I suspect that a few of you may have already read The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder.  It is truly a wonderful little book.  Nice history of the income tax in America, a very clear and precise layout of the "fair tax" which is proposed to replace the income tax, and a good section answering the objections that have been raised against The FairTax.  In case you are not familiar, the basic proposal is to replace all federal income tax and withholding by a national sales tax.  The result would be an expected surge in the economy and a far better and more fair system of taxing the citizens. 

I am doing a 3-part podcast to go through the basics of the book - history, FairTax, answers to objections.  Part 1 is up now.  Why not have a listen?  I highly recommend this book to all Americans.  You can pick it up at most any bookstore or online through Amazon or your favorite online book site.

"The FairTax Book" discussed on the Right Wing Nut Job Podcast

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

Cheney Speaks

Did you happen to catch Vice-President Cheney's speech this morning?  He started out a little wavering, giving in on recent forceful statements about the Democrat Senators who are falsely and despicably attacking the adminstration and accusing them of altering pre-war intelligence.  But then he eloquently discussed the reasons for going to war in Iraq, for fighting the terrorists where we find them, for continuing the struggle against world Islamofascism, and he lambasted the traitors in the Senate for their hideous behavior. 

I was disappointed that he did not specifically name the traitorous Senators, but rather just referred to them as "some senators" and "certain congressmen."  Both the President and the Vice-President have been aggressive in the past week in their statements about the damaging effects of such defamatory statements by Democrats, but today they both seem to be back-pedaling.  What is it about Republicans that makes their spines bend when the going gets tough?

I have more to say on this on the Right Wing Nut Job Podcast

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

It's been almost a year since I raised my little Right Wing head on this journal.  In the past year it seems that podcasts have become all the rage, and not being one to sit on the sidelines I have decided to give it a try.  I put up my first podcast today.  Very short and simple but it will give you a taste of what's to come.  Click the link below to visit the page and listen or download the podcast.  Be sure leave comments on the podcast page and feel free to sign up for the email list there.  I will send out email notifications when a new podcast is published.

RIGHT WING NUT JOB PODCAST

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving weekend (if you're American) or a good weekend anyway.  I am working on a new article and will be back soon.

~~ Right Wing Nut Job ~~

The question of the day in many circles seems to be whether or not the re-election of George W. Bush to the Presidency provides him with a "mandate," and if so, what is the extent of that "mandate?"  The tv pundits have mull it over, the radio talk show hosts argue back and forth, and the partisans on both sides bicker.  Let's start with the definition of mandate:

1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.

So then, does President Bush, in view of his re-election for a second term, enjoy a command or authorization from the electorate?  Hopefully this time (as opposed to 2000) most everyone will agree that Bush did win the election by receiving a majority of the popular vote as well as a majority of electoral college votes.  If we procede with the assumption that a majority of voters expressed their political preferences and approval by voting for President Bush (we have to make that general assumption as well as the assumption that those who voted for Kerry expressed their disapproval of the President's policies), then we must conclude that the majority of voters support his stated positions and his goals for a second term.  So the question becomes, what level of support does it take to constitute a "mandate?"  Is it mere election, or does it require achievement of a specific number or percentage of votes?  And, does a vote imply agreement, acceptance, or approval of ALL stated politicies and goals or do we need to break down the vote issue by issue?

I will answer the last question first.  It is unlikely that many voters casting their ballots for Bush (or for Kerry for that matter) agree with their candidate on every single issue.  Many voters strongly support Bush on the War on Terrorism, but disagree strongly on social issues, fiscal or economic policy.  But when casting a vote for any political candidate, the voter must consider all the issues, weigh the relative importance of each, and make an informed decision based on their own world view.  The voter could not vote for Bush to be the "President for War and World Affairs" and for Kerry to be the "President for Domestic and Social Policy."  However, while any voter can reserve the right to disagree on any particular issue, when they knowingly cast a vote for a candidate who has stated their positions openly, they cannot come back later and say "hey I didn't vote for you to do that."  A vote is a vote.  It's a package deal.  So when I cast my ballot for President Bush, even though I disagree with him very strongly on immigration and border policy, I cannot now claim that my vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that policy.   I knew his policy before I cast my vote.  I could have voted for another candidate, but chose to give my vote to Bush because I believe overall he was the superior candidate.  So, while a vote may not signify agreement or approval of all the candidate's positions, it does constitute acceptance, or at a minimum acquiesance.

