has verified to me that at the very minimum, he is now listening to conservatives and has quit trying to poke us in the eye.  I give credit where credit is do.

Gov. Palin will no doubt be attacked by the left.  It's already happening.  It's actually happening with such vitriol that I know she makes the liberals nervous.  They have already gone after her for agreeing to run for V.P. because she has a child at home with down's syndrome.  Gov. Palin was given the so called choice of aborting her baby because the down's syndrome was detected in the womb.  She is pro-life and chose not to kill her child.  If they want to go that route...which is more family friendly?  A woman who chooses to bring a child into the world and love it and care for it despite it's illness.  Or aborting the baby as most liberals would support?

They are saying she has no experience.  This is laughable.  Gov. Palin is the only candidate running who has any executive experience.  She is the candidate who has ever been a mayor.  She is the only candidate who has been a governor.  She is the only candidate who has had to deal with budgets as an executive.  This strategy is flawed because it only highlights the inexperience of Sen. Obama, who is not the V.P. but the presidential candidate.  If they want to go that route...in Obama's words, "That's a debate I'm willing to have."

They have said, "Well she was only mayor of a village of 9,000 people."  What they fail to realize is that small villages and towns make up the majority of this nation.  They are so elitist that they make fun of coming from a small town.  They laugh off her service as mayor simply because she was mayor of a small village.  If they want to go that route...it will only highlight their elitism.

There will be endless attacks on her.  They are coming so brace yourself.

During Gov. Palin's speech when she was announced as Sen. McCain's running mate, she listed a litany of her successes and positions on issues.  There was one quote that stood out to me though.  As many of you recall, the Congress approved a pork barrel spending project called "the bridge to nowhere." It was an unnecessary expenditure that was nothing but wasteful spending of $250 million of the citizen's money.  Gov. Palin turned down the money.  This was her quote from the speech:  "I told Congress, 'Thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere.  If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."  Gov. Palin gets it.  She gets that the tax payer is not an ATM machine for every project the politicians want to waste money on.  She gets that states need to stop looking to the federal government for everything.  This is conservatism.

She is a lifetime member of the N.R.A.  She understands and respects the 2nd amendment.  This is conservatism.

She is pro-life.  She understands that killing innocent babies is not only wrong, but barbaric. This is conservatism.  

She understands that our nation has abundant energy supplies and that it can be harvested responsibly.  This is conservatism.

She understands that man made global warming is a fraud and that the people will try to use it to weaken this nation economically.  This is conservatism.

I could go on and on.  Gov. Sarah Palin is the real deal.  She is bright.  She is articulate.  She is beautiful....hey what's wrong with that?  She is conservative.  She is the change we have been waiting for.  She has energized the base and brought conservatives on board.

So if supporting the McCain/Palin ticket with, at the very minimum, my vote gets this woman anywhere near the White House, I can now do that.  As someone stated, maybe this will set up a Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012 or 2016.

Posted by Trent at 12:04 AM | Permalink

It is often said that the person picked as a presidential candidate’s running mate is of little significance as far as whether or not a particular candidate will win an election or not.  I can only speak for myself here but, the Vice President pick of any of the Presidential candidates I have ever voted for has never influenced my vote.  That will absolutely change this year.  

Sen. John McCain has won the Republican nomination to run for President of the United States of America.  He wasn’t my pick.  As a matter of fact, he was the one candidate running that I really, REALLY did not want to win the nomination.  I would have been o.k. voting for any of the other candidates that ran for the nomination had they won.  Sure some candidates were more conservative than others and I would have preferred them over the others (which is why I endorsed Duncan Hunter), but overall I would have been able to vote for any of the other candidates.  There were certainly issues I did not agree with some of the candidates on but, I would not have thought twice about voting for any of them.  I’m sorry to say that I can’t say the same about Sen. McCain.  

Sen. McCain has enjoyed poking conservatives in the eye at every opportunity he had.  However, as soon as he needed conservatives during the primaries, all of a sudden he was touting what a conservative he was.  Very few conservatives I know fell for this.  We remember McCain / Feingold.  We remember McCain / Kennedy.  We remember McCain / Edwards.  We remember McCain / Lieberman.  We remember the Gang of 14.  We remember him voting against the Bush tax cuts.  We remember him trying to ram amnesty to illegal aliens down the country’s throat.  In short, we know he is not a conservative.  I would argue, he’s barely a Republican….but hey that’s me.  This is not a candidate I could support freely for President.

2008 is different.  The Democrats are running a Marxist as their candidate.  Sen. Barack Obama is as left wing as they come.  His policies come straight from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.  His associations and policies should scare the Dickens out of everyone.  It scares the heck out of me.  

In my opinion, Sen. McCain is taking advantage of the situation.  He isn’t even trying to win over the conservatives anymore.  He already has the nomination.  He knows we fear what an Obama administration might do to this country.  He believes he can do whatever he wants and still garner our support.  Sen. McCain….I am here to say that that is not the case with me.  And if the emails I get and the conversations I have mean anything, it’s not the case for a lot of conservatives.  There certainly are those Republicans that are willing to support him no matter what.  There are even conservatives that are willing to support him no matter what.  However, if he thinks we all think this way, he’s in for a rude awakening come November.

There are so many of us conservatives that have been trying…..really trying to find a reason to vote for McCain.  And the only answer many of us come up with is…..”Well, at least he’s not as liberal as Obama.”  That’s not a reason to vote for anyone.  It’s a reason NOT to vote for someone else, in this case Obama.  

Every time I have almost gotten myself to say I will begrudgingly vote “for” McCain, he opens his mouth and says something really stupid.  Or he floats trial balloons to see how we conservatives will react to some of his liberal nonsense.  We usually react with disgust, but then many conservatives go back to….”Well, at least he’s not as liberal as Obama.”  We can only do this so many times.

Sen. McCain has said he now favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent.  He now says he supports drilling offshore.  He says he will appoint conservative judges.  Talk is cheap though.  I wonder if he thinks conservatives will just believe him because he says something.  I’d like to, but as Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”  

How can he verify with me?  He can appoint a real conservative vice presidential running mate.  There are several candidates the conservative base will be happy with.  There are even a few choices we’d be thrilled with.  But I will say this.   If he chooses a guy like Lieberman, who Dick Morris is touting as his best pick, I will NOT vote for him.  If he chooses a guy like Lindsey Graham, I will NOT vote for him.  If he chooses a guy like Tom Ridge, I will NOT vote for him.  
 

I don't claim to speak for all conservatives.  I know some will disagree with my assessment.  But, I’ll tell you why his choice for his vice presidential running mate is the most important decision he can make if he wants my support.  It is the first chance we get to see what he will actually do as President.  He has done a lot of talking about conservatism.  Great.  He needs to back it up.  He needs to choose a true conservative running mate.  If he doesn’t, all of his other talk is just that…..TALK.

- Trent

Continue reading "MCCAIN NEEDS A CONSERVATIVE V.P. BECAUSE TALK IS CHEAP" »

Posted by Trent at 12:15 AM | Permalink

I'm flipping around the channels late last night and I stop on MSNBC to see what nonsense Keith Olbermann is spouting.  I hear him say something about his comments about murderers and mercenaries and the far right's reaction to him.  I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about, so I stayed tuned in to see how he was going to spin it. 

Last week Keith Olbermann said on his low rated cable show on MSNBC, "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?' They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes."

Mark Levin took exception to that quote last week and blasted Olbermann for denouncing our brave troops as cold blooded killers and suggested that MSNBC suspend him.

Last night Olbermann says the following to try to spin his way out of his remarks. 

"Strangely, when the terms cold-blood killers and mercenaries were used in a public forum, my critics in the lunatic fringe, rather than even considering that the criticism even might be directed at the Pentagon or the administration or Blackwater USA, immediately decided that these were descriptions of our American heroes fighting in Iraq.

It is perhaps instructive, I think, that to the right wing commentators and right wing blogs those terms should first invoke not the war-mongers of the Pentagon, nor the gunmen from Blackwater, but U.S. troops.

I can not imagine that kind of evil knee-jerk reflex. I feel very sorry for those who have shown it. It seems to me that these right wingers have inadvertently shown then their true colors, their instinctive hatred for and contempt for those self-sacrificing Americans who have been needlessly placed in harm`s way by these very commentators and the politicians they support. They hear criticism of our nation`s collective conduct in Iraq and they immediately assume it`s the fault of the soldiers."

He then ended it with the following quote:

"In the wake of an insult that exists only in their minds and never in my words nor in my heart, there remains, I think, only one question to ask: Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, why do you hate our troops?"

I'm not quite sure what Laura Ingraham said about Olbermann's remarks, but I did hear Mark Levin take him on last week.  There is not a single rational person who has ever listened to Mark Levin who could possibly say that Mark Levin hates our troops.  He shows nothing but respect and admiration for these men and women who serve our country.

All I can say is that I can not wait to hear Mark Levin's response today. 

Continue reading "KEITH OLBERMANN TAKES A SHOT AT MARK LEVIN" »

Posted by Trent at 10:48 AM | Permalink

John McCain……John McCain…..How did it come to John McCain? Maybe I’ll get into that later, but as of now it looks as if it’s going to be John McCain on the Republican side. So what am I, as a proud conservative to do? I have emails and messages telling me to hop on the John McCain bandwagon. I get emails telling me that they aren’t going to vote. I get emails telling me that they are going to vote for Obama or Clinton. I get emails telling me that they are going to write in a candidate or vote third party. Truth be told, I don’t condemn any of these actions. It’s up to each one of us to decide what being a conservative means. It’s up to each one of us to decide what’s better for the Republican party. It’s up to each one of us to decide what is best for conservatives.  It is up to each one of us to decide what is best for America. And guess what? As conservatives, we aren’t all going to come to the same conclusion. I see valid points in all of the options above. I also see cons in each of the options above. So what am I going to do? Read on.

Now as I start going into this a little deeper, keep in mind, I am not condemning anyone for the decisions they’ve made. I’m just giving my opinion. I’m telling you what is going on in my head. Hopefully, I will get some people thinking. There is one thing that I must make perfectly clear before I get started. I admire and respect John McCain’s military service and the sacrifices he has made for this nation. I honor his military career. But that does not mean that I have to honor everything he has done or tried to do during his career as a Senator. So let me get started.

Let’s start from the beginning. Why have I been against John McCain from the beginning of this campaign? The same reason most conservatives have been against him. No, it’s not that all conservatives are robots that walk in lock step. It’s that we hold a set of core beliefs. These core beliefs can not be negotiated and they can not be compromised. John McCain went against the first amendment by drafting and pushing McCain/Feingold legislation through. The first amendment of the Constitution is not up for compromise. McCain tried and tried to push through McCain/Kennedy which was nothing more than an amnesty bill. He tries to deny it and say it was not amnesty. It was amnesty plain and simple. Read the legislation. No amount of spin is going to change the fact that it granted amnesty to 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in this nation and then gave them the opportunity to bring in an additional 20 million people. Protecting our borders is non-negotiable. A nation without borders is not a nation. He voted not once, but twice against the Bush tax cuts. Cutting taxes is a conservative fundamental.  What else did he do? He tried to pass off his legislation, McCain/Edwards/Kennedy as a “patient bill of rights.”  All it really accomplished was a open door for slip and fall trial lawyers to exploit the system which would inevitably raise health care costs while diminishing services. He also drafted McCain/Lieberman. This was an anti business bill that was based on faulty science. Bringing our economy to a halt is not conservative thinking. He opposed drilling in ANWR. We have a huge supply of domestic oil that we can tap into so that we don’t have to rely on and support terrorist nations, yet when it came time to allow us to drill there, Sen. McCain was against it.  When the Republicans needed his support to get some great judges approved, Sen. McCain once again teamed up with liberals and moderates (the Gang of 14) and blocked a lot of good judges. Is anyone noticing a pattern here? McCain/Kennedy. McCain/Edwards/Kennedy.   McCain/Lieberman. McCain/Feingold. It seems as if John McCain likes to team up with liberals. I don’t want a President who teams up with liberals. I want a President who will fight for conservative ideals and try to defeat the liberals. “But Trent. What about bipartisanship?” I am not for bipartisanship. I want a person that is proud of their conservative values and who is willing to stand up to liberals and fight for what is right. When the Democrats are in power, are they bipartisan?  No, they are not. Now, of course, when there is an issue that both sides can agree on, well that’s great. I think to myself, based on how Sen. McCain has acted in the Senate, what will he do as President. If an important issues comes up, who will he go running to for help and support? Will it be the conservatives or will it be the Democrats? Based on the past, one can argue he’ll run to the Democrats. He also has an undeniable temper. I’ve seen it come out and I’ve heard first hand stories of it coming out. All the times I’ve seen it come out, it’s been against conservatives. The stories I have heard have all been against conservatives. I’m sorry, but I’m supposed to trust this guy?

