Wednesday, March 26, 2008

The Near Death of Logic, the Clear Dearth of Integrity

One of society’s largest problems is that decisions on all matters, be it education, health, national security or any other issue, are no longer rooted in pure logic with a regard for what’s best for society. No longer do we analyze what’s best overall and then seek to implement sound solutions. Indeed, people who try to are often derided for doing so.

To be sure, those on the wrong side of any issue often quote facts to support their agendas, but only those facts that suit its side. Contrary to what they may claim, such practice is not logic; it’s the antithesis of it. Logic demands rigorous analysis of all relevant facts in order to determine the best course of action. Skewing facts to fit a nonsensical agenda is dishonest and benefits no one.

By contrast, pure logic truly benefits society. Real, results oriented compassion stems from logic. A compassion that demands we accomplish what’s truly best as opposed to offering a self-serving quick fix. Logic demands a high level of mercy and advocacy for the general welfare of the public. But the type of mercy it demands is the true kind, one that discourages dependency and encourages innovation. It discourages hedonism and boredom and supports rehabilitation, invention and productivity. The benefits of the policies that emanate from it are readily felt and will benefit society on all levels, from increased business to private determination and healthier living.

Unbiased logic demands integrity and cannot exist without it. All societal problems commence when one either wholly ignores logic or when one attempts to twist it in support of one’s predetermined goals. Both these factors have hurt society most today.

To correct this we must start on an individual level. To begin with, people need to examine a proper course for their lives and for societal issues without preconceived notions. Understanding that our own lives and those of our fellow human beings have purpose is the only thing that can animate us to do and seek better and to demand honest solutions to all major issues.

For this to happen, those who have not paid attention to matters of faith must begin a rigorous process of examining the cause of the wonderfully complex creation and our own purpose in it. Failure to do so has led to the breakdown of every society that ignored its greater purpose, a failure that generally started on an individual level. Fixing societal problems, most of which stem from such lack of purpose, must also start individually.

A lack of purpose does not only lead to violence, drugs and school shootings. It breeds laziness and self serving corruption among medical research workers and encourages them to seek short fixes instead of really making a difference. The same is true with regard to those are charged with setting educational standards, those who are charged with determining a course of training or rehabilitation of those who need, those who decide socio-economic policy and those who influence the opinions of others on all matters vital to society.

To accomplish anything meaningful, all who work in these areas must do so with allegiance to what is best for society. Yet few are doing this and the root cause is a failure to realize one’s vital place in benefiting society and one’s responsibility to do so, a charge received from our Creator.

Contrary to popular clichés, pure logic demands faith. As we discussed recently in another column, a complex world with billions of species, each perfectly containing a male and female type to allow for the continued existence of each, a world in which if one chemical such as oxygen were missing, life would be impossible even with the complex organic structure that is the human body and a world in which all major life would have existed mere days were all this in place except for sustenance can no more come to being in and of itself than an entire set of encyclopedias can be formed from a random ink spill.

The above example still fails to take into account that an encyclopedia set being randomly formed wouldn’t involve one iota of the myriads of simultaneous actions necessary for any life to exist, much less an entire planet. And all this is without so much as broaching the complex emotional, intellectual and spiritual makeup of a person. Delve into this further and examine even daily goings on and especially the events in every person’s life and the conclusion is a clear one.

As such, contrary to the claims of those who cannot back up their assertions, yet who demand our allegiance because they call themselves “scientists” even while refusing to examine any aspect of an issue that does not fall into their preconceived, unproven and oft times illogical notions (which an increasing number of scientists disagree with as well), faith and logic are anything but mutually exclusive. In fact, logic demands faith. And only such recognition of the fact that each of us were put on this world for a purpose can animate us to do what’s right, to recognize the importance of others.

While most scientists and a number of formerly prominent atheists have now rejected such a point of view as wholly illogical, far fewer have made the important connection between their newly discovered faith and action. But recognizing our place in the world is of utmost importance, as unbiased logical analysis leads us to recognize the value of human life and the importance of the unique roles that each of us have been created for. True examination leads us to realize that each person has a unique purpose beyond self-absorbed pleasure seeking that is only detrimental in the long run.

Such a realization shows us that we have a charge to keep; to propose and to implement solutions that truly benefit society, not to satisfy ourselves with easy answers. And this is true when working in all fields that deal with society and encompasses all major issues.

Seeking to truly benefit society does not hinder us. It strengthens us and allows us to accomplish more. This is true in our own lives and even more so in the fields of business, societal activity, medical research and in general formation of policy. True purpose and meaning animates each of these fields and leads them to new heights.

So given all that, why wait? The components necessary for life must be maintained every second to continue (though that’s another discussion) and given that we’re here, right now, for the purpose of doing something, let’s do it.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Revolutionizing Small Business in North America - The Association of Entrepreneurs

Small businesses are the backbone of America’s economy. This is especially true in South Florida, which according to last year’s study is one of the top five small business markets in the nation.
So it seems natural that one of the most innovative organizations dedicated to the needs of small business owners throughout North America would originate in South Florida. What is anything but natural is the scope and depth that this organization, the Association of Entrepreneurs, seeks to provide.

Marc Gilenson, founding President of the Association, is the author of “The Entrepreneurial Way, Strategies and Tactics for Entrepreneurs.” He is also the Managing Partner of The Sales & Management Group, a consulting firm that has implemented sales, marketing and organizational strategies for some of America’s largest companies as well as for hundreds of startup companies. His passion has always been to help small businesses. A passion which led him to launch the Association, a non-profit organization designed to give local entrepreneurs the tools to success.

Gilenson doesn’t just teach entrepreneurs how to grow their businesses. He shows them techniques and tools that he has used to train senior executives of Fortune 500 companies for the past 25 years. He sees this service as benefiting both the entrepreneur and Corporate America, as the latter profits from the strong economy that entrepreneurs are the engines of.

Association of Entrepreneur members benefit from a minimum of three education packed seminars each month. These are quality seminars, the goal being to train them how to think like large corporations and to run their businesses accordingly. Members also receive ongoing guidance and continuous review of every aspect of their business. Additionally, the Association provides business owners an opportunity to network amongst themselves, without the involvement of outside salesmen, and to learn and share their own business experience with other members.

