Domino's Pizza Founder Gets Preliminary Injunction Against Contraception Mandate Enforcement

Great news for religious liberty today.  The Domino's Pizza founder has been granted a preliminary injunction against the contraception mandate.  Here is the report from the Religious Clause blog:

Another court has granted a preliminary injunction to a for-profit business and its owner, preventing enforcement against them of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  In Monaghan v. Sebelius, (ED MI, Dec. 30, 2012), a Michigan federal district court held that the property management company, Domino's Farms Corp., and its owner Thomas Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza) had adequately alleged that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on Monaghan's Catholic religious beliefs:

Monaghan contends that his compliance with the mandate would require him to violate his religious beliefs because the mandate forces him, and/or the corporation he controls, to pay for, provide, facilitate, or otherwise support contraception, sterilization and to some extent, abortion....

The Supreme Court has held that "putting substantial pressure  on an adherent  to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs" substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion.... [T]he Court is in no position to decide whether and to what extent Monaghan would violate his religious beliefs by complying with the mandate....  Other courts have assumed that a law substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion based on that person’s assertions.

The court went on to hold that at this point the government had not carried its burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of showing that it had a compelling interest or used the least restrictive means in burdening plaintiff's free exercise. MLive reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Worst Regulations of 2012

In this era of regulating everything in our lives, the Heritage Foundation has put a list together of the 10 worst regulations of 2012:

During 2012, virtually every aspect of American life, from caloric intake to dishwasher efficiency, was subjected to government meddling.

Most of these rules increase the cost of living, others hinder job creation, and many erode freedom. Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course, but increasingly, the rules imposed by the government have less to do with health and safety and more to do with whether government or individuals get to make basic pocketbook and lifestyle decisions that affect them. And it is not just the regulators who are to blame. Congress writes laws that give unelected bureaucrats the broad powers they wield.

In a great many cases, the agencies do not even consider costs when crafting new regulations. For example, the Government Accountability Office, in a report released last week, found that the agencies implementing the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law did not meet the government’s own standards for regulatory analyses. Nor did they evaluate alternatives to regulation.[1]

Which are the worst? There is no objective standard to measure such things, but here is Heritage’s take on 2012’s bottom 10:

10. Mortgaging the Future: “Simplified” Mortgage Disclosure and Servicing Rules

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. In August, the bureau proposed more than 560 pages of rules for mortgage servicing, which includes the collection of mortgage payments, maintenance of escrow accounts, and loan modifications and foreclosures. Many of the provisions would micromanage the timing, (expanded) content, and format of various disclosures. All of this, of course, will—simply—reduce consumer mortgage lending options and increase costs.[2]

9. Tracking Your Travels: Electronic Data Recorder Mandate

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 13 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate installation of electronic data recorders, popularly known as “black boxes,” in most light vehicles starting in 2014. The stated goal is to collect more information about car accidents. But manufacturers, without a government mandate, already put recorders in many models. A government mandate understandably spooks privacy advocates, who warn of possible abuse of the information on drivers collected by federal bureaucrats.

8. Choice Cutbacks: Essential Benefits Rule

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grabs the number 8 spot with its proposed list of “essential health benefits,” published on November 26. Under Obamacare, insurers in the individual and small group markets will be forced to cover services that the government deems to be essential. The HHS list of very broad benefits has created enormous uncertainty about the extent of essential treatment. Included in the list are mental health coverage, “wellness” services, “habilitative” services, chronic disease management, and pediatric oral and vision care. The net result will be higher health insurance costs, which will increase the burden on consumers, employers, and taxpayers.

7. Instant Union: Quickie Union Election Rule

In April, the National Labor Relations Board issued new rules that shorten the time allowed for union-organizing elections to between 10 and 21 days. The rule delays most administrative issues—such as challenges to the definition of the appropriate bargaining unit—until after the election. This leaves little time for employees to make a fully informed choice on unionizing, threatening to leave workers and management alike under unwanted union regimes.[3]

6. Don’t Let Them Eat Cake: School Lunch Standards

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in January published stringent nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. More than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools are affected—at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion over the next four years. The dietary rules have drawn protests from students, including the YouTube video “We Are Hungry” from a Kansas high school and a lunch boycott by high school students in Wisconsin.

