Where do we go from here as a nation?

The 2020 election concluded when the last polls closed on November 3, 2020. In the following days, final vote tallies were completed, some states conducted recounts, and the process reached its conclusion. There is little doubt that the outcome—a Biden victory—will remain unchanged. The question now is: where do we go from here?

The past two decades have been among the most divisive in modern American history. Our nation bears deep wounds that must be healed, with divisions that have been exacerbated by increasing tribalism and partisanship. It is imperative that we learn from recent history and find a way to move forward together. The challenges ahead demand unity, and the way we have operated over the last twenty years cannot define the next decade.

As a lifelong registered Republican, my lack of support for Trump has never been a surprise to those who know me. There is a common misconception among Trump supporters that opposition to him stemmed solely from partisan loyalty. However, I did not vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016, fully aware that my preferred candidate would not take office in 2017. My opposition to Trump was not about party allegiance; it was rooted in disagreement with many of his policies and leadership style over the past four years. In the same way, I opposed Obama on numerous issues throughout his presidency, while also acknowledging his successes. Like anyone, I have personal biases against Trump, but I have also made a conscious effort to listen to his supporters, to understand their frustrations and aspirations. Many of them feel that their faith, their vision of America, and their political ideology have been under attack for the past twelve years.

At the same time, there is a misconception among many Democrats that Trump supporters are predominantly ignorant or racist, that they harbor hatred toward people of color and embrace bigotry. From my experience, this is simply not true. Many Trump supporters are compassionate, decent people in their everyday lives. Their support for Trump was based on a variety of reasons, and if we are to move forward as a nation, it is critical that we listen and seek to understand those reasons.

There are good people in both parties. What we must stop doing is labeling and dismissing each other. Instead, we should commit to listening more, engaging in thoughtful reflection, and striving to find common ground. I personally am making a commitment to listen and reflect more, and I hope that in the coming years, others will do the same. Reuniting as a country requires meaningful dialogue, especially with those we disagree with. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should strive for compromise and progress. I hope this shift occurs not only in Washington but also in our own homes.

May God bless America.

Beyond Red and Blue: Breaking Free from Political Tribalism

Our country is deeply divided—on politics, religion, culture, and more. The divisions are growing, fueled by an “us vs. them” mentality that does more harm than good. Instead of seeking common ground, we often build walls between ourselves, seeing political opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens with differing viewpoints.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this divide is the way arguments are framed. Straw man arguments dominate the conversation, reducing complex issues to oversimplified attacks.

For example, some people point to certain states to argue that one party is superior to the other. California (a blue state) has problems. Mississippi (a red state) has problems. Neither party controls an entire state from top to bottom, and no county in America votes 100% for one candidate. The reality is far more nuanced than "blue states bad" or "red states bad."

Likewise, labeling an idea as "left" or "right" doesn’t shut down the discussion—or at least, it shouldn’t. Policies should be judged on their merits, not on who proposes them. I agree with Bernie Sanders on campaign finance reform, but I also disagree with him on other issues. The same goes for Biden, Trump, Warren, Cruz, and Paul. No politician is right (or wrong) about everything. Even Sanders and Cruz have voted together at times.

Yet, we often reject ideas not because of what is said, but because of who said it. This is the essence of tribalism, or what I like to call “team sports politics.”

The Problem with Team Sports Politics

Think about a die-hard football fan. If you ask a New England Patriots fan whether Tom Brady cheated, they’ll likely deny it. But ask almost any other NFL fan, and they’ll say he absolutely did. Their judgment isn’t based on facts—it’s based on loyalty.

The same thing happens in politics. People dismiss or accept ideas based on party affiliation rather than evaluating them critically. Imagine taking a quote and presenting it as either from Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz—the reaction would often depend more on the name than the content.

This kind of thinking creates blind spots. It prevents us from truly engaging with new ideas, from challenging our beliefs, and from growing as a nation.

Evaluating Ideas, Not Identities

If we want to move beyond tribalism, we must start evaluating policies and candidates based on substance, not party affiliation. It’s okay to disagree, but let’s base those disagreements on facts and principles rather than partisan loyalty.