So what are the options? I listed them above. Let me go through some of them. 

“VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT.” I have gotten emails telling me that a person will vote for Obama or Hillary to teach the party a lesson. I understand the sentiment. It’s telling the Republican Party, “I am a conservative. If you are going to keep sending us moderate to liberal Republicans as candidates, I will no longer support your efforts to block conservatives from getting in and I will do whatever is necessary to defeat the liberal Republican you send up. When a conservative is sent up and supported, I will begin supporting the party again.” For me, personally, this is not an option. Like I said, I completely understand the thought, but it is not something I will do.

“SIT HOME AND DON’T VOTE” I have gotten emails stating that if John McCain is the nominee, then that person will stay home on election day. To the people contemplating this option, let me remind you how many brave men and women serving our nation have died to protect your freedom to vote. It is our duty to honor their sacrifice by voting. Does that mean you have to vote for President if there is no candidate you can support? No, it doesn’t. Leave the President spot blank. However, go and vote for your conservative candidates that are running for Congress or the Senate. Support your local and state officials who are conservative. Staying home because you dislike the top guy is completely unfair to your local people who are conservative and who are representing your conservative values.

“WRITE IN A CANDIDATE OR VOTE THIRD PARTY” To the people who contemplated sitting home and not voting but who have now decided to go and at least vote for their local people, why not write in a candidate?  This way you are using that right that we hold dear, voting, and you are staying true to your beliefs. Who knows if there will be a third party candidate? Again, the election is in nine months. A lot can happen. Normally a third party candidate has no chance. But again, if your conscience will not let you vote for McCain and there is a third party candidate running that you feel appeals to you as a conservative, use your vote. A lot of people call it a wasted vote. I say there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

“HOP ON THE JOHN MCCAIN BANDWAGON NOW” I have gotten emails saying, “Trent, like it or not, John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. We have to get behind him and support him now.” Oh I do? I don’t think so. I am a proud conservative. I don’t have to support anyone just because they have an ( R ) next to their name. I have core conservative beliefs and principles. That ( R ) does not affect those principles and beliefs. And if the Republican candidate does not believe in my core values, I owe no loyalty to him simply because he is a Republican. Why would I jump on the John McCain bandwagon now? If I do that then he is pulling me to the left. If the conservatives choose to stay off the bandwagon, then we can force his wagon to the right. We can force him to put a true conservative on his ticket as V.P. We can force him to our way of thinking rather than submit to his way of thinking. If he moves towards our conservative beliefs down the road, THEN I’ll think about hopping on the bandwagon.  If I hop on now I may as well be saying to Sen. McCain, "Feel free to move as far to the left as you want.  I have no other choice but to vote for you."  As long as the possibility remains that conservatives will not vote for him remains, he will have to stay to the right.

“HE’S BETTER THAN EITHER OF THE DEMOCRATS!” So is having one arm cut off instead of both. You won’t see me running around cheering…..”Hey, isn’t it great?!!! I only lost one arm!!” Just because something is better than something else, does not mean I have to support it and campaign for it and cheer for it. There is no doubt that he is better than either of the Democrats left. Is that how we really want to decide who is our President? “Well he doesn’t suck as much as the others.” I know I don’t. I want to vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone else.

“HE’S MAKING AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO  CONSERVATIVES.” He made a speech at CPAC.  Big deal. I was hoping that this would be his chance to make his appeal to me as a conservative. Am I the only one that didn’t buy a word of what he was saying there? As I was watching the speech, I couldn’t help but feel that he was disgusted by the fact that he had to kiss up to conservatives. I am of the opinion that if he thought he had enough liberal and moderate support to win, he would have driven past CPAC and flipped off everyone who was attending. I hear the pundits saying that it was a good first step for McCain to woo conservatives.  Conservatives don’t need wooing if you are one of us. The fact that he has to woo conservatives should set off alarms in the heads of anyone who considers themselves a conservative. He said he will make the Bush tax cuts permanent. O.K. That’s great! But why did he vote against them in the first place? He claims now that it was because there wasn’t any spending cuts to go along with it. But at the time, he used class warfare rhetoric calling it tax cuts for the rich. Now where have we heard those words before? Oh yeah….the Democrats. I’ll be generous though. Let’s say I take him at his word now and that he opposed them because there were no spending cuts to go along with it. Isn’t this just as bad? Conservatives know, that when you cut taxes, revenue to the government increases. So even if there were no spending cuts, the government would have been better off with the tax cuts. More importantly, the citizens of this nation would have been better off with the tax cuts. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for cutting spending. However, that is not a prerequisite for cutting taxes. He has said he got the message about illegal immigration and that he will secure our borders first. Listen closely to what he has said though. He may secure the borders first, but then he is still open to granting amnesty to all the illegal immigrants that are here. That is not what most people in this nation want. We want the borders secured and to deport those that are here illegally. He has said he will seek the council of conservatives on issues. Sounds great.  The fact is he has not done so in the past, so why would he start now?

"HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT ANYWAY?" How is it that John McCain even had a chance to win the Republican nomination? After the first few debates, I endorsed Duncan Hunter. In my opinion, Duncan Hunter was far and away the most complete conservative running. I supported him and his candidacy. After endorsing him, I received hundreds of messages telling me, "You are right...Duncan Hunter is the best conservative in the race. But he doesn't have a chance to win. So I am voting for 'insert another candidate here.'" We had a true conservative running. By most everyone's opinion, Duncan Hunter is a true conservative. How many of you supported his candidacy? How many people chose to support someone who they thought "could win" over Duncan Hunter, only to see their candidate drop out? If we are going to keep supporting candidates simply on the basis that "they can win," we are going to keep getting candidates like John McCain.

“O.K. TRENT. THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?” John McCain is not all bad. He has some conservative values. Some conservative values does not make a person a conservative though. I am not comfortable putting my support behind him at this point. Once again, the election is in nine months. I don’t have to decide what I am going to do now. Have I already made up my mind to vote for John McCain? No I haven’t.  Can John McCain ever garner my vote? Yes he can. But he won’t get it by constantly telling me he is a conservative. He won’t get it simply because he has an ( R ) next to his name. He won’t get it by simply making a speech at CPAC. He won’t get my support by constantly saying “My fellow conservatives.” Honestly, that drives me away from him. Most conservatives do not consider him a conservative. He needs to accept that fact.  What am I going to do? I don’t know yet. I am waiting to see how things play out. Nine months is a long time and anything can happen. I will not hop on his bandwagon at this point in time. It is not headed in a direction I am comfortable with. If we conservatives can alter the course of that bandwagon, I’ll consider hopping on at a later point.  Again, the only way to alter the course of his campaign, in my opinion, is to withhold support for the time being.>

I know I will get many responses to this. I welcome them all. I know some people will agree with me. I know some people will be completely opposed to what I am saying and will insist we must jump behind McCain and fully support him now. I hope I get some people at least thinking about their position. For those of you who say that those of us not willing to support John McCain at present are not true conservatives and that we are foolish, I respect your opinion. However, I do have a question for you.  Why are you willing to give up your conservative beliefs so easily and throw your support behind John McCain “as is?"

I’ll leave you with this thought. “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

-Trent

Continue reading "THE JOHN MCCAIN BLOG" »

Posted by Trent at 01:21 PM | Permalink

As most of you know by now, I was a Duncan Hunter supporter. Unfortunately his campaign never took off. Almost immediately after Hunter dropped out, Fred Thompson dropped out. This leaves me with five candidates to vote for OR to vote my conscience and still cast a vote for Hunter knowing it was a wasted vote.

I contemplated doing that to show the Republicans I will support a strong conservative candidate. However, I did some thinking on the issue. Sen. John McCain has been picking up momentum. It is my opinion that he has to be stopped.

Why on Earth are Republicans voting for a guy who teams up with liberal Democrats on policy more often than he teams up with Republicans? McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Edwards....ALL bad bills....All proposed by McCain and a liberal Democrat. Remember the Gang of 14? The idiots who blocked good originalist judges from making it to the higher courts....another liberal move brought to you by John McCain. He must be stopped.

So who's left that I can vote for? There's Giuliani, who most likely will be dropping out of the race now that he has come in a distant third in Florida. There's Huckabee, who says all the right things but has a record that goes against most of what he is saying now. There's Ron Paul, who is 100% right on half the issues and 100% wrong on the other half. And then there's Mitt Romney.

I looked back at the editorial/blog I wrote in May of last year. My opinion of Romney then was that he had potential, but he seemed too polished. I said, "He looks Presidential. He sounds Presidential. But so did Bill Clinton. Now, I'm not saying Mitt's politics are that of Bill Clinton. I am saying his style is." Now remember this was very early on in the campaign. However, to some extent I still agree with this assessment. He does look presidential. He does sound presidential. Comparing him to Bill Clinton had absolutely NOTHING to do with policy issues as I stated. Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was great with people. He was good at answering questions. He was smooth. He had an answer for anything you could throw at him. He wasn't at a loss for words very often. It was in this sense that I compared Romney to Clinton. Thinking on it, I wonder if that is such a bad thing that Romney has some of these characteristics as well. I don't think it is. He is obviously well versed in the issues and therefore can speak on them articulately. He has tremendous experience in the private sector. His record, while not 100% conservative, is much more conservative than that of the other candidates. His grasp of the economy is second to none of any of the candidates. I believe that his leadership skills are such that he will bring highly skilled and intelligent people into his administration to work with him on issues he's already strong on as well as issues that he needs a little work with.

For these reasons, I will be voting for Gov. Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday.

-Trent

Continue reading "I'LL BE VOTING FOR......" »

Posted by Trent at 11:39 PM | Permalink

While watching the immigration and amnesty bill debate over the past several weeks and months, one item struck me as odd.  It was said that many of the Senators voting on the bill hadn't even read the entire bill.  It was then that I learned that the bill, at one point, was over 800 pages long.  Now, I understand it's Washington D.C. and all.  But seriously, should it really take 800 pages of new legislation to tackle the issue?  I know, I know, I'm no D.C. insider.  I'm not a lawyer.  I wouldn't understand how complicated this issue is.  Maybe they are making the issue too complicated.  So, I've decided to see how quickly I can write an immigration policy that works.

#1.  Secure the border with a real wall, not a virtual wall.  There is currently funding available for over 700 miles of border wall.  Appropriate the necessary funds to build a border wall along the entire border.  Using technology is great, but a virtual wall alone will do absolutely nothing.  As Andrew Wilkow says, "You wouldn't take the front door off of your house in a high crime area just because you have motion sensors and an alarm."  Hire additional border control agents.  Stop the inflow of additional illegal aliens.

#2.  Get rid of the politically correct terms such as "migrant worker" and "undocumented worker."  I've even heard them referred to us "undocumented citizens!"  Call them what they are.  They are here illegally.  They are illegal aliens.

#3.  Strike down all of the current laws and guidelines that do not allow our law enforcement officials to ask the immigration status of anyone.  It should not be illegal to ask someone if they are in this country legally.  It should not be illegal to ask anyone to prove that they are here legally.  I have to show my I.D. when asked.  I have to provide my birth certificate at times.  I am more than happy to do so.

#4.  Amend Section 1. of the 14th amendment to the Constitution so that being born in the United States no longer makes you an instant citizen.  If the parents are here illegally, so is the newborn baby.  The newborn baby of an illegal alien born in the United States should also be considered an illegal alien.  

#5.  There should be no government funded programs of any kind for any illegal aliens.  This includes, but is not limited to, public education, hospitals, welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps.  Our public education system is overwhelmed with children of illegal aliens.  This is a huge tax burden on the American people.  The emergency rooms of many border state hospitals have become so overcrowded with illegal aliens who can't afford health care, that some hospitals have had to shut down or scale back their care.  Unless, an illegal is gravely injured, they should not be given free health care  of any kind.  There should be no welfare checks given to anyone here illegally.  There should be no housing assistance or food assistance of any type for anyone here illegally.  Yes, this will make it difficult for the illegal aliens to live here.  That is the point.  We should not be encouraging law breaking by making life easy on those that come here unlawfully.

#6.  When an illegal alien is caught, deport them.  There should be no more "catch and release."  If you are here illegally and you are caught, you will be sent back to your country in a timely manner.

#7.  Fine the companies that are hiring the illegals to work for them.  Make the fines substantial so that businesses will not be willing to take the chance of hiring an illegal.  Set the fines outrageously high, so that employers won't even consider hiring someone here illegally.  If they are supposedly coming here to work, dry up the job market for them and then they have no reason to come here illegally.

