Reblicans need to cater to the whole, not groups

Romney lost in 2012 because he didn't take my advice and make a stand for ALL of America.  He didn't use the old method of saying he will make life better for ALL Americans.  He didn't say things like Ronald Reagan did when he said, "I rising ship lifts all boats."  Instead, he catered to groups of people.  That's why he lost.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:  the problem with republicans is they try to be like democrats and cater to groups.  They try to cater to women.  They try to cater to African Americans.  They try cater to Hispanics.  They try to cater to homosexuals.  They cater to people who own businesses. They try to cater to those on welfare.  They try to cater to the rich.  They try to cater to the poor.

Get my drift.  That's not what presidential candidates of the past did; they did not try to separate Americans into little groups; they treated all Americans as one.  We are a united country; a melting pot per se.  We are not a salads, we are a melting pot.  Salad particles aren't untied and strong; amalgamates ARE united and strong.  Salads fall apart and crumple, amalgamates of metal are strong and powerful and last forever.

The reason Romney lost was not because he didn't draw in enough Hispanic voters, because to do so he would have had to receive 73% of the Hisptanic vote, and the highest republicans have ever received was 43% in 2004 when Bush won.  So changing principles to support amnesty for aliens will not help republicans.  (1)

No! What republicans need to do to win in 2016 is to cater to ALL Americans, not groups.

Get it!

Reference:

1. York, Byron, "Winning Hispanic Vote would not be enough for GOP," The Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com, May 2, 2013

Deadbeat dads are destroying the economy

It appears that if we could find a way to improve values in our nation that the economy would improve, and our jail cells and prisons would empty out.  Ann Coulter provides the following information:

• Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother.
  
  
• At least 70 percent of juvenile murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile delinquents were raised by single mothers.
• A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that, absent single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and white crime rates

It's interesting anyway.  The best remedy for Detroit may be simplty to find some way to stop teen pregnancy, and to stop people who aren't married from having sex.  Yet so many people talk no-a-days how it's more important to give out free contraceptives, as opposed to inculcating values and abstinence.    It is what it is.  Another issue here is deadbeat dads and sperm donors.

Who will be better off when (if) America fails?

If America's economy completely collapsed, who do you think would be better off?:

• People who work for a living
• People who collect entitlements for a living

My bet is the people who work for a living will be better off.  I say this because they have skills and a desire to work and when the economy tanks they will be better capable of making a living for themselves and their families.  Those who sit around and suck the juice that the government offers, when that juice is gone, they will have no clue how to survive. 

Now surely there will be exceptions, but if you want to survive in the old world, the way the world used to be, you will have to have to get of your lazy ass and do something to put food on your table.  The people, I think, with the best chance to do this are the people who know how to hunt, know how to cook, know how to crunch numbers, know how to do something. 

There's this old saying that you can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.  It's that simple. 

The Church cannnot change just for you

Many people don't want to be a part of the Catholic Church because it won't modernize.  Every Pope that's ever existed has never given up on any of the same old, conservative Catholic principles.  Popes, unlike some republicans, do not cave to pressure. 

Surely the Church could stand to make some changes, such as I believe the Church should allow women into the papacy. But I also think the Church could do this and not give on principle. 

I do not, however, think the Church itself should change just to keep younger people going to Church.  When younger people age and realize they want to be a part of the Church, the Church will be there, unscaved and unhurt.  When poeple get hurt, the Church never does.  Surely there will be a scandal from time to time, but the Church is what it is. 

Note, that I am all for women in the papacy, but I don't want the Church to cave on principle.  So listen to this passage from a feminist protestor who stood outside the Vatican as the new Pope was introduced:

Yes. I mean, that's my dream as a child, is to see a woman out there on the altar. Um, when it comes to women's issues, when it comes to the sex-abuse crisis, um, when it comes to LGTB issues, reproductive health care, the church really needs to be transparent and open and welcome women's voices into those issues.

She also said:

 I do not practice now. I'm ecumenical, and I'm not alone. Many people I know who were raised Catholic no longer attend Mass and many aren't raising their children Catholic, either, when it's because of the sex scandal, the church's views on women, perhaps it's openness to other ideas like homosexuality. I bet there are a lot of people who might return to the church if it changed. After tonight's celebrations are over, the big question will be whether Pope Francis will be (dramatic pause) that change.

She doesn't just want the Church to ad women, she wants the church to ad women and change principle.  I'm not for that at all.  She wants the Church to change ist's views on LGTB, which, by the way, stands for Lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual.  Other woments issues are reproductive health care, sex abuse, and women's voices. 

She believes the Church is way behind on those things. The church has gotta modernize, otherwise this woman doesn't want anything to do with it -- and that's what she ought to do! If the church is not to her liking, go somewhere else. It's not her job to go in there and make the church fit herself.

She has different political beliefs as the Church, and so she believes the Church should change just to cater to her beliefs.  The church should not have to change because of the political beliefs of some of its members.  If it did that, it would be twisted, inconsistent, and would soon become irrelivent (which may be what some people want.)

But the church is gonna have to do something to get them back. That's not how it works. Not with religion. Not with religion. That's not how this works. That's not how Christianity works.  That's not how Catholism works.  These things cannot change just to cater to a certain audience.  Jesus does not change.  Jesus will never change.  What Jesus stands for will never change.  If you don't accept Jesus, if you don't accpet what he is, then you cannot come into the Church. 

To quote Cardina Dolen, the new archbishob of New York:

Doctrine can't change. So to use the word "doctrinal changes" for a Catholic is almost an oxymoron. There are things that a pope can change that would not be doctrine, but more matters of church discipline. Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine of the church; it's a discipline of the church. Do I expect him to change it? No. Could he change? Yes. Possible, yes. Probable, no. But there's that distinction. Ordination of women, that's a doctrinal thing. That's not discipline.