Here are some of the most pressing issues in America today that deserve real discussion:

• Immigration
• Tax Reform (higher vs. lower taxes, loopholes, corporate taxes, etc.)
• Healthcare (Medicare for All, Obamacare, full privatization, deregulation, etc.)
• Spending & National Debt
• Infrastructure
• The Role of Government

Each of these issues affects all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. As we approach another election, it's more important than ever to research multiple perspectives, evaluate real data, and form independent opinions. If we do not have these discussions, how can we move forward as a nation? How will we ever see decreasing deficits ever again? 

A Warning from History

Even George Washington warned about the dangers of political factions. In his farewell address, he cautioned:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism... The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington feared that partisan loyalty would eventually lead to tyranny, as people placed party allegiance above the good of the nation. More than two centuries later, we’re seeing just how prophetic his words were.

The Path Forward

If we ever hope to bridge the divide, it won’t come from shouting each other down. It will come from engaging with people, truly listening, and considering ideas outside our personal echo chambers.

It starts with trust—trusting that people on the other side of the aisle aren’t evil, but simply have different perspectives. It starts with humility—being willing to question our own beliefs. And it starts with respect—acknowledging that political opponents are still fellow Americans who care about the country, even if we disagree on how to improve it.

So as the next election approaches, I challenge you: Look at the facts. Seek out different perspectives. Engage in real conversations.

Because the future of this country depends on our ability to see each other not as enemies, but as fellow citizens.

Politics 101: How Do Presidential Primaries Work?

 This edition in our continuing series of short articles helping our readers understand how certain things work in U.S. Politics covers how presidential primaries work.

As you may not have noticed, we now have 17  candidates for the Republican nomination for president. The Democrats have 6 likely candidates, but for most they assume Hilary Clinton will be the nominee. I encourage you to visit realclearpolitics.com to see the latest polling and information on both  nominations. I also encourage people to use the site ISideWith.com to help see where they match up with candidates on the issues.

Starting early next year the democrat and republican parties will be holding primaries or caucuses in each state to determine who will be the nominee for their party. Now, officially you are selecting delegates for your party from your state during the caucus/primary who will go to the party's national convention. Normally, however there are enough delegates which go to one candidate that the nomination is settled far before the national convention.

You may be wondering what the difference between a primary and a caucus is. In presidential nomination campaigns, a caucus is a system of local gatherings where voters decide which candidate to support and select delegates for nominating conventions. Often these gatherings will be very noisy and can last for hours. People will make cases for their candidates and try to sway voters. Eventually a system of voting commences but it is not secret ballot, your vote is known. Some caucuses will have those who support a candidate stand all together and count the numbers from each group.

A primary is a statewide voting process in which voters cast secret ballots for their preferred candidates similar to how we vote for most candidates in a general election. In most states the candidate with the most votes receives all the delegates from that state, however some states will divide them based upon percentage of votes received.

If you aren't bored out of your scull think of it this way. You're in a huge high school, you might not know everyone there so how do people decide on who should be the Homecoming king. Each classroom is given a vote on who they think should be Homecoming King. Since this is such a massive high school though, instead you decide to pick a few people from each class who really like the person they nominate. They then go to the gym and a vote is held. They aren't forced to vote for that person, but it is very likely that they will.

There are also a few other delegates as well who are deemed super delegates. These are party elders such as sitting members of Congress, former presidents and such. They make up approximately 20% of all delegates at the convention. This is to ensure the party's platform represents core values of the party.

Because of the schedule and the general momentum a front-runner gains, normally only the first month and a half of primaries really matter. This means that states like California, with it's massive population will  have little impact on the nomination, and most likely the nomination will be considered settled before it even reaches Ohio in March. Officially the nominee is determined by a candidate receiving a majority of delegates votes at the convention. However when a candidate receives a majority of delegates from the states they then become the presumptive nominee.

What does this mean? In almost every case for last half a century, it means that a candidate who enters the race late, or doesn't gain enough national attention or support by February 1st has little to no chance to win the nomination.

Certain states have firm laws on their primary dates. New Hampshire's law states that their primary must be the first in the nation. Iowa's caucus is always the first caucus in the nation. These first states have a massive impact on the nomination process. There are many who don't agree with the amount of power this affords these two states in comparison to the rest of the country in deciding the future of the country.