In the coming months the Association plans on providing business grants to deserving entrepreneurs. Benefiting the community at large, it has already entered into a contract with one chapter of the Salvation Army to train their unemployed clients in the field of sales and to help find them jobs.

The need for this organization is especially vital in today’s climate. Small businesses are the first and the hardest hit during a recession or a downturn. They are also least able to survive tough times without a plan, cash reserves, or concrete help and guidance that produce results. The Association of Entrepreneurs is designed to tackle these issues head on, its first seminars being dedicated to learning how to obtain business capital and effective marketing solutions.

Founding members are eager to recommend the Association. Marc Robin, President of New Look Marketing, a well known graphic designer and marketing expert says, “The Association is one of a kind. The time and dedication Gilenson gives and the tools he uses are profound. Every member benefits from his concrete advice and in-depth analysis, not to mention the wide array of needed and exciting educational seminars already lined up.”

A similar reaction is shared by Sandy Gans, President of SandyToes Creative, one of South Florida’s fastest growing creative firms, who describes the need for the Association as follows, “There as so many groups and organizations doing the same old thing. The Association is going to rock the entrepreneurial world by focusing on small, local entrepreneurs with networking, education and grants. It provides the services that small businesses need to succeed.”

Interested entrepreneurs who reside in South Florida are encouraged to attend the Association’s kick off breakfast meeting on Fri. Mar. 28 at 7:15 am at the Tower Club. 100 SE 3rd Ave in downtown Fort Lauderdale. Businesses in other cities that would like to benefit from the services of this unique organization should contact the Association at (954) 752-3930 or email The Association plans on opening several chapters nationwide and can provide remote assistance to all interested parties.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

The Root Cause of Why Some Liberals Are Unresponsive to Logic and Debate

Before I begin this column please allow me to make clear that there are many people on the left who are open to discussion and to reexamining their views based on facts and analysis. Many well meaning and thoughtful people, whose main interests generally lie outside of the field of politics and who are therefore less likely to analyze political issues beyond what they hear and see, are influenced by a media that plays up every Republican scandal while excusing every Democratic one. The media they rely on is one that never airs the reasons for Republican policies, yet spends all day spouting Democratic talking points, and they are influenced by it. Other, more thoughtful, liberals have relied on professors or supposedly learned authors who see the world only through the narrow prism of liberal thought, but whose arguments, on the surface, are persuasive nonetheless. Many such people are often open to other possibilities that may have never been correctly presented to them. This column is not directed at such liberals.

The purpose of this column is to understand those liberals who cannot be reasoned with, the ones who wholly dispense of facts and logic, even when they’ve previously demanded it, and who would most likely discount the fact that the sky is blue, were it a part of a conservative platform. Understanding the reason for this absurd, yet all too common behavior, is the only way to truly know how to effectively dialogue with them.

Conservatives have long been amazed by liberals who ask, indeed demand, of every conservative they meet to give reasons for each and every of their views, yet when faced with logical answers that astound them, either retort with some jibberish that bears no relevance to the issue being discussed, make some snide remark, or immediately seek to change the subject that they themselves so insistently started.

In these situations the conservative ends up somewhat taken aback. He or she wants to tell the liberal counterpart: “You demanded logic and I gave it to you. It’s clear that you have nothing to retort, yet you continue to be adamant not only that you’re right and that I’m wrong, but that I’m the closed-minded one, even though I’m the only one discussing facts.” Similarly, conservatives marvel at how the same liberals who seemingly decry bigotry will utter such sordid and untrue blanket statements about “the religious right.” Another baffling matter is how almost all liberals in this category start fuming whenever the word “Bush” is mentioned, yet can speak civilly and at length (if not intelligently) about Bin Laden. Their refusal to analyze scientific data while discussing “science” is also quite puzzling and we can go on and on.

Like many others, I’m tempted to say “Who cares?” and give up on speaking about these issues with those who refuse to discuss the very facts that they themselves had demanded moments earlier, yet who somehow have the boldness to say that you’re the one being obstinate . Yet we must not give up. To do so is to end all dialogue, give up hope of ever getting through to them on any issue, widen the already enormous divide and allow foolishness and absence of fact to promulgate.


The reason why so many (though again, not all) liberals act this way is remarkably simple. In fact, for all those who’ve become so baffled by their seemingly inexplicable conduct, you may wonder how it has escaped you all these years (probably because it’s so easy to get so frustrated by their conduct that noticing the reason behind it becomes a matter not worth considering). The answer is bigotry. They’re prejudiced. Am I being ridiculous? Is liberalism the new bigotry? No, and yes!

Think about it. What would cause a person to naturally and seamlessly find fault in everyone of a certain creed? What would cause someone to discount all facts and logic with a defensively offered snide remark? What would cause them to harp on every bad thing one member of the creed said or did and to ignore worse actions committed by the other side? What would cause someone to parrot the most illogical arguments of one side and to accept their talking points as gospel while reflexively seeking to attack even the most logically offered analysis of the other? Finally, what would cause someone to view everyone and everything belonging to one side as good and everything having to do with the other as bad? Deep seated bigotry, that’s what.

A bigot seeks any way to back up his or her illogical assertions and does so reflexively and with strong emotion. At times, their whole being may seem to be caught up in defending their illogical creed. The kind of liberalism that gives way to such a reaction is no different.

For example, when bigotry is directed against a certain race, say against red freckled green people (an example given so that only a few Berkeley professors will take offense), the bigot will adamantly point out everything bad that anyone of this race has ever done. By contrast, everyone else is good. When one of them causes trouble, or gets into it, the bigot will yell “see how bad these people are” with a weighty air of “I told you so.” Other members of the race or creed in question, who’ve done nothing, will be viewed as suspicious at best. “He can’t be as good as they say. His father was a red freckled green person, after all.” All non-emerald people, by contrast, are viewed as “nice,” “good” or in this case, at least less jaded. (Kind of reminds you of those liberals talking about “those terrible conservatives,” doesn’t it? “How good can he be? He is a Republican after all.” Indeed….)