Therefore we have a situation where a) President Bush won the election with a majority of votes; and b) the voters knowingly cast their ballots in acceptance of the President's positions.  Does that majority constitute a "mandate," for the President to implementation of his goals or does a bare majority not provide him with sufficient support to constitute a "mandate?"

In this country we do not say that a candidate needs to have 70% of the vote to win office.  Nor 60%.  Not even 50%.  President Clinton was twice elected to the Presidency without ever garnering the support of even 50% of the voters.  The winner is the candidate who can put together a majority of electoral votes, regardless of the number or precentage of popular vote.  That winning candidate receives an "authorization" from the electorate to govern.  The electorate knowingly voted him into office understanding his policies and goals.  By definition, that "authorization" is a "mandate."

Some political commentators will say that a candidate must receive significantly more than 50% of the vote to receive a "mandate."  Typically 60% or more.  Reaganesque landslides for example.  But who is it that is making that arugment?  Typically it is the losing side, or the media commentators with a preference for or vested interest in the losing side.  When the results are switched, those same people will make the opposite argument. 

So, do I believe President Bush has a mandate for his second term?  Absolutely. Does that mean he will have public support for each and every issue he tackles?  Not at all.  But he won the election, he is entitled to procede on the agenda he set forth in his campaign and do so vigorously.  The Democrats will undoubtedly seek to ambush his plans and derail any significant changes in policy.  It's their right to do so, as they have their own constituency to represent.  Ultimately, if President Bush acts in such a way as to alienate his constituency the Republican party will suffer and lose the next election.  That's our system.

~~ Right Wing Nut Job ~~

Two issues to discuss here today:  the goals, strategy and tenor of President Bush's second term, and the future of the Democratic party.  There seems to be a high level of disagreement on both.

Over the past couple days we've seen and heard many people talk of "unity", "uniting a divided country", and "reaching out."  Senator Kerry, in his concession speech, spoke of the need of President Bush and the Democrats to work together and unite to move the country forward.  In his victory speech, President Bush also spoke directly to Democrats and expressing a strong willingness to work together, to be a President of all the people.  We've also seen numerous Democratic party leaders and media talking heads speaking of how President "must" work with the Democrats and how he cannot assume that he has a mandate in moving forward with a conservative agenda.   Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in a veiled threat, said that the President better work with and consult the Democrats because now the Republicans are "accountable."   There has been a great of talk about the country is so divided, with the implication that President Bush and the Republicans somehow need to placate the losers or face some unspoken punishment.  It's all nonsense!

President Bush WON the election!  And he did it with a substantial majority of voters by modern standards.  He is the first President since his father in 1988 to be elected with over 50% of the vote.  Look at a county-by-county map of the red and blue and you'll see that the President won most counties across the country.  Kerry won in the big cities and that's about it.

So where should President Bush go in pushing his agenda in a second term?  Straight for the meat.  He was elected in great part due to the enormous outpouring of Christian convervative voters and he knows it.  These people overwhelming indicated that "moral values" was the primary reason for their vote.  So what does that translate to in terms of legislation and policy?  It means appointing federal judges and Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution and not impose their liberal viewpoints, creating "rights" that do not exist.  It means strongly supporting a federal Defense of Marriage Act that protects the sanctity of one man - one woman marriage, including an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.  It means revising the federal tax code to eliminate the corporate loopholes that allow companies to continue to avoid taxes through overseas operations.  (He should be supporting either a national sales tax or a flat income tax to replace the entire tax code, but that is unlikely to pass congress).  It means fixing the social security system and allowing workers to invest a part of their social security in the private market.  It means continuing the progress made in public schools with the "No Child Left Behind" act.  It means aggressively going after the terrorists across the globe, no matter where they hide and no matter what must be done to eliminate them.  It means doing something about our leaking borders and stopping illegal immigration.  President Bush should waste no time in moving forward with these goals and plans.  Should he consult with Democratic leaders, seeking their ideas and input?  Of course.  They may have something positive to contribute, and President Bush would be wise to seek their counsel.  However, he should not for a minute delay or alter his agenda in order to seek approval of Democrats.  Nor should he weaken his proposals in deals to prevent filibusters.  He won the election because a majority of Americans believe in him and his ideas and proposals.  We want to see them enacted and enforced.  We expect.  We demand it.  The Democrats lost.  They have to accept that reality.

