Listen In To Southern Sense Talk Radio

Friday, January 31, 2014

How Many Ways Can We Send A Liberal Away Crying? Ask Jason Mattera 01/31 by Southern Sense Is Conservative | Politics Conservative Podcasts

How Many Ways Can We Send A Liberal Away Crying? Ask Jason Mattera 01/31 by Southern Sense Is Conservative | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Republicans and Conservatives consistently fail in messaging.  We need to learn from the Democrats and Progressives and speak to the heart not just to the head.  But can we learn to do that?

One way is to use humor another is to paint a deeply personal picture.

Today, we'll speak to Jason Mattera and get his unique take on this vital issue.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

OK, Here I go again.  I posted in response to Senator Stockman walking out on the SOTU speech and got into another tirade.
1st is my posting, then a reply by Eduardo and then my reply to him.

Eduardo Brown: This should have been done at least, at the very latest, one year ago, I would say two. Now is not the time for this. We need to cut the losses, huddle, come up with a good game plan to take 2014. Then we will have two years to figure out how to take 2016; breathing room. It's getting way too complicated. We need to focus and keep our eyes on the prize. We need to stay away from calling him a Muslim and stop talking about his "wedding" ring, etc. and focus on how to win. I said a little while ago I have no idea what the strategy would be, but I write this in hopes I hit someone with a far more intellectual brain than mine and come up with a solution instead of re-identifying issues.

Eduardo, I am so glad that we finally have some people in the House that have the cajones to finally bring Impeachment Charges against Obama.  It maybe 5 years too late in coming, but it is 3 years ahead of their timetable!

As for the 2014 & 2016 elections.  We must keep laser focused on 2014 and not allow the Left, MSM and RINO's distract us with 2016 predictions and other B.S.!

Our strategy is to focus on key races, such as SC & Az.  If we dump Lindsey Graham & John McCain and other "Establishment Republicans, such as Mitch McConnell, it will send shock waves throughout the nation.  It will prove to those, who continually badmouth the conservatives and TEA Party activists, that we can't be stopped and WE ARE MAIN STREAM AMERICA!

We need to find a way to repackage our message so we can communicate to the public and sway their opinions in the manner and ease that the Left employs.  They cater to the targets heart, not head.

When we speak, we target the mind with logic and facts.  They see us as dry ancient papers and see the the Left's message as a cool drink of water. We need to change the message delivery!

When we speak to opposing the minimum wage, we can't spout facts and figures. We must draw the picture of how the listener's job is at risk, their finances will be thrown into turmoil and expense will rise with the rise of all goods and services.  We must make the message personal so the listener walks away, and says "Wow, this could happen to me tomorrow., This is scary! Maybe these conservatives/TEA Party people are speaking the truth."

Our messaging is our weakness and we have to learn to rephrase the debate and take it to the Left and beat them down with it!

Take the marriage issue.  Here is how the argument should go & I use this method all of the time.

I oppose the Federal and State government defining marriage in any shape or form.  The reason is simple, marriage is a religious rite, where as all local, state & federal agencies recognize and license civil unions, when they mandate we apply for a "license".  So, now imagine, a same sex couple go into a Muslim Mosque and demand a marriage ceremony, what do you think would happen, if it was say in Iran or Afghanistan?  I don't think either person in that couple would walk out alive.

Marriage is a religious rite.

Picture the same couple walking into the Vatican, demanding the Pope perform the ceremony?  The Papal Guard would be escorting them out at the end of their pikes!  Marriage is a religious rite.

In each instance, before that couple walks into the Mosque or Vatican, they had to go to a government official and take out a government license to allow the ceremony to be performed and it is a civil union document.

So, now your daughter wants to marry her girlfriend and you support their decision.  What will you do?  They want a church wedding.  Where do you go?  To the Catholic Church?  To the Mosque?  No you'll go to a denomination who will respect their life choice, after they get their civil union license from government.

