The title of this post is meant to be sarcastic. The entire population has witnessed how corrupt and idiotic the National Republican Senatatorial Committee can be when they endorsed the liberal Governor and Obama stimulus supporter, Charlie Crist, over conservative Speaker of the Florida House, Marco Rubio with more than a year left before the Primary. Conservatives rallied behind the young and energetic Republican, however and what was once an enormous gap in support between Rubio and Crist has been closed and the race is tighter than ever.

Well, the corruption of the NRSC under Republican Senator Cornyn (Texas) truly knows no bounds. The Senate Race against Senator Evan Bayh in Indiana has been underway since the summer of 2009. Unlike Florida, we have a plethora of candidates with various backgrounds and ideologies… it’s also been a shockingly positive Republican primary by modern standards. Well, out of nowhere came Dan Coats. Dan Coats is the former Senator of Indiana who resigned just as Evan Bayh was completing his time as Governor and made it clear he wanted to run for Senate. Coats knew he wouldn’t have been able to beat Bayh… but in 2010, Bayh appears vulnerable and, what do you know, the guy is back from his time as a lobbyist out east.

Say what you will about Coats, I don’t care. We have an endorsement process here at www.ktracy.com and we’re going to follow it, which means we’re going to support the best candidate. Coats isn’t really the issue here. The issue here is the NRSC endorsing Coats when there are three other credible contenders in the race, including Marlin Stutzman, who has already spent a ton of money and time on his campaign.

The NRSC did this after vowing not to spend money or time in Indiana. While that annoyed me at first, I really wish Cornyn and his cronies kept their corrupt fingers out of my state. Since this happened, the state party has supposedly asked Marlin Stutzman (and probably the others) to step aside and let Coats take the primary without a fight.

These guys have put MONTHS of hard work in across the state, meeting with countless party activists and officials at all levels, exposing themselves and their families to state media scrutiny, and you want them to just step aside like it never happened?

Thankfully, Stutzman and the others are doing the right thing and staying in the race. But here’s what I don’t understand: If the NRSC and GOP insiders in Indiana want to play politics like this, why the hell do we have a primary in May that costs taxpayers a fortune? It would be a LOT cheaper for the State of Indiana if we just went back to the Convention system and nominated all of our candidates that way. This would save taxpayers a lot of money and allow the corrupt politicians like Senator Cornyn screw around in state politics all their greedy little hearts desire!

No, I’m not advocating that. I’m a strong supporter of the primary process. What I am advocating is that the NRSC gets the hell out of Indiana, Florida, and every other state where there is a primary battle underway. Who the hell does Cornyn and the NRSC think they are to decide what kind of representation conservatives need and deserve in their states?

The Republican Party used to be a party that believed the best decisions in the country were made by individuals, not by Washington elitists. Senator Cornyn has repeatedly betrayed that conservative value and when Republicans fail to take back the US Senate in what SHOULD be a sweeping election, he deserves to be held directly responsible for that failure.

Let Dan Coats earn our support like every other Republican in the race.

UPDATE: This didn’t take long…

Sexting. I never, honestly, thought that such a thing would become an issue worthy of passing state laws over, but apparently it has become enough of a problem that such laws are necessary.

“Sexting” is the phrase given to text and picture messages that contain lewd acts/words and/or nudity. I’ve read other pieces that asked if this was a high-tech version of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours,” and from what I can ascertain that is apparently the case.

The big question, however, is whether a new law regarding these instances will eradicate the problem and whether a law violates individuals’ freedom of speech.

I’m not sure I’m qualified enough to throw my five cents in on that question in particular, but I have to say the idea of children sending nude pictures to other children is alarming. The parents should shoulder a good portion of the blame (whether the parents will admit to their own neglect is another question entirely), but the children who send the messages have to be held accountable and have it explained to them why their actions have consequences.

In this new age of technology, future employers are scanning people’s Facebook and MySpace pages and are looking up their job hopefuls on Google before considering whether to hire them. A Facebook page with pictures of an individual doing a keg stand (or, with the issue of “sexting,” a picture of an individual in the nude) does not put that person to the front of the line for a job, to say the least.

Is it disheartening to see that it may take the passage of a law to make this fact apparent? Of course! Everyone likes to think that people have more common sense than that! Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case, and one has to weigh internally which of the two scenarios he or she favors more: a law against “sexting” which might, technically, have the chance of infringing on a persons rights, or a new flock of job seeking young men and women who can’t find any serious employment because of stupid mistakes made when they were younger whom we, as society, must now pay for in the form of welfare and unemployment benefits.

Neither sounds particularly pleasing, and I’m not the type of person that usually favors societal infrastructure, but when given the choice between two very bitter pills, I find the former a bit more palatable.