If you are still confused this video does a good job of explaining it:



The schedule for primaries and caucuses in 2016 for each state are as follows:
Monday, February 1 Iowa caucus
Tuesday, February 9 New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20 South Carolina
Tuesday, February 23 Nevada caucus
Tuesday, March 1(Also known as Super Tuesday) Alabama Arkansas Colorado caucuses Georgia Massachusetts Minnesota caucuses North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia
Saturday, March 5 Louisiana Nebraska (Dem caucus)
Tuesday, March 8 Hawaii caucus (GOP) Mississippi Michigan
Sunday, March 13 Puerto Rico (GOP)
Tuesday, March 15 Ohio Florida Illinois Missouri
Tuesday, March 22 Arizona Utah
Saturday, March 26 Hawaii caucus (Dems)
Tuesday, April 5 Wisconsin
Tuesday, April 26 Connecticut Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Rhode Island
Tuesday, May 3 Indiana
Tuesday, May 10 Nebraska (GOP primary) West Virginia
Tuesday, May 17 KentuckyOregon
Sunday, June 5 Puerto Rico (Dem)
Tuesday, June 7 California Montana New Jersey New Mexico South Dakota
Tuesday, June 14 Washington, DC
States with no firm dates:
New York North Dakota Utah Colorado Idaho Kansas Maine Washington Wyoming

Let's Get to work on Immigration Reform

I am a conservative and I support immigration reform. In fact I also support a form of amnesty for a good number of illegal immigrants that our currently in our country. Our country has been facing a long standing question on immigration reform, which is: What should we do about the 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants who are living in our country? Should we deport them all to their country of origin, grant them amnesty and let them stay with a path to citizenship or just continue to ignore the problem and hope that it just gets taken care of on its own.

Now let me make this clear I do support all current laws on the books and I think that Obama's actions of giving amnesty without legal backing is unconstitutional. It is his duty to execute the law as dictated by congress; he does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to execute.

Being a firm believer that presidential authority has surpassed constitutional limits through  decades of overreach, I  firmly believe that the president's authority should be scaled back significantly. The easier it is for the president to act without restraints and checks, the easier it will be for an evil man as president to bring upon mankind tyranny and injustice.

As a full supporter of the law, I support congressional authority on this issue, as it is a national issue, which affects the entire country in trade, security, education, and health care.

Considering the events of the last few weeks, securing our border has never been more important. Before addressing the topic of what is being considered I want to first discuss where I have come from so maybe you will see how I have come to my point of view on the issue.

There was a point several years ago where I was all for kicking out every illegal immigrant from our country. They broke our laws, came here illegally and had to be punished for that no matter what. This lasted for a quite a while.

One day I shared these opinions with my mom and she responded by asking me "what about your Aunt?" I have an Aunt who had recently married my Uncle, a paranoid schizophrenic. She came here legally but lost legal status and just stayed here and has since struggled to work toward legal status. I thought about this for a little while.

Before this point I hadn't known anyone who was in the U.S. illegally. I was still stuck in my thoughts and opinions, but it started me thinking. If she were to be deported, what would be the impact on my uncle? He would probably have another episode or possibly something worse.

 While in college I talked to several people including a friend who was working on his path to citizenship. He was born in Canada, but moved to the U.S. around age 3. It took him over 18 years to be able to get citizenship. Even for those who marry citizens the path is not always clear or easy. It can be a long, laborious process that takes many years.

There was a time that we welcomed everyone to come to America. I’m not suggesting that we encourage everyone to come here, but by far we seem to believe that only a few people should come - that they should be similar to who we already are and should speak English perfectly. We used to be a melting pot of countries, ideas and immigrants, but now we are becoming more intolerant and ignorant of other cultures and beliefs.

 In 2007 I was in Las Vegas, and I saw many people whom I was familiar with take to the streets to rally for immigration reform that had been supported by President George W. Bush. This attempt at reform was struck down by congressional Republicans. A few years passed, and our country dipped into what is now being referred to as the Great Recession. I talked with friends of mine from Vegas who mentioned that many illegal immigrants were returning back to their countries due to lack of work. I wondered if this would continue. If so we would not have a problem anymore. The issue with that idea is that many of these people grew up in the U.S, and to them this is their country and many of them don't even speak the home language of their country of birth.

While interning in the Senate I had a long discussion once about my views on immigration with a fellow intern, during which we did some what-ifs. What if someone was brought here as a 2 year old and they are now 23, have never known the country they were born in, and only know this country as their home? How then do you justify punishing a 2 year old for the actions of their parents? I still remained pretty stiff in my response. I looked at what I felt is the burden of illegal immigration. If somehow we got rid of 11 million immigrants then maybe the 14 million people who are out of work would have enough jobs available for them. Maybe our school system would get better, maybe our country wouldn't have as much debt.