Do you understand what I am saying? Religions don't all recognize the same definition of marriage, because it is part of their doctrine as to how they define marriage.  So why is government trying to redefine a religious rite, when the Constitution restricts government from prohibiting the free expression of religion?  Why is government telling my Church, we must recognize same sex marriage when my pastor and our congregation practice our faith to say otherwise?  Isn't that the same as saying government is now in charge of religion?  Isn't that also unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment?

What is it that you are strongly adverse to? Chocolate? Screaming babies? Drivers on cell phones?  What if suddenly government tells you, you have no choice, tough noggies, you have to eat chocolate, hold screaming babies on your lap for as long as they say you must and ride with dumb drivers talking and texting on their phones, because it is now their right, despite the fact the laws and our Constitution says otherwise!  It is their "Life Stye Choice" and now a "Right" so declared by an activist judicial ruling.

Or -

To say it in a short sweet way, OK, we'll accept same sex marriage, if you allow us to smoke in front of you anywhere we choose.  It's a life style choice!  BTW, If you hate smoking so much, why are you for legalizing smoking pot, while criminalizing smoking legal cigerettes?  Explain that if you can!

Message, Message, Message!!!

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Mike Huckabee Wants To Restrict Free Speech Of Conservatives? REALLY???

While perusing Conservative websites and blogs adding my mere two cents to a few conversations I stumbled across a website named "Eagle Rising" with the following commentary about Mike Huckabee.  See below, "Mike Huckabee Wants to Get Rid of RINO's...."

Of course, I couldn't resist replying following Mr. Coca's item.

Mike Huckabee Wants to Get Rid of RINO's (It's not what you think)
By Onan Coca / 24 January 2014 / 361 Comments
A RINO is a "Republican in name only" – and someone apparently used the term when they were talking about Mike Huckabee. He wasn’t too happy with that.
“Many of you used a term that I’d like to see outlawed from the vernacular of the party: RINO,” he said, calling it a “pejorative term” that questioned one’s purity…
“With all due respect, I’ve fought in the trenches of Republican politics for over two decades, but I wouldn’t pretend that I’m lord over determining who the real Republicans are versus the so-called RINOs,” he said…
Huckabee reminded his readers that Jesus once said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” referring to the Gospel of Matthew…
“I’d rather have a loyal dog who licks me than one with a pedigree who bites me,” he added. “I’d rather go to battle with someone who isn’t perfect than with someone who thinks he is.”
I get why Huckabee is upset at being called a RINO. It is a pejorative. It’s meant to carry a very negative connotation. I also understand why Huckabee was called a RINO. (DON”T GET MAD AT ME.) He’s not a RINO in the Lindsey Graham/John McCain sense… he’s a RINO in a populist – economics sense. But I would hesitate to use the term to apply to him because his “flaws” don’t really reach RINO heights.

Actually, I get a lot of email from readers who agree with Huckabee about this. I often get not-so-polite “fan mail” telling me that I am the problem. Why? Because I divide Republicans instead of uniting them. I and others like me use words like RINO to support “weaker” Tea Party candidates that end up costing us influence. I don’t agree on two counts – first, I don’t think that backing Tea Party candidates weakens us because the RINO candidate is as bad as a moderate Democrat. Secondly, I don’t agree that I divide us because the RINO’s do the same thing to conservatives that we do to them.
Here’s the thing, the RINO term is really important. The Republican Party is no longer (if it was ever) a monolithic political entity. Sure there are liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans and we all fit in the tent because we fit here better than in the Democrat tent… but if we’re honest, we’d rather not be in the same tent with some Republicans. It’s not just us either. Republican politicians feel the same way.
Look at how John McCain’s little RINO cadre treat Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie and the rest of the new blood libertarian conservatives. Do you think McCain and Graham want those guys in our tent? (The answer is no…)
Another infamous RINO, John Boehner (R-OH), recently proved again that conservatives aren’t the only ones doing the dividing. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX) revealed that Boehner called Rep. Steve King (R-IA) an a**hole for his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On a day not too long after Boehner’s political body check of Steve King for his immigration comments, the speaker was milling around the aisle walkway in the middle section of the House floor where the Democratic and Republican territories meet. Another Texas Democrat and I were standing a few feet away, and as the speaker passed us we thanked him for denouncing King’s offensive comments. He slowed his stride and then paused to turn toward us. "What an asshole," he said. My thoughts exactly, Mr. Speaker.
With friends like Boehner, McCain, Graham and other RINO’s, conservatives don’t really need enemies.
So, I’m sorry you had your feelings hurt Mr. Huckabee, but the term RINO stays. We need it.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Why Must We Raise The Minimum Wage?

