Random Thoughts

Conservatives scored a victory in the House last night as all 177 republicans voted "no" on the so-called stimulus bill. We may have lost the vote to democrats but the solidarity on principal was significant….

…Dick Armey told a Salon reporter on The Chris Matthews show on MSNBC yesterday that he was glad the reporter wasn’t his wife and he didn’t have to listen to her every day….The reporter was ripping Rush Limbaugh for comments he made hoping President Obama fails as President…
…U.S. Postal service wants to reduce six day mail service down to five by removing the Saturday delivery. They are heading toward $6 Billion in debt. I guess they need a stimulus package….

Not one Republican Vote in House

Thank goodness that House Republicans voted no on this massive spending bill under the disguise of being an economic stimulus. 11 Democrats followed the 177 republicans in voting no even though the bill recieved passage. As conservatives, we cannot support a bill that is nothing more than a way to bypass the regular budget process. While I believe the American people do want action, they would like the correct action. As if nearly a trillion dollars in spending is not enough, liberals are already saying that more is needed. Government caused this problem we are in because of encouraging and demanding that lending institutions lend to those who were bad credit risks. Do we really believe that government will solve the problem through increased government spending? Only a solution that encourages investment will solve an economic downturn. Unfortunately, our conservative numbers are even less in the U.S. Senate and some republicans are concerned about opposing President Obama's stimulus package.

This Stimulus Package is a disaster

Here is my latest column January 28, 2009 posted at www.Houseconservatives.com

President Barack Obama is pushing strongly for a stimulus bill in Congress that could increase spending by as much as $1.2 trillion. Never before have we seen a spending bill like that in American history.

It is all in the name of stimulating the economy even though history tells us that government spending helps little. One of Obama’s heroes, President Franklin Roosevelt, tried the same strategy in the 1930s to find that it had very limited results.

The reason that results are limited is because the majority of jobs created are in the private sector and mainly from small businesses. Government spending alone cannot improve the economy.

Even if it could, the stimulus bill before Congress is not one that is going to get the job done since much of the spending does not occur until 2011. And the spending that occurs before that could be best described as pork-barrel.
Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pointed out this week that the bill contains $4 for landscaping the Mall in Washington for every $1 in there for tax relief for small business.

There is money for contraception disguised as improving health and money for ACORN, a group tied to improper voting registration allegations during the 2008 election.

I wrote before Christmas that we were about to see the government as this giant Santa Claus handing out tax payer money left and right and mostly to the left. In part, this is pay back for the diverse groups that supported Obama in the name of economic stimulus.

While the stimulus package does contain some middle class tax cuts as an incentive to entice conservatives on board, it contains way too much spending to get our vote. If this bill becomes law, we are looking at $1 trillion year deficits as far as the eye can see. This does not even include what the price tag might be if Obama is successful in government operated healthcare.

The time is right for conservatives to dip back to the playbook of President Ronald Reagan and offer a strong economic alternative. Americans are looking for action but also for the correct action.

This is the time to reduce the size of government and not increase its power. Reducing government would provide a cost savings and the savings should go toward debt reduction. If the government is borrowing less money, that allows more for the private sector.

The private sector would also benefit from Wall Street who would see Washington was again serious, like in the 1990s, about debt reduction. This confidence would likely translate to more investment.

We should also call for the elimination of the capital gains tax. That alone could be the best economic stimulus Congress could offer. Why would investors sit on the sideline if the profits obtain from investment were tax free? They would not.

We should push President Obama to keep open drilling offshore. Low gas and oil prices are essential to seeing a quick recovery to the economy. Unfortunately, President Obama’s administration is sending signals they will close drilling offshore again and force restrictions on business in the name of the environment.

The coming vote on the stimulus package could open the door to more socialism in America and we may never be able to close that door again. Americans are looking to government for answers and the best answer is to empower the private sector through limited government and reducing the tax burden.

January 26, 2009

My latest column soon to be posted at www.HouseConservatives.com

Gitmo
By Doug Kellett


It did not take long for President Barack Obama to sign a number of executive orders once he assumed office. Among those was an order to close down the prison at Guantanamo where terrorists are being held.

The new President also banned “aggressive investigative techniques” as part of an order. That is, except, when it is absolutely necessary.