#8.  Get rid of welfare for able-bodied Americans.  There are approximately 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in this country.  This represents approximately 5% of our population.  The unemployment rate of our nation usually hovers around 5%.  Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

#9.  Begin enforcing the laws against illegally coming into this nation already on the books.  There are countless laws already on the books to deal with the illegal immigrants.  Enforce them.

#10.  Make English the official language of the United States.  Stop providing bi-lingual education in public schools.  Stop providing government forms in 50 different languages.  This will save money and encourage immigrants to assimilate into this nation.  The truth is, life will be much easier for immigrants if they are forced to learn English. 

#11.  What should we do with the illegal aliens already here?  If you enact the above 10 ideas, there will be no reason for the majority of illegals to stay.  They will have no jobs.  They will receive no government assistance.  Unless, they have cash to pay for it, they will receive no health care.  Their children will not be getting an education.  There really will be no reason for them to stay here.  They will migrate back to their own countries and then if they would like to make a life here in the United States, they will come here legally.

#12.  Streamline the legal immigration policies.  There is no reason that it should take 5 - 10 years for someone to migrate to this nation legally.  This is a nation of immigrants.  No one is against legal immigration.  We welcome anyone who wants to come here to make a better life for themselves and their families in this nation.  We just ask that they do it legally.

Well, how's that for a start?  It took me about an hour or so to type this up.  It could be printed up on less than 5 pages.  It may not be written with large words, but it is written with common sense.  Maybe common sense is what has been missing from the immigration debate.

Continue reading "IT DOESN'T TAKE 800 PAGES TO WRITE AN IMMIGRATION POLICY" »

Posted by Trent at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I keep getting emails and messages asking me what I think about the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates. I am not endorsing anyone and not throwing my support behind anyone yet. What I can do here is give you my impressions of the candidates as of right now. This is not, by any means, my final thought on any of these candidates. I am open to most of them. This is simply my view of them as of today, May 16th, 2007. I have watched both of the debates and caught several of them on various programs. My impression of them is subject to change either to the positive or to the negative. I know I will hear from the supporters of each of these candidates and I welcome any feedback. However, please keep it civil. I get enough idiotic emails from the libs.

So here goes:

John McCain: I have respect for John McCain’s service in Vietnam. I believe he is sincere in his beliefs and doesn’t try to spin the majority of his views for political gain. However, I think he was completely wrong on McCain/Feingold. I think his plans for immigration are amnesty even though he fervently denies that. I think he tries to reach across the aisle and compromise too easily with the Democrats. I personally disagree with him on the use of interrogation tactics. The terrorists do not care what tactics we use and don’t use. They will use whatever tactics they want if they capture our people. Remember all of the beheadings? So while in normal warfare, I would tend to agree more with his position, the war on terror is not normal warfare. I believe John McCain is a good man and I would prefer him over any of the Democrats, but I will not vote for him in the primaries.

Mitt Romney: As one of the people who run a forum I belong to says, “He looks and sounds like a T.V. anchorman.” He looks Presidential. He sounds Presidential. But so did Bill Clinton. Now, I’m not saying Mitt’s politics are that of Bill Clinton. I am saying his style is. I like many of the things Mitt Romney says, but if you check his record against what he is saying, very often the two don’t match up. He enacted some good legislation as well as some bad legislation in Massachusetts. He announced he supports a ban on assault weapons. There has been a lot of talk about his religion and honestly I don’t think that will or should have any effect on the primaries. I would prefer Mitt Romney over any of the Democrats, but I will not vote for him in the primaries.

Rudy Giuliani: I lived in NYC when Rudy was elected. I voted for him. The change he brought to the city from years and years of decay and neglect was amazing. He literally changed the whole atmosphere of the city. The city before Rudy and after Rudy are night and day. He has amazing leadership skills. He is not afraid to take on his critics. However, he has serious social issue problems. The truth is though, a President can not affect the abortion issue much other than by the judges he Nominates. He has said he would nominate judges similar to Scalia and Roberts. He makes me nervous with his gun control thoughts. I would like to hear more from him on this issue. I would like to hear exactly what his thoughts on gay rights are. I will give him credit for at least being honest about his pro-choice stance rather than trying to flip-flop and then spin. Rudy is not my top choice and I don’t plan on voting for him in the primary. If he wins the nomination, I would not have a problem voting for him over any of the Democrats.

Ron Paul: I have to read up on him.  He says so much I agree with, BUT then he says some stupid things too.  And the kooks seem to follow him which throws up a red flag to me.  That's not to say everyone who supports him is a kook.....it's saying there are a lot of kooks supporting him.

Mike Huckabee: He is now on my radar. I have to do more research on him to be honest. Last night, I watched the debate twice. I realized the second time around that many of the things that I liked hearing were said by Mike Huckabee. He is also the only candidate that talked about eliminating the IRS and replacing it with the Fair Tax. Does he have the name recognition? Probably not yet, but there is a lot of time. He seems very comfortable wearing the conservative title….proudly. I will be looking more into his record, but I think he has potential.

Tommy Thompson: I think he has a decent record. I like the fact that he used his veto power as many times as he did when he was Governor. I like that he cut taxes as many times as he did. He looks nervous in the debates and on other programs. I’m not sure that he is ready for this race, but that can change. Once again, I will have to do more research on his record as well. Being completely honest though, he will need to energize voters more and he doesn’t seem to have that charisma. Say what you want, but the simple fact is that these days, a candidate needs a certain amount of charisma. I am open to hearing more of what he has to say, but he is not my top pick right now. Of course, he would be better than any of the Democrats.

Sam Brownback: Once again, I will be honest. I will have to do more research on him as well. I just don’t think he’s ready yet though. He is one of the candidates, I like some of his views a lot and then others….well not so much. He seems to be a decent man, but once again, he just doesn’t have that “excitement” in his campaign yet. I am open to hear more from him, but I don’t expect him to remain in the race much longer.

Duncan Hunter: He seems to be strong in many of his views. His trade policy concerns me a little and I would like to hear him expand on his views. His views on immigration are right on. He appears to be strong on the issue of the war on terror. He also appears to wear the conservative title….proudly. From what I’ve seen and heard, he is right on the social issues of the day. Again, he needs to work on the name recognition as well as the charisma thing a little. But on the issues, he is on the conservative side of most of them. I am open to voting for him in the primary.

Jim Gilmore: He is another candidate I will have to look more deeply into. Truth is though, I don’t expect him to remain in the race for very long. He is on the right side of most issues and I respect that. But he just isn’t generating much excitement. Depending on who was left in the race, I might consider him in the primary, but I just don’t think he’ll be there by the time my primary rolls around. Maybe this isn’t fair, but who ever said politics was fair?

Tom Tancredo: He is strong on the illegal immigration issue. He is passionate about it. I would like to see him focus some more attention on other issues as well though. I’m not saying he hasn’t spoken on other issues….he has. But he doesn’t have the same passion when discussing other topics. I want a candidate who is passionate about all conservative ideals. I am open to him, but I believe there are others in front of him as of now.

There are a few potential candidates as well:

Newt Gingrich: He was the candidate I was most excited about before the whole election season began. I believe him to be a very intelligent man. He has a great grasp on history which I think would be a tremendous asset to a President. He has a proven conservative track record. He is Presidential in my view. I am however, slightly concerned that the 2007 Newt is not the same person as the 1994 Newt. If he gets in the race, maybe he can assuage my concern. I would definitely consider voting for him in the primary.

Fred Thompson: He also has a proven conservative track record. He is generating such a buzz in conservative circles and I think that is missing in some of the other campaigns. He is another straight shooter kind of guy. He wears the Conservative title….proudly. I would like to hear more detailed views on his views of current issues. I would consider voting for him as well in the primary.

Chuck Hagel: Uh yeah…..I don’t think so. He’s another one that I believe shouldn’t even be elected to his current office, never mind the Presidency.

So that’s it. As of today, these are my thoughts. I did not go into much detail of any of the candidate’s views on issues. You can go to their respective website for specifics. I am telling you my overall impression of the candidates. As I said, my impressions are subject to change as more information becomes available.

The one thing I can say, is that with the exception of Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul, I could vote for any of the candidates very easily over any of the Democrats running. Would I vote for Hillary over Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel? That scenario will never happen so I don’t have to worry about answering that question!

Continue reading "YOU WANNA KNOW MY THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT CANDIDATES?" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“If you support this war so much, why aren’t you over in Iraq fighting?” It’s a question I get in emails and messages over at my MySpace page all the time. You hear the libs asking all the conservative talk show hosts and pundit’s the same question. What the liberals don’t understand is that with this one simple question, they are displaying their disdain of the military for all to see.

Their question makes the assumption that anyone who supports the war could make it in the military. Their question makes the assumption that anyone who supports the war has what it takes to be in the military. This question implies that anyone can be in the military. Well, the libs are dead wrong. It takes an amazing person to be in our armed forces. Not just anyone can be successful in the Marines, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Coast Guard. It takes a person of steadfast commitment, nerves of steel, courage beyond what normal people have, to be in the United States military. It takes intelligent, hardworking, unselfish, proud individuals to be in the United States military. People with strength and discipline and bravery that us ordinary people could only dream of. Yes, the fine men and women of our armed forces are EXTRAordinary people. They possess characteristics not found in everyday Americans. They are special. They are the best America has to offer.

So for the libs to assume that just anyone could go over and fight in the war is an insult to our military. It is an insult to our military heroes’ sacrifice. It is an insult to all the hard work and the sweat and the tears that these courageous men and women have put in to become a member of our armed forces. Of course, with comments like that of John Kerry….”You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” ….we know the liberals think very little of just what kind of person joins the military.

It is people such as myself, who will come right out and say, “I do not have what it takes to be in the military,” that truly appreciate what these people do for us. I don’t pretend that I have the skills and the courage and the discipline to be in the military. I don’t have them. I fully recognize that not just anyone can be in the military. This is the reason I support our troops as much as I do. This is the reason I am in awe of them. This is the reason they have my utmost respect. This is the reason I will defend them to all the peaceniks out there that try to disparage them. This is the reason I love them as dearly as I do. This is the reason I thank them whenever I can.

I like to use the example of a brain surgeon when discussing this topic with liberals. I ask them, “If something traumatic happened to a loved one of yours and they needed brain surgery, would you support the brain surgeon?” They always say, “Well of course!” So then I respond, “Well if you support the brain surgeon so much, why aren’t you a brain surgeon?” The answer comes back, “Well, I’m not smart enough,” or “I don’t have the skills to be a brain surgeon,” or “I didn’t have the commitment to go to college and medical school to become one.” It’s the same exact thing. They would support the brain surgeon to do what he has been trained to do even though they could never do it themselves. I support our military to do what they have been trained to do even though I could never do it myself.

Does that answer your question?

Continue reading "IF YOU SUPPORT THE WAR SO MUCH, WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING?" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Election Day 2006 has come and gone and as we all know the Democrats have taken back control of the House.  Senate control, as I write this, has not yet been decided. I wrote an editorial not long ago predicting the Republicans would keep both the House and the Senate and obviously I was at least half wrong. If you look at the various results throughout the nation though, there was not a repudiation of conservative ideals. Quite the contrary. In many states, conservative ballot initiatives passed overwhelmingly. Initiatives such as bans on gay marriage, severely limiting eminent domain powers, making English the official language, preventing illegal aliens from participating in many programs have all passed. If you look at the new Democrats that were elected, a large number of them are much more conservative than the Democratic leadership. Conservatism is alive and well in America. It's the Republican party that suffered the losses not the conservative agenda. This election was greatly impacted by voters views on the war in Iraq. I happen to support the war in Iraq and it's objective, but obviously many voters do not. The war in Iraq according to most polls was either the number one or number two reason people voted the way they did. Therefore, many issues which are normally on the front burner took a back seat to this one issue. If you listen to the voters in this election, one thing is clear. The Democrats did not win this election. The Republicans lost this election. This is not opinion. It is fact. Voters in states where the Democrats picked up seats were asked if they were supporting the Democrat candidate or voting against the Republican. The majority of people responded that they were voting against the Republican. The Democrats were not running on a series of views like the Republicans did in 1994. They basically ran on the slogan of "Hey we are not the Republicans and we want to get out of the war." Many of the voters connected with the anti-Iraq policy and forgot about the other issues of the day. Our economy is thriving. Taxes are lower. Home ownership is at record levels. Unemployment is extremely low. The Dow is at record levels. All of which are due to conservative initiatives. Liberalism did not win this election for the Democrats.

I am not looking at the world through rose colored glasses. This is clearly a setback for Republicans. However, this site is not ProudRepublican.com. It is ProudConservative.com. And this nation and it's citizenship has proven that we remain a strong conservative population. I am not predicting gloom and doom for America because of this election. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in control, the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth.