5. Cleaned Out: Dishwasher Efficiency Standards

Regulators admit that these Department of Energy rules will do little to improve the environment. Rather, proponents claim they will save consumers money. But they will also increase the price of dishwashers, and only about one in six consumers will keep his or her dishwasher long enough to recoup the cost.[4] Whatever the numbers, this is a call that consumers—rather than Washington—should be making.

4. Soda Socialism: New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit

Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. New Yorkers are apparently still allowed refills, at least for now. No word on how many New York City cops will be moved from crime prevention to monitor the city’s soda fountains.

3. Sticker Shock: Fuel Economy Standards

In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), finalized new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars. Regulators argue that the fuel savings will make up these costs. Whether consumers want to make such a trade-off does not matter. The government has decided for them.

2. Increasing Energy Costs: EPA Emissions Standards

The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually. The regulations will produce a significant loss of electricity generating capacity, which would undermine energy reliability and raise energy costs across the entire economy.

1. Conscience Denial: HHS’s Contraception Mandate

The HHS on February 15 finalized its mandate that all health insurance plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives.[5] The mandate allows no exceptions for church-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charities whose religious principles conflict with the mandate. To date, 42 cases with over 110 plaintiffs[6] are challenging this restriction on religious liberty as a violation of the First Amendment.

No End in Sight

As busy as regulators were in 2012, do not look for them to slow down in the new year. Already in the pipeline are dozens of new rules covering health care, finance, global warming, and more. It is anybody’s guess who will win next year’s prize. The only safe bet is that consumers will lose.

Les Miserables - A Great Message For Our Time

It is rare to see a film which boldly declares the existence of God and our need to adhere to His will as much as Les Miserables.  This film is thoughtfully made and beautifully executed.  I think if you've never seen the play, you will still be moved by the story.  It is certainly an excruciatingly emotional film, so bring a box or two of Kleenex.  But, the redemption that comes to Jean Valjean for turning his life over to God is inspirational. 

Here is some analysis on the theme of redemption in the film:

Despite the apparent hopelessness in many scenes, it becomes clear that evil has not won the day. Indeed, Jean Valjean is given another lease on life by Bishop Myriel, who is an extremely positive example of Christian concern for other persons. The Bishop saves Valjean from imprisonment and torture and tells him that he has saved him. He tells Valjean God has a plan for him and in an extremely poignant scene, Valjean struggles with his feelings of hatred and anger in a church. He cannot seem to reconcile the mercy shown to him by the Bishop with his view of the world. It is Valjean’s initial view which loses out. His anger and hatred are given over to providing hope and taking care of the needy. He becomes a moral hero, despite the necessity of his continuing to flee from the authorities.

Ultimately, the grounding for human dignity and rights is found not in the tribulations of the world but in God’s justice in the hereafter. The epic closing scene depicts all the dead lined up in heaven praising God and glorying in redemption. Without this, the movie would be nearly hopeless. Instead, Jean Valjean is guided into the afterlife by Fantine and Bishop Myriel. The explicit Christian elements in this final redemption are clearly portrayed, crucifixes are prominent and it is the Bishop into whose hands Valjean is accepted.

If you haven't seen it, I hope you do.  It is a great film!

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to everyone! 

Standing Up For Private Property Rights In China

This bizarre picture is from China, where as you can see there seems to be a disagreement on zoning. The owners of this home refused to allow it to be demolished since the price they are being offered by the government is not sufficient considering the cost of they had invested (not even close).  Sometimes the Chinese government finds ways to take the home anyway.  For instance, they may turn off all electricity (which amazingly is still running at this point).  Sometimes the government will order the house demolished when the owners are away, but in this case the owners are staying there 24/7 and are actually sleeping in different sides of the house at night in order appeal to the humanistic side of the demolition crews.  So far it has worked.