 I even thoroughly liked Mitt Romney's idea of self deportation by discouraging illegal immigrants through e-verify and similar methods. The change had started though, as I realized how my ancestors had come to this nation at a time when this land was a shining beacon to all who wanted a new life. We didn't tell others that they couldn't come to our nation because they were poor, or because they couldn't speak the language.

Instead we inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  

Now that I've addressed some whys of immigration reform, let's think about the what. What is being considered? The current senate bill that was passed last year included a long list of ideas including securing the borders, a path to citizenship for illegal's and changing and modernizing the rules for legal immigration to prevent such a backlog and some of the other issues occurring due to the current system.

A simple breakdown of the bill can be found here. I will not go into detail as you can find all of that information for yourself about some of the benefits here, here and here. I would also suggest taking a look at both the Heritage Foundation's opinion and the Cato Institute's opinion on the issues.  I will say a few words however. The bill calls for significant increases to border security through drones and electronic surveillance equipment in addition to the security increase we have seen in the last decade. It would establish a board made up of state leaders to determine when securing the border is complete, which would be made in a final decision by the Director of Homeland Security. Also it calls for an effective plan to enforce employers using documented legal employees which would most likely be through the e-verify system.

This bill may not be perfect, but so far it is the best plan that I have seen. We need our legislators to get to work on this issue now, and stop kicking it down the road for the next Congress to deal with.

Part of the bill also lays out a plan for dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants, giving preferred green cards for those who obtain advanced degrees in areas such as science, math, and engineering. In dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants the plan calls for increased background checks for immigrants and increased cooperation between government organizations in order to respond to issues that come up. It would create a tracking system to make sure that those who come legally continue to abide here legally.

Those who are currently here illegally could apply for legal status if they pay a fine, pay back taxes, and if they pass a background check. They would then be on probationary legal status. However, for full legal status and a green card they would still have to get to the back of the line and wait for all security measures to be put in place. The earliest that any of them could become citizens is in the late 2020's. They also would not get access to public benefits, such as welfare, until granted full citizenship.

So what has been the response to this plan? Some republicans continue to raise the issue that amnesty supports tearing down our current system of laws and encouraging people to break them in the future, although the party seems split on the issue. Earlier this week there was some suggestion that maybe we should rethink pushing immigration reform right now coming from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), but this was shot down by several republican members of congress including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Also, with this has come the issue of whether to pass a comprehensive bill or to go through the process of passing some of the bills piecemeal. Some members suggested that attaching amnesty would surely doom the bill.  The House is set to consider several portions of the bill in small pieces including security and legal immigration changes.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has lead the front to support the bill from the republican side. He recently went to the senate floor to support reform at this time saying, “Here’s my encouragement to my colleagues who don’t agree with the bill that we’ve crafted – change it. Let’s work on changing it. If you believe that what we have today is broken, if you believe that the status quo on immigration is chaos and a disaster...If you believe our laws are not being enforced and we need to pass laws that force the administration – this one and a future one – to enforce our laws, let’s change it. I’m all ears." Surely none of us is opposed to enforcing our proper laws and having a president that supports and upholds the laws of the land are we? However the current system does not do that: it encourages the president to act on his own and not have to take responsibility for his actions.

He continued by saying, "But let’s not leave it the way it is, because the way it is chaos. It’s bad for our country. What we have today is not good for the United States. And our job as policy-makers is not just to come here and criticize. Our job is to come here and to make a difference. .. And what we have now just doesn’t work, it’s not good for our country. We can’t leave it this way. And we have a chance now to, I think, truly improve it. This is not an effort to force anything down anyone’s throat. This bill that we’ve worked on is a starting point. It’s not a take it or leave it proposition. It never has been....Let’s work together. Let’s come up with a solution that modernizes our legal immigration system so it’s good for our economy, that once and for all forces the administration – this one and future ones – to enforce our immigration laws, and that once and for all deals with the 11 million people that are here illegally in a way that’s fair and compassionate. But also fair to the people that did it right, and also a way that ensures that this never ever happens again.”

So what are my views on this issue? Greatly changed: partly due to an increased compassion for other people who I have met and who I have not; partly due to politics and seeing that real change could be made here and now and that we need more compromise; and partly because I understand that there are millions of people that are affected by living here illegally that could be productive members of our society if we allow them.