Oh....almost forgot. See you later Senator Chafee. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Continue reading "ELECTION 2006 - CONSERVATISM IS ALIVE AND WELL" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I really think it is time for Connecticut Republicans to wake up and stop drinking the liberal media Kool-aid.  Even several prominent conservative pundits have fallen victim to the thinking that Connecticut must elect Joe Lieberman in order to keep Ned Lamont out of office.  I personally think this is a brilliant ploy by the Democrats, although it will not work on me. And I am hoping I can reach enough conservative voters in Connecticut that it doesn't work on them either.  The Democrats and the media have Republican voters believing that this is a two-person race and the Republican is not even worthy of being mentioned.  Sit back and think about this just for a second.  Republicans are voting for Lieberman to keep Lamont out.  Other than the war in Iraq, these two candidates have almost identical views on the other issues.  So I am supposed to vote for Joe Lieberman over one issue?  Would these same People vote for Hillary Clinton if she all of a sudden said she was Pro-life?  It is driving me crazy that all I keep hearing this election season is that Republicans need to vote for Joe.

Well there is another option.  Here is a novel idea.  How about voting for the Republican in the race...Alan Schlesinger.  Now, I was a little critical of his campaign in a previous editorial.  I asked why they were not out there promoting their campaign. Were they giving up the race before it even started?  How could anyone even vote for Schlesinger if no one knew what he stood for?  The Schlesinger campaign has updated its website. They have started advertising.  And most importantly, Alan Schlesinger showed the clear difference on the issues between himself, Lieberman and Lamont in the first debate on Monday.

This is a very important election year.  The Republicans, if you believe the polls ( I don't ), are on the brink of losing the Senate and the House.  If the Republicans get behind schlesinger, there is a chance we can GAIN a seat in the Senate to offset a loss by another candidate.  No matter what you are told, Lieberman is a Democrat.  He has already admitted, and proudly so, that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats if elected in order to maintain his seniority.  He proudly votes with the Democrats 90% of the time.  As a Republican, I am Supposed to vote for him???  I don't think so.

I urge my conservative and Republican friends in Connecticut to vote for Alan Schlesinger.  He is way more conservative than Lieberman and Lamont.  He has government as well as private work experience.  Watch the debates.  Visit his website.  Call his campaign office and talk to him or his staff.  Get to know this candidate.  Learn about his views on the issues.  Don't be scared by the media and the pundits into voting for Lieberman. They don't care who gets in..... Lamont or Lieberman..... They'll more or less get the same thing from both of them.  The only true option for a Republican and/or a conservative is to vote for Alan Schlesinger.

This should be an ideal year to finally get a Senator from CT With a (R) after his name.  The Democrat vote should be split amongst Lieberman and Lamont and the Republican vote should support our candidate.  So I am asking the Republican party of CT to wake up and get behind Alan Schlesinger.  I am calling on the national Republican Party to get behind Schlesinger and pump some money into this campaign.  But most importantly, I am asking the conservative and Republican voters of this state to get behind our candidate.  Can you really in good conscience vote for Joe Lieberman just because he supports our troops in Iraq?  So does Alan Schlesinger.... now move on to the next issue.  Who most emulates your views on the issues?  Is it really Joe Lieberman?  I don't think so.

Continue reading "CONNECTICUT REPUBLICANS...WAKE UP!" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

For months, no...years now, we have heard people, from Democrat politicians to liberal actors, blasting the Bush administration at every chance they get. These attacks are not restricted to disagreements about policy but instead have turned into vile and vicious attacks on his character and the character of anyone associated with him. Yet, if we call them on their outrageous antics, they say we are questioning their patriotism. Well, for whatever reason, once they ask this question so many of us have back off the criticism. Well, I won't back off. And this goes for the few so-called Republicans as well.

When you go to a foreign country and bad mouth our President and our country....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you call our troops murderers and rapists....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you are more concerned with the rights of terrorists hell bent on killing us than you are with protecting the American people....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you vote against funding our military....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When your sound bites sound exactly like those coming from the terrorist propaganda tapes....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When the terrorists use your quotes to try to persuade the world that the United States is evil....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you continue to call a legal operation in which our intelligence agencies are listening to calls into this country from over seas from suspected terrorists "domestic wire-tapping." Knowing full well that it will damage our ability to protect this nation....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you think that sleep deprivation, putting underwear on a terrorist's head , or scaring a terrorist with a big barking dog is torture and you won't allow it....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you believe that these terrorist are afforded protection under the Geneva Convention, even though they clearly do not....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you believe that these same terrorists would abide by the Geneva Convention if they captured one of our soldiers....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you advance the theory that President Bush knew about September 11th terrorist plot before it happened and allowed it to happen....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you want our brave men and women of the Armed Forces to cut, run and surrender....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you attack everything this administration has done, even if it has been effective, just to try to further your political agenda....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you think protecting our borders is a racist thing to do....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you think that the government should provide all of its information and forms in several languages other than English....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you look to other nations to decide what laws we should enact in this nation....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you scream at the top of your lungs that President Bush "betrayed this country!"....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you say that you would rather live in another country....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you compare our President to Hitler or Stalin....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you compare our soldiers and Marines to the Nazi's....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you call our military the terrorists....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you are more concerned with protecting the caribou in Alaska than helping this nation lessen it's dependence on foreign oil....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When you believe the United Nations is fair to the United States....Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

When your number one job is to block any attempts at protecting this country and its citizens because of political affiliations....Your damn right, I am questioning your patriotism as well as your intelligence.

Continue reading "YES, I AM QUESTIONING YOUR PATRIOTISM" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat through and through. He votes with the Democrats 90% of the time. 90 PERCENT! He is not a Conservative at all. I don't know why or how anyone could even think of calling him a Conservative. It was just 6 short years ago that his running mate was Al Gore. Did some of you forget that? I have respect for Joe Lieberman for putting his country before his political party when it comes to fighting terrorism. However, that does not erase all of his other votes where he has voted on the Democratic side of the issues.

Joe Lieberman has called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign.
He voted to allow federal funding for stem cell research from aborted babies.
He voted against the ban on flag burning.
He voted against the gay marriage amendment.
He voted against making President Bush's tax cuts permanent.
He voted no in the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
He voted against making it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy.
He voted against making partial birth abortions illegal.

Yes he has supported the war. I give credit where credit is due. I even posted his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed on this site But this does not make him a Conservative by any means. It is almost scary to hear how some Republicans or Conservatives are speaking about him. They are saying he should just switch sides and become a Republican. No thanks. We have enough liberal Republicans and RINOs already. Joe Lieberman is not a Republican nor is he a Conservative.

I live in Connecticut so this race affects me even more than the majority of people reading this. The problem we are having in CT is that the Republican running in the race, Alan Schlesinger, is not a big name. There are some stories about a gambling problem, but I don't know much about it. That's the problem....Alan Schlesinger isn't even being mentioned in this race. You would think it was a Lieberman vs. Lamont only race. The state G.O.P. is nowhere to be found in supporting this candidate. The national G.O.P. is nowhere in site. So my question is this. If he is such a bad candidate.....why is he on the ballot? And if he is not a bad candidate....why is there no party support for this man. Like I said, I know little about him. Election Day is less than 3 months away. He is in one of the most media covered Senate races in a long time and no one knows anything about him.

This should be a golden opportunity for the Republicans to gain a Senate seat in the blue state of Connecticut.  There are two Democrats (Yes Lieberman is running as an Independant but let's face it.....he's a Democrat.) running in this race. The Democrat vote should be split giving the Republican a great opportunity to be elected.

Well, all I can say is this. I will NOT be voting for Ned Lamont. I will NOT be voting for Joe Lieberman. I would like to vote for Schlesinger, but so far no one knows where he stands on issues. I suggest he hire a new campaign manager or something and start getting his message out there. I can only guess that he has to be more conservative than Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. So how about Alan? What are your priorities? What are your positions? There is a lot of talk of Republicans voting for Joe Lieberman. Give them reason to vote for you.  One last question Mr. Schlesinger.....Are you in this race or what?

Continue reading "JOE LIEBERMAN IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I want to thank Israel for doing what should be done.....what needs to be done. They are not apologetic nor should they be. They are performing a service to all the nations of the world and should be commended for their action. But instead, many countries in the world are condemning them. The useless leadership at the United Nations speaks out against Israel on an almost daily basis. Israel has been asked to "cease fire." They have been asked to show restraint. They have been asked to negotiate. Has the world gone mad? The United States would not negotiate with Al Qaeda nor should we. We actually agreed to a ceasefire in Afghanistan and what did it get us? The Taliban and Al Qaeda had a chance to escape and regroup. Bin Laden himself, may have even been saved by our choice to ceasefire. Israel, I hope, learned from our mistake. They have the enemy on the ropes and they need to deliver the "knock out" blow. Take out Hez Bollah now. Finish them off once and for all. The government of Lebanon should be facilitating Israel's offensive. The Lebonese people will benefit most of all from this operation.

There has been a few mistakes in the operation and innocent people have died. This is war and unfortunately innocent people die in war. Instead of the world condemning Israel, the world should be condemning Hez Bollah for purposely using civilian areas as their base. The Lebonese people should blame Hez Bollah for operating in their civilian neighborhoods. If they choose to accept Hez Bollah with open arms in their civilian neighborhoods, then can they still be considered innocent civilians? The fact of the matter is the Israeli government targets the terrorist warriors. Hez Bollah targets civilians. Does the world not see the vast difference? I see it.

I believe the nations of the world should be taking a lesson from the Israeli government. When it comes to terrorist organizations, there is no negotiating with them. The only ceasefire should occur when Hez Bollah has been wiped out. A nation should not be condemned for fighting terrorism. It should be applauded. Hez Bollah is not only an enemy of Israel. It is an enemy to the United States. It is an enemy to all freedom loving people. So I say THANK YOU ISRAEL. Keep doing what needs to be done.

Continue reading "THANK YOU ISRAEL" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I often get emails from liberals. Some are just a sentence or two that basically just curse me out. Others are, at least, a little more thought out. The thing of it is they are all the same. They ask the same questions or try to make the same flawed arguments every time. I respond to almost all of them. Sometimes I have a fun exchange of ideas. Other times, all I get is venom and hatred spewed at me. But like I said they are all so similar that I decided to just answer the liberals questions and comments right here. I'll start off with one of the most popular ones:

#1. Just what are you so proud of? (Other versions.....Are you proud of "this"? or Are you proud of "that"?)

My answer: I am proud to be a Conservative. I am proud that I am intellectually honest. I am proud to say that I think Ronald Reagan was one of the best Presidents this nation has ever had. I am proud to be pro-life. I am proud that I can say that I support President George W. Bush's decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am proud that in the next sentence I can say that President Bush's illegal immigrant guest worker program is wrong. I am proud of our military. I am proud to say that I support them. I am proud that I believe the money we make is OUR money and that the government does not have a right to so much of our money. I am proud to say that someday I hope to be rich. I am proud that I am for the death penalty. I am proud that I am an American. I am proud that my children are having a childhood I could have only dreamed about. Well, these are at least a few of the things I am proud of.

Another one I get quite often:

#2. You are such a hypocrit. You say you are pro-life but then say you are for the death penalty. Don't you see how you contradict yourself?

My answer: That's an easy one. There is a very big difference between killing an innocent baby and putting to death a murderer or other type of serious criminal. An unborn baby that is aborted is innocent. It has committed no crimes and therefore does not deserve to die. A convicted murderer or terrorist as well as many other criminals deserve to receive the death penalty. The liberals don't seem to realize their own hypocracy. They are for abortion (killing of an unborn child) yet they are against the death penalty for criminals. So in their mind, it's o.k. to kill an unborn child, but not a convicted murderer.

#3. You must not sell many of your lame Conservative trinkets....there aren't many pictures posted in your "Photo Gallery."

My answer: I never claimed anywhere to be a huge success yet. I am still getting this business off the ground. It takes time and hard work and persistence to get a business going.....something most liberals wouldn't understand because they want everything given to them. That being said, there are quite a few people out there that have bought shirts and chose not to email me pictures. So don't worry about me.

#4. If you support the troops and this war so much, why aren't you over there fighting?

My answer: I love our military and I do support this war. The simple reason I am not over there fighting is I am not in the military. I am not in the military because I do not have the discipline or quite honestly the courage to be in the military. I am so thankful for our men and women in our armed forces who decide on their own to join the military. I love them all for doing their best to keep my family and myself safe. I do my best to honor their courage and their sacrifice. I have nothing but respect for all of them. Just because I don't do something, such as fight in this war, doesn't mean I can't support it with all my passion. I can't perform surgery either, but if someone I loved needed surgery, I would support the surgeon who was going to do the surgery.