This is also the reason that such liberals harp on everything bad that a Republican or a conservative has ever done, while making excuses for similar or worse acts committed by members of their creed. This is similar to racists pointing out the wrongdoings of a one member of the race or creed that’s the object of their scorn. It resembles a bigot who looks to find fault in someone they’d otherwise like or agree with but who is of the “wrong” race or creed. Wouldn’t anything that person says or does become the object of scorn? Wouldn’t all their deeds be seen as sinister, albeit for no apparent reason? Would the preposterousness of it all still not be enough to stop the bigot from making up the most fantastic scenarios as to why this seemingly good person who happens to be green is anything but good? Would anything stop other bigots from believing the fancy tales that would naturally be made up about our emerald colored friend?

Well, my conservative friends who’ve sparred too much with the wrong kind of liberal, is any of this sounding familiar?!


Here, in a nutshell, is the biased liberal mindset. Let us presuppose that Republicans and other conservatives are evil, much as any other bigot does against the race/creed of choice. When we meet a conservative who does not seem to fit the mold, it must be that we are being deceived. When we know this not to be the case, it must then be that he or she is naïve (the idea of someone who refuses to discuss facts calling the only person who does “naïve” is a stretch, but such stretches of logic are all too common among bigots).

Likewise, when a conservative proposes a position, it must be evil, or at best, naïve. If we cannot find fault in it, we will try until we uncover the “real truth,” just as bigots must somehow find fault in the object of their bigotry. And what if you are finally able to convince them with regard to a specific policy or candidate? They’ll chalk it up to the policy or candidate in question being the exception, just as a bigot generally makes individual exceptions to the race or creed that is the subject of his ire.


But what makes the bigotry of this group of liberals so entrenched? There are three parts to this answer. The first reason is that their whole existence has been a battle cry against what they considered “old” and for anything and everything they consider to be “new.” In this they differ from all liberals before the 1960s, who sought fairness and change, while having the intelligence not to blanketly turn their backs on thousands of years of collective wisdom. In fact, much of the “new” that post-1965 liberals are fighting for is nothing new at all, and is a revisit to the hedonistic tendencies of Ancient Rome and Greece. To be sure, other aspects of their struggle have been noble, but in all of those aspects they have not been alone. At present, they have long abandoned real issues of societal change, in which they could genuinely make a positive difference, and instead harp on a few counterproductive issues. Mostly, they busy themselves with opposing any conservative, as they seek new ways to malign and tarnish their opposition. A lot of what they oppose and brand as offensive are policies that they themselves supported and would still support were it a liberal who was proposing them. All in all, they bear no resemblance to their pre-1965 namesakes. Those liberals are in fact today’s conservatives.

The second reason for the level of entrenched bigotry we conservatives have come to face is the fact that liberalism espouses a feel good, do it now philosophy. This too is nothing new and is more of the same ancient, selfish hedonism. However, it’s appealing on face value and liberals will do anything to defend it. Sure, it leads only to the breakdown of society, out of control kids, divorce and single parent households, and let’s not forget outrageous school and workplace violence, but at the spur of the moment such hedonism seems attractive. And with their permissive lifestyle on the line, liberals will defend it with vigilance, even though giving it up will be more fulfilling for themselves and for society as a whole.

The third reason is simple. Modern liberalism has acquired a modus operandi whereby it supports a controversial issue in small, incremental measures, as it works toward a much more radical goal. They suspect conservatives of doing the same. They are also masters at twisting the motives of their opponents to appear sinister and come to believe same, while also expecting their opponents to react in similar fashion. This is why they can shout and curse at conservatives all day but take offense when a conservative so much as calls them to task for their actions. They’re afraid of more, because if it were them making these bland statements that point out an opponent’s fallacies, it wouldn’t end there and a more vicious attack would be coming (that and the fact that they’re bigots and feel entitled to say anything and everything against conservatives, while taking offense when a conservatives dares to give them back a hundredth of what they routinely dish out). Now, again, yes, there are conservatives who attack in similar fashion, but unlike those on the left, they are marginalized. And again, the above is not true of all liberals, but it is true of most who are entrenched.

So, in short, modern liberalism is the new prejudice of choice. When someone says “Who cares what they think? They’re just a… (pick your race or creed of choice)” they’re rightly derided. But no one balks when the same person says “Who cares what he/she thinks? He/she’s a Republican!” Bigot, thy name is liberal.

And herein lies the reason that we can throw logic and facts at them all day and generally get nowhere. This also answers why liberals, trained to be devoted wholeheartedly to whatever is “new” and to oppose all that is “old” will so readily switch positions on any given issue so long as the proponents of the new position are fellow liberals. Their allegiance to the “new” trumps all.


It is for this reason that radical liberals will believe in “science” without examining scientific fact. After all, the “scientist” of the past century was the one who taught them to abandon logic. First it was the “scientist” who came up with atheism, a belief that millions of species, each miraculously possessing a male and female type to ensure propagation and a world with all the right components for life, just happened to appear out of thin air. When faced with the fact that were all aspects of the world to have miraculously joined forces, leaving out just one component in a million, that being oxygen, life would have never taken root. And were a world, even one with oxygen, to have been created without food, life would have lasted a few days and then died out. The miraculous ability to adapt did not come from nowhere and the world wasn’t an accident any more than the pages of an encyclopedia set can be formed from a random ink spill (except that a randomly formed encyclopedia set would only take hundreds of thousands of simultaneous coincidences, while the creation of just this planet alone would take many billions, and of a much higher quality).

But the “scientist” justified hedonism. And while most liberal scientists have given up on atheism as being an illogical pipe dream, they are still in the business of justifying and encouraging a self-destructive, but momentarily feel-good hedonistic lifestyle by way of the narrow prism with which they view all fact. They do so largely by chalking up all derogatory behaviors to human nature, propagating evolution, a theory that has more holes in it than most theories allow and is challenged by numerous scientists, yet is accepted as liberal gospel. Those who question it are maligned for doing so, just as Galileo was maligned for his questioning of the state sanctioned “science” of his time. But the main point is that the “scientist,” meaning the liberal scientist, is viewed as supreme. He or she does not have to give proofs and those who dare to challenge the scientist’s assertions are heretics.