They don't change the doctrine. That's the key. It's not up to debate. There is no consensus here. The church believes things. If you don't, then don't go. This is what orthodoxy is. And orthodoxy is certainty, certitude.

Yet if you decide to enter, the Church is always here for you.  Jesus will always be here for you, if you so choose to accept him into your life.  But he's not going to change for you, you have to change for the Church. 

Socialism has failed every time it's been tried

A lot of frustrating things happened in  2012 that it appears we have little control over.  I wanted the Tigers to win the world series, and they lost.  I wanted, figured, Romney would beat the socialist, and Romney lost.  It was just one of those years, one disappointment after another. 

Many of my friends are bound and determined that I am being unfair to their president.  They say that I'm being mean and ignorant when I put him down.  I say:

 "I am not putting your president down.  I have never heard one republican say Obama is stupid, because if he were he wouldn't be president.  You can't endure years of riducule from half the world and be stupid.  What I criticize is his socialism.  Socialism has failed every time it's ever been tried.  And, of all the predictions I can make that I know will come true, is that if Obama continues his socialism the way he is, the recession will still be on when he leaves office.  Socialism has never ended a recession.  Socialism has never created jobs.  Socialism does not give people an incentive to save and invest.  Socialism does not put food in peoples tables because socialism has failed every time it's been tried."

It's true.  I've been saying it for years.  I have never seen socialism every succeed.  It failed in Cuba.  It failed in Italy.  It failed in Russia.  It failed France.  It failed California.  It failed Massachusettes.  It is failing New York.  It will fail the United States. 

FDR was a socialist, and he never ended the Great Depression.  The Great Depression never ended until he was out of office.  This is why it is quite certain tha Obama will likewise fail.  He has succeeded in becoming President, but his policies will fail.  I know this because you cannot inspire an economic recovery by raising taxes, pissing off half the nation by forcing healthcare and taking threatening to take away our guns, and inspire people to save and invest.

You cannot get rich people inspired about investing in new business and creating new jobs when they are afraid that there taxes might go up tomorrow.  It simply will not happen.  If there's one prediction that I know will come true, it's that Obama will fail.  I assure you he will.  I will mark this post.  I will republish this when my prediction comes true.  I will gloat. 

No, I do not want America to fail.  Obama has complete and total control of Washington, so if there is ever a chance for liberals to prove that socialilsm works, now is the time.  If after eight years Obama is still blaming Bush, you'll know I was right about one thing. 

Quote Margrette Thatcher:  "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of the other guy's money."

Republican or Democrat: the lines are blurrrred

Glenn Beck makes a really good point in the first chapter of his book "Cowards: What politicians, radicals, and the media refuse to say," when he noted that the 1912 Presidential election was a turning point, when the republicans became democrats and the democrats became progressives.

It was that election where Theodore Roosevelt ran left of Woodrow Wilson, making Wilson look like a conservative.  Yet Wilson turned out to be among the worse Presidents ever in terms of turning our government into a liberal machine.

He notes that a good example of this occurred in the 2008 election when "our choice for president was between a Republican who wanted to spend billions to 'combat' global warming and a Democrat who wanted to spend hundreds of billions to do the same thing.

He notes the following:

Progressives realized long ago that if you rig the game of politics against the small government option, then you end up with a series of candidates who increasingly blur the line between teh parties.  Eventually the parties themselves become meaningless -- empty vessels that simply serve to funnel money and power through the system.  With a few exceptions, our elections are really no longer about whether to grow or cut government's size and power, but rather by how much they should grow.  We debate double-digit increases in social program spending versus single-digit increases.  We debate how many new billion-dollar entitlements we should add instead of whether these programs should even exist in the first place.  We debate whether teachers unions and the U.S. Department of education should have more or less power, rather than whether the federal government should have any role in local education at all.  all of this is part of the con, and it's worked to absolute perfection.  With very few exceptions even the 'boldest' of conservative politicians submit budgets and bills that, a hundred years ago, would've been too far left for even a democratic to propose."

I think that is a bold statement, and one that has had me thinking lately.  It has me thinking now that it might be better with Obama in office than a republican who does the same thing.  This way democrats and progressives and liberals and socialists will be blamed for all the failures, and not republicans.  This way, perhaps some conservative/libertarian will step forward and do what only Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and  Ronald Reagan were able to do during the 20th century -- make our country great through capitalism, limited government, and personal responsibility.

Media wants Pope, republicans to modernize

The media wants the Pope and republicans to modernize.  By modernize they mean they want the Pope and republicans to accept what they, liberals, think is important in the culture, in the pop culture. They want republicans and the Pope to give up on their tradition, their conservative views, and accept liberalism.

They wanted a young Pope so they could, hopefully, get the chages out of the Church they desired.  They wanted support for gay marriage, contraception, and abortion.  They want the Church and republicans to support these things because society has realized that gay people deserve equal marriage rights, and most people, even Catholics, use contraceptives.  They think most people accept abortion as the choice of the woman, so the Catholic Church and republilcans should cave. 

The media believes the republicans are being old, fuddy duddy when it comes to amnesty.  They believe that these people are here, they are being good, productive members of our society, so they should be given the choice to become citizens.  They want republicans to give up on principle. 

Some republilcans have caved. Some republicans have said the party needs to change in many ways, and just accept that the world is changing and there is nothing they can do about it.  Yet I've always been a supporter of the view that principles never change; poeple change, but principles never do.

And for this reason I am happy the Church selected an conservative, old fuddy duddy as Pope.  I also pray the republican party is as rock solid and stubborn as the Catholic Church.