#5. I get a lot of the current news of the day questions with the liberal spin. For example, Bush didn't respond to Hurricane Katrina, Bush wants high gas prices so his buddies in the oil business can get even richer, Bush is a criminal for illegally wiretapping Americans......etc.

My answer: I give intellectually honest answers. Obviously, there were major screw-ups in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. There is enough blame to go around to all parties. That being said, the first line of defense against Hurricane Katrina were the city and then the state elected officials. They were all liberal Democrats. They did nothing to help their citizens. They had no plan and actually got in the way of evacuation plans and then later rescue and aid plans.

As far as the illegal wire-tapping concerns. It is not illegal number one. Number two, they are listening to calls coming to or going to people with terrorist connections outside of the United States. Number three, you would be the first person to complain if a terrorist attack occurs. You would claim that Bush wasn't doing enough to stop them. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I don't like high gas prices more than anyone else does. However, the President of the United States, no matter which party, has very little to do with the price of gas. The price of gas is overwhelmingly market driven. Part of the solution to this problem, however, is being blocked by the extreme environmentalists and the liberals that are beholden to them. They barely allow us to drill in our own nation.....ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida. We haven't been able to build a new refinery in this country in over 25 years. The liberals have blocked all of these measures to get our energy policy on a more sound footing and now they want to complain about high gas prices? Give me a break.

#6. Bush is stupid. Dick Cheney is actually running this country.

My answer: Bush had higher grades than John Kerry. No matter what anyone thinks, you can not be elected President of the United States if you are stupid. I may not have liked Bill Clinton's politics or actions, but I would never claim he was stupid. Dick Cheney is a very wise choice for Vice President. He has the government and private sector work experience that is a great asset to this administration. So of course, Bush is going to listen to his advice at all times. But make no mistake about it, G.W. is running the show.

#7. George W. Bush stole the election in 2000. I even get some emails that say he stole the election in 2004.

My answer: Bush won. Gore lost. Get over it. All the recounts that were conducted after the election by the news agencies still had Bush winning.

#8. I get some crazy kook conspiracy theories too. I just laugh at most of those.

Well those are the answers to the main questions I get over and over and over again. I sometimes get other questions as well. I sometimes agree with the liberals which shocks them until they realize that I am not really agreeing with them. They are agreeing with me. That has been happening a lot lately with the immigration debate. They will say something to the effect of us having porous borders and that anyone can get in. I agree with them and tell them that our border control is not up to par. I then remind them that their liberal buddies are the ones fighting for the rights of illegal aliens and amnesty and the Conservative side.....not necessarily the Republicans, I said the Conservatives.......are for a much stronger immigration policy, against amnesty and a crackdown on illegal immigration.

I am sure I will get more emails from the liberals. Some of them are actually nice and just have a different view of the issues than me. That is fine. This is America. We are allowed to have our own beliefs. We are allowed to disagree. And then some of them will be nothing but hate-filled rants thrown at me. That's fine too.

Continue reading "THIS ONE IS FOR THE LIBERALS" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

The hot debate lately has been over immigration or more specifically illegal immigration. People that cross our border into the United States without the proper paperwork are illegal. They are breaking the law. They are NOT undocumented workers. They are NOT day laborers. They are illegal aliens.

If you stand up and say this, you are labeled as a racist. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the opposition to people illegally entering our country. I am all for immigration. I understand why people around the world would want to come and live in the United States. This continues to be the land of opportunity. We have more freedoms and opportunities than any other nation on Earth. We are a nation of laws as well. We welcome people from any race, any nation, any heritage, any religion as long as you come here legally.

We all saw the protests last week. We saw the Mexican flags waving. We saw the signs. The protesters did more damage to their cause than they did good. They demonstration organizers are already feeling the backlash. If there are more protests, don't be surprised to see American flags. But I say it would be too little too late. We already saw the true colors the first time and they were not red, white and blue. They were red, white and green....the colors of the Mexican flag.

My grandmother passed away last year. She was an immigrant from the Ukraine. She came here legally in search of a better life and found it. What I never knew about her until her funeral was that she helped many other people come over here legally. There were people at her funeral that I had never seen in my life. I didn't know who they were until they got up and spoke. One woman in particular stands out as she spoke. She was giving her tear-filled thanks to my grandmother for helping to bring her and her family to the Untied States. She evidently helped many people from her old country to come to this country. She helped them learn English. She helped them to assimilate to this country. She helped them become Americans. She was proud to be here and she was proud that she became an American. She never forgot her heritage. When she got mad, she slipped back to yelling in her native tongue. She still continued to cook dishes from her native land. But she also built a life upon her new country and it's heritage.

Too many people that immigrate to this country, especially illegally, make no effort to assimilate in to the American way of life. They want the advantages that America offers but do not want the responsibilities that go along with being in this country. America loves immigrants. This nation was built on immigration. All we ask is that you come here legally and you assimilate to our way of life. Do not expect us to assimilate to your way of life. After all, if your country's way of life was so great, you would never have come to America in the first place.

Continue reading "IMMIGRATION AND ASSIMILATION" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

A few days ago, I went in to Walmart to buy a few things. One of the items I wanted to buy, a T-shirt, was on the clearance rack. I wasn't sure of the cost of the shirt so when I went to the check out, I asked the cashier to scan it for me before I purchased it. I wanted to make sure it was really on clearance. She scanned it for me. I thought the price was great, it was on sale for $5.00. I told her that yes, I wanted to buy it. She rang up the rest of my items and gave me the total. I paid and left. As I got out to my truck, I started thinking that I hadn't paid much for what I had bought. I pulled out my receipt and sure enough, the cashier had not charged me for my T-shirt. After scanning it for the price, she forgot to actually ring it up before throwing it in the bag. So I put my bags in my truck and went back in to pay for the shirt. I walked up to the cashier and told her that she forgot to charge me for the T-shirt and that I was back to pay for it. She apologized, not for not charging me, but because she thought I had been stopped at the door on my way out. She said she hoped I wasn't embarrassed. I told her that no I wasn't stopped at the door. I realized when I was out at my truck that I hadn't been charged. She looked at me awkwardly, and then asked why I came back in then. I looked just as awkwardly back at her as if it was obvious. I hadn't paid for something. If I left, it would have been the same as stealing. It took her a few seconds to grasp the idea that I actually came back in from the parking lot to pay for something when I could have just as easily driven away. She thanked me for being honest and asked if I had the shirt. For some reason, I thought she would be able to ring it up without the shirt, so I had only brought the receipt back in. I told her that I would have to go out to my truck and get it. So I did. As I was walking back in with it, the customer service person at the door asked me if I was returning the shirt. I said no, that I was bringing it back in to pay for it. Again, I got that awkward look. I once again had to explain what happened to this person. The whole time I was explaining I was getting this strange look from this person. She actually said to me, "You mean you were out in the parking lot already? Why did you come back in then?" I replied, "Because I didn't pay for the shirt." She rolled her eyes and said, "Alright....go back in and pay for it I guess." I went back to the cashier and paid for the shirt and then headed back out to my truck. On the way out, the customer service person looked at me and then shook her head as if to say, "What an idiot!"

The whole experience was kind of strange to me. I understand that there are people that would have just left. I kept thinking about the whole scenario. Anytime I get too much change back, I always tell the cashier and return the extra funds. I have not been charged for items before and I always go back in to pay for them. I usually get a little bit of a strange look but then a nice "thank you" from the cashier. I did get a nice "thanks for being so honest" from the Walmart cashier this time. But what seemed different this time was the look I got from both workers at Walmart. I couldn't stop thinking about it.

The next day, I was telling the story to a friend. They said to me, "What are you crazy? Like $5.00 is going to matter to Walmart? They make enough money!" I was a little surprised by the reaction. I was telling the story to another acquaintance. I got an almost identical reaction with the same reasoning. I told another person. Her response was, "I would have done the same thing." People's reactions were so interesting to me that I started telling the story to several people I knew. The next woman I told also said that she would have done the same.

I noticed a pattern to the reactions but at the time I was considering it a coincidence. So I told more friends and acquaintances to get their reactions. In all, I told the story to 15 people. Nine people said they would have done the same and that they would have been honest. Six people basically said I was crazy and that Walmart makes enough money and would not miss $5.00. The six people that said Walmart made enough money.....were all liberal leaning people. Eight of the nine people who said they would have done the same thing that I did, were conservative leaning people and the other one was a liberal.

I am not saying that liberals are all dishonest. I am not saying that all conservatives are honest. The $5.00 itself was not what was interesting to me. It was that six of the seven liberals all said that Walmart already made enough money. And that none of the conservatives ever mentioned anything about Walmart and the amount of money they make. To all of us, it was a matter of paying for a product that we wanted. To the liberals it was a matter of "sticking it to the man." They didn't see it as a big deal. As one of them said to me, "I spend so much money over there, that if it happened to me, I would've been like....they owe me. And that's why I wouldn't have gone back to pay for it." Again. I am not saying that liberals are all thieves. I just found it extremely interesting that the reason that all the liberals gave was that Walmart already made enough money and that $5.00 wouldn't matter to them. It makes sense though. Don't they say the same thing when taxing the wealthy in this country?

Continue reading "MY TRIP TO WALMART" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I am a member of a few political forum boards. I just read the posts at most of them and never post anything myself. It's part of my daily routine. I like to hear what people are thinking and saying about any given topic. It's a great way to hear the arguments on both sides of an issue.

However, there is one forum that I do post at quite a bit. We have become a very tight knit "family" over there. It is a private, all conservative board. Many of us have started sharing our personal stories with each other. It has been extremely interesting to me, hearing the life stories of these people and how they all have come to be Conservatives. Even more interesting though, is how many of us have had dysfunctional upbringings. There are a few that have had picture perfect childhoods and it is great to read those biographies. However, there are several of us that had a rough childhood. Without going into details, there are stories of abuse, neglect, poverty, drug abuse, alcoholism, adultery, etc. You name it and someone at this forum has experienced it.

I have often thought how strange it is that I became a Conservative after growing up the way I did. As a matter of fact, when I run into old friends from High School and they find out what I am doing with this site and that I am a Conservative, they are almost always shocked. How can someone who grew up in the situation I did, become a Conservative? After reading the stories of the other people at this forum, it has all become much clearer. The reason we have all become Conservatives is because we have all had to depend on ourselves to survive. We didn't just accept our lot in life based on our childhood. We didn't fall into the trap of continuing bad behavior. We stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for our own lives. We have done or are in the process of doing the things that need to be done in order to make our lives better. We are making sure that our kids don't have to experience the same problems we did. We are working hard to overcome the obstacles that have been placed in our way. We have seen how liberal policies and attitudes can destroy families. We have seen how the lack of personal responsibility can ruin lives. We could have taken the easy route and just accepted our lot in life. We could be complaining. We could be asking for the government to take care of us. But we are not and will not accept that as our destiny. We are creating our own destiny by working smart and by working hard and by making good decisions.

There is this stereotype of Conservatives out there that we were all born with a silver spoon in our mouth....that we have all been given everything we always wanted and needed and that is why we can't understand the plight of the poor. The exact opposite is true. Many of us have lived the plight of the poor. We have seen what the government can and can not do. We have seen firsthand how the liberal policies are complete failures. We know that the only way to break the cycle is to take responsibility of our own lives. We can not wait for government handouts. We can not sit around and expect others to do for us. We must do for ourselves.

So it no longer surprises me that I became a Conservative. I no longer think that I am the rare Conservative that came from a broken home. I now see that I am one of millions of Conservatives that has made the decision to make my own destiny. It doesn't really matter how we grew up. What matters is the decision to take personal responsibility seriously.

Continue reading "IT'S NOT SO STRANGE AFTER ALL" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

It's 2006. It's an election year. With all of our everyday concerns, it is easy to ignore the political process. I know I am busy. My son has hockey practice. My daughter has gymnastics. Is their homework done? What are we having for dinner? What groceries do we need? Did I pay all of my bills yet? And it's tax time. Did I remember all of my deductions? How secure is my job? My wife is a Girl Scouts Leader. I volunteer at my kids' school. There's illness in my family. How is their health holding up? What about ProudConservative.com? Have I updated it? Have I written any new editorials or added any content? It goes on and on and on. I understand the busy schedule, believe me. I also understand that this is a critical election year.