And now you know why so many liberals are closed to discussion on global warming, even after being shown that global temperatures have cooled steadily since 1998 and that while one ice cap is melting, three or four are solidifying. We are challenging the great “scientists,” in whom liberals have unwavering faith (until one of them becomes a conservative, that is).


By understanding that the root causes of the radical liberal’s predictable game playing while debating facts and their irresponsiveness to same are bigotry and a strong desire to hold onto their self-destructive hedonist lifestyle, we can know how to deal with these issue.

1) Don’t take it personally. Remember that their rantings are those of a bigot, and one who thinks that he or she has a lot on the line.

2) Don’t become frustrated. The radical liberal isn’t trying to discuss facts or to discover another viewpoint. They’re just trying to convince you of their “superior” ways because as long as you don’t subscribe to them, they’re reminded of the doubts they have in their own philosophy.

3) Keep the dialogue going. Just as racists can see the error of their ways over time, the radical liberal can become receptive to the truth, but it takes a while. In the meantime, you’ll reach those who are open to logic and to discussion.

4) When debating specific issues, challenge the reason for their refusal to accept facts with a simple statement.

If prior to debating them, say as follows:“I’d love to discuss this with you. But first, please understand and bear in mind that decisions on an issue as important as (the environment, the economy, tax policy, war and peace, educational proposals etc.) must be dealt with based on facts and logic, that only unbiased and thorough analysis of facts can lead us to a right decision and to a better society. With that in mind, I am willing to explore this issue.”

After they then renege on their commitment (as will happen 90% of the time), or if you’ve already delved head on into a debate and they keep playing the tricks that radical liberals so uniformly do play, simply state:

“This issue (the economy, etc.) is too important to decide other than based on facts. I’ve presented mine and you don’t seem to have much to counter. When you’re ready to commit to deciding these important issues based on facts and reasoning, I’ll be happy to reexamine this with you. Until then I just don’t see the point so we may as well agree to disagree.”

Sometimes this will work. Other times they’ll run off fuming mad (as bigots do when challenged and dumbfounded, yet still emotionally attached to their issue). But at least dialogue becomes possible and you leave them with something to think about. It’s the only way to eventually get through.

Feel free to forward this column to your radically liberal or unwavering friends. Some will be receptive. Most will be indignant and try to poke holes in it, while wholly ignoring the substance of the column. That too will prove the point, and hopefully give them something to think about.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Conservative High School Student Launches National Initiative To Get Students To Vote And Stay Informed

It’s unfortunate that young Americans, ages 18-29, are the least likely to vote, despite the fact that their lives are effected the longest by the decisions of elected officials. One 18 year old is trying to change that by encouraging students to find their voices in a way that appeals to them and that works.

It all began when Michael Gershoni, a high school senior at David Posnack High School in Plantation, FL, noticed that less than a handful of students in his class were registered to vote. To encourage his peers to get involved and stay informed, the teen decided to launch a web site The site offers step by step directions to register in each of the 50 states and has received widespread praise from numerous educators and public officials.

I had the pleasure of volunteering with Gershoni on the John McCain primary campaign. He’s smart and articulate and is passionate about political issues. Not surprisingly, this makes him a passionate conservative Republican and one who can do much to affect the world for the better.

Gershoni also wants other students to be informed. He doesn’t seek to force them toward his view. He simply seeks to educate and to inspire his peers to become passionate in their informed beliefs. While it’s true that informed people, who actually analyze issues, will generally become conservative, Gershoni says that it is not his goal to lead them there, rather to get them to examine the issues on any level.

“To get students involved, we need for them to be informed,” says Gershoni. “No one is going to vote if they don’t understand the issues.” The site shows students how issues affect their lives and allows them to find out which candidate is most in line with their views.

The website currently offers primary info, information on the major political parties, bios of each of the candidates and links to volunteer for each of the campaigns. Additionally, it hosts a Student Vote Initiative Program in which students motivate their peers to register on the site, often earning community service hours for their participation.

The initiative has earned the praise of Lt. Col. Allen West, a candidate for US Congress (FL-22) and former high school teacher in Deerfield Beach. “We need to bring students into the political process. Michael’s site shows students how their votes really do affect their lives. He has no agenda and is careful to feature candidates of both parties in an informative manner that relates to students and to their concerns. His ingenuity is rare and should be admired.”

Gershoni is described by his classmates as a natural leader. His persuasiveness is what brought over 90% of his classmates over the age of 18 to register to vote for the first time. Gershoni isn’t stopping there. His website has received over 45,000 hits over the last two months. New students are logging on every day to check out the platforms of the various candidates and are registering to vote.

“We are very pleased with the results,” says Gershoni, “but honestly, there’s so much more to do. It’s my goal to have 10,000 students registered through the site before the general election.” And if you ask his classmates, Gershoni just might pull it off.

We need more Michael Gershonis and this story should inspire people of all ages to influence others to be informed and to become politically active. Society will be better off for it. To find out more about the site, the candidates or to register to vote, visit

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Lifting Up the House – If There’s One Race Republicans That Should Focus On, It’s This One

The year 2008 is gearing up to be better for Republicans than expected. A few months ago, a Rasmussen poll showed Republican Party affiliation at its highest level in two and a half years. In state to state matchups, our presidential candidate does much better than anyone had expected just a few short months ago. And while it’s highly improbable that Republicans will regain the Senate (though not impossible, if Reid, Pelosi and a Democratic presidential nominee who’s naive on national security combine to turn voters away from Democrats in general), regaining the House is a better possibility.

To be sure, even House Republicans aren’t exactly favored to regain control. In fact, if we do regain the House much will have to do with the unpopular positions of the Democratic Congress and objection to the laissez-faire national security policies of the party’s nominee (as well as disdain for the overall inaction of the Pelosi led House). But we are definitely poised to pick up a number of seats, something that would put us in a position to retake majority control sooner rather than later, within the next few cycles.

For Republicans to regain the House as soon as possible, it’s crucial that we win as many winnable House seats as possible this time around. For this reason it is critical that we pinpoint the seats we can best pick up and concentrate on them, meaning that Republicans nationwide, especially those living in non-swing congressional districts (as well as Republicans abroad), should support candidates outside of their districts who are in real battles. It is especially important that we concentrate on those seats this year, as the easiest time to beat any incumbent is after the first term. In short, if we want to regain the House anytime soon, we need to regain as many Republican seats as possible in 2008.

