I told ya so.

I knew it then and I can clearly see it now.  I am beyond angry right now with the Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett.  During his campaign last year we were told he would govern much like our neighbor next door, Governor Chris Christie.  Governor Corbett has fallen well short of that campaign promise. Actually, I think  h

This weekend Corbett negotiated a 10% increase in pay for the state workers union.  Soon after I read this bit of news I received a call from a patriot friend of mine who she relayed to me a story of a woman she met yesterday who hocked her wedding rings to buy food.  Did Corbett ask as he shook the hand of the union boss to seal the deal "at who's cost?"  When a deal like this is made it is ALWAYS at the cost of someone else:  in this case it is at the cost of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania.

I've found out that the Governor's budget proposal will fill the gap where the federal governments stimulus left off.  $2.4B is now being put on the backs of Pennsylvanians because, again, Corbett has no spine and is no leader.  Governor Corbett has done EXACTLY what the Obama administration was hoping.  Give the states money with the stimulus. Then the state will become addicted and will fill the gap once we stop the flow of cash.  Here in Pennsylvania that is what is about to happen. 

Go ahead Corbett, give Obama what he wanted.  Get a spine is all I can say.  Be a leader.

My final fit goes to the Governor's own agenda.  His first two priorities were: school choice and privatizing the liquor stores.  It has been six months since he has taken office and NEITHER has come to fruition.

The Tea Party movement in Pennsylvania worked wonders last election cycle to deliver a Republican strong hold.  And this is what we ended up with...a RINO.

Let's just pray that he either wakes up and actually leads or is primaried during the next governors race...until then hold on because it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I am constantly amazed at how the left changes the meaning of the Constitution when they feel that it can help their cause, yet in the next breathe say it is outdated and irrelevant.  Represenative Daryl Metcalfe introduced a Voter ID bill which does exactly what the name implies, requires Pennsylvanians to show photo ID when they vote. 

When I first moved to Lebanon I was astonished when I arrived at the polling place to vote that I did not have to show any form of ID.  All I had to do was tell them my name and they would have me sign the paper that it was me.  Considering low voter turnout wouldn't it be so simple to invite some of your non-citizen friends to come and put someone elses signature on an empty line?

So now the Democrats are having a fit about this bill.  The PA House Democrat Twittersphere had the constant message that Voter ID is Voter Suppression.  This is what they put up on the PA House website this week.

"House Bill 934 is a Republican-sponsored bill which would require every voter 
to provide unexpired, valid government photo identification in order to vote in each election.

Pure and simple, this bill is a move to suppress voter turnout. This type of bill   
 has been introduced and even enacted in Republican-controlled states. It will make voting harder for senior citizens, low-income residents, minorities and naturalized citizens -- groups who are less likely to have photo ID or the documentation and time necessary to acquire one.  These are also groups who tend to vote Democratic. Pennsylvania should be making it easier for residents to vote, not making it harder.

Additionally, the cost to implement this mandate is nearly $10 million -- money that Pennsylvania can't afford to waste now with so many other areas going without.

Join the fight to protect your constitutional right! Send a message to legislative leaders. Tell them to vote against the voter suppression bill. Tell them to make sure our constitutional rights are protected."

Allow me to explain something to the Democrats about the Constitution. The Constitution contains many amendments, clauses, and phrases detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax.

But despite all of this the Constitution never explicitly ensures
the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require
that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who
comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments
several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for
voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict
with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in
Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or
on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though
the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can
allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Let's just say that it imperative the PA Democrats learn the Constitution. 

And while I'm at it let me continue my pontification about the privelege of voting, because that what it is...a privelege.  I take my ability to vote seriously.  I am blessed to live in the greatest country on this planet.  I am blessed to be free.  And I will not take for granted that thousands of great Americans put their lives on the line so I could vote.  They did not die so my vote would be "suppressed" by an illegal alien (and yes, I said illegal ALIEN) who is not a citizen of this country.  They did not die so the Constitution could be twisted into a lie. I hold their sacrifice seriously unlike that of the Pennsylvania House Democrats.

So when they worry about suppressing the vote of a non-citizen, I'd like to remind them that their opposition to this bill suppresses my privelege

In 2004, Pennsylvania had an opportunity to have a true conservative Senator named Pat Toomey.  Senator Specter was up for reelection and he finally had a formidable opponent in Toomey.  As the primary battle waged on, the Republican machine visably became concerned with the possibility that their beloved Specter would lose his seat.  Next thing you know President Bush and Senator Santorum are singing the praises of Specter on TV. 

This is where I truly lost all confidence in the Republican party and in Santorum as well.  Now don't get me wrong. I've met Rick and he's a nice man.  But with his announcement yesterday I find it difficult to give my support to someone who essentially gave Obama the final vote to force Obamacare through.

I know Santorum's reason for supporting Specter in 2004 came down this...

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two
Supreme Court nominees coming up," Rick Santorum said.

"I  got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would  nominate, he would support that nominee."

Hmmm.  Ok.  I understand the rationale.  But when you have a man who has continually tried to moderate the party don't you think you have someone who will eventually stick it to you?  Wouldn't you try to replace him with an individual who holds true to the values of the party?

I'd love to see a Pennsylvanian become president, but I can't get past this. I just can't do it.  Sorry, Rick but my vote will be going elsewhere.  It still stings a bit too much from 2004.