The press and the liberals (really....is there much difference?) have been on a non-stop assault on President George W. Bush. They have been attacking him left and right on every little thing that they think up for the past four years. They disregard the facts. They are using that old process of "Let's throw it all up against the wall and see what sticks." Luckily, it has not been working for them as well as it has in the past. There are outlets such as bloggers and political websites and Fox News that have called them on their outlandish accusations. The politicians themselves even occasionally defend themselves or their policies. Don't believe the hype being put out by the liberals. This is a conservative nation. When the public has all the facts, they usually adopt the conservative agenda. For example, recently in the news has been the whole wire-tapping issues. Now if you listen to the liberals and the press who have been calling it "domestic spying" you would think that the N.S.A. has been spying on and listening to everyday American's phone calls. Domestic spying. Well who wouldn't be against this? So the press conducts polls and it looks as if the public is against this administration's policy. However, give these same people the facts. The fact that it is not domestic spying. The fact that it is not your everyday Americans that are having their phone calls tapped. The fact that it is people in this country that are conversing with suspected terrorists in other nations that are the people being listened to. The fact that this power is granted to the President in the Constitution and is not illegal. The poll results dramatically change over to the conservative side. People not only see nothing wrong with these actions, they expect them to occur. They want these phone calls to be listened to.

I follow what's going on. Chances are that if you are reading this, you follow what's going. The problem is that there are millions of Americans who do not follow politics closely or at all. They may hear on the news that the Bush administration has been involved in domestic spying and decide right there that the Republicans are wrong. They don't bother with following up on the story and getting the rest of the facts. Obviously, this is the intention and hope of the liberals and the press. It is our responsibility, to inform as many people as we can to the truths in these matters. When we overhear discussions at work or at school or at social gatherings where these falsehoods are being presented as fact, it is our obligation to get involved and set the record straight. Stay informed. Listen to both sides of every issue and make informed decisions on your views. Get involved with the campaigns of the politicians whose platform you believe in. Talk politics with people. Don't shy away from your political beliefs. Embrace them. Share them. There are many loud liberals willing to shout about everything. There are many more quiet conservatives. We need to be willing to debate the issues. We have the facts on our side. The liberals have lies, misrepresentations, rumors and innuendo on theirs.

Like I said at the beginning of this editorial, I understand being busy and overwhelmed by everyday concerns. We all have them. 2006 is a midterm election year. It is a very important election cycle. Will this nation stay the course? Will we actively hunt down the enemies of this nation? Will we give our intelligence agencies all the tools they need to do their job? Will we let Americans keep more of their hard-earned money? Will we continue to nominate judges that understand their role of interpretting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench? Or will we cut and run? Will we tie the hands of our military and intelligence agencies? Will we enact tax increases that hurt our economy? Will we leave it up to the liberals to nominate judges that can enact the liberal agenda from the bench? It is up to us. Yes we are busy with our own lives. We are busy with the lives of our family and loved ones. The family of your lives should come first.....mine does. However, the people that will be elected later this year will have a major effect on the lives of my family and your family. Being active in the political debates is part of putting my family first. Stay informed. Stay involved. Let's keep the liberals out of power.

Continue reading "IT'S 2006. STAY INFORMED...STAY INVOLVED." »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Since I started this site I have gotten many emails. Many have come from conservatives and many of them have come from liberals. I have had great discussions and debates with some of the more friendly liberals. I have also been called various names that I won't disclose here. I have been accused of being brainwashed. I have been accused of not standing up for what's right. I have been accused of using talking points from the Republican Party. I have been told that I am too young to know any better. I have been told that I don't have a brain of my own. It goes on and on.

Let me save some of you liberals out there some time. I do think on my own. I do not receive talking points from anyone nor would I use them if they were ever sent to me. I will agree with the Republicans when I truly believe in the cause and I will criticize them when I think they are wrong. I will agree with Democrats if they are right and will criticize them when they are wrong. They just happen to be wrong a lot more often. I have a mind of my own and will share my views on subjects as I see them. Of course most of my views are conservative. After all, I am a proud conservative. I am no more brainwashed than a liberal who believes in their viewpoints. So please stop telling me that I only listen Rush or Sean. I listen to and read authors and pundits and radio personalities from both the liberal standpoint and the conservative standpoint. Please stop telling me that the conservatives are braindead and walk in lockstep. I read many debates in political forums and blogs. As a matter of fact, some of the best debates I've seen have been between two conservatives arguing their different viewpoints on a particular issue.  Conservatives and liberals each have their beliefs and just because we don't agree with each other does not mean that either one of us are brainwashed. We can both look at the same facts and come up with different opinions. Sean Hannity does not tell me what to think. He confirms that there are others out there that think like I do. Just as Alan Colmes doesn't tell a liberal how to think. He confirms there are people out there that have liberal views.

The funny thing is I get emails from the kook liberals spouting all their hatred towards President Bush and the Republican Party and conservatives in general. They tell me how stupid I am for believing "the Bush administration's lies." Then two sentences later they are spouting off "their facts" which they learned from Michael Moore's joke of a documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. These kooks proceed to tell me that conservatives are full of hatred and racism. (I usually tell them to read my "Who are the real racists?" editorial and get back to me.) Yet, they somehow miss the pure hatred and contempt coming from their own mouths or keyboards. And it is always the same 4 or 5 points from every one of them. It seems as if these people are unaware that they are doing exactly what they are accusing me of doing.

I occasionally get emails from young conservatives stating that they are arguing with their parents or a teacher or friends about politics. They ask if I have any talking points they might be able to use. I always tell them the same thing. Don't use talking points. Learn as much as you can by listening to and reading both liberal and conservative material. Make informed decisions about any given topic. Don't be a phoney if you happen not to believe in one issue that most conservatives believe in. Be proud of your views....even the liberal ones. Don't accept hearsay and rumor and innuendo as fact. Never drink the Kool-aid of either party.

So here's my promise to anyone reading this. I do not and will not drink the Kool-aid of anyone. I try to learn as much as I can about any issue that interests me. I try to hear both sides of each issue and make informed decisions on my own. Most of my views are conservative. However, I actually have views on a few topics that are more liberal than other conservatives. I will always try to be intellectually honest. I ask the same of all of you.

Continue reading "DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Dear Elected Republican Politician,

It is the Conservative base that continues to vote for you. Yes, there are moderates and maybe even some fed up left leaning constituents that vote for you also, but by far, the Conservatives are your base. We give you our precious vote for many reasons. We expect you to promote our conservative agenda. This includes, but isn't limited to keeping America's military strong, keeping our taxes as low as possible, sending originalist judges to the bench, and spending OUR money much more wisely. We vote you into power. It is the Conservatives that are your allies. So why is it that many of you keep trying to get in good with the main stream media? They are not your friends. They did not vote for you. They will never vote for you. You will never impress them with anything you do, unless you slam the Conservatives that put you into office. Why is it that you keep brokering deals with the liberals that are NOT in the majority? Why is it that you let the Democrats control so much of the discussion? They are not the majority party....you are. Start behaving in a manner that is fitting of a party in power. You do not have to broker deals with the liberals. You do not need the permission of the liberals to vote on conservative judges. You do not need the Democrats to lower taxes. You do not need the Democrats to control spending. You are the majority party. They are the minority party. You have the power. They don't. You can be civil with them. You can be friends with them. When it comes time to vote on important issues though, we expect you to follow through on your campaign promises. We expect you to behave as a majority party behaves. We show you the utmost respect by giving you our vote on Election day. We expect that respect to be given back. Stop trying to impress the people that will never like you....the liberals...the Democrats....the main stream media...and start trying to impress the people that should matter most to you. Your conservative constituents.

Continue reading "OPEN LETTER TO ELECTED REPUBLICANS" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

We all need help from time to time. We turn to family. We turn to friends and loved ones. We might turn to our churches. There is nothing wrong with that. We are all human. Sometimes we just need a hand-up. What no one needs is a hand-out. There is a world of difference between the two. A hand-up might be finding a friend a job or loaning them some money until they get back on their feet. A hand-out would be giving this person money and not asking to repaid ever. A hand-up might involve going to a soup kitchen and working and receiving a meal for your effort. A hand-out would be going to a soup kitchen and demanding a meal without giving anything back in return. A hand-up might include graciously accepting clothing donations. A hand-out would be expecting those donations to be designer labels and then complaining when they're not. It is actions but it is also attitudes. It is the decisions we make on how we want to live our lives.

I believe that we truly appreciate items that we have worked hard for. I believe that when things are given to us, and I'm not talking about gifts, there is less value in these items. The work environment is set-up to reward good behavior and good choices. When a person earns money by working a job, any job, there is a satisfaction that comes with that. There is a sense of pride. There is a sense of the can-do spirit. Even if you hate your job, you still have the honor of being able to provide for yourself and your family. If you lose that job and are no longer providing for yourself and your family, there is a part of you that is crushed. You will do anything to get back on your feet. The human spirit demands that you take care of yourself and those that you love. It does, at least, if you have worked and you have done for yourself.

The whole welfare system is set up to reward bad behavior. I know that there are some stories of people being on welfare and then becoming extremely productive citizens. I am not talking about these people. They looked at welfare as a hand-up not a hand-out and did something about their situation. Remember, it is an attitude as well. I'm talking about the people who accept welfare and don't have any plans or desires to get off welfare. I'm talking about people that have food donated to them because they are hungry, but won't even assist in the cooking or the cleaning up. They have an attitude of, "I deserve to be given food." instead of "Thank goodness someone cared enough to help me when I'm down." The person who thinks, "I deserve this food" has no human spirit. How can they? How can they expect other people to work and for them to reap the rewards? How can they feel pride in allowing others to always do for them? How can they know that sense of accomplishment when finishing a hard day's work? How can they feel the satisfaction of receiving a paycheck? They can't.

There is no human spirit involved in receiving a welfare check. You can have human spirit and receive a welfare check though. If you are looking at that check as a hand-up and not a hand-out. If you look at that check as a short term solution. Unfortunately, too many welfare recipients see that check as their means of making a living. There is no pride felt. There is no shame felt. There is no human spirit left to feel either emotion. The longer a person accepts something for nothing, the easier it becomes. The longer a person accepts something for nothing, the more they expect and demand it. This is today's welfare system. The longer someone works and provides for themselves, the easier it becomes. The longer someone works and provides for themselves, the more they expect and demand to be able to provide for themselves. This is the human spirit. Welfare destroys the human spirit.

Continue reading "WELFARE DESTROYS THE HUMAN SPIRIT" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

There is that bumper sticker that says, "If you can read this...thank a teacher. If you can read it in English...thank a soldier." Many of you agree with this sentiment I would venture to guess. Have you ever done it? Have you ever gone up to a soldier and said, "Thank you" to him/her? I'm not talking about someone you know that is in the military. I'm not talking about waving and saying, "Thank you" as a soldier drives by in a parade. Have you ever gone up to a complete stranger, who is obviously in the military, and said, "Thank you" to him?

I have. I try to do it as often as possible. Honestly, the first time I was about to do it...I felt stupid. It was a heart felt thank you, but I was embarrassed to go up to a complete stranger. That was until I did it. I believe my exact words were, "Thank you for all you do for this country." Simple. Straight-forward. The reply came, "I'm just doing my job, Sir." But then there was that hint of a smile from him. The kind that made me believe what I said meant more to that soldier than I thought. It made me wonder if anyone had ever thanked him before. I didn't ask though. I just went about my business. It felt good. It felt good because I thought that I made him feel appreciated.

The next time it wasn't as hard. The reply this time was, "You're welcome, Sir." Again, there was that look. That look like maybe he had never been told thank you before. Again, it was a great feeling, but almost a disturbing one at the same time. I started wondering even more....had no one ever said thank you to these soldiers?

The third time was an older gentleman selling the little flowers for the VFW I think. This time I said, "Thank you for all you did for this country." He got visibly upset....not mad....but he was shaking a little bit. I felt horrible. Did I insult him by thanking him I was thinking. I didn't know what to do. I froze up. The older gentleman stood up and said to me, "Young man. No one has ever thanked me for my service. When you said, 'Thank you' to me, it was like a release." I couldn't believe it. I would guess the man was in his 70's and somehow, no one ever thanked him for his brave service to this nation. I was shocked to the point that I didn't know what to say or do. I smiled and continued walking out to my car.

I have said, "Thank you" in one form or another many, many times now. I very often get what I now call "The Look" when I thank them. I have since asked many of them if they have ever been thanked. Most reply, "No, but it is my honor to serve this nation" or something very similar. No ego. No attitude. Just pure PRIDE.

These courageous men and women are willing to put their lives on the line for us and for our country. They do so with honor and with pride. They don't do it so that they can hear, "Thank you" from us. That doesn't mean we don't owe them a great big "Thank you." My gosh, it is the very least we can do.