This is the story of modern China though, where the strong regional governments have absolute control over zoning.   Private property interests and the will of citizens are not as important.  It is good to see people pushing back, though I think we can all see how this will end up.

Jeb Bush For President?

Okay, so apparently Jeb Bush is considering a run for President in 2016.  I'm going to just come out and say it - seems like a bad idea.

Bush is still a toxic name for US presidential politics.  Has anyone noticed that the Bush's did not spend much time campaigning for Romney, or speaking up at all during the campaign?  This isn't, I believe, just because they are retired.  It is because they know that Obama has convinced a lot of people that President Bush (W) destroyed the US economy.

Is this true?  Of course not.  I have the highest respect for the Bush family.  I think that W Bush was not the disaster that even many Republicans claim he was.  However, that's not what matters.  What matters is that so many people think this.  So, bringing another Bush into the Presidential ring puts Jeb in a starting point way behind anyone else.

Now, one can argue that Jeb would be a stronger candidate than, say, Santorum or Bachmann (of course, one can argue that he wouldn't be), but what does that really say?  We need a strong, articulate conservative who can make the case to the country in a fresh way.

Can he be the one that does this?  Is he a strong enough?  Can he overcome the Democrat media machine sufficient to overcome his name?  Is this country willing to elect someone that they think has been president twice already?  I doubt it.

How Private Property Rights Saved The Pilgrims

From Volokh.com:

Today is Thanksgiving, and there is much to be thankful for. Not least on the list is the institution of private property, without which the Pilgrims might not have survived, and we would not have this holiday. Economist Benjamin Powell recounts the story here:

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

Tom Bethell gave a more detailed account in this 1999 article.

In my 2010 Thanksgiving post on this subject, I noted that Thanksgiving is also a good time to disabuse ourselves of the longstanding myth that Native Americans had no private property rights and opposed the concept when it was supposedly first introduced by whites. In that post, I also explained why the lessons of the Pilgrims’ experience with private and communal property are in no way negated by the fact that the Plymouth Plantation was a corporation.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!!

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Constitutional Conservatism vs. Judicial Minimalism

The Federalist Society (Conservative and Libertarian Law Organization) held a national convention in DC last week.  One of the panels was about the state of Federalism and included some very prominent lawyers and scholars.  The link to the discussion can be found here.

A few key points that I found interesting.  Professor Barnett (of Georgetown Law school) defined two aspects of conservatism in judicial decisions.  First, there is Judicial conservatism and second is Constitutional conservatism.  Judicial conservatism is sometimes called judicial minimalism and refers to the idea that the Courts should defer to decisions made by those in elected positions unless their action is clearly unconstitutional.  It is widely considered that Chief Justice John Robert's opinion on the Affordable Care Act (upholding it based on the taxing power) was judicial minimalism.  In other words, regardless of what he actually thought of the law, he chose to uphold it based on a belief that, if possible, that's what Courts should do since the law was passed by elected officials.  Judges, as the thought goes, are not elected, so they should not be overriding laws passed by the other branches of government unless there is an obvious reason to do so.

Constitutional Conservatism refers to the idea that judges should restrict their decisions to the written text of the Constitution, which expressly limited governmental power.  It is this type of decision-making that Justice Scalia is well-known for as an "originalist."  

As was correctly discussed on the panel, judicial minimalism, if one believes in it, is only an intellectually valid concept if those who are proponents of it actually support it regardless of the law in question.  What I find interesting is that I doubt those that herald the decision of the Chief Justice on the Affordable Care Act actually would support his making the exact same decision with the Defense of Marriage Act.  It is the law of the land that was brought to be by democratically elected members of Congress.  So, based on the idea of judicial minimalism, DOMA should be upheld.  However, it strikes me as obvious that those that were supported of the healthcare law on a principle of "minimalism" would also be supportive of striking down DOMA.  