So where should the Democratic party go from here?  If you listen to the "leaders" of the party and their cronies in the mass media, it will be apparent that there is huge disagreement.  Some, like Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and other liberals believe that the party lost because it did not fully embrace the dogma and radicalism of the far left.  If you believe them, Senator Kerry's big mistake was not coming out for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, not standing up strongly for "gay rights" and because he dared to mention that he believes in God.  On the other hand, you have pragmatists like Bob Beckel who see the party moving too far to the left to appeal to the vast center in America's heartland.  To that wing of the party, it's time to bring God back into the discussion and move the party back to the center where it was for decades before the 60's radicals and left-over hippies took over.  I agree with that position.

The Democrats have suffered terribly in the last 3 elections (2000, 2002, 2004).  They've lost 2 presidential elections, lost more seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, lost more state houses, and governorships.  With a few exceptions, conservative sponsored ballot measures are being enacted across the country.  Why?  To boil it down simply - morals issues and appeasement.  The Democrats have abandoned the vast majority of Americans on these issues (for example, the defense of marriage amendments passing in 11 states by huge margins) in favor of the small special interest groups.  It's a losing proposition for them, and if they don't start taking the moral high ground, they will continue to decline as a major force in American politics.  When it comes to foreign policy and protecting our country against terrorism, the American people will not elect someone to high office who even appears to be surrendering sovereignty or appeasing terrorists or their financial partners such as France and China.  Looking at individual candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton is the obvious front-runner for the 2008 Democrat nomination for President.  The nomination is hers if she wants it.  She cannot win.  She is far too liberal and has far too much baggage to be elected.  As Dick Morris said last night, almost every scandal coming out of the Clinton administration had her hands on it.  She'd be destroyed.  Other potential candidates - Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and the other liberals would fare even worse.  The Democrats can no longer take minority voters - hispanics, blacks, and others, for granted.  They are leaning more and more to the Republican party, primarily based on religious and moral issues, and will no longer give their votes unquestioningly to Democrats.  This is true no just in Presidential contests, but statewide and local elections as well.  No, if the Democrats want to remain a viable party they will need a major reformation.  There are many Democrats who loathe what has happened to their party over the past 30 years, and it is now time for them to do something about it.  If not, the party risks becoming irrelevant.

~~ Right Wing Nut Job ~~

There has been a lot of talk lately about the United States, or the international community, taking on Iran in terms of ending Iran's nuclear designs and putting a stop to their widespread support of terrorist activity around the globe.  Yesterday President Bush said "Iran must comply with the demands of the free world and that's where we sit right now ... My attitude is that we've got to keep pressure on the government, and help others keep pressure on the government — so there's going to be universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities."   President Bush has said that the United States will not go it alone, and that "foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain have gone in as a group to send a message on behalf of the free world."

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran is now rebuilding centrifuges and using parts that had been briefly under IAEA seal as part of Iran's private agreement with the Europeans.  In a June statement largely written by France, Britain and Germany condemned Iran, and asked the Islamic nation to stop all enrichment production and to reconsider plans for a heavy-water nuclear reactor.  But the three European powers were surprised days later when Tehran responded by announcing that it would resume building equipment essential for a nuclear weapons program.

There is no question that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal.  That is undisputed.  The extent to which it creates problems for the rest of the world however, is in dispute.  Iran says that it has the right to develop this technology and last week issued a set of "demands" to the European leaders. 

The Iranian demands include:

• a call on the EU Three to back Iran’s insistence that it have access to “advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use” — a term for equipment and know-how with both peaceful and weapons applications;
• a demand that they “remove impediments” — present sanctions — preventing Iran access to such technology;
• an assurance that the European powers stick to the commitments even if faced with “legal (or) political ... limitations” — an apparent allusion to potential Security Council sanctions on Iran;
• agreement by the EU Three to meet Iran’s conventional weapons requirements;
• and a commitment to push “rigorously and systematically” for a non-nuclear Middle East and to “provide security assurances” against a nuclear attack on Iran — both allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a 1981 strike to prevent it from making atomic arms.

The Europeans have not formally responded to these demands, and are supposedly closer now to the US position that Iran should be brought before the UN Security Council on charges of violating the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran will not stop until they have nuclear weapons.  They have been able to use the good-will of the international community to stall for time in order to develop their nuclear program.  Each day, each week that passes brings Iran closer to possession of a deliverable nuclear weapon.  This is the same country that has for years provided direct support for the terrorists in Israel.  Would Iran use such a weapon against Israel?  There is much evidence to tie them into many terrorist attacks against US interests around the globe.  They are providing safe passage and protection for many members of Al Qaeda.  Recent reports indicate that it's possible bin Laden himself is being protected within Iran.