Try it. Next time you see a man or woman in uniform, walk up to them and just say, "Thank you." or "Thank you for all you do for this country" or one of my favorites "Thank you for protecting my family." I guarantee you will get "The Look" more often than you won't. I don't care if you are shy. I don't care if you feel stupid. Do it anyway. Believe me, it is worth it. Let them all know they have our support, our love and our admiration.

Continue reading "THANK A SOLDIER" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

When the tax rates are lowered, the government receives more money.  For some reason, the liberals can't or maybe won't understand this.  They think of the U.S. economy as a zero-sum game.  They want us to believe that if we lower taxes on the so-called "rich", that means that the middle income and lower income people are going to have to pay more.  If the economy was a zero-sum game, they would be right.  But it's not and so they are not.  I'm going to try to break it down in simple terms.

If the economy was a zero-sum game, like the liberals seem to think, it would work like this.  I am going to use nice round numbers just to make this article easy to read. They are not the actual numbers.  The people of the United States work and together they all earn say $5,000,000,000,000.00 (5 trillion dollars).  In a zero-sum game, there is only a finite amount of money that can be made.  People tend to think in finite numbers. This means that if "Rich Person A" gets a raise from $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 that somewhere the other people are making $100,000.00 less.  In this world, the higher the tax rate, the more money the government brings in.  The lower the tax rate, the less money the government brings in.

Let's start with a tax rate of 35%.  35% of $5,000,000,000,000.00 would be $1,750,000,000,000.00.  In this zero-sum game world, if you raise the tax rate to 38%, now the government would bring in $1,900,000,000,000.00.  Conversely, if you lower the tax rate in this fictional world to 32%,  the government would only bring in $1,600,000,000,000.00.  This is how the liberals want you to think our economy works.  This way they can continue to play "class warfare" games.  To be honest, if you don't want to think about it, this might make sense.  The liberals can point to the upper-income people and tell the lower-income people, "The reason you are poor is because they have so much."  In other words, the upper-income people have your share of the pie.

Now on to how the economy really works.  There is no finite amount of money that can be made. The people of the United States could collectively earn $5 trillion, $7 trillion, $12 trillion or more.  Or less.  Tax rates have a lot to do with whether it is more or less.  In the real world, "Rich Person A" can get a raise from $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 and this wouldn't affect anyone else's income.  If the collective amount of money earned went from
$5,000,000,000,000.00 to $5,000,000,100,000.00, "Rich Person A" made more money and no one else "lost" money.

How can this happen?  It's actually very simple.  Let's take an average middle-income family making $50,000.00 a year.  Forget about deductions and actual tax rates for this discussion.  If they are taxed at 20%, they would have $40,000.00 left to spend.  So this family pays it's bills, buys what it needs, but maybe not everything it wants.  Maybe they put a little away in savings. Cut the tax rate to 15%.  Now this family has $42,500.00 after taxes.  This family now has an extra $2,500.00 to either buy some of the things they want or to put even more money into savings. Let's say they decide to buy something they want with that extra money.  They decide to buy new bedroom furniture.  They spend the $2,500.00 at the furniture store.  Guess what?  Now part of that $2,500.00 is getting taxed by the government again because it is now part of the profits of the furniture store.  Not only that, but now the furniture store has more money to reorder more furniture.  It just sold an "extra" set of furniture.  They order there normal order plus an "extra" set because of the "extra" set they just sold.  Now the manufacturer has to make their normal amount of bedroom sets plus one "extra" set.  Now that money is taxed again as part of the profits of the manufacturer.  The manufacturer needs more wood and supplies to make that "extra" bedroom set.  So the manufacturer orders more wood and glue and accessories. Guess what?  That money is taxed yet again as part of the supplier's profits.

Now if you multiply this out nationwide, it would not be one "extra" bedroom set.  It would be thousands.  There would "extra" car purchases...."extra" clothing purchases (I know where you can get some nice Conservative T-shirts)...."extra" vacations..."extra" electronic purchases...."extra" home remodeling expenditures...etc. etc.  With thousands of "extra" bedroom sets to make, the manufacturer needs to hire more workers to build the furniture. With thousands of "extra" bedroom sets to make, the suppliers need to hire more people to cut the wood or make the glue or make the handles.  With thousands of "extra" bedroom sets to sell, the furniture store needs to hire more salespeople and more stockroom people and more delivery personnel.

That original $2500.00 that was taken out of the tax revenues has now been taxed several times over as profits by the furniture company, as profits by the manufacturer, as profits by the suppliers, and as income to the workers of said businesses. Because the middle-income family had the extra $2,500.00 to spend, several business and their employees were taxed on new sales and new incomes.  Now the original $2,500.00 that the government "gave up"in tax breaks, it has brought in maybe $3,500.00 in new tax revenues.  Yes, the rate was lowered and the government brought in more money.  It happened when Reagan lowered tax rates.  It happened when JFK lowered tax rates.  It will happen when any President lowers tax rates.  The economy also grew which means there was more money earned by the people of the United States.

It is a fact, person A can earn more money without that money coming from another person's earnings.  It is a fact, when tax rates are lowered, the government brings in more revenue.  This brings us to the real question.  If lower tax rates bring in more money to the government, why aren't liberals for lowering taxes?  They would have more money to spend on their social agenda. You would think this would be great for them.  The simple answer is if they lower tax rates, more people will have more money and thus not need the liberals' social programs any longer.  If they don't need the liberals' social programs any more, they don't need the liberals any longer.  It's not about money.  It's about power.  Read my previous editorial "ISN'T BEING FOR THE RICH A GOOD THING?"

Continue reading "THE LIBERALS DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

One of the stereotypes of Conservatives is that they are racists. Quite honestly, this is so easy to debunk that it actually surprises me that this stereotype is still on-going.  Read the whole editorial and then tell me who the real racists are.

The definition of racism:  The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

***Keep this in mind while you are reading.***

If that definition does not fit the liberals of this country, then I don't know what does.  As Conservatives, we expect the people of this great country to do for themselves.  Why?  Because we know they can.  The people of this country do not need the help of our government to make things happen in their lives.  Let's take affirmative action for example.  Now if you say you are against affirmative action, you are automatically labeled a racist.  I say, if you are for affirmative action, you are a racist.  How can that be?

As a Conservative, I know that anyone, whether they be black, white, red, brown, yellow or anywhere in between, can be whatever it is that they want to be.  (Read my very first editorial)  All it takes is hard work and determination.  If you want to be a doctor, you can be a doctor.  If you want to be a lawyer, you can be a lawyer.  If you want to be a teacher, you can be a teacher. ANYONE can do it without the interference of government if they work hard enough and strive to be their best.

What do liberals believe?  Minorities CAN NOT do it on their own. They need affirmative action to become what they want to become.  Why?  Read the definition above.  Think about that. Conservatives view everyone as equal.  Liberals say that minorities can not do things without their help.  Which sounds racist to you?

As a Conservative, I want the best qualified person for any given position.  If I need surgery, I want the best surgeon.  It doesn't matter what race they are.  I think colleges should accept new students based on who is best, not based on race.  I believe when a company hires a new employee, they should hire the best person regardless of race.  Conservatives are colorblind.  Liberals see everything based on race.  Employers should have a certain number of minority workers.  Universities should have a certain number of minority students.  They make decisions based on race.

Again, think about that.  Conservatives want the best person for the job regardless of color.  Liberals want to make decisions based on race.  Which sounds racist to you?

The Democrats continue to get about 90% of the black vote.  What have the Democrats done to deserve this support?  They have argued that minorities NEED special preference to get by.  In other words, they need white people to get them in to college, to get them jobs, to get them contracts.  That sounds to me like a feeling of superiority.  The Republicans say the opposite.  Minorities can do anything non-minorities can do.  We are equal.

Which party believes we are all equal and which party believes that minorities NEED help to do anything?  Answer honestly.  Now,  read the definition again.  Then tell me who the real racists are.  

Continue reading "WHO ARE THE REAL RACISTS?" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

We always hear that the Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor...right?  On the surface this seems like a straight forward position for both parties.  If you are rich you should vote for Republicans...if you are poor you should vote for Democrats.  However, think about these statements for a second.  Then think, what do politicians want most?  Your vote.  They want as many votes as possible from as many people as possible.  Agree so far?  Let's take it that next step then.  If Republicans are for the rich, they are going to set policies such that more and more people become wealthy.  Then they will have more people to vote for them.  On the flip side, if Democrats are for the poor, how will they set their policies?  You got it.  Their policies will be set such that there are more poor people.  Then they will have more people to vote for them.  Which do you prefer?  Think about it.

If you are a liberal reading this, you'll probably disagree.  I ask this question of you, "What has the Democratic agenda done for the poor?"  Nothing.  It has made them more dependent on the government and less empowered to become wealthy on their own. Admit to it or not, that is exactly what they have done....in my opinion on purpose.  That way, there are people dependent on the government instead of taking responsibility for their own financial circumstances.  There are more poor people and the simple stereotype says that they will vote for the Democrats.

Take the Republican's agenda.  Lower the taxes for everyone.  And don't tell me that the poorest of the poor suffer because they don't get a tax cut.  THEY'RE NOT PAYING ANY TAXES TO BEGIN WITH!!!  Sorry...I just really hate that argument.  They believe, at least the conservative ones do, that the government should not be taking as much money in the form of taxes from the people of this country.  They believe in setting policy so that it is easier to obtain wealth.  The people of this country know how to spend our money better than the government does.  It is OUR money not Washington's.

Take a quick look again.  The Democrats believe the more poor people there are, the better. They don't say that of course, but actions speak louder than words.  The Republicans believe the more wealthy people there are, the better.  They don't really say that either, but their actions speak for themselves.  If you're already wealthy, it makes sense to vote for the Republicans.  If you are like me and you want to BECOME wealthy, it makes sense to vote for the Republicans.  I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't make much sense to vote for the Democrats.

Continue reading "ISN'T BEING FOR THE RICH A GOOD THING?" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

My mother-in-law  always says to me, "It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat, once a politician gets to Washington, they're all the same."  Now, I don't think I will go as far as that. Why would I bother voting if I thought that was true.  However, I am beginning to believe that there may be some truth in what she is saying.  We vote for the candidate that we think best demonstrates our values and beliefs.  We send them to Washington to get things done.  It seems like more often than not, as soon as they get there, they forget who sent them there and why.

These days it seems as if the number one objective of most politicians, Republican or Democrat, isn't to do what is in the best interest of the country and their constituents.  It is to get re-elected.  When you are constantly thinking about getting yourself re-elected, I think that your decision making is harmed.  You can't make decisions based on what is best for the country.  You have to start making decisions based on what you think will get you re-elected.  Sometimes, this works in our interest.  Sometimes, it doesn't.  If they are worrying about get re-elected, very few politicians are going to take on the hard issues.  Very few of them will be willing to tackle some of the more popular, yet extremely wasteful programs.  It would be too dangerous...for their career.

One of the reasons I appreciate George W. Bush is that he is willing to take chances.  He is willing to talk about better ways of doing things.  He is willing to take a chance on issues that need to be addressed but are "hot potatoes" in the political world.  Newt Gingrich was another conservative willing to look at the issues in a new way and approach the problems with new ideas.  Honestly, that is why he was so successful in returning the House and the Senate to the Republicans.  You would think that the politicians would take a cue from the 1994 elections.

My guess would be that the majority of newly elected Senators and Congressmen/women really want to go to Washington to make a difference.  They are energized and ready to go.  However, as soon as they get there, they are "told" how things get done around Washington by the old-timers.  They are "taught" not to make waves.  Well, these old-timers got us into many of the bureaucratic messes we currently find in our government.

Until recently, I never thought term-limits were a good idea.  I didn't think they were necessary.  If a politician fails in Washington, the people will vote them out.  It doesn't always work that way.  Ted Kennedy ring any bells.  I understand that Massachusetts is more liberal than the rest of the country.  But, I would not be one bit surprised if the majority of Democrats there would rather have someone new.  Ted is already there though.

How many times have you voted for someone because they were the lesser of two evils?  Once a party, Democrat or Republican, has a politician in office, they tend to fight for that politician to remain in office as long as possible.  On the surface, that makes sense, right?  What if that politician is voting on issues differently than they campaigned?  What if they are rolling over and compromising too much?  What if a new candidate steps up and points this out and tries to get the nomination the next time an election rolls around?  The majority of the time, the political party is going to back the incumbent.  It is easier to get someone re-elected, than it is to get someone new elected.  Therefore, they continue to stay with incumbent even if they are less than desirable.  It is all about retaining power rather than doing what is in the best interest of the country.  Because the focus is continually on getting politicians re-elected, very few new ideas are ever tried.  Oh sure, they might tinker with a program or two, but no real solutions are ever instituted.  Take for instance the tax code.  Any normal person can see that it is a complete and TOTAL mess.  There are thousands of pages of nonsense.  Each time it is tinkered with, they heap on a whole new set of pages.  The politicians are all afraid to come out strongly and say what the rest of us are already thinking.... "This is really a mess.  Let's scrap this whole plan and start from scratch."  You hear pundits and ex-politicians talking like this, but rarely do you hear current politicians discussing an issue such as this.  Once again, it is too dangerous...for their career.