OK, so I can't walk away from annoying one Liberal a week.  I am aiming higher this week!

Help workers by raising minimum wage

info@islandpacket.comJanuary 14, 2014 

Read more here:

The current economic recovery coughs and sputters, largely because of insufficient consumer spending. Consumer spending lags because incomes in the mid- and lower range have stagnated or declined. Those incomes have stagnated or declined for two reasons:
1. The share of the national income taken by the richest 1 percent has increased from 8 percent of the whole in the 1970s to 24 percent in 2007. What's left for everybody else has shrunk correspondingly.
When CEO salaries soar (now about 350 times that of an average employee), less money is in the pool for everybody else. Say $20 million was shaved from the $62 million annual salary of CBS chief executive, Leslie Moonves. Then 2,000 lower-paid CBS workers could each enjoy a $10,000 raise.
But what could force such a change?
2. Labor unions and the minimum wage law long were the principal forces shoring up wages. Many factors, including illegal union-busting, offshoring of production, and so-called right-to-work laws, have gutted private sector unions. If Republican politicians have their way, public sector unions will wither too. Then what could prop up wages?
All that would be left is the minimum wage. Alas, its purchasing power peaked back in 1968. Today's minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has lost fully one-third of its 1968 value.
To help the poor and invigorate the economy, we should gradually raise the minimum wage to a level where no full-time worker needs public assistance.
Raymond Dominick


This is my reply.  Brevity is not my strong suit!

Raising the minimum wage will not help the worker, but ultimately cause more harm not only to the worker, but the economy.  Raise the minimum wage, then the cost of goods and service must increase to cover the expense. 

The majority of jobs created are by small businesses who already operate on small profit margin.  They cannot afford the additional expense of the higher wage and must either pass the cost onto the consumer or cut the number of employees.

I applaud Raymond's intention of helping the impoverished worker.  However, the overall affect as proven in past history, would be the loss of jobs to the disadvantaged adults who need the jobs and replacing them with suburban teens who don't need them.

Who benefits? Government in increased tax revenue.  The higher the wage, the higher the tax liability, the lower the actual take home pay. Higher minimum wage creates higher prices, taxes, cost of living and loss of jobs, all which eats away at any benefit of a higher pay.

Unions, which once were beneficial to employees by securing safer work place, better hours, wages and pensions acted as a buffer between workers and owners/management.  Today, they mostly have abused their power.  This is proven by lower membership in unions as more members are dissatisfied with union leadership and rules.  More and more workers are voluntarily opting to work in union free environments.  More business are choosing to move or open shops in Right To Work States offering better wages and benefit packages then  those in union shops.  Compulsory union dues take large bites out of paychecks and members have no say in union actions in politics and political donations.  They are told we will take your money and you have no say about what we do with it.

As for the 1% argument, why is it the Communist policy of spread the wealth so attractive?  It doesn't work. A CEO just doesn't appear out of thin air without formal and industrial training.  They get the higher salary because they earned it.  If you feel an executive doesn't  deserve his or her salary, you have several options open to you.  Write the company a letter stating your opinion.  Boycott their goods and services.  If you own their stock attend their shareholder meeting and exercise your vote.

Government can do a few simple things to increase the take home pay of workers without raising the minimum wage. They can get rid of burdensome over regulation and taxation which costs businesses of all sizes billions of dollars a year.  A farmer must fill out paperwork every time they move fertilizer from one spot on the farm to another.  The paperwork on average takes up to 50  hours. That is just one of the many regulations that, a farmer must adhere to.