This plan is fair and fairly straightforward. It does bring about a consequence for those who have committed the crime of coming here illegally through fines, back taxes, a waiting period, and through back of the line status. It also upholds our laws by helping us to have 11 million immigrants become legal. I wonder sometimes how many crimes are not reported because someone is afraid to call the police out of fear that they or their parents might get deported over it. It would lay out a pretty clear plan that would have to be followed with the opportunities for our border to be secured and for people to be able to come to the U.S. legally in the future.

It also allows for the great American Dream to spread further to these people who have come here for a new life, one which they hoped would be better than the one that they left. There was a time when America was a shining beacon to the world of freedom for the oppressed peoples of the world. We even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those who would benefit from this bill are for the most part looking for hope and freedom, much like most of our ancestors when they came here. This plan gives them that hope. This hope and freedom was what we were founded upon. Let us not fail again to be the hope of a brighter day to the world by oppressing those within our country who wish to partake of the American dream.

Mark Zuckerberg and Immigration Reform: Why we need it now.

If you haven't read my original post on immigration reform I encourage you to read it here. In the last few weeks Mark Zuckerberg's group FWD.org released several videos encouraging Americans to support immigration reform in the U.S. The overall point of the following video is to take home the human aspect of this important issue. They are trying to impress upon us that many immigrants believe in American values and want their piece of the American dream. They don't want to be a burden on our system, they want to be here legally.





While it is true that these people are here illegally, it is because of our current outdated laws. If not for that they could be fully functioning members of our society. For most Americans our ancestors came here with the same dreams as many of those who have come here illegally in the last 30 years; their dreams included freedom from religious persecution, tyrannical governments, security for themselves and their children, to gain an education, and to have new opportunities to improve their financial situation.

Many people support changing the current laws, which have become limiting and ineffective in encouraging legal immigration to the U.S. and often punish those who have known no other country but the U.S. as home. The backlog for working visas, even for high skill workers, has become limiting to our nations growth especially in high tech fields. Even spouses of citizens often have a difficult time receiving visas due to the difficulty navigating our system.

This is a serious issue and it deserves a serious debate by our leaders about the best path forward. We need to increase our security checks and protect both our border and our citizens from those who would do harm to us; but we also need to make a clear path for those who share our values, by preparing the way for those who want to come and by making a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

There is an opposition to reform, and I do understand some of the arguments used by opponents to the bipartisan immigration reform bill. As you may be aware there is a bill which has passed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year that is awaiting consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill attempts to address many of the immigration reform issues including securing the border, providing a pathway to citizenship, and providing for more clear regulations on providing visas.

The opposition often points at one major concern: illegal immigrants will be rewarded for coming to the U.S. illegally by granting citizenship. These are the individuals that call any path to citizenship no matter how rigorous "amnesty" and say that it is unacceptable. They state that by offering a path to citizenship we will have failed to uphold the rule of law. They feel there is nothing wrong with current laws but that current laws just need to be enforced.

The answer to this concern though can be answered in several ways, two of which I will explain here. The first is answered by posing these questions: what would you have us do with the (estimated) 14 million immigrants here, many of whom have been here for over 15 years and some who have never known another country? Would you punish them because they were babies when their parents brought them here by sending them to a country where they don't speak the language and don't know anyone? The answer to these questions is no because the cost of deporting 14 million people would be ridiculously high. Instead, the bill requires the border to be secured by adding border patrol agents and electronic monitoring, including drones. Additionally it would implement the e-verify system to ensure workers are here legally. Only after these conditions are put in place would any illegals be allowed to be considered for a visa. It seems to be in our better interest both as members of the human family and as citizens of the United States that we reach out to those who are here illegally and offer them a hand up, not a shove out the door.

The second part of the answer is that there is a punishment put into place. Individuals here illegally would have to pay both a fine and back taxes which they owe, pass a background check, and wait for all those who have already applied to be considered for visas before they would get one. All things considered it is likely that the first individuals in this general category would have to wait 15 or more years to even be considered for citizenship.

Even with all of this, without significant Republican support in the house, it seems immigration reform might fail in the House if public support wavers at all on this issue. This is the best chance we have had in over 5 years to accomplish something which can have lasting positive impact on millions of individuals. I have applauded every member of the Senate who has voted for the bill.

