OK, what's next?

The first thing we need to tackle is our new plan. Who is going to be the head of the movement against this administration? From the end of the 2004 election, Mr. Obama was propped up as THE MAN for 2008. Yes, Hillary was in there, but the main man was Obama. We as conservatives need to find a candidate to fight Obama for 4 years and bring him down in 2012. It will be tough because no one is in the position that Obama was in, and any strong candidate is going to be attacked from the media and Obama intelligentsia. These are in no particular order. 1. Michael SavageWell this is the best option, but he'll never do it and probably is too important to fighting the Obama regime on the radio. Mr. Savage is an independent conservative who has been right on almost every issue in America (save his gaff about Autism, but let's not hold that against him). I do not know if he could ever survive an election (the media) but Mr. Savage would be an ideal candidate that is savvy enough with the English language to brow beat Mr. Obama in a debate until he cried "Uncle".

2. Rep. Paul Broun R-Georgia

This man has had the courage to call out our new leader (probably a racist). He has called a spade a spade as far as the new civilian security force, and compared them to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (which it would be). I don't know much of his background other than the fact he voted against the bailout package (way to free market for America). I like what I am seeing from Rep. Broun, but can he play outside of Georgia? The South will already vote with a Republican, do we need someone from a "blue" area of the country? Maybe, but I like Rep. Bourn's ideas and the fact he is not afraid to voice them. The question with some the the members of the House of Representatives is will they keep their conservative values once in a general national election? His ideas will play as they are currently, but will a Republican advisory tell him to move to the central? If so, he will be doomed, but if he stays conservative, we may have hope for a conservative candidate.

3. Gov. Bobby Jindal R-Louisiana

I disagree here with some conservatives that Gov. Jindal will not play outside of Louisiana. I know many support him and I tend to agree. He is a minority, young (37), a Catholic(support from Right to Life), has been a member of Congress, favors gun ownership rights, favors an constitutional amendment against flag burning, attended Brown University, and is a Rhodes Scholar. I know the last two things don't mean much to conservatives, but as far as playing outside of the South this helps. If a conservative base gets behind Jindal and we can bring some centralist into the fold, I think this man can lead the party. Call me crazy, but this could be the conservative leader we need.

4. Gov. Sarah Palin R-Alaska

Ok, seriously, I have no idea why she is even being mentioned. Hillary was defeated even though the cards were dealt in her favor, and Palin signaled the end of the McCain rally. I'm sure she's a nice person, and seems to have some conservative values, but she is not fit to be in the White House. We don't need "mavericks" at this point; we need strong willed people, who will not compromise, and who are predictable and will lead this country in national security and bring back our economy. Gov. Palin is not someone who can do this. Sorry, Governor, you need more experience (maybe run for a senate seat).

5. Rep. Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin

This is an interesting guy. Never heard of him before, but on election night after Mr. Obama was announced the winner, he was interviewed by Brit Hume on Fox News. I cannot find a link (if I do I will post it), but the jest of his talk was that the Republican party must get back to its conservative roots. Well I'd vote for him based on that line right there, but on top of that he favors rewriting our unfair and poor friendly tax code to allow for people who spend money and feed the economy to keep their money. He favors drilling in the United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T4XhhkDUJM), making social security voluntary for younger workers, wants to fight the War on Terror, is pro-life, and reforming our education system in a responsible way (not just throwing money and subsidies at the problem). I would love to see Rep. Ryan get in the spotlight of the party more and will try to lead the cause.

6. Frm. Rep. J.C. Watts

I love J.C. Watts. He is conservative, a minority that's not afraid to step up to his liberal friends from across the isle(first black member of Congress to not join the Black Caucus), and a former football player(Obama plays soccer, obviously this needs to worry us). He is a successful businessman, and has been critical of the Republican party for not being able to reach black people. That is a real problem, we have not been able to convince black people that conservatives are better for this country, however, does that really matter? The truth is not many black people vote, for various reason, and we don't necessarily need black people to vote with our candidates. Statistics have shown that not many new black people registered for this elections, but the Democrats captured the black vote by and large (they were already doing this anyway). But having a strong conservative black cannot hurt us, and there is no Bradley Effect to worry about.