Tax compliance is another huge costs to businesses also costing a tremendous cut into profits. I won't mention job killing Obamacare.  It is the effect of odious regulations and high taxes which has driven businesses and jobs out of the USA.  There are no incentives to entice businesses  to return jobs and profit back to our soil.  If businesses are relieved of these burdens then more profit will be retained leading to businesses expanding, creating jobs and increasing employee pay.

Austrian Economics works.

Monday, January 13, 2014

German Aces, Their Own Words: Colin Heaton 01/14 by Southern Sense Is Conservative | Politics Conservative Podcasts

Colin Heaton & Anne-Marie Lewis have a new book released this month the Four-Boer War.  In March, German Aces II should be released. Pre-ordering is available now. Anne-Marie's latest solo book should be released this spring or summer too.

Join us tomorrow or catch the podcast later on.  Share this event on your pages. It will be a fun and interesting show.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Do we need Immigration Reform?

The following editorial appeared in the Beaufort Gazette, Sunday, January 12, 2013.  I could not let it go unanswered! Read my response below:

Time for real immigration reform

info@islandpacket.comJanuary 12, 2014 

A recent letter to the newspaper used the same old lies, misinformation and myths to object to comprehensive immigration reform.
In this case, the writer comes up with new, specious thinking and distortions. First, there is no objective information that undocumented people commit more crime while in this country. Quite the opposite is true -- fewer crimes are committed by this population than the general population. Look it up.
Secondly, no one believing in comprehensive reform is encouraging laws to be broken. We, pro reform advocates, want border security, fines for those who have entered the country to seek the American dream and a fair path to ultimate citizenship.
Thirdly, if the writer wishes to take on American religious groups, she needs to directly contact the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Unitarians, Lutherans, Baptists, and other denominations that support comprehensive reform.
Also, significant, objective data support the fact that undocumented workers primarily take jobs that no other Americans are willing to take. And the writer, without a serious attempt at objectivity, cites the number of immigrants as being 33 million -- another figment of her imagination.
Finally, no people are aliens (expect maybe those from outer space) and if the alternative to legalizing this mostly-positive workforce is to free criminally-prosecuted felons, I'm sure that idea won't gain much traction.
It is logistically, morally, and economically bankrupt to advocate doing nothing to resolve our immigration problem. Let's get serious and find common ground.

George Kanuck

Hell No!

George, If you want an honest debate on immigration reform, we must be honest with the words we choose to use. Alien as defined by the Oxford Dictionary:  noun

    a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living:an illegal alien
    a hypothetical or fictional being from another world.
    a plant or animal species originally introduced from another country and later naturalized.  

Therefore the use of the word in this instance is correct.  Those who would obfuscate the debate will attempt to change it by redefining it's core subject.  Hence, illegal alien changes to illegal immigrant, to undocumented immigrant and undocumented worker.  These people immigrated to our country.  They are not naturalized citizens and they entered criminally.  They are illegal aliens!

As to your first point.  DHS estimates, conservatively, that total illegal aliens in the USA is 12.9% of the total population as of 2013.  However, in 1980 only 9,000 criminal illegal aliens were incarcerated in federal prisons.  Today over 55,000 criminal illegal aliens are incarcerated in our federal prisons and comprise over 25% of the total federal prison population. In state and local prisons, there are approximately 297,000 criminal illegal aliens incarcerated, comprising over 16% of the total state and local prison populations.

One would think if illegal aliens were not committing more crimes than the general legal residents, the percentage would be equal to or less than 12.9% of total prison populations for federal, state and local. Yes, I looked it up!

The comprehensive reform that has been proposed and enacted illegally by fiat by President Obama, "The Dream Act" is outright amnesty for illegal aliens.  The Gang of 8 proposal is not any different in offering outright amnesty and punishes legal immigrants.  It encourages illegal immigration.  Extending entitlement programs to illegal aliens such as welfare, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, free or lower in-state tuition and much more encourages them to remain and entices more to enter illegally to gain these attractive benefits.