“Today’s final immigration vote represents a product of many long hours of debate, discussion, and deliberation. It takes into consideration the necessity of securing America’s borders, while encouraging the lawful immigration of those who want to come to our shores to contribute to America’s greatness,” said Senator Dean Heller.

“While not perfect, this immigration reform bill is a step in the right direction towards fixing an immigration system that is clearly broken. No question, this has been a contentious debate. While the easy thing to do politically is nothing, the harder choice is to govern. I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans were able to find ways to work together and pass legislation that this great nation deserves.”

To those who are on the fence about supporting the bipartisan gang of eight bill I say this: supporting it does not mean that you agree with everything in it, but it does recognize that this bill is the first significant piece of legislation with bipartisan support that has emerged from either house in the past 5 years, and with additional support it can also pass the House of Representatives.

I encourage you to do research on this bill, think through the issue, and contact your U.S. Representative to voice your support on this issue. It is vitally important that we as citizens become civically engaged in our democratic process in order to maintain our voice. I am glad that Mark Zuckerberg has thrown his support behind the movement and is raising awareness about the subject.

Anthony Wiener: Are morals irrelevant in U.S. Politics?

Does what happens at home or away from the office matter in U.S. Politics anymore? After the second round of accusations against former Rep. Anthony Weiner we must wonder if they don't. He has since begun to fall behind in polling, but is still a major contender for Mayor of New York City. This same sexting scandal was thought to be so disgusting to the American public that he resigned from the House of  Representatives in 2011. Much seems to have changed since then . 

We shouldn't pretend that fidelity and morality are as high of priorities to the current generation as they were to our parents and grandparents. We are certainly living in an age where many people see morals as relative, rather than the moral absolutism of the past. If anything it seems that the winds are blowing against traditional morality today more than ever. 

We are far from the days of the Victorian era of high morality, but the question remains, shouldn't we require a higher standard of honesty and fidelity from our politicians when it comes to basic honesty and fidelity in marriage? Should a concern arise about the type of role models we put to our children through our political leaders if we elect men that lack credibility and any form of basic honesty or integrity.

John Adams said "(It) is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." Many of our founders believed that morals and honesty must be the foundation of our society. Though these men were not perfect, I would say that they were men of profound vision. Some of them were known to be less that perfect on this very topic, but they understood the need for virtue in society. 

So to what standard should our politicians be held? If adultery and lewd behavior is an acceptable fault then why not dishonesty in business, cheating on taxes or stealing? It seems the only thing that seems to matter in political contests is that the name is well enough known, that they have enough money and that they are popular enough. It seems that it has become the new norm to ignore all questions of integrity, but rather to focus on their popularity instead. I understand there are differences of opinion on morality and what moral values should be upheld, but when we are talking about marital vows that have been broken and continue to be broken. It is pretty easy to see the basic need for high moral values for our leaders when it comes to honesty, as they are dealing with large amounts of power and money. With special interest groups holding a great deal of power, how do we fight back against that when our leaders are immoral as well?

We need to encourage good men to stand up and accept the role of leadership ones who have integrity and who are not merely wealthy and popular. What it will take though, is the American people to wake up, become informed, and get involved. Voting is not the beginning and end of our civic duty. Honesty and integrity need to be renewed as basic values to Americans, starting in the home, where both parents teach those two values. It then continues in our school, where cheating isn't just discouraged but unthought of. If we continue this chain we can regain a great deal of the foundational values that our forefathers built this country upon, without it our foundation will crumble and be lost.

The RNC Benghazi Attack Campaign Ad That Never Ran.

By Tim Newton This ad was one which the RNC created but never ran during the campaign.
Why did the RNC decide not to run this ad focused on Benghazi, which could have put further heat on a president who was nowhere to be found in the aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack on a Libyan mission?



The ad states:"It's 3am and your children are safe asleep but there's a phone in the white house that's ringing, something's happened in the world." It then says: “The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.”  After the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”

ABC News reported:”A source familiar with the creation of the ad says the RNC leadership approved the ad but it was scrapped at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign, which was concerned the ad would distract from Romney’s efforts to focus on the economy.”


Upcoming soon, one of our authors will cover the Benghazi story in depth, giving us some understanding of what happened, who's to blame and why it still matters now. But I leave you with one question: Should the RNC and Romney Campaign run this ad? Tell us what you think below.