One crucial race is FL-22, the former seat of Rep. E. Clay Shaw. During the Democratic Tsunami of 2006, Democrat Ron Klein managed to barely eek out a win with 51% of the vote. Wining back the seat is crucial to eventually retaking Congress and this year’s the best and easiest year to do it.

Aside from the fact that FL-22 is a critical swing race, winning it back this year comes with another significant advantage. Republicans have fielded a war hero who’s articulate and who connects instantly with the public in a manner that’s rarely seen. Lt. Col. Allen West is a stellar, honest and ethical public servant who can help the Republican cause on a national level.

I recently had the opportunity to hear Lt. Col. West speak at several events. The reaction of audiences was the same each time. Staunch Republicans wanted to know why he’s not on the Sunday shows countering Democratic attacks. After one event a friend of mine who had been undecided told me “I may not be a Republican, but this man knows what he’s talking about. I’m supporting him.” Judging by the general atmosphere, that’s the feeling most undecideds have after hearing Allen West.

He’s articulate. His points are rooted in sound logic, that he conveys concisely and effectively. He has the PR skills that are missing in so many of our national leaders. After watching Republicans get hammered for years for being unable to defend sound policy and right decisions against skewed Democratic attacks because no one in the GOP could formulate a message that resonates, hearing Allen West is refreshing. I’m not sure if he got this ability after leaving the army, when he decided to dedicate himself to teaching high school students, incidentally motivating far more of them to go on to college or military service than any other teacher at his school (a high school I know well and have twice lectured at). It could be that he gets this ability naturally. But whatever the case, Allen West can deliver home the message and electing him ensures that his abilities are put to use on behalf of the GOP nationwide.

Perhaps his ability to communicate so effectively comes from his personal life story. After a twenty year career as an army officer, West took an immense risk in order to save the lives of the men in his unit. Terrorists had been shooting at his men for weeks and immediately prior to each shooting, a certain Iraqi police officer was seen nearby, suspiciously dealing with unknown men who shouldn’t have been let close to the US base. Members of West’s unit interrogated the Iraqi officer, who clammed up and refused to speak. At this point Col. West, knowing that other attacks were forthcoming, tried speaking with the officer himself. When that didn’t work he took out a gun, placed it above the conspirator’s head, fired it and lo and behold, he divulged where the attacks were coming from. After that the attacks stopped.

This didn’t stop the Iraqi officer/collaborator from complaining to the US Army that the firing of a gun was excessive, largely in order to deflect attention from his role in the attacks. And in one of the worst cases of politically correct persecutions, Col. West faced court martial over his actions. The army knew that the allegation was ridiculous, but felt a need to go through with a trial in an over the top attempt to show the Iraqi government that they are taking every precaution. Still, since they knew he was innocent, they offered West a chance to retire weeks short of his 20 year mark, when he’d otherwise become pensionable. West refused.

The outcry against the absurdity of this case was fast, furious and fierce. Conservative and liberal leaders alike decried the idea of putting Col. West through such an ordeal for simply having saved the lives of his unit, even if they knew that in the end the flimsy complaint would not stand. The army quickly backed down, but not without causing stress and harm to Allen West. Still, when asked if he’d do it again, West unequivocally replies in a humble but certain manner “yes, those men were my family.” It’s this level of service and amount of sincerity that accounts for his ability to project and communicate in ways that others can’t. It should also be noted that Col. West would be the first African-American Republican congressman since J.C. Watts.

In short, FL-22 has national ramifications. If we win it, Republicans will have a leader in Congress who will be unique among his peers. He’ll also be a PR powerhouse for Republicans nationwide. And that’s in addition to the strategic need to regain the district as part of any plan to eventually retaking the House.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Environmentalists Should Stick to Facts and Stop Damaging the Environment

On Election Day 2004, I had the pleasure of discussing the day’s events with a young and forthright Kerry supporter. I mean this with sincerity. Too many consider politics a sport of bickering, most recently exemplified by the two stabbing fights between Obama and Clinton supporters. Such people deprive themselves of the opportunity to share ideas and to positively influence others. And while there’s precious little you can do to stop a shrieking, hollering, insane lunatic who’s screaming at you because you disagree over the color of George Washington’s white horse, exchanging viewpoints with a sensible person who has a different view, even if it’s due to them being unaware of certain facts, can be an enjoyable and rewarding experience, whether it be a thought provoking one, or simply a teaching one.

The young man in question wanted to discuss any and every issue. He challenged me to pick any issue and debate whether the candidate I supported, George W. Bush, had a better position on it than the candidate of his choice, Senator Kerry. I picked the economy and terrorism, but before I could get anything out of my mouth he said “let’s start with the environment.” (His jumping the gun and rescinding the offer that I choose the topic was the only negative part of the conversation. Well, that and his campaign buddies cutting the conversation short, but those were minor issues and were to be expected. After all, he was a Kerry supporter J ).

My response to him was that President Bush was better on this issue as well, for two reasons. One, Kerry’s proposals called for heavy regulation and large scale economic interference. They would turn the public off of anything environmental for good, even needed measures like reforestation and inner city pollution/smog control. The second reason was a simpler one. Namely, that detonated nukes are bad for the environment too. (I know, there is no terrorist threat anywhere. We don’t need to protect ourselves. “Republicans are our only enemies.” But reality begs to differ).

The second reason speaks for itself. However, the first reason needs further examination as the problem that it points to goes well beyond John Kerry. It goes to the profound damage that environmentalist groups are doing and have done to a cause they purport to uphold so vociferously. Simply put, no one is doing as much damage to the environment as the environmentalists themselves.

This is no laughing matter. Conservatives and liberals agree on the need for clean air, healthy living and protection of our natural resources. Where many part ways is in strict adherence to fact. Conservatives demand nothing less, and sadly, the environmental movement has a terrible track record in this regard. In fact, due to the exaggerations and overbearing practices on the part of environmentalist leaders, the entire cause of environmentalism is about to be turned into a laughingstock.