Besides the societal effects of not passing legislation regarding this problem, there is the blatantly obvious reason that pops into one’s head: children shouldn’t be sending pictures and messages of a sexual nature anyway!

Written for and originally printed in the NWI Times

I wanted to follow up on what Travis just wrote. I recently got back in touch with a good friend of mine from High School. Since the time I became a Republican to the time I graduated High School and left for the Air Force, this guy was my political sparing partner. He was a left wing liberal and I was a right wing conservative. We drove people absolutely nuts talking about tax policy, social justice, and just even things one wouldn’t consider political issues – we found ways to fight over it.

Well, it turns out he joined the US Navy. When I asked him if they made him a Republican yet, he quickly shot back that he was 20 times more liberal than before and asked, disapprovingly, if I was involved in the Tea Party protests. Now, my response, unfortunately in my opinion, is uncommon among most of my fellow conservatives. I laughed and offered to buy him a drink the next time he’s in the area. I was amused that despite all the years we hadn’t spoken and all the changes our nation has seen over that period of time, we still had the same argumentative friendship.

I can’t begin to tell you the number of times that I’ve seen personal relationships be completely destroyed by politics. To be fair, it happens on both sides. I’ve seen just as many liberals excommunicate conservatives from their lives as conservatives do the same for liberals. Not only do they let politics destroy their friendships, but they also let it destroy their families. That to me is absolutely unfathomable.

I know we like to focus heavily on politics here, but let’s take a look at the people who lived under the dictatorships, monarchies, and oppressive governments in world history. These people had no political freedom and, in many cases, entire generations didn’t even dare to dream of political reform. We have images of these people being absolutely miserable, but that’s not always the case. In fact, billions of people live and have lived politically oppressed, yet happy lives. The truth of the matter is that happiness can be found just about everywhere in the world. That’s because whatever the meaning of life is, it’s more important than politics.

Those of you who know me know that family means virtually everything to me. You may also know that I have a lot of liberals in my family. If I had to choose between politics and them, you would have one less blog to read everyday. Personally, I truly believe true, honest happiness comes from your relationships with other people. Therefore, whatever it is that can come between you and the people who inspire your happiness; be it money, jealousy, politics, etc.; THOSE are the things that need to be excommunicated from your life.

That isn’t to say that nobody should be allowed in politics unless they are resigned to being miserable human being. Rather, I’m telling you never to let politics come between you and your family and friends if they disagree with you. If you’re not able to do that, then I highly recommend finding something else to do with your time that builds upon your personal relationships rather than tears them down. Maybe bowling?

With the latest surge of TEA Party activism combined with an over-all nationwide jerk towards the right, names of TEA Party candidates, third party “conservative” candidates, and candidates that proudly yell from the highest roof top that they are not a part of the “establishment” (whatever the Hell that means) are coming out of the wood work. Lets get this straight right off the bat since I know far too many people don’t read past the first paragraph or two of these posts before writing mindless, driveling remarks of a derogatory nature in the comment section: I’m not saying these qualities make a BAD candidate.

ALL that I am saying is that I certainly hope that people thoroughly vet and examine these candidates before buying every cock and bull thing that pours out of their mouths. It takes a Hell of a lot more than good rhetoric and convenient timing to make person a good conservative candidate. Sure, the rhetoric at this time may make for a very winnable candidate, but that does not mean that the person is right for the job.

Depending on the position that the candidate is running for (lets use, for the sake of this post, a Senate seat) there are a lot questions that should be asked about that individual. What, exactly, is this persons qualifications? Would the seat be better filled by a person that is, on a scale of 1-10 regarding “conservativeness”, a 10 with no experience what-so-ever, or a person that is a 7 but knows the ins and outs of politics and perhaps was a high ranking member of the military? Me, personally? I would easily vote for the latter of these two candidates.

The same, obviously, goes for presidential candidates. Heck, George W. Bush is a prime example of a person who won the primary because he ran a great campaign (with the assistance of Karl Rove) and smeared the opposing candidates so much (with the assistance of the Evangelical community) that he won the primary and went on to beat Gore. Not that I thought that Bush was a bad President. I have my good things to say right along with the bad things (and usually my arguments for Bush are others’ arguments against him, but that’s besides the point) however I feel there were probably others better suited for the position. But, because of timing and good rhetoric (and EXCELLENT campaigning) he became the face of the Republican party for 8 years.

Another thing that I hope everybody thinks about is relativity. No, you don’t have to be Einstein to get this (budda cha!), you only have to have more than two brain cells rubbing together and can’t be a mindless ideologue who screams one word slogans over and over again because you don’t have any substance in your arguments. However, I’ve fallen off of my beaten path for a moment (or rather, down a rabbit hole), my point regarding relativity is whether or not that candidates views are relevant to that position. For example, a person running for city council doesn’t need to give a crap one way or another about the Iraq war. It’s irrelevant. Like wise for abortion, the national debt, etc.