7. Frm. Rep. Newt Gingrich

Old news. I don't know if I am on board with this. He has a lot of skeletons in the closet, and I think has shifted more central since he has left office. He also has questionable moral decisions that the media would tear apart. As much I would hate to make a decision based on that but I feel the other candidates mentioned have more freshness and could lead this party into a new conservative revolution.

Well there you have it, those are the viable leaders I see for 2012. One of these men or woman will be the Republican nominee. I think there are good candidates in these 7 people, but will it be same old same old from the Republican party, or are they serious about embracing the conservative side of the party?

Sturmabteilung

I know, what is "Sturmabteilung"? Well for that we need a little history lesson. It is an organization made up of citizens that had military ambitions. They helped a leader to power, and protected him at his political gatherings. Once in power, it carried out raids against people who were thought to be enemies of the state. It formed a youth organization in order to promote the ideas of the party. Ultimately it grew too strong and ambitious and it leaders were done away with because by that time there were other groups that could carry out the wished of the party, and most of the opposition had already been done away with. This symbol of the Sturmabteilung?

The man they protected? Helped put in power? Led the fight for his ideas?

Am I comparing our president-elect to this man? No. But am I pointing out parallels in what this man's "civilian security force" and what Mr. Obama's civilian security force could be? Yes. Remember that people are power hungry. All you have to look at is small community run organizations, and they people who run them. They think they are running the country, and make decisions, boss people around, and announce edicts as if they do. Most people are bossed around all day at a "real" job and want to take out that frustration. Can you imagine a group of people in this country (welfare recipients, felons, gay mafia, anti-Christians, anti-gun, environmentalist, ect.) directing a civilian security force? Of course, guns will have been banned by then, just like in Nazi Germany. My friends, these are real problems, real concerns, and things that have happened before in the world. But you would have never imagined it would happen here; until we became the Weimar Republic, and this was the answer:

In this time, I want you to remember the poem from Pastor Martin Niemoller:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,I remained silent;I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out."

Be careful when you say you want "change". Because the change has many definitions.

Intro

I have no idea how many people will ever read this blog, but I feel conservatives need some sort of blog space. Notice said conservatives not Republican (capital R). We need to get back to conservative values, and become a republic again. Our representative democracy is coming apart at the ends, and now we have uneducated voter deciding the future of America. These people are too lazy to vote on issues all the time, a feature of having a true republic, so the smart informed Americans can run this country.

I know who am I or we to decide who is smart enough to vote. Well, it is harsh but most people are not smart enough. They have no idea what they are voting on and how it will effect the nation. People want "change" but cannot define change. What is going to change? Wealth, freedom, liberty? No one can define this because it has not been defined.

The definition of socialism is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. (American Heritage Dictionary)" Now let us look at what our president-elect is going to do with our taxes, specifically people making over $250,000 (gross) "Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut (www.barackobama.com)." So, its OK for citizens who make over $250,000 a year to go back to the outrageous 1990s level tax rates, however, people who have been receiving government benefits since 1990 will see no cut in their benefits. And by the way, if you are a small business owner, you may want to check if you actually make $250,000 before saying you don't, and you support the Obama plan because it will benefit you. the truth of the matter is it benefits the poor.

Our president-elect does not like our current class system. Through an evolution of economics a class called the "upper middle" class has been created. These people are part of the top 4% of money making Americans, who keep this economy going through spending much of the free income they earn. The party in power (or soon to take) hates the upper middle class. They are not part of it (they are the upper class), they tax it to try and destroy it, and they want to give it's wealth to the poor and middle class. Why should the hardest working Americans give back their wealth. Answer, they should not

As we go throughout this journey for 4 years, we will explore this more, understand the classes, and I hope you will realize most Americans aspire to be in the upper middle class and it may soon be a goal no one can obtain.