Saturday, November 29, 2008

Obama: Just One Vote Away in Ga. from Total Control

VOTE SAXBY 12/2/08!!!

Friday, November 28, 2008

Sarah Palin coming to Georgia

One of my heros is coming to town - Sarah Palin ; ) Check out the details at the link because you do have to rsvp through Saxby's site:


Reagan enters Georgia race to stop Obama

Michael Reagan, the famous radio host, author and son of President Reagan, has joined with the National Republican Trust PAC in endorsing Saxby Chambliss - check out it below:

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving from Conservative and Proud blog!!!

Happy Thanksgiving

I am thankful for so many things this year - including family and friends - 
my precious son Cameron and little dog Cocoa.

I am thankful to be an American with the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I am thankful that God blessed us with his son Jesus who died for our sins.

I am thankful for the troops and their families who fight to protect us.

I am thankful to know you.

I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving!!!

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Why vote for Saxby - Check this out:

Monday, November 17, 2008

What happens if the democrats in the U.S. Senate gets 60 members (votes)?

Here is the billion dollar question for the 2008 election season - what happens if Senator Obama wins and the democrats get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate and gains in the U.S. House of Representatives? Well we know the answer to the first part of that question, we now have President-elect Obama. The second part of the question remains unanswered but Georgia the answer is in your hands.  

Georgia is now the battleground last stand to give our government balance.  Senator Saxby Chambliss can be our firewall to give conservatives a voice.  If his opponent were to upset Saxby then you might as well just tell the GOP Senators to take a flight back home and stay there.  If the democrats get the 60 votes / members they are seeking they can do anything they want.  They can take our center-right country and speed to the far left on day 1.

Let's really think this through, imagine this possible nightmare if the democrats had 60 votes:

P.E. Obama's Civil Service army
 - Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in an interview that this would be MANDATORY for ALL 18-25 years old in this country to go to basic training (away from their homes to where the government tells them to go).
***If the democrats have 60 votes this could pass.

Raising Taxes + attacking the Fair Tax
 - P.E. Obama told Joe the plumber that he just wanted to "spread the wealth around", taxes could be raised on anyone at any amount decided by the Congress and President-elect Obama.  The Fair Tax (which is non-partisan) which is supported by republicans, independents/moderates, and democrats has been attacked here in Georgia by the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee.  The problem is that the attack was founded by lies, completely untrue accusations against the Fair Tax.  The other problem is the Fair Tax is supported in grassroots by people of all political backgrounds.  Do we have faith that those who would lie about the Fair Tax to try and get a candidate elected would support and pass the Fair Tax?
***If the democrats have 60 votes - taxes could be raised at their discretion and the Fair Tax would most likely be out of the picture until a later date (because it will be passed despite what leadership we have when WE THE PEOPLE want it passed).

Energy Independence
 - the democrats have stated that if they gain control they will reenact the Offshore Drilling Ban (the let this expire prior to the election because a significant majority of Americans wanted to drill offshore along with alternative energy to lower gas prices & as a matter of National Security).  It has been predicted by economist that if this ban goes back into effect then the price of oil could jump back to $100.00+ / Barrel of oil ~ which would increase the price of gas back to before the ban expired.  ($4.00+/gallon gas).
***If the democrats have 60 votes this could pass.

"Fairness Doctrine
" - (aka unfairness doctrine & censorship & anti-1st amendment doctrine) the democrats including Nancy Pelosi have said that they would reenact an old doctrine that President Ronald Reagan ended back during his Presidency that would require ONLY on certain venues including talk radio, blogs, and websites would have to allow opposition to the persons opinion to be given the equal amount of time to give their point of view (no matter what that point of view).  This would not be applied to media such as MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc... or newspapers such as the New York Times and others, they could continue to lean so far left that they are about to fall down while they have tingly feelings in their legs when they hear P.E. Obama speak.
***If the democrats have 60 votes this could pass

I could go on and on with examples but do you see the seriousness in this race?  Do you understand that if you do not vote and get others out to vote for Saxby the above could become a reality?  It's in Georgia's hands, I pray that Georgia gets it right.

You may be asking yourself, so what if they get 60, can't the republicans just fight them on this?  Well, the best way to fight the majority on radical agendas is a filibuster and when you have 60 members with the same agenda you cannot even stop them with a filibuster.  60 votes is the magic # in the U.S. Senate to have full control and your opposition cannot stop you.  