Pro-reform advocates state they want secure borders, then they hamper enforcement.  This is proven by the lawsuit by Border Security Agents who filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration and DOJ for preventing them from doing their jobs to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.

I have no qualms against immigrants, I am the grandchild of 3 immigrants, who entered this nation legally and obtained citizenship. One of whom served during WW1.  As for the actions of various religious organizations, I can personally attest to seeing a Catholic Church issuing forged green cards to illegal immigrants.  I was prevented from notifying ICE by my superior officers or making an arrest.  I served in a sanctuary city  under a very liberal mayor about 15 years ago when this occurred.  Because of what I witnessed, and of learning it was a system wide occurrence within the Roman Catholic Church as well as other issues of hypocrisy, I left the RCC and joined a church where none of these shenanigans are tolerated or condoned.

If an illegal immigrant comes here to seek political or religious refuge, then I see no problem in religious institutions and our government offering refuge and eventual citizenship.

As for unemployment, The US Dept. of Labor released their unemployment report which showed unemployed Americans totaled 10.4 million.  However, missing from this statistic is the number of those who are "marginally attached to the workforce" meaning they stopped looking or lost their unemployment insurance benefit.  They total 2.4 million as of December 2013 per the DOL. Also missing are those who are underemployed and those who found their full time job converted to a part time position.  The number of American jobs that are taken by illegal aliens is 8.5 million. That's 12.8 million Americans (that the feds estimate and we know that number is much higher) who are missing out on competing for 8.5 million jobs that employ illegal aliens.  That is 8.5 million employees, the majority of whom do not pay federal, state or local income taxes, contribute to social security or unemployment insurance.  That is the income of 8.5 million individuals, the majority of which leaves our country without stimulating local economies or revenues.  That is 8.5 million families who drain federal, state and local resources in hospitals, schools, emergency services and entitlement programs.  Several of my friends over the past 20 years have applied for jobs that were given to illegals, so the argument that Americans don't want those jobs is false.  Many of those low income jobs would have gone to high school and college age kids.  They are a disproportionate number of the unemployed, especially in the black community.  Think of the number of American families we could lift out of poverty if those kids could be employed in those jobs to help supplement their family income. Jobs in hospitality, landscaping and construction are jobs many Americans are very willing to work.

When our federal and state government tightened up enforcement of active immigration laws, a great number of illegal aliens voluntarily repatriated themselves with their native countries.  In cases of hardship, of which there were some, authorities worked with the alien to find an acceptable solution.  One such case was about 3 years ago, here in South Carolina involving Senator Lindsey Graham, of which I am no fan, but he did something good in this case.  It involved a young high school girl who wanted to get a drivers license.  It was at that time she learned she was an illegal alien.  She was smuggled into the USA as an infant, completely unaware of her status.  With the assistance of Senator Graham, she was able to negotiate an agreement wherein, she voluntarily returned to her native country, staying with family for a brief period, legally re-enter the USA, obtain a green card, and apply for citizenship.  She was able to graduate with her class and go on to college.

We don't need more legislation to reform immigration.  We need enforcement of current laws.  At one time this nation required the immigrant to secure a responsible sponsor who would vouch for the immigrant,.  The sponsor had to guarantee that the immigrant and their family would not be placed on the public dole and be a burden to society and the taxpayers.  When Congress overturned that requirement in the immigration laws they opened the floodgates to illegal immigration.  Maybe we should look to see what worked successfully in the past and made us a nation of harmonious immigrants and a world power.  Now that reform I can support!

Ann Ubelis, SC

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Should America Keep Apologizing For It's Exceptionalism?

Defending The Republic: Columnist Erik Rush 01/03 by Southern Sense Is Conservative | Politics Conservative Podcasts

It's a loaded question: Should America Keep Apologizing For It's Exceptionalism?   I think not, but, what is your answer?

Join us on air as we address this issue and many others with Erik Rush.