I’m not just referring to activists’ always changing/never stopping thermostat, the one that goes from global warming to global cooling, back to global warming and so on every thirty years. That, in and of itself, wouldn’t be enough to brand the entire movement with the “Sheep Activists Who Cried Wolf” label. Not even their latest attempt to change the public conversation from global “warming,” to “something’s going on with the weather,” would so disgrace their entire movement, even though their argument is an effective admission that the warming theory they’ve spouted for decades as fact, while branding all who dared to question as imbeciles or worse, was in error.

But when they silence all critics, refusing to report any of over a hundred studies challenging their myths, when they refuse to report that while one Arctic icecap is melting, three or four are solidifying, they lose credibility. They lose even more when they ignore a prominent study that shows a global cooling trend that started in 1998 (see recording of official global temperatures by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia), caused by natural weather cycles. Their loss is sealed when they promote films like An Inconvenient Truth as unvarnished and indisputable fact, despite it being the subject of a British court order mandating a teacher’s disclaimer prior to all classroom viewings that points out 9 scientific inaccuracies in the film. Moreover, when prominent members of the environmental movement, such as RFK Jr. compare those who challenge their unsubstantiated version of environmental pseudo-science to fascists, you know that you’re smelling what’s left of the remains of an organically decomposing rat.

It doesn’t stop there. To paraphrase one of the two Democratic candidates for president who are currently ripping each other apart limb by limb, “we’re just getting started.” Beyond the lack of real scientific interest and the vilification of all who dare to examine facts, beyond the careless rhetoric of David Suzuki, other “scientists” and their supporters, the environmental movement is doing irreparable damage to itself and to its cause.

That’s what happens when environmentalists mandate the replacement of Edison’s incandescent light bulb with a tiresome contraption that if broken releases a toxic amount of mercury in your home. And that’s leaving out the fact that prolonged exposure to fluorescent light bulbs have in some cases been shown to affect the nervous system (I’d joke that this may be the reason for the jeering attitude of the environmental leaders, except this is no laughing matter). When environmentalists ban clearing of underbrush in California, leading to uncontrollable forest fires near densely populated areas, when they ban prudent tree cutting in other states that would serve to prevent forest fires and when they stop any oil refinery from being built in North America for 30 years, leading to our continent to be the only one on the globe not producing more oil since 2002 (save Antarctica), they damage their movement irreparably. And it’s a shame, because clean air, smog reduction and reforestation are all worthy and needed projects. Yet they will all fall victim to the fanatics who cried “warmth.”

So why do they do this? Why would seemingly passionate and concerned environmentalists risk alienating the public from their cause? Why can’t they focus on those environmental issues we can all agree upon? The answer lies in what the real goal of their leaders is, and surprisingly, or perhaps not, it has little to do with the environment.

Now, before I continue, let me state clearly that I’m not referring to grassroots activists or other environmental believers. They’ve been sold a story and they sincerely believe that they’re doing the right thing. I would only ask of them that they carefully examine the facts and then form a position on the issue. But when I say that there is an ulterior agenda, I’m referring solely to the movement’s leaders.

The true agenda of environmental leaders can be seen by their actions. Take Canada for example, a country in which environmentalists have greater support than almost any other. A leading environmentalist non-profit hosted a derogatory picture of the country’s Conservative Prime Minister on its website while boosting the Liberal leader on the same page. And this would make sense, albeit contrary to the mission of a non-profit, which must stay apolitical, had the Conservatives opposed environmental legislation. But they didn’t. In fact, they enacted tougher environmental standards than their Liberal predecessors, who signed the Kyoto treaty but then proceeded to ignore every single target. Yet for some reason almost all environmental groups in Canada saw fit to favor the empty platitudes of the Liberals over the concrete and more far reaching action of the Conservatives.

More telling still is that Canada’s environmentalist leaders now admit that the political leader who did the most for their supposed cause was Brian Mulroney, the Conservative Prime Minister of the country during the 1980s and early 90s. They say this now, when saying so is irrelevant. Back when it counted they fought him, backing his less committed but more liberal opponents. This is all too similar to what environmentalists did here in the US with Kyoto. When President Clinton wanted to sign the treaty, the Senate voted it down unanimously. Not a single Democrat voted to uphold it (and it wouldn’t be surprising if this was done partly at Clinton’s request, so that he could claim to support the treaty abroad without actually letting the disaster pass at home). Yet as soon as President Bush took office, almost all Democrats jumped ship in an effort to paint him as anti-environment for not agreeing to the monstrosity.

The leaders of the environmental movement routinely spout anti-free market rhetoric. Their most favored piece of proposed legislation is a global carbon tax or something of that nature with the same results, to be administered by the UN. If they were truly concerned about raising environmental awareness they would have thought long and hard before they imposed so many intrusive regulations that are of little or no actual environmental benefit. They would have thought twice before they introduced their planned banning of incandescent light bulbs. If they cared for the cause, they wouldn’t ridicule their opponents or seek to squelch scientific findings from the public, because they know that the truth eventually does come out and that their actions would cause a backlash.

So what group would wreak havoc in an all out attempt to impose their agenda, even if it risks alienating people from needed environmental projects? Global redistributionists would. Their agenda is clear and it has nothing to do with the environment.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

The Best Veep for McCain - A Winning Short List

A lot of speculation has taken place among the media's talking heads as to who John McCain will pick as his running mate. As is the norm when mainstream pundits discuss Republican politics, their suggestions are not in the party's best interest.

Beyond that, they're also lazy. The media looks at who is in the race, who was in the race and a few other national leaders of prominence and keeps speculation to within those small groups. That's the equivalent of a corporation picking its company president out of a hat. Vice Presidents are chosen based on geographic or national appeal. Not because someone also ran, wasn't popular and lost (or is popular, but only among the same demographic that backs the top of the ticket), but at least has a familiar face and will save the media interns some time from having to research his already known background.

To understand who would best appeal to swing or to wavering Republican voters, the talking heads would first have to understand the conservative-leaning mindset, or at least the mindset of those who don't subscribe to the media's 45 year deamonization of conservatives. But to do so would challenge their own beliefs, beliefs formed without so much as researching the other side. It would also take time, thought and energy, three traits that today's media has little use for.