What I take away from that conclusion is that the idea of Judicial minimalism is a convenient one when you support a law, but not as convenient when you don't. It sounds like a decent theory on the surface, but I think it misses the point entirely of what the Judicial Branch has always been designed to do.  If judicial minimalism should guide their decisions, then why have a Constitution at all?  Why have a judiciary?  The fact that members of the Supreme Court are un-elected works to the benefit of our society as a calming force as they are not subject to the winds of politics.  And, as both sides can agree on given the past few election cycles, having a calming force in government is only a good thing.

I therefore support the second option above, which is Constitutional Conservatism. This concept assures that we have a basis for decision that is consistent over time and ensures an acknowledgement for the principles defined by the Framers.  I will discuss this one more later as it is an important concept that needs to be promoted more avidly.  

In a related note, one point made by Professor Barnett is that clearly 5 "conservative" Justices on the Supreme Court are not enough, as there is always the possibility that one will give in to pressures of the other branches or of the media.  Now, I'm not ready to say that this is what the Chief Justice did as you can look at his past decisions and see that this concept of judicial minimalism has been a guiding principle of his for a long time.  However, if you are a Constitutional Conservative, then you want more than 5 conservatives on the court since what it means to be conservative is not necessarily a consistently-held doctrine by the court members themselves.

Hobby Lobby Loses In Court, Says It Will Appeal

Hobby Lobby lost their case today (though I'm confident the decision will be appealed) against the Obamacare provision that their insurance coverage must cover birth control.  Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution which means that it does not have the ability to reject the provision based on religious grounds.  It is, instead, a privately-owned company whose owners are Christians who run their organization to the best of their Christian values.  This means that they even go so far as to keep their doors closed on Sundays, which must cost their company profit, but shows their commitment to their values.

The Judge today says that he could not find evidence of protection in any prior cases for private institutions to practice religious liberty the way that Churches can.  So, the categories of "private" and "religious" are distinct in terms of Constitutional protection of rights, as he reads the law.

This is a case being led by the excellent Becket Fund For Religious Liberty who of course will appeal the case.  One point to be made here, as was made by the judge in this case, is that while there may not be precedent that private companies can avoid government regulation on religious grounds, that only highlights the precedent-setting overreach of Obamacare.  When in the past has the Federal government mandated that private companies provide benefits against their owners' religious beliefs?  So, I think that the government reach of this law justifies new precedent-setting decisions by courts to protect the rights of citizens.

It is unfortunate that this judge did not see it this way.  May the next court make a better decision.

This has huge implications across the country as there are a number of companies who have religiously active owners and founders who should have a vested interest in the way this case turns out.  Even if the contraceptive mandate by Obamacare doesn't offend them, something in the future might.  Once you open the door to these types of things, it is only a matter of time before something that initially seems small and insignificant to some becomes grossly intrusive to many.

Playing Catch-up

I've had a VERY busy week and have been behind in blogging.  Never a dull week in politics, though.  The President is claiming he is committed to avoiding the "fiscal cliff."  The GOP looks like it is okay with raising taxes under certain circumstances.  General Petraeus had an affair.  Obama altered the CIA talking points on Benghazi.  Romney stated a fact on a call to his donors that Obama's promise of a larger government and "free stuff" helped him win the election and some GOP have decidedly over-reacted to this truthful comment.  Palestinians have struck Israel who is fighting back. Members of the GOP are still pointing fingers at each other about how the election was lost.  Companies are laying off employees or reducing hours due to the Obamaconomy and the coming impact of Obamacare.  Some companies have decided to pass the cost (explicitly) to the customer. And, citizens of some states are trying to get their state to secede from the US.

I believe those are the major stories of the week.

On to more important matters, I'm sitting here waiting for Microsoft to announce when the Surface Pro is going to be released.  They are saying maybe January and the rumor is they are waiting for the new Intel processor to be produced.  I'm very excited about it and will buy it the day it comes out as my computer is slowly dying and it is time for an upgrade.

Suffice it to say, I love this country and I am committed to promoting conservative values, but everyone needs time off every so often.

What Should The GOP Do About Immigration?

One topic that is being discussed quite a bit post-election is what the GOP's immigration policy should be.  I find that I don't have as strong of an opinion as many do on this topic.The fact that I live in TX is probably partially to blame for this.  I know a lot people who came here illegally, but who are great people who, from their perspective, made a rational decision to attain a better life and it worked.  I'm not excusing them, just providing their point of view.