Many are probably thinking: “well, duh!” However, too many are probably either seething because they support a candidate that has the right rhetoric but lacks the qualifications or are wiping the drool from their chin and saying, “Ohhh…I get it!”  

*Sigh*

That’s why I’m here. To put that little touch of common sense, a dash of reality, a pinch of sarcasm, and a whole pound of awesomeness in each and every day of your life.

There is an almost never ending list of reasons to support the Fair Tax, but I’m convinced that this 10 is enough to sway those that are on the fence. This list, which is a variation of a list that pushed me over the edge and convinced me, is found in the book “FairTax: The Truth”, by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder.

1. No Capital Gains Tax. Those the feverishly oppose the Fair Tax will tell you that this just makes the rich richer, and yes, it does. You know who else it makes richer? EVERYBODY ELSE. What this really is is a tax on capitalism. With no capital gains tax, everybody will be free to invest in whatever they choose with out worrying about being double taxed. Having a capital gains tax at all is a determent on real “progress”.

2. No Death Tax. The fact that there is a tax even after you DIE brings new meaning to the phrase “Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes.” The death tax was the most ridiculous idea ever conceived. Why shouldn’t I be able to leave ALL of my wordly possesions to my son and wife? All the death tax is is a cheap trick to bring in some extra revenue, and it is unfair.

3. No Keeping Records of Financial Transactions. Hell, I don’t do that now, and I’m probably screwing myself out of a whollllle lot of money. Those pesky receipts are washed and lost and chewed up (between a dog and a baby, EVERYTHING gets chewed up) and are NEVER around when tax time comes around.

4. No More Filling Out Tax Forms. The amount of time that is spent by every family in the US just to comply with the tax code is ridiculous. The only other option (which I have to admit is what I do) is to forfeit a huge chunk of my tax check in order to have somebody else do my taxes (yes, I’m lazy, leave me alone). Eliminating this waste of time would not only free me up to do other things, but would give me an opportunity to spend my money and stimulate the economy because, let’s face it, we all like to buy useless crap.

5. Will Help Keep US Jobs IN The US. I actually wrote out a huge piece specifically about this, see a couple blog posts down on the INFairTax site to see it.

6. No More Penalties For Messing Up On Your Taxes. No tax forms to fill out, no more bogus mistakes that continually hit your wallet. Let me tell you all a little story about a friend of mine that I work with and the number of times that his home state, the state of Michigan, has contacted him with new “mistakes”, claiming that he owes more money. Between him and his wife, they make around 200 grand. His salary is around 60 grand. ALL of his salary plus a good chunk of his wifes goes towards taxes. Just something to think about.

7. The Government Will No Longer Have Access To Your Financial History. Why should they, after all? What business is it of the governments to have that kind of information that is reserved for my wife and I?

8. No More Class Warfare Used In Politics. In case you haven’t noticed, President Obama used class warfar A LOT during his campaign. He continually talked about raising taxes and having “the rich” pay their “fair share”, and he isn’t the only politician guilty of such rhetoric. If the tax system is broken down and replaced, no longer will the “soak the rich” rhetoric be useable, and it will help to keep me from blowing my brains out while watching political debates.

9. Less Lobbyist Influence. Lobbyists are, in my opinion, one of those necessary evils. I know that this is a hotly debated subject, but it’s just how I feel. For example, I’m a big fan of my gun rights, and so I enjoy the political pull that the NRA has in Congress. Sue me. However, if the Fair Tax were to be enacted, I wouldn’t protest to less lobbyist influence because the lessening of influence would be across the political board.

10. America Will Become The New Tax Haven. There is a very good reason that people have Swiss bank accounts: they HAVE paying unfair taxes. No more unfair taxes, no more foreign tax havens. In fact, it would probably be the exact opposite! The US would become the tax haven!

I could have probably made this list go on…and on…and on…but hey, I write a weekly column here! I have to save something for me to write about!

Cross-posted and originally written for Indiana Fair Tax

Take a look at this video the GOP put together and you’ll see what I mean:

In other words, President Obama has been lying to the American people about the Republican Party trying to cooperate with him to provide honest, fair, and realistic solutions that work. I tip my hate to the GOP for calling the President out on this one. The truth of the matter is that President Obama has been asking for Republicans to be bipartisan when, in fact, it’s the Democrats who aren’t being bipartisan.

That’s fine by me. Their refusal is quickly sinking the President’s agenda and after 2 years with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, all he’s going to have to show for it is record spending, a national debt increased by trillions of Chinese-owned US Dollars, and numerous unpopular bailouts.

Granted, there’s still time for them to write their legacy by going after Toyota… but they really had a golden opportunity and they squandered it… thankfully!