Some are calling that the “Jack Bauer clause” after the lead character on the TV show 24 who heads a counterterrorism unit and often uses such techniques to get the information he wants.

By providing the exception, Obama has done nothing but quieted liberals who are clamoring for the closing of Gitmo, while leaving it open and allowing interrogators to do what they must do.

Perhaps, the President’s daily terrorist briefings have made him more aware of the dangers we face as a nation. By allowing the exception for “aggressive techniques,” he is providing the same cover for investigators as President Bush did. After all, do we believe that intelligence gathering from these terrorists pulled from the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq is not necessary?

Of course it is. While I do not favor the closing of Gitmo because the so-called “detainees” are prisoners of an on-going war, I believe the new President has acted properly by allowing the loop hole for investigators.


President Obama is going to find it increasingly hard to appease his radical left while working to defend the nation properly. It appears that after only a few days on the job, he is recognizing this.

January 20, 2009

I guess the deed is done. America has put into power the most socialist and inexperienced person ever to hold the office....as I'm watching the coverage..several things come to mind. Why didn't they just keep on the shelf Joe Lowery of the SCLC? "white should embrace right?" Please.

John McCain sure looks comfortable with all those democrats around.

Dow is way down. May be due to all of the government spending coming soon from B.O.?

Katie Couric is still irritating.

I'm glad I got to visit DC in December. I've got a feeling it will never look the same.

We need Rush Limbaugh for the next four years.

I still think the guy was born in Kenya.

I just woke up. Is Barack Hussein Obama really the 44th President? oh my.

Former President Bush's plane just left headed for Texas. The libs still are unhappy.

First black president? Did Bill Clinton win?

Read where Jimmy Carter snubbed Bill Clinton. My question is did Bill even notice it?


Has he walked on water yet? I don't want to miss it.



I know, we should all be "unified" in our excitement about the new President. I can't join in with the giddy media today in the excitement. Obama is the most far-left person ever elected President whose stated policies will be bad for America as we sit in a dangerous time. Dangerous in our fight against global terrorism and dangerous where we are economically. While I don't think we should hope that Obama is a failure as President, I am skeptical about his ability to be a good one. Perhaps the bigger concern is that he comes in as President at a time where democrats control both houses of Congress led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. If Obama had to contend with a republican controlled congress, I think his chances of being an average President would be better.

January 19, 2009

Lets get our Conservative Majority Back
By Doug Kellett

Gnashing of teeth and moaning about the most recent election isn’t going to change any thing. If we want a true conservative majority, we conservatives have to begin to work toward that end. That means recapturing the enthusiasm that we saw with the republican majority in 1994.

Why have we lost Congress and the White House in recent elections? Some seem confused about the answer when it is as clear as it can be. Republicans who claimed to be conservative left their first estate and became apostates.

Our President, while protecting the country since 911, got away from core conservative principles with domestic policies. Republican congressional leaders stopped pushing for a conservative agenda not complete and the faces of the party were more moderate than conservative.

We lost the faith of the American people on the core tenants of our beliefs. The American people sided with democrats on issues like taxes, economic policy, and reforming government. Even an issue that we can usually take for granted like national defense took a beating because of the controversy surrounding the invasion of Iraq.

When republicans took the majority in Congress in 1994 it was because the voters knew that if the party was put in charge, here is what would be accomplished. Once that agenda was largely put into action, it was as if there were no new ideas. It isn’t like that agenda, itself, was completed.

I don’t know about you but I’m not looking in my next generation of candidates for “mavericks” or “moderates.” A maverick who boasts in campaign ads about all the times they opposed a conservative agenda is not someone who is going to get my vote. Neither is a moderate who does nothing but try to get along with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the democratic majority.

I’m looking for the bold generation of conservatives who in the line of President Ronald Reagan stand for something and not afraid to say it.

We need candidates who will not compromise our belief in lowering taxes and reforming the tax code, limiting government, strong national defense while not being afraid to say moral issues are important. Many of our founding fathers believed that the United States would cease to exist if America ceased to be a religious and moral people. Why should we be afraid to say that because of a fear of offending someone?

As President Reagan often repeated, comprising principle just to get an agreement is not acceptable. Had we followed democratic proposals of the last 25 years, the Soviet Union would still remain, American would have uni-laterally disarmed, government entitlement programs would have ballooned and who knows where the tax burden would be. In other words, America would not be a pretty picture.