When Governor Perry discussed in the debates last fall that he signed legislation allowing children of illegal immigrants to attain in-state tuition, he was boo'd.  However, as a Texan who lives around people in this situation, I see where Perry and the overwhelming majority of the TX legislature came from.

However, I also definitely see the point of those who want us to be much tougher on immigration (aka Arizona).  Illegal immigrants come over and sap up our generous social welfare offerings, causing a greater burden on the US taxpayer.  They take away our jobs.  They sometimes (as was demonstrated in the Arizona Supreme Court case earlier this year) are responsible for a heavy increase in crime (such as drug trafficking).

So, these are not small issues.  I definitely want the US to secure the borders.  This feels like something that should occur regardless of any subsequent policy.  However, what is done then is, I think, up for discussion.

Of the illegals in the country now, we have different categories:
-People that just came over
-People that have been here for years
-People that were brought over as children and grew up here.

Within all three categories are people who have obeyed the law and people who haven't.  Those committing crimes should be deported more aggressively, no compromise.

For those that have been here for years and years and have proven that they can contribute, should we allow a "path to citizenship?'  For those that just came over recently, I think the path should be harder.  They need to prove their commitment to this country.  But, what should it be? 2 years of military service? Or, should they be forced to return to their native countries?

Or, is there really no path to citizenship at all and we should take an aggressive stance on this issue?

I'm interested in people's thoughts.  I'm not sure, as I said, what my opinion is.  Please chime in.

Veterans, Thank You!

I know I am a day late but don't think my inability to post reflects a lack of remembrance. Thank You Veterans!!!

Conservatives Should Not Sacrifice Values

I'm having an amusing time watching pundits across the media-sphere blame conservative values for the Romney loss.  They say that conservative values have clearly been shown to be unpopular and the GOP should not stand by these values anymore.  What is interesting is what Rush pointed out today on his show so well - if the Dems lost, would they say that their core values need to be altered?  Would they say, "hey, maybe we should be pro-life now instead of pro-choice?"  Absolutely not!  They would talk about how to get out the vote better or how to message better (and these are valid things we should consider), but they would not be talking about changing their core views.

How did Obama win this election?  He certainly did not try to appeal to a broad base by any  means.  He actually micro-targeted specific voting populations and that is about it.  He never tried to win larger segments of the popular vote, he only tried to win in the margins in certain regions.  And, he did it better than we did.  That's it.

That is not at all a referendum against the GOP and for the Dems.  If anything, a few tweaks here, a re-designed message there, a better GOTV campaign, and we would have won.

Here's the thing, and this is very important:  The GOP's principles should not just reflect the values of small government, individual responsibility and religious freedom because those are things we've always believed, these values need to be maintained because they are the bases for keeping our country free.  We simply cannot give up on these values.

I read an op-ed in the WSJ where a young college Republican said we should abandon our social principles.  I've heard others say this as well.  "GOP, you lost the culture war.  Get over it!" This is dangerous.  We may be losing the culture war (think about the reaction a show like Glee would have had if it had aired in the 70s.)  But, that doesn't mean we stop fighting.

Whether this country wants to believe it or not, there is a difference between right and wrong, good and bad.  There are things that will make us stronger as a people and as a society, and there are things that will tear us down.  Do we really want to live in country where nobody is fighting to end abortion just because it is less and less popular to oppose it?  Do we want to live in a world where no one fights for traditional marriage just because Hollywood has decided to make fun of anyone that opposes same-sex marriage?  Are those reasons alone to not stand up for your values?

The bottom line is that the GOP (and I mean conservatives) MUST remain true to our core values.  I completely agree that learning to package them better is fair feedback.  One thing the Dems have over us is messaging.  Another fair assessment is we need to get better at training our candidates to be ready for prime time.  Our side will always be more scrutinized then the other side, so we need to accept that and prepare our folks better.

But, that is completely different than changing core values.  Any type of negotiation to change who we are must be off the table.