So here are some true picks that make sense for Sen. McCain to consider and that are in his best interest. For those reasons you probably won't hear much about them in the media:

Michael Steele - The former Lt. Gov. of Maryland is one of the most articulate and thought provoking politicians in the nation. He's energetic and would add vigor and appeal to the ticket. He connects well with audiences and with the public in general. With him on board the GOP ticket may also end up being the historic one this year, as Steele's a proud African-American Republican, but that's a side benefit.

Steve Forbes - How about fighting an election on the economy with Steve Forbes at your side? Need I say more? The down side is that he doesn't bring excitement to the ticket. But if the main issue is the economy....... well, let's just say we'll have our man.

Tom Ridge - This former Governor of Pennsylvania and Director of Homeland Security left the Bush Administration long ago enough to be considered a relatively fresh face. The drawback is that he's not exciting and is still connected with the old administration. But he helps put Pennsylvania into play. And this year, that factor may be most necessary.

Lynn Swann - Swann is energetic, exciting and intelligent. He's another great candidate. As an African-American, he'd inspire and make history, just as would Steele. Had Swann done the impossible and won the Pennsylvanian Governorship during the tidal wave of 2006, I'm sure he'd be on the top of any short list. Still, he does help in Pennsylvania and nationwide. Furthermore, while Steele will help in Maryland, it's so doubtful that he could actually carry the state and is only being recommended for his nationwide appeal (something he'd enjoy more than Swann, with Steele having held elective office). But on a regional battleground level, what Swann can provide in Pennsylvania may be more than enough to help carry the state.

Jim Webb - This would be the ultimate coup d'etat pick. Webb is on the Democrats’ short list for VP Nominee should the "dream ticket" to nowhere not come about. It may not be doable for McCain, but should Webb, the Reagan Democrat, come around on national security and recognize that his new party's positions are more fraught with harm than with good, he may just go for it

Jon Tester - A more realistic coup d'etat pick. The Junior Senator of Montana is a folksy, down to earth, moderate Democrat who may join the McCain ticket sooner than Webb would. Like Webb, he'd need some convincing.

Joe Lieberman - He'd join the ticket and is the most realistic player in the coup d'etat scenario, having already been sidelined by far left Democrats. As he's already announced his support for McCain, partisan Democrats would not be moved at all. But very few solid Democrat voters would be moved by a Webb or Tester move either, and Lieberman has more stature among independent swing voters.

In short, one can divide the best picks for McCain into three categories:

Large National Appeal or Excitement - This gives us Michael Steele, if we go with new, energetic, exciting and historic and also makes Jim Webb, Jon Tester or Joe Lieberman strong national unity candidates.

Needed Economic Experience - This gives us Steve Forbes, who would reassure the public in uncertain economic times.

The Swing State Strategy - Tom Ridge or Lynn Swann (incidentally, Swann also has the same "new, energetic, exciting and historic" theme that Steele enjoys, but not to the same extent as Steele, as despite being an articulate and energetic candidate, he's never held elective office).

It should be noted that Mike Huckabee truly distinguished himself in this campaign. But Mike for veep probably isn't even in his own best interests. I believe that the GOP actually has the advantage this year. In the end, people will recognize good stewardship of the nation's security for what it is and want it to continue. The economy will certainly not be believed to be McCain's fault (despite what are sure to be the media's best efforts to pin any bad news on him). After all, he's been a lone voice of fiscal reason for years. In fact, as the public views this election more closely, the benefits of Republican economic policy, including the tax cuts that staved off the last recession and our long period of economic growth and record low unemployment will provide the GOP with credit where credit is due.

However, if John McCain wins and retires after one term, it will be hard for any Republican to continue a 12 year victory streak. It's more likely than not that the next few years will not be great ones for the economy and although these economic conditions will not be caused by the government, the party in power will bear the blame. As such, being forced to run as the party's natural successor in 2012 or 2016 (if McCain does run again and win) would not be something Gov. Huckabee would look forward to. For this very reason, some of the other governors mentioned as possible veep picks should also stay clear, possibly seeking Cabinet positions instead. And it's hard to see how any of them can strengthen the ticket more than any of those listed above.

Huckabee has a bright future in the Republican Party. And while we're on this topic we should also mention Duncan Hunter. Had Hunter been a senator, a governor, military leader or even a big city mayor, he would have done far better in this year's primaries. Hunter has the ability to succinctly explain the conservative point of view on a whole host of issues. Much of his philosophy is rooted in common sense and compassion. He's tough on immigration, but for security reasons. On all issues, he's practical, sensible and without malice. Expect him to begin a run for governor, lieutenant governor, or for a senate seat in 2010. Also expect him to become a much larger force in GOP politics.

Other candidates may detract conservatives from the ticket, an already weak spot, align the ticket with the current administration (whose standing will improve, in many respects, over time - and not even over much time, but that doesn't help for now) or fall flat. These are scenarios the media would most like to see come about and take credit for. For the same reason, these are all scenarios that John McCain should avoid.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The Real Barack Obama

Even after last night, Barack Obama remains the clear favorite for the Democratic Nomination, as Hillary Clinton has fewer and fewer possibilities of gaining a lead in delegates. It is therefore crucial that we examine his largely unknown record.

To begin with, many social and fiscal conservatives feel an affinity for the unknown, yet eloquent Barack Obama, but cannot pinpoint a reason for their warmth to him. After all, he doesn't agree with them on virtually any issues and even Hillary Clinton is more in line, in terms of policy, than Barack. Yet Obama captivates people across the political spectrum and does it well.

One great aspect to the Obama candidacy actually has nothing to do with Obama himself. Dick Morris, two years ago, while advocating for a Condi Rice nomination (a subject he felt so strongly about he penned a book on it), pointed out that in 1928, Al Smith's designation as the first presidential nominee of a major party to be Catholic erased anti-Catholic bigotry over night. Racial harmony is most needed and candidate Obama can help do that and that's good for the nation.

