I have something of a problem with a Republican Debate being put on by ABC taking place on Sunday morning. I mean, who is going to watch such a thing in the first place? And second, why in the world would a news agency choose to put such a thing on television when everybody in America is either on the golf course, in church, or in bed? You don't see many 'Prime Time' shows on in that busy Sunday 9 a.m. time slot, you know?

O.K. Off that soapbox now, let's get to the meat of a couple of issues in the clips I have seen online.

First, the Tom Tancredo clip on an "Unhealthy" Healthcare System and Rudy Giuliani's clip on taxes and bridges are right on the money.

Republicans like to spout the Reagan lines of "smaller government" and "lower taxes," but have neither a decent record on either nor do they drive home these points well enough in my estimation.

Both were driven out of the park like a juiced Barry Bonds home run Sunday morning.

Did you see the look on Mitt Romney's face while Giuliani was speaking on the topic of reducing taxes in New York city which resulted in an increase in tax revenues? OMG...he wanted to jump right in and say, "AMEN, Mayor!" And quite frankly, I wish he would have.

Incidentally, and irrevently, do Mormons say 'Amen'? No offense intended if they don't.

The Mayor quoted historical evidence from heavily Liberal New York City records from his tenure as mayor there that showed that by reducing taxes rates by 25%, an increase in tax revenue of 45% was the result.

This mirrors the effect of the Bush tax cuts from 2000 wherein the long-term capital gains rate of 28% was reduced to 15%, among other reductions in income tax rates, etc, resulting in a significant increase in income tax revenues!

Further, I have read that in each and every case since 1900 (or whatever the date was) in which the tax rate has gone up, tax revenues have decreased. And in the same time frame, when tax rates decreased, tax revenues have increased. However, I have never seen nor read anything online nor seen anything on the news or cable about the opposite being the case.

Let me repeat that for effect...

As much as Democrats bash Republicans, and specifically President Bush, on everything they can or can make up (see present debate on Spy Bill the Senate finally relented on and passed after Democrats have roundly beaten the President up over warrantless wiretapping for two-plus years), there has been NOTHING said to dispute this widely accepted ECONOMIC LAW and FACT!!

How funny it was to hear the question being asked from the Liberal perspective, as Giuliani noted, that assumes that if you want to increase tax revenues, you should simply increase tax rates. And not only did the moderator assume this widely-accepted Democratic falsehood perpetuated for decades, ignoring facts stated above, but when he tried to push the Mayor on what programs specifically the Mayor would cut, the Mayor replied with the above fact-based (and applause-supported) reply, and roundly dispelled the moderator's notion that raising taxes to pay for bridge repair (the new hot-button topic, for obvious reasons!) would work!

Now, this does not condone the Republican Party's inability to cut significant programs and portions of the federal budget. And perhaps Mayor Giuliani discussed later the programs, departments, and unnecessary portions of the federal government that he would recommend cutting, but this particular clip did not mention them. But it does not condone his not mentioning them either.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Giuliani, nor a Republican Party, Kool-Aid drinker. But this point that Giuliani drove out of the park is mine, and I will say the same every single day, and twice on Sunday (ironically).

The same is the case with regards to Rep. Tom Tancredo's comments on a National Healthcare Insurance System. It is not a matter of what the system should look like, it is a matter of it being non of the Federal government's business to get involved!!

Remember my previous blog about the 10th Amendment and my comments about Social Security. It is the same issue, carbon copied and pasted herein. No delineation, no difference, and no question about it.

Socialism is about the government providing for the needs of the people.

Actually, Socialism is about power. Socialists cannot influence the system because they are not capitalists. They provide no discernable benefit to society via science, industry, commerce, or art. They therefore must take over the system and dominate it utterly. The easiest way to do this is by coercing the simple-minded masses to fall in behind them in their quest unknowingly.

Socialists begin by promising "goodies" to those lacking in creature comforts such as healthcare insurance or retirement plans, some ignorant of the results of what they propose, some out of desire to help those lesss fortunate--a noble but ignorant position.

Those who they promise "goodies" to vote them into office in droves. They are rewarded with these "goodies"--socialized housing, socialized welfare, etc. And it goes on, spiraling upward. Next it is income re-distribution and taxpayer-assisted healthcare insurance. And if Michael Moore had his way, taxpayer assistance for new parents to include maid service and folding of your laundry. How typical is that? Give, give, give.

But each of these programs has a cost, both financial and societal. The financial cost is easy to pay for when you have an economy roaring along like ours is and does. The societal cost is less easy to measure.

First people become complacent and accept that some in society will receive these benefits because they do not have the financial means to provide them for themselves. Nevermind that they cannot buy healthcare insurance because they drive a $40,000 car and live in a $200,000 house, both parents earn $80,000 total, have 4 children from previous and current marriages, and are maxed out on credit cards! No wonder they cannot afford healthcare insurance! It's called Dave Ramsey, folks! Get out of debt, pay off your debts, and pay for your own children's needs so I don't have to!

But that doesn't sound good on the campaign trail. Free healthcare and income re-distribution sounds much better.

But think about Income Redistribution for a moment through the eyes of the Constitution. Certain States have greater wealth than others. This was a matter of contention at the Constitutional Convention. It is not new to today's political climate. The matter then was the preservation and pursuit of wealth, to be protected above all else and held as paramount to the need for a new government.

So where does the idea of Income Redistribution fall in line with the Constitution?

Answer: It does not.

Sen. Barak Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate and the first black to serve as Editor of the Harvard Law Review. So it either speaks very poorly of the Harvard Law School to have such a person discussing the topic of Income Redistribution on the national scene, or it reflects poorly on Sen. Obama. Perhaps a bit of both, for the Sen. is wrong--dead wrong!--for speaking on this topic, and if that is what Harvard is teaching, then they are wrong, too. And if they are not teaching Socialism, then shame on Sen. Obama for not paying attention in class.

And for me being the one to bring up the matter, having neither pedigree nor degree in his chosen field of Law.

Just the same, the Federal government, as Rep. Tancredo stated, has absolutely no authority, no power, no right, no purpose even discussing the topic of Healthcare Insurance as a matter of Federal oversight.

Do you see this? Do you believe this?

Let me end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #1:

"On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

So it is that we are blessed to be in the position of opposing such a lot in our contemporary society. They are known today as Socialists. Their actions are known now just as we now know those of Napolean, the Bolsheviks, and countless others before them that Col. Hamilton refers to here.

Will you stand against them? Mayor Giuliani and Rep. Tancredo, by their commentary, sound ready to stand firm, for which I commend them both. My the Republican Party stand so firm as these two sons. For the Democratic Party has made its purposes and its positions known.