Optimists hope for a revolution within Iran to overthrow the extremist regime now running the country.  There is a growing movement, primarily students and young people, who are working to defeat the Islamic Theocracy, but their attempts to work within the system are thwarted with ruthless action by the clerics.  While it's possible that eventually these democracy-loving revolutionaries might prevail, it could be years before anything like that happens.  Presidential candidate John Kerry said in his party nomination acceptance speech that he would be a strong leader, and that he "if attacked," he would respond with force.  Can the world afford to wait until we're attacked?  Can we sit around as Iran develops nuclear weapons and twiddle our thumbs until they send a nuclear missle streaming down on Israel?  I think not.  There may still be time for diplomacy, but based on Iran's repeated lies, deceptions, and subversive behavior, reality suggests that the time is coming soon when the international community will be forced to deal with this monster in the middle east. 

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

Even though they have no legal authority to effect the process itself, a group of 10 election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have been invited to monitor the election by the State Department.  The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.  I don't know about anyone else, but I find it disgraceful that the US is subjecting itself to outside monitoring of elections.  What's next?  UN run elections in the US?  Full article.

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

John Kerry has repeatedly talked about how, while serving in Vietnnam, he was illegally ordered into Cambodia.  He spoke about it before congress as a witness, he talked about it on the floor of the Senate while complaining about President Reagan's policies in central America.  But according to many of those who served with him and his commanders at the time, Kerry was never in Cambodia and made the whole thing up.

This is another example of how John Kerry has lied to the American people in order to make himself look good.  Thanks to the Drudge Report for the information coming soon in the book Unfit for Command.  Read the full story here.

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

The truth about John Kerry, his past behavior, his poor record in the US Senate, and his hidden agenda for the United States should he be elected President, is coming out.  You won't find the truth by watching the news stories or commentary on the mainstream media, or reading the liberal newspapers.  You have to dig deep for it, using the internet to get to the truth.  Here are a few of the latest revelations:

Vietnam POWs Say Kerry's Words and Deeds Were Used by Guards to Torture Them
John Kerry's bid to become commander in chief of wartime America has opened old wounds among some former Vietnam-era POWs who bristle over Kerry's antiwar activism and atrocity allegations during the Vietnam conflict.

Those activities and statements, pushed out of sight by a campaign that spotlights Kerry's service in Vietnam, were used by the POWs' North Vietnamese captors to sap the morale of prisoners and U.S. troops still in the field in South Vietnam, former POWs told United Press International.  Click title for full story.

Chinese Kerry Out: John Kerry's Private Trade Trip to Beijing
The Kerry campaign currently is struggling with recent photographs of the candidate, one dressed in a "bunny" suit at NASA and another on the bow of a ferry imitating a famous scene from the movie Titanic. However, a new photograph has emerged showing the Massachusetts senator in Beijing, People's Republic of China, working with a company associated with the Chinese military. The Kerry campaign and the Kerry Senate office both are refusing to comment on the Democratic presidential candidate's privately sponsored trade trip to China. Repeated phone calls both to Kerry's campaign headquarters and his Senate office were not returned.  Click title for full story.

Billionaire Dodge: Teresa's Taxes Remain Problem for Democrats
Controlling as much as $3.2 billion, Teresa Heinz Kerry somehow has managed to duck filing her taxes since 2002 and won't release even that as all other recent spouses of presidents and vice presidents have done.  Click title for full story.

Vets say Kerry made up Cambodia story
Over the the past three decades, John Kerry has used a story of being ordered to illegally enter Cambodia during his Vietnam service as proof of war crimes and to argue against U.S. foreign policy, but a new book by Naval colleagues of the Massachusetts senator charges the account is false.

On the floor of the U.S. Senate, March 27, 1986, for example, Kerry attacked President Reagan's actions in Central America, charging they were leading the United States into another Vietnam. He claimed he could recognize the adminstration's errors because he had firsthand knowledge that the Nixon administration lied about American incursions into Cambodia. Click title for full story.

2 TV stations reject vets' ad
Pressure from DNC, Kerry campaign
Under pressure from Democrats, two television stations are reported to have dropped the ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that charges John Kerry has lied about his Vietnam war record.

WBAY in Green Bay, Wisc., refused to run it, according to Human Events. And WTVG in Toledo, Ohio, dropped the ad after the Kerry campaign used a story in the Boston Globe yesterday to convince the station's management it was false, the Drudge Report said.

But Human Events reported all of the other targeted stations in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia plan to run it.  Click title for full story.