When maintaining your career as a politician becomes a life long goal, most people are going to choose the safe route.  They don't want to ruffle feathers and they don't want to rock the boat.  So they remain silent.  Or they try to "tinker" with what is already there.  Nothing will ever get done this way.  Now if there were term limits, politicians, I am beginning to believe, would be free to actually try new ideas.  They wouldn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the "old-timers" in the Senate or the Congress.  There wouldn't be any.  There wouldn't be the same stale ideas year after year.  There would be a constant flow of new bodies and new ideas.  There would be much less of a hierarchy.  A politician would know that their foray in to politics would be temporary.  Therefore, they would not rely solely on their public service to support them forever.  They wouldn't be so fearful that they would lose the next election and be out of a job.  If  there were term limits, it would be a given that they would be out of a job at some point.  It seems simple, but think about it.  They would actually be free to discuss the issues and programs that are deemed too polarizing, without fear of losing their career.  Being a politician would no longer be a career.

It works for the Presidency.  Why not for the rest of the government?  How about two terms for a Senator and three terms for a Congressman/woman?  That would be a maximum of 12 years for either office.  Besides bringing in fresh ideas and energized people, think of the money that could be saved as well.  No longer would we have to pay huge pensions on these life-long politicians. But that is probably a whole other editorial.  The more I think about it, the more I am starting to like the idea of term-limits. Yeah, I think it may be time for term-limits.

Continue reading "IS IT TIME FOR TERM LIMITS?" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I wasn't always pro-life.  I guess for a while I was pro-choice. Actually, I never really thought about it much until a personal experience made me confront the question of when life begins. Being pro-life to me is not a religious position either.  It was a conscious decision I made based on my experience.  There are the hardcore pro-lifers out there and the hardcore pro-choicers out there.  I think the average person doesn't really think about this issue much though.  When asked they may say they are one or the other, but probably doesn't have much of a reason.  That was me for the first 21 years of my life.  I figured it's not my job to tell a woman what to do with her body.  Yep, that standard knee jerk response.

My wife became pregnant a few years after we married.  I was scared and excited, like most first time parents-to-be.  There was a complication very early on and the baby didn't make it.  I was devastated.  It was in the first month that this happened.  No matter what anyone says, that was a baby to me.  It was our baby.  I was so upset.  It was then that I realized several things. First, I considered it a baby...a life even though it was only growing for a few weeks.  Secondly, I became angry.  There were women doing this on purpose.  They were ending the lives of their own babies.  Thirdly,  I am officially pro-life.

The first argument you get from pro-choicers is why do you want to tell a woman what to do with her own body?  Right?  Like I said, that is what I used to think.  My answer today is....I don't want to tell a woman what to do with HER body.  If she wants to pierce her body 100 times...go for it.  If she wants to get tattoos....more power to her.  If she wants to get fat by over-eating....I say eat up.  Heck, if she wants to cut her fingers off, it is her body.  The baby inside is not her body.  It is the baby's body.  Don't like this? Still think it's her body?

O.K.  Let's try this.  A woman moves out of her house.  She needs to store all of her belongings for a month until she gets a new apartment.  She rents a room in a storage facility and puts her possessions in that room.  The owner of the building decides to throw all of her stuff in the garbage.  Does he have the right to do that?  It is HIS building.  We have no right to tell him what to do with his building.  Obviously, he has no right to throw away the woman's articles.  Even though the valuables are in his building, they are not his.  Do you agree with this?  Now picture the storage facility as a woman's womb and the possessions as a baby.  Same thing.  Do you still agree?  If yes, you are pro-life.  If you are pro-choice and saying to yourself right now that this is not a fair comparison, I say that you are right.  In the first example, it's just a bunch of stuff.  In the second example, it's a life.  If you give more value to the goods in the storage facility than you do to the life in the woman's body...shame on you!

The next argument you get is:  What about the babies that would not grow up in good surroundings?  Should we put them through a miserable childhood?  This argument never made sense to me.   nah....let's not put the children in bad surroundings.....that's not fair to them.  Let's kill them instead.  That argument actually makes sense to some people believe it or not.  Well, if not growing up in an ideal environment is the criteria for deciding which babies live and which babies are aborted, I wouldn't be here today.  My guess is there are a lot of people that wouldn't be here today.

What about the father's rights?  It is not a question only for the potential mother.  The baby is his as well.  Yeah, that gets pro-choice women mad.  These same women would argue that the father is financially responsible for a baby when it is born  By the way, I agree with that.  But you can not on one hand say the potential father has no say if the baby is born because it is not his body or his choice, but then turn around and on the other hand say that once the baby is born he has equal responsibilities.  He should have equal responsibilities throughout.

I don't claim to have all the answers to the complex questions such as pregnancies that are the result of rape and incest.  The hardcore pro-lifers argue that the baby is just an innocent life created by a horrible situation.  I tend to have more compassion in such cases as I think most pro-lifers do.  I struggle with these situations honestly.  The baby is an innocent result, yet I think forcing a woman who was raped to have a baby that was the result of that evil, is a bad idea. Same thing for a girl who is molested. It's just a bad idea.  If a woman's life is actually in jeopardy...as in she could die...again an exception could be made.  Most pro-lifers give an exception to situations of rape or incest when it comes to being anti-abortion.  The problem I see with making a blanket exemption for rape and incest is the obvious.  If a woman is vehemently against having her baby, what is she going to do? She is going to claim rape or incest even if one did not occur.  Now there isn't just one life in the balance.  There are several.  The baby....the boyfriend/husband/date in the case of a rape accusation or father/brother/uncle in the case of an incest accusation....and the woman herself....along with the families and friends of all these people.  It really does get confusing and complex.  And like I said, I don't claim to have the answers to these situations.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are "birth control" abortions.  They are not the result of rape.  They are not the result of incest.  They are not to protect the life of the mother.  They are abortions of convenience.  I know most people are not going to change their minds based on debates or arguments.  I didn't.  I changed mine based on a personal experience.  An experience that I don't wish upon anyone.  If you are pro-choice and think abortion is fine, I probably won't change your mind here, but hopefully I gave you some things to think about.  Just remember,  if you thought the man who owned the storage facility had no right to throw away the woman's belongings, you really need to rethink your position with an honest, open mind.

Continue reading "WHY I WENT FROM PRO-CHOICE TO PRO-LIFE" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I was listening to Laura Ingraham's show the other day.  There was a guest host but they replayed a snippit of a Laura talking. She said, "I'm an American first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third."  I could not agree more with her.  These days, it seems as if the politicians, on both sides by the way, are Democrats/Republicans first, Conservatives/Liberals second, and Americans third.  I think it's fair to say, although I'm sure some would disagree, that it seems to happen more so on the left. Take Ted Kennedy ripping in to Rumsfeld and quite honestly the whole U.S. military for example.  Here we are in the middle of a war and a Senator is saying these awful, untrue things about our own people, on camera for the whole world to see.  For what?  Politics? For the Democrat Party?   How about Durbin, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Reid?  Do I need to go on?  If you're on this site, chances are you've heard the irresponsible things all these people have said so I am not going to quote them all.  As a Conservative and a Republican, I think it's great that the Liberals and Democrats are saying these things.  It just proves to the voter base how far out of touch they all are.  It shows that they are willing to do or say anything if they think it will get them back in to power.  I think it will backfire and they will lose even more seats, which is great if I am looking at it as a Conservative or Republican.  But like Laura said and I agree....I am an American first.  It is absolutely dangerous for America for the Democrats and Liberals to keep saying the things they are saying.  It gives ammunition to our enemies to use against us.  It makes the already dangerous job our military is involved in even more dangerous.  In my mind, they are causing more casualties by flaming the fire with their lies and distortions.  They are causing more hatred towards there own country in the name of politics.  That is completely unacceptable to me as an American.

So I say to them, "Before you were a Democrat or Liberal...Before you were a Republican or Conservative...You were an AMERICAN.

Continue reading "I'M AN AMERICAN FIRST" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

The other day, my daughter  was telling a family friend that her soccer team won their game 4 to 0. She was excited.  They had played a really good game and deserved to win.  The family friend responded by saying, "Well, it really doesn't matter if you win as long as you have fun."  To some degree I agree with that, however, winning does matter.  Guess what?  It is fun to win.  

The soccer league that my daughter is in does not officially keep score, but the 4 and 5 and 6 year olds do.  Yes, even at 4 years old there is a drive in the human spirit that wants to compete and win. I think we, as adults are squashing that competitive spirit. It is all supposedly in the name of self-esteem.  The same types of things are being done in certain schools.  Dodge ball isn't allowed because it hurts the self-esteem of the kids that aren't that good. Some schools are doing away with grades.  All in the name of self-esteem.

It's insanity I say.  Self-esteem is built by striving to be your best and by competing and by winning and yes even by losing.  It is obtained by getting high grades. Yes, every child is special in one way or another and that is my point.  One child can build self-esteem by getting A's in school.  The next may build their self-esteem by being on a winning sports team. Another may have incredible artistic skills.  Yet, if we don't keep score or give grades, how are the children supposed to know what skills make them special.  If a child gets a C in school, they know they have to work harder to get that B or A.  The next marking period, when they get that A, they realize all their hard work payed off.  That is how true self-esteem is built.  Telling the children they are all the same does nothing for self-esteem.  It does nothing to prepare them for real life.  In the workplace, you will never hear, "Everyone is a winner."  The one that works the hardest, the smartest and comes up with the best idea or product is the winner.

We need to teach our children that is ok to lose as long as they learn from their mistakes and try harder next time.  They need to how to win as well as how to lose.  In life, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.  The sooner, a person can grasp this truth, the better off they will be in the future.

Continue reading "SOMETIMES YOU WIN AND SOMETIMES YOU LOSE" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink

I have to admit, this is one of my favorite ways to start a debate or discussion.  Try it sometime. Start a conversation by saying, "Wherever you are in life, that's where you want to be."  It's a true statement.  This is America.  In America, you can be whatever you want to be and be as successful as you want or be.  Usually the statement I get back right away is this, "Well, I want to be a millionaire and I'm not."  My next statement in the discussion is, "What have you done or what are you doing to make that happen?" Life is full of choices.  Every decision you make affects where you are in life and where you will be in life.  If you want to be a millionaire, great.  Do something about it.  Buying a lottery ticket works for a few, but not most of us.  Start a business.  Further your education.  Make some investments.  Do something. 

"It costs money to start a business and I can't afford it."  Stop buying meals out.  Stop renting movies.  Stop buying cds.  Or whatever else you may be splurging on.  There are so many businesses that can be started for under $500.00 that anyone who really wants to start one...can.  "I don't have time to go back to college."  Make time.  I know people who work 60-80 hours a week and go to college full time.  "That doesn't sound like fun."  It's not!  But they are doing something to better themselves.  "I don't know how to invest."  Learn.  Read books.  Find sites on the internet to learn about investing.  Do something. This doesn't only apply to monetary concerns.  "I want to be happy."  What are you doing to be happy?  Some people find happiness in Church.  Go to Church.  Some find happiness in great friendships. Do your friends make you happy or do you talk about them (and vice-versa) behind their backs?  Do they kill your dreams when you talk about them. Find some new friends.  "I want to be a pro football player."  Well if you're in your forties, it isn't going to happen.  But if that was your goal when you were in High School,  did you practice as hard as you could?  Did you eat as well as you could have?  Did you learn from your mistakes?  Did you watch tapes of great players to see what they all had in common?  Answer those questions for yourself.  Just answer them honestly.  

"Well, I'm sure homeless people don't want to be homeless."  If they really didn't want to be they wouldn't be.  They have made choices in their life which have gotten them to where they are. Maybe they shouldn't have started drinking.  Maybe they shouldn't have started taking drugs.  I know...not all homeless people are drunks or drug addicts.  Maybe a few were laid off and lost their job.  At some point they made the decision to give up and be homeless.  It was a decision.

No matter what your situation is, you are responsible.  If you are rich or poor, happy or unhappy, have the job you want or don't, or anywhere in the middle, you have made decisions that have gotten you to where you are.  

So DO SOMETHING!  Or don't.  That is fine also.  You are choosing to be where you are in life.  

Continue reading "WHEREVER YOU ARE IN LIFE, THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO BE" »

Posted by Trent at 12:00 PM | Permalink