Now we need to examine who this will affect most. It has long been clear to anyone actively studying US politics in the last 45 years that emotion based racism is centered in the Democratic Party, among liberal Democrats who sadly see everything through a racial lens. While Republicans have pushed for a merits based, true colorblind society, Democrats, including many of the same people who opposed civil rights legislation in the '60s (largely enacted by Republicans and opposed by more Democrats than supported it), have continued to harp on race and superficiality. After thankfully losing the battle, these same opponents of civil rights proceeded to make almsot every other issue about race, while Republicans, with a few very sad exceptions, have stuck to the principals of a colorblind world and merits based judgment. For those close-minded people who can never judge anyone or anything on its own merits, an eloquent presidential candidate reflects kindly on "his race." The flip side to this is that for those liberal bigots, largely members of the classic Northeastern "not in my backyard" group, a bad president reflects poorly on "his race."

This is one of the problems when dealing with a narrow minded, emotionally driven group. They can turn on you. And if Barack Obama is actually elected and implements his "misbegotten" policies (excuse the now tiresome word - one can't resist taking a word that liberals misuse in their lexicon of parroted slogan against the war, the economy or wherever else their complaint of the day finds itself and turning it on them by using it in its true sense), some of the anger at the ruined economy may cause racial strife. Not that it ever should. But the reality is that anyone bigoted enough to need a presidential candidate to erase or dampen racial prejudice is also close-minded enough to outrageously pin the failed policies of one man on an entire race.

In short, given Obama's naive and sometimes outlandish policies (which we'll deal with below), nominee Obama would be a good thing for America, unless he wins. This is largely because the same liberal bigots who turn around and make race such a central issue would continue to do so when an Obama Administration's military, homeland security, economic and social policies all blow up in their faces.

The end of racism that his candidacy symbolizes is a good thing. That's one of two factors that attract some conservative affinity. The second reason, that Barack civilly engages his opponents, is another, but it is more perception than reality. While he doesn't impugn and malign conservatives, like the Democrats of old, Obama still parrots derisive slogans and catch phrases. He is generally dismissive of the conservative point of view on any issue and while he's more open and congenial than most Senate or House Democrats, he's less of either than any Senate Republican. Of course, that's ok. Democrats don't need to be nice to Republicans and those who are should be praised as great unifiers of the masses. A Republican who takes a similar approach is still called a demagogue, but that's just because "they are" (talk about close-minded). The fact that Barack Obama is outwardly more arrogant than most Republican and Democratic Senators alike is also no big deal. He earns it for being relatively civil to those eevil Republicans.

Now let's examine some of his beliefs and what we could expect in an Obama Administration. As a far-left Democrat, it's no big news that Obama favors increased taxation no matter how many times low taxes have been proven to help the economy, is radically pro-choice even with regard to partial birth abortion (conducted on full term and viable fetuses) and is against almost all national security measures enacted over the last 7 years no matter how many times they've directly helped thwart the worst of attacks. What is surprising is the extent to which he goes with regard to all of these measures and more.

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, protecting the rights of already born fetuses, left alive after an "abortion." Amanda Carpenter of Human Events correctly points out that when the same legislation was introduced on a federal level it was opposed by only 15 members of the House and passed the Senate unanimously.

Obama was the lone "present" vote on a bill to teach respect for others in schools. It would have passed unanimously except for the fact that Obama was, unfortunately, "present" at the time. In two of his most tasteless moves, he also voted present on a bill preventing "adult" shops from opening near a school or house of worship, helping the bill fail, as passage required three fifths support. He also voted against a bill mandating schools to block "adult" sites on their computers.

In the US Senate he's voted against countless security measures and holds the most liberal Senate voting record for 2007. No wonder Ted Kennedy wants him out of the Senate, after all, the man has a record to hold. Obama's national security positions are inept as well as non-existent. He's opposed almost every national security initiative put forward without offering a single concrete proposal in their place (empty saber rattling against Pakistan, instead of pressing for a solution, notwithstanding). Hopefully these tidbits of a long and out of touch record are sufficient to give one pause before voting for this candidate, even if the media refuses to touch on any of these issues.

In the end, there are a lot of great speakers out there. If we favor style of substance and eloquence over sound policy, we may one day end up with an opera singer, a comedian or a bombast TV show salesman with no political experience leading this nation. While some would argue, perhaps correctly, that this would be a step up compared to most politicians, but only if there's some substance behind the rhetoric. We already had one president who brought nothing to the table aside from a small bit of down to earth likeability and thirty years later Jimmy Carter is still considered a disaster by any measure. Interestingly enough, he's a Barack supporter this year.

Sunday, March 02, 2008

The Best Candidate for Small Business in America - Why America Would be Headed for Disaster Without John McCain

For the past 25 years one voice has fought tirelessly to reduce congressional spending, often fighting members of his own party to do so. This is no small feat. Opposing the spending projects of your fellow members does not generally win you any friends. It touches on the issues most important to them and their individual records, bringing money to their district or their state. Only someone who can put the good of the nation as a whole ahead of the interests of his friends and colleagues, colleagues he needs in order to pass any legislation that he or she wishes to enact, will care to enter this fight. Few will win and even those who do win a few rounds will be easily tempted to back down in the long run. Yet in spite of the consequences, John McCain has fought spending with a remarkable consistency.

The issue is of primary importance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we do not curb the level of spending immediately, the only alternatives in 20 years will be to either double taxation while slashing spending by at least a half (and those projections assume a sustained level of economic growth) or to watch our dollar become worthless abroad and soon after at home, as few will want to save, trade and invest in a currency considered to be of little value worldwide.

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader.

Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well.

Even more than the need to cut spending is how we go about doing so. John McCain deserves much praise for the way he’s gone about this as well. McCain recognizes the need to invest in education, that every dollar spent on it is of immeasurable benefit to society. From a purely economic standpoint, in the long run funding education saves much more on fighting crime and a whole host of societal problems that correlate with low education. Educational funding also gives our nation’s children the ability to harness opportunity and develop new products and services that will both better society and keep us economically strong.

John McCain favors a reasoned approach to spending. While he wholeheartedly supports funding education, the military and our intelligence community that are absolutely crucial to our safety in dangerous times, with equal passion he opposes wasteful spending and unnecessary projects that favor a particular region or special interest. It is these projects that have the potential to cripple the economy and eventually lead to funds being drying up, even for needed projects. To protect our education, economy, safety and security, we need to act now.

The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years.

This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.