Is Rick Santorum Responsible For Obama's Re-Election?

I am trying to wrap my mind around the fact that so many conservatives chose not to vote.  It is pathetic.  These so-called Patriots should have been first in line at the polls, voting with pride for the Romney-Ryan ticket.  Instead, they sat at home, threw up their hands, and decided to allow Obama (possibly the worst president in history) to be re-elected.  I am wholly disappointed in these individuals.

One comment that I keep reading on various blogs is that some of these individuals never believed that Romney was really very different then Obama.  For anyone actually paying attention to Romney's values, this is absurd.  However, some had convinced themselves after the mudslinging in the primaries that Romney was basically "Obama-lite."  Therefore, on the big day, Romney lost in large part because so many "conservatives" decided not to vote. (By the way, I'm a staunch conservative and do not wish to be associated with these individuals at this moment.  Maybe we should start to distinguish "conservatives who actually care about our country and will ALWAYS vote" and "conservatives who don't mind stabbing the GOP candidate in the back").

So, as I consider the progression of the campaign and what could have possible caused this lackluster turnout, I can't help but look at Rick Santorum.  He was the runner-up primary candidate.  He had the greatest responsibility to stand with Romney after Romney won the primary.  He should have been at fundraiser after fundraiser, he should have been zig-zagging the country campaigning for the man who actually had a shot at ending Obama's disaster presidency.

But, where was he?  I barely saw him in the news at all.  He was especially silent initially after losing the primary.  I have to assume that he was licking his wounds.  Okay, fair enough for a week or two.  But, then where was he?  Over the past few weeks, I've seen New Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain doing interview after interview supporting Mitt Romney.  But, I did not see Santorum.

We know that 3 millions "conservatives" stayed home on election day.  I can't help but think that many of these are the folks that likely supported Santorum and never got over the Romney primary win.  (Some are Ron Paul supporters also, which I'll get to in another post.)

Santorum recently published an op-ed talking about the problems this country faces.  Why?  Why so soon after the election?  Is he planning his next campaign?

Santorum needs to look himself in the mirror and consider what role he played in Romney's defeat.

Romney Site Shows He Would Have Repealed Obamacare

Romney said time and time again throughout the election that he was serious about repealing Obamacare.  His primary challengers said they never fully believed that he would.  For some reason they chose to paint him as a man who is not of his word.

Romney's already-designed transition website was live for a few hours after election day and shows clearly the type of President he would have been.  And, just to make clear for all of those who doubted, the site made it clear that he was going to get Obamacare repealed  first by offering an exemption to all states starting day 1 of his presidency, and then by working with Congress to repeal it completely.

You can also see from his site that he was going to focus on reducing the size of government.

It pains me that so many conservatives doubted and so many Americans couldn't see through the "free stuff" they want from government to vote for the clearly better candidate.  This man was the right man for us here and now, and this country rejected him.

Conservatives Re-Elected Obama

I am still trying to understand the exit polling which points to the fact the 3 million fewer conservatives voted in this election then in the last one.  With such a long primary season, it is certainly obvious to those who were paying attention that Romney took hit after hit from the "conservative base" (which I would like to dispute since MANY conservative supported Romney as well).  Romney was bruised and battered by the time he was able to start going after Obama.  And, unfortunately, there were Republicans that just couldn't ever get on board.  So, we have evidence now that the GOP electorate was not as enthused as previously thought.  Romney won Independents!  That almost always means that he should have won the whole thing.  However, he never thought that he couldn't count on his own base.  That is tragic. Romney should not have had to spend more time and money winning the GOP.  Conservatives should have come out for him because they should have known that by not voting, they were re-electing Obama.  And so they did.

It really makes me sick to my stomach and I am very disappointed in the American people, but especially in those that above all should have known better, but decided to stay home.