First, let me get this out there: this isn’t a post to rip on Huck and I don’t have any personal feelings towards the man one way or the other. The only thing that I have against him, on a personal level, is the fact that he gave clemency to those inmates that ended up looting, raping, and killing several people (and yes, that does factor into my decision regarding this article). I know, I know, I’ve read the plethora of comments in his defence and why it “wasn’t his fault”. Spare me, please. That isn’t that main point of this series.

That good solid point against him aside, I have other reasons why I can’t throw my support behind him.

First of all, I dislike that fact that he is in favor of trade sanctions. I feel that free trade is the best way to go, and if it were up to me we would have no sanctions on trade period. I’ve went further into this topic in past posts, so I won’t bore you all, but his trade protectionism is a sore point on my list of problems.

I also dislike his recent trip to Israel where he basically told them not to listen to President Obama regarding their construction of buildings on the Gaza strip. I’m not nearly the foreign policy stickler that Kevin is, however I do agree with him on this issue: Huck should not, under any circumstance, be doing things of that nature. However much I may agree or disagree with different things that our President is doing with foreign policy, if I were a former presidential candidate I would NOT bad mouth our nations foreign policy overseas. After all, conservatives wanted to hang that Dixie Chick that bad mouthed us overseas; this incidence and the acceptance of it stings of hypocrisy.

His abismal fundraising numbers are another factor. A realistic political candidate should be able to raise the needed funds, and for one reason or another Huck PAC just can’t do it.

And last, but not least, is the fact that he comes off as such a populist. One wonders how much flip-flopping he would do on the issues. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that part of this stems from the fact that he is a pastor and because of his strong Christian values can empathize like no other. My issue with this is just that, however: will he empathize so much that his mind could easily be changed? I know I advocate on different posts that I’m in favor of working things out and finding middle ground. However finding middle ground on issues and working towards realistic goals is one thing: flip-flopping and not being able to take a solid stance is another.

To be fair, Huckabee at least beats out a majority of the other candidates that will be examined/have been examined. I love his support of the Fair Tax, and although it took some time for me to come around, I think that his TV show could be very helpful for him. However, right now, at this point in time, I can’t throw my endorsement behind him.

A couple of weeks ago, I did a post on Sarah Palin that was a part of my “Who I Won’t Support For President” series, and there was a part that I felt that I was a little vague that I wanted to clarify.

I had mentioned, in the post, that I supported her on the issues (and I still do) which led to some people asking me “Well, if you support her on the issues, why wouldn’t you support her for President?” Well, quite honestly, if she were to win the primary and I had a choice between her and President Obama, I would vote for her. I know this is contradictory to Kevin’s theory, but it’s just what I would do, personally. I just don’t think another 4 years of a Democratic administration is sustainable. Now, would her Presidency be succesful? In some ways. In other ways, she would harm the chances of keeping Congressional majorities and she would probably usher in another Democratic majority for 2016 (or possibly 2014).

Regardless, my clarification: although I support her on the issues and agree with her rhetoric, I’m not convinced that she KNOWS, truly, WHY she should be in support of conservative ideals.

What makes a good President is his ability to bargain for votes in Congress while retaining conservative/liberal ideals. For example, Obama is trying to pass health care legislation (ANY health care legislation) and is willing to sacrifice parts that he feels are important to get it passed. I disagree with the man on almost every aspect of the health care bill, but the fact is his bargaining powers to attract votes is astounding.

I can’t say that I think that Palin would be able to do that. I don’t think that she would be able to get something passed without either A)alienating moderate Democrats or B) sacrificing conservative ideals.

What the basic premise of my point boils down to is her lack of understanding as to why conservative principles are the right way to go. Anybody can say “Yes, I’m a conservative!”, but when asked why, they need to give off the reasons why conservative principles are better than liberal ones. Sure, she can get in front of a podium and energize a crowd, and that’s great! But she has proven that when she is asked the tough questions, one on one, she falters. And that, my friends, is a little clarification when it comes to my support or lack of support for Sarah Palin.

The House of Representatives recently passed a resolution “expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti” by a vote of 411 to 1. That 1, of course, is the biggest fathead in the Republican Party, Representative Ron Paul. Big surprise.

I’m not entirely sure if Ron Paul is representing himself and his conspiracy theory nutjobs around the country or the Texans in his district who voted Republican, but either way the man is a really horrible joke. We used to laugh at Ron Paul, but now we just feel sorry for the Republicans who have to deal with him as their Representative in the House.

At least we were able to laugh with Jim Traficant and his voters. Perhaps the only slightly humorous thing about Ron Paul is that he has his head so far up his rear end that he actually believes the majority of Americans take him seriously. We might laugh again if a Haitian actually punches him in the throat (who am I kidding? We WILL laugh), but until that happens, the charm of the village idiot has worn off and we’re no longer amused by the radical stooge.