So, lets dust ourselves off and as Frank Sinatra once put it in the song “That’s Life:” “…Lets get back in the race.”

George W. Bush and Iraq

Here is my latest column:

George W. Bush and Iraq
By Doug Kellett


I’ve often wondered if President George W. Bush’s approval rating leaving office would be much higher if he had presented the Iraqi invasion differently to the American people.

Prior to the invasion, I was often on the radio debating the pros about the elimination of Sadaam Hussein as Iraqi leader and concern that the leader might work with terrorists on weapons of mass destruction.

On numerous shows, I had Col. David Hackworth as guest to debate the administration strategy. Col. Hackworth and my self had become good friends through our interviews. At the time, Col. Hackworth was the most decorated living American through his service in the Vietnam War.

I thought wise to hear his point of view from an individual who dodged real bullets on a battlefield but also who was an experienced military observer through his national column.

Based on his knowledge and experience, Col. Hackworth argued against the Bush policy of going into Iraq and many of his concerns turned out to be reality. Much of his concern centered on whether the U.S. military should be in the business of constructing a democracy in the Middle East. Something Col. Hackworth didn’t think was possible and saw only pitfalls.

Me, I took the more aggressive opinion accepting the belief that the threat of a Hussein-Al Qaeda connection was too great to ignore. Since the Clinton Administration had worked to indict Osama Ben Laden on weapons development with Iraq, I saw it no stretch to believe that was likely.

However, during our discussions, I kept saying that I believed the administration was putting way too much emphasis on the WMD argument. The reason for invading Iraq was greater than only focusing the public attention on the WMD.

I further commented at the time that “I sure hope we find weapons of mass destruction because if we don’t, it is going to be a major problem for the administration.” Now, of course we certainly know how true that is.

Would President Bush’s approval ratings be higher if he had used the more pressing approach? In his famous “Axis of Evil” speech, President Bush detailed a new doctrine that would define his Presidency. “We cannot wait until the threat is imminent…” the President said. In other words, the world we live in after 911 is so dangerous, that America no longer had the luxury to wait until the threat is right upon us. Terrorists do not necessarily signal their intention as a nation-state might. Plus, President Bush reasoned, the deadly material possibly available to terrorists heightened this threat.

I believe had the administration focused more on this issue, we might not have seen much of the erosion of support we saw. Critics could easily argue that since WMD were not found in the “stockpile” variety we expected, then there was never a threat. When in reality, the threat is that we “could not wait” until there is a threat.

President Bush had all the ammo he really needed at the time and that was the devastating results of 911. Had the administration not gotten bogged down with WMD and nation building afterward, perhaps the American people would have agreed with his policy to eliminate any threat. After all, if a bad guy is about to shoot your wife, you don’t wait until he pulls the trigger to try and stop him. That was the simple self-defense policy George Bush was adhering too. He just failed to emphasize it.

One thing I have learned as a member of the media. To make a point you need first to make it. Then make it again. Then repeat it and after you have made it, tell them you made it. In other words, repetition is your friend.

While this would not have solved the complex issues that is current day Iraq and the global war on terrorism, it might have aided the President in some goodwill with the American people. That way he might not have to wait for future historians to receive appreciation for working to eliminate the global terror threat.


Doug Kellett is known as “America’s Fill-in Talk Show Host” and is often heard on stations like WBT/Charlotte, WLAC/Nashville, WOAI/San Antonio, KTRH/Houston, KPAM/Portland and many others. He has over 25 years of broadcast journalism experience.


Responses:

Erik--

read the column....good points....he really looked bad on the WMD deal and never should have said: "Mission Accomplished," that was a huge mistake. I think President Bush is a good guy even though I wasn't pleased with how soft he was on illegal immigration and I don't like how he has fought against helping America's farmers. However, he did protect this country from another terrorist attack after 9/11 and I feel he had good intentions. I think when Barack Obama takes the oath of office tomorrow, we'll be less safe because I think he's more interested in negotiating with terrorist states like Iran and more worred abou the feelings of terrorists than he is about our national security. Only time will tell.....let's hope that we can stay as intact as we possibly can.