How The American People Let Me Down

A few years ago I was dating a man that we'll call Edward. He was a good guy and had a lot of great traits but I knew he wasn't "the one." I knew that at the onset of our relationship but thought it might change. For a while, I forgot about it. I enjoyed being with him, he loved me...it was great. Then through a series of events, our differences crystallized and I knew we were not meant to be. I cried, wore comfy clothes, curled up in my comforter, prayed for understanding, and spent time with family and friends to heal my wounds. I realized through time that I wasn't mourning Edward...I was mourning who I wanted Edward to be. I wanted him to be "the one" but he wasn't.

Since Tuesday, I have been going through another breakup. All the same signs are there - comfy clothes, sadness, chocolate, tears. Lest you think I compare Mitt to Edward, let me state that I unequivocally support Mitt Romney. He was and is the best man for the job and I support his efforts wholeheartedly. Our nation will be worse without his leadership. My breakup is with the American people. The American People (TAP) are good folks but you are not who I thought you were. I thought you cared for freedom, religious liberty, and opportunity. I thought you believed as I do that taxes were a burden and should be born minimally. That opportunity comes with risk and that's part of success. That our governmental leaders should represent the best of America and we should expect nothing less. That we have inalienable rights given to us by God, not the government. I learned Tuesday how far apart we are.

Just with Edward, the signs were there, I just ignored them. When "The Life of Julia" came out and showed a woman go through her life completely reliant on the government and without the benefit of family and marriage, I was outraged. Why is this administration promoting reliance on the government? Where is her family? Where is her husband? As a woman, I was offended. As an American, outraged. As a taxpayer, I was completely taken back.

When it became clear in the presidential debate that Obama was dishonest in his discussion of Benghazi and there appeared to be a cover up and worse, possible incompetence that led to the death of American lives, I was appalled.  I thought you were with me. I thought TAP saw what I saw - a president that lied and was still lying to us.

When an Obama ad came out that likened voting for him as losing one's virginity, I was angry. How dare the president take something so sacred and private and make it a punchline! And why is promiscuity being promoted?? I was outraged on so many levels. I know not as many of you were with me then but I thought TAP would still at least find it offensive.

And then election night came. TAP passed up a man of impeccable grace and integrity. Someone whose skill set perfectly fits our needs as a country and believes in American Exceptionalism. Someone who knows what that means. Instead, TAP chose a man who apologized to the world for TAP's actions, enslaved TAP in more debt than ever before in history, broke promises to TAP (like "reaching across the aisle"...what a joke!), and blamed others for his ineptness and inexperience. Worse, TAP chose someone who lied to, didn't protect, and treated TAP with disrespect. And yes, TAP, by staying home on election day or voting for a fringe candidate, you voted for this man. I thought you were something I guess you aren't, TAP, and so I mourn who I thought you were.

Where TAP and Edward are different, however, is that TAP, you didn't use to be this way. Remember years ago when you supported the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, and freedom? Remember those good times when 49 states went to Reagan. It wasn't because he could give a good speech (which he could) but that he stood for something we all believed in. Remember how strongly you believed that your rights came from God, not government? TAP, I am praying that you remember.

Edward and I parted ways and it was the best decision. TAP - you and I are stuck together. We are made from the same cloth. I am sorry if I let you down in some way. Maybe the message wasn't clear enough or we let our disagreements get the best of us. I don't know the reason why we have this split, but we do. I am going to take a few weeks and mourn the loss of what I thought we were. But once I have watched enough romantic movies, read enough books wrapped in my comforter, and eaten the last of my breakup chocolate, I will come back and for the next 4 years do everything I can to work out our differences. My hope is that in 4 more years, we can come together and remember our values: self-reliance, freedom, love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I pray, TAP, that between now and then, the consequences of the choice you made won't be irreparable.

How Does The Republican Party Move Forward?

This is a very difficult time for a lot of people.  Romney is a good man and was a wonderful candidate.  For him not to win is a tragedy for our nation.  The fact that Obama ran such a small campaign with so many controversies and so much name-calling and that he could win re-election tells me that this country was destined to vote for Obama all along, no matter what.  Maybe it is because Obama is black (which I believe is a primary reason for his first and second election.  Nobody this incompetent could hold the presidency unless there was some other reason bringing people to the polls).  Maybe it is because Latinos bought into his bribe on immigration.  Maybe it is because women bought into his bribe on contraception.  