Why is this matter coming down to Saxby?  The democrats currently have 57 democratic Senators with two races being "recounted" and votes being found all over the place with only one person being voted for in Minnesota (did not even vote for Obama or local races - just for the U.S. Senator), suspicious right.  So if those two "recount" races end up reversing and the losers (democrat candidates) win then the democrats will have 59 democratic Senators which leaves one up for grabs in the only one that the voters can choose - that's SAXBY in Georgia.  

Please consider this when you vote on 12/2/08 (or early vote / absentee vote).  There is one way to have balance in our government so that we can have more than one voice in D.C. to represent WE THE PEOPLE and that is to vote for SAXBY Chambliss on 12/2/08.  Also, there are two other candidates on the ballot - I met Sheffield at the rally held for Saxby on 11/16/08 and he personally was meeting voters and is a great candidate (my opinion - not representing the opinion of Saxby or others) + Lauren McDonald was there with Saxby at the rally also.  Main thing is GET OUT THE VOTE - turnout is what will determine our fate.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

"Anonymous" McCain Staffers - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

"Anonymous" McCain staffers are leaking their opinions of Sarah Palin in an effort to tarnish her name and reputation.  Do these people get the fact that they single handily are undoing what was a very special moment for most members of the GOP?  We had our first woman VP candidate.  So what does members of our own party do, they take us back to a sexist place in our party.  Personally I am sick of it.  Rumors are that these "anonymous" staffers worked for Romney's campaign prior to going to work for John McCain's campaign, if that is true then Senator McCain HUGE mistake, look how well Romney's campaign went!!!  Now these "anonymous" staffers = cowards afraid to show their faces and give their opinion are trying to pin this on Sarah Palin.  When this campaign was over I chose not to Monday morning quarterback John McCain's campaign because even if I don't agree with all the choices made I believe John McCain did his best and worked very hard, take the day before the election, McCain went to seven states in one day.  So instead of accepting defeat and moving on what does the "anonymous" coward crew do?  They are insulting Sarah Palin and in turn insulting John McCain, that is cowardly and shows their true character or the lack there of.  These people are trying to pin THEIR failures on Palin, McCain, and others.  I urge them to get over it and either come out and show their faces and claim these mean and unverifiable claims against Palin or just shut up.  These people run the risk of pissing off members of our own base that will see the GOP through a different light if this behavior continues.  I feel that leadership of the GOP, oh yeah we are still trying to get leaders, should speak out against these horrible comments.

During this campaign I was very proud of not only our Country for having a black man on one ticket who ran against a woman and a woman on our ticket as VP candidate.  I may not agree with policy beliefs with the other side but I was very proud to see our Country moving forward in a positive direction.  I was proud to see that what I know from my generation who was fortunate enough not to have to live through what prior generations had to live through.  I never had to be separate from others, I grew up with Martin Luther King's dream, little white children and little black children holding each others hands.  I truly believe in judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  So in the future if I disagree with our President elect Obama please understand it will be about policy and it never has been about race for me.  My son and P.E. Obama are the same color, a white mother with a black father, I feel the best of both worlds.  

Sarah Palin is a role model for me and many other women.  Sarah has it all, a beautiful family, a successful career, and a great attitude.  These cowardly people who are trying to tear her down do not even understand how much damage they are doing to our party the GOP.  I love the GOP, this is the party of Lincoln, Reagan, and I do not see my party in these actions.  I will not let these cowards speak for me and my party.  I am not claiming to be the leader of our party but no one else is stepping up condemning these actions which I also feel troubling, so I will say it ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!  Cowards crawl back under your rocks and stop this before you damage the GOP more than it is already damaged.  The GOP can be restructured and will be just fine, but these attacks could cause people like myself to stand back and make sure this is not where my party is going, because if it is I will not be a part of it.  I am an American first, a Conservative second, and typically I identify with the GOP but if this is the path our party goes down and these actions are not condemned I will truly be a Conservative without a party.  That truly hurts me to say that but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.  THIS IS WRONG - ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!  The future of the GOP should look like this (in my opinion):  Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, and others.  Strong and smart conservatives who walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  I will not be a part of a party who talks the talk and tears down those who walk the walk, get it together GOP or if not our party is truly in trouble, you need women and if you do not condemn this flummery then a lot of women will feel disconnected from the GOP, if that occurs then the GOP will truly be in trouble.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

NO Pale Pastels, but Bold Colors

We have a very wise man who was one of our Presidents and he gave a speech in 1975 at CPAC that is appropriate today more than ever.  I heard Sean Hannity read this earlier today on his radio show and it spoke to my heart.  I pray it speaks to every conservatives heart.
Below is words from a very great man, God bless his soul!!!

Let Them Go Their Way

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

Conservative Political Action Conference

Washington, DC

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today

than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.