Either way, we lost.  It is a hard loss.  My heart goes out to Romney and his family.  They fought hard and deserved to win if there was any justice in the world.  If Americans were able to see who he is with clarity, he would have won.  But, the media never let that happen and never questioned Obama’s lies about Romney.  Republicans, I guess, just need to stop expecting the media to be fair.  It simply will never happen.

My heart breaks for this nation.  We chose a weaker path.  Our economy makes us weaker, our foreign policy makes us weaker, our faith in government makes us weaker.  And, we are choosing this through our democratic process.

I hate to discuss strategy so soon since we in a period of mourning, but very soon it will be time to decide how to move forward as a Party.  This will be important since we need to go big or we will lose.  We must go big. So, here are some thoughts as we move forward:

1)  Republicans need to get better at messaging.  Obama got away with lie after lie throughout the election campaign.  Democrats keep calling the GOP the party of ‘no.’ However, they never acknowledge the many budgets passed by the House that could have avoided the coming fiscal cliff.  We are not the party of ‘no,’ we are the party of ideas, and Democrats are the ones that refuse to compromise.  We have to find a way to get this across better.

2) Republicans need to find a way to appeal to minorities.  This can’t just happen during an election year, but must occur now, long before the next election. I don't know if this means it is time to come up with immigration reform (though Bush tried to do that and it didn't help).  I'm not sure how to do this, but it is clear that given the changing demographics, minorities need to see that the GOP has more to offer.

3) The House GOP needs to hold steady.  We are VERY lucky to still have a GOP House.  And, at this point, we have nothing to lose.  We already lost the election.  So, we need to stand strong and stop as much of the Obama agenda as possible.

4) We need to go to church and encourage our friends and neighbors to go to church. The fact is that churches help individuals learn about traditional marriage, self-sufficiency, respect for life and so-on.  Churches can have an influence that no other unit aside from family can.

5) We need to support other private organizations, like non-profits that support pro-life or small government or family issues.  The organizations create research, hire lawyers, organize citizens, and facilitate many other activities that further our causes.

6) We need to get a stronger voice in the media.  Thank goodness for new media, thank goodness for Fox News.  But, we have to do more.  There are Americans who didn't hear anything positive about Romney in this campaign. We have to broaden our influence and teach people about basic conservative principles.  This is a center-right nation, but it is hard for people to identify with a movement they don’t hear anything about.  I know this is harder said than done given that the media is Liberal.  However, there has to be a way to use media better.

7)  We have to explain the merits of small government better.  Saying that you support small government doesn't translate to people that don't understand its merit.  We have to find a way to explain to people what this is and why it is important.

8)  We should NOT compromise our values.  I know a lot of moderates will say we didn't pivot to the center enough.  But, we have to stand by our values and help people understand the merits of these values.  Walking away from them would be the death of our party and the death of this country.  Messaging is important.  Reaching out is important.  But, abandoning who we are cannot be an option.

Here’s the bottom line, this country has lived through socialist-leaning presidents before.  Remember Carter?  Remember FDR?  We are certainly weaker and we will be even weaker over the next four years.  But this is not just a series of battles, this is a war.  This is the history of our nation that future generations will look back at and either know that we pivoted significantly to the Left or that we blunted the Democrat insurgency and took our country back.  It may take a little longer than we wanted to get control again, but the fight is worth it.

So, right now we will eat our Ben and Jerry’s, lick our wounds, get a few extra hours of sleep, and then get up and fight.  We have to.

One more note:
We need to get everything out of the Supreme Court that we can now.  Let’s face it, we have two GOP-leaning justices who are ageing and may not be able to remain on the Court throughout an entire Obama presidency.  Allowing Obama to replace either of them would be a disaster.  We need to start praying for their health and getting as many cases to the Court now as possible.  Obamacare was found constitutional, but there are many parts of this mammoth law that would win in a battle. This could be in the end the most tragic consequence of electing Obama to a second term.

Mitt Romney's Graciousness