Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Lady Liberty

March 16, 2013

statue-of-liberty-addressLady Liberty stands in New York Harbor proclaiming: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Lady Liberty: A beacon of freedom the entire world sees.  A symbol of a better way of life anchored in liberty, opportunity and equal protection under the law.

Inspiring, yes, but that is not the entire story.

Lady Liberty also stands as a reminder to America that the the American way of life is why people have come to this country for centuries.

What the world is currently witnessing is the collapse of the European socialist economic model; the failure of government dependency. As more people become dependent on government, fewer people are left to pay the cost.

But it goes beyond simply spending other people’s money. The socialist entitlement mentality makes people less productive. As more and more people become less and less productive, an ever-smaller minority of productive people become responsible for shouldering the burdens of a completely lopsided, unfair system. When a tiny number of productive people are required to deprive themselves of the fruits of their own labor in order to finance the lives of the remaining population, where is the incentive for them to produce?

If that is not enough, reliance on a big government nanny state makes people less responsible for themselves; less self-reliant. That is the antithesis of the American way of life.

When European settlers colonized the New World, they left the security of Europe behind in favor of North America’s unknown wilderness. They left homes, family, friends and country in exchange for an opportunity to build better lives for themselves. They were freed from the constraints of Europe’s restrictive class system.  They openly rejected the European way by their leaving.

When the British Monarchy deemed to re-impose that system on Britain’s thirteen North American Colonies, that attempt was adamantly and thoroughly rejected. Hence: the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America.

When America’s pioneers ventured forth to traverse the Great Plains and cross the Rocky Mountains they were completely self-reliant. They took care of themselves. They did not have, want, or need a big nanny state government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

This is the stuff of which America is made.

Because it gives them control over “the masses”, “progressives” have long sought to fashion America after the European socialist model, to make Americans more government dependent. There was FDR with the New Deal and Social Security. LBJ gave America the Great Society, Welfare Programs and Medicare.  Then, Obama forced upon an unwilling America the crown jewel of European style socialism; government controlled medicine.

Every time “progressives” hold a press conference they sound exactly the way they have always sounded: they inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Their policies are working, but need more time. Congress needs to quit stalling and enact more of their policies. The private sector is doing fine but to grow the economy government needs to spend more money to create more government jobs at the state and local level.

Repeatedly, “progressives” show exactly how out of touch they are with the private sector, how the American economy works, the lessons of American history and the nature of America’s people.

Europe will not work in America. Neither will out of touch narcissists who insist on imposing a long rejected European system upon America.

It is time for Americans to reject the following proposal, long foisted upon America by the self-imagined, self-appointed, “progressive” intellectual elite:

We, the government, are your lords and masters.  You will do as we say, not as we do.  For we are the enlightened “progressives” and you are but melting pot bitter clingers.

Watch Episode 1 for free

Stand with Rand

March 7, 2013

Some of Senator Rand Paul’s (R, KY) colleagues were left unimpressed by Wednesday’s filibuster.  The day following Paul’s action, Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R, SC) criticized him, saying Paul was doing a “disservice” to the debate about drones.randpaulfilibuster

When was the last time either McCain or Graham raised concerns over the White House’s use of drones?

“I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people…What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” McCain said.

Since when is proper use of the Senate filibuster abuse?  McCain seems more concerned with getting along with “progressives” in the Senate than preserving the United States Constitution.

Paul was attempting to get the Obama administration to confirm it will not kill non-combatant Americans within the United States.  Graham apparently viewed that as a farcical question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham stated.

What question would Graham consider worthy of reply?  Do assurances from the DOJ that they will not selectively ignore constitutionally protected rights of American Citizens to judicial due process not qualify?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

Concerns over the administration’s drone program led lawmakers to question Attorney General Eric Holder about legal justification for targeting American Citizens.   Similar concerns prompted Paul to begin his filibuster, demanding answers from the White House.  Paul said he would relent only if the Obama administration stated publically that it will not target Americans on American soil.

The administration apparently believed it could kill Americans it suspected of having terrorist ties without putting them on trial.

Concerns over protection of due process for American Citizens are bipartisan.

“You can hear almost unanimous concern about transparency and wrestling with how to move forward here in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation,” Senator Christopher A. Coons (D, DE) told Holder.

Under careful examination by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX), Holder repeatedly stated U.S Citizens on American soil were not “appropriate” targets for executions without due judicial process.  Cruz said that was an insufficient answer.  “You keep saying ‘appropriate.’ My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not,” said Cruz.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/

McCain and Graham aside, Rand Paul, Christopher Coons and Ted Cruz are on the right side of the debate.

Since McCain and Graham apparently believe it is most important for them to get along with “progressives”, no matter the cost to the Rights of American Citizens at home, their criticism of Paul is out of hand.

Let them face the repercussions in their next election.
Revolution is coming.

For Love of Country

November 5, 2012

Speaking in Springfield Ohio, Barack Obama mentioned Mitt Romney.  As soon as he mentioned Romney’s name, the crowd began to boo.  Obama told the crowd:

“No, no, no. Don’t boo, vote. Voting is the best revenge.”

Speaking in New Hampshire, Romney told supporters how Obama had said that voting would be their “best revenge” against Romney:

“Vote for revenge?  Let me tell you what I’d like to tell you: Vote for love of country. It is time we lead America to a better place.”

This is but one snapshot highlighting the difference between Americans and “progressives”.

The choices Americans have on Tuesday November 6, 2012 fall into two distinct categories. The difference between these two philosophies is so clearly defined that it should be easy for Americans to decide where their sentiments lie.

The Declaration of Independence was a radical document because for millennia mankind had been ruled by monarchs, Caesars, Czars, or similar forms of dynastic oligarchies determined by bloodline. The universally accepted school of thought was that Kings, Queens, Emperors or Caesars were anointed by God, or were even gods themselves. Only monarchs or nobilities appointed by monarchs owned anything. They “allowed” the “common people” to work the land as serfs, indentured servants or as slaves. But “common people” were never “allowed” to own property. All they produced belonged to the monarch and was the monarch’s for the taking.

America’s Founding Fathers disavowed this view of society.

They declared that all men are created equal, that in effect, all men are kings. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They declared that people could govern themselves without a monarch or an oligarchy ruling over them.

This was a radical departure from centuries old norms. They envisioned a system which allowed “common people” to own property without first obtaining permission from a “divine” ruler. Anyone could come to America, work hard, earn money, save it and buy property.

Those who rebelled against the Royal British Crown knew that if they failed in their endeavor, they would all hang. Yet, “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” they pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor.

The Declaration of Independence was the mission statement for the United States Constitution.

Yes, the Constitution established an imperfect government, which among other flaws still allowed slavery. Yet at that point in history, the original 13 colonies could not have formed one nation capable of maintaining a semblance of unity had they not reached the 3/5ths compromise. But the Founding Fathers were wise when they wrote the Constitution. They ensured that the Constitution could be amended, so that in time slavery and other injustices could be altered through an orderly process which provided change that enjoyed overwhelming bi-partisan support.

The Marxist school of thought is in direct opposition to the uniquely American concept that everyone has the right to own private property. How would Americans react if, after years of struggle, they finally owned their own home, then government “informed” them that it did not belong to them, that it belonged to “all the people” and Americans had to let strangers live on their property whether they liked it or not?

If an all-powerful, big government oligarchy is allowed to seize private property in this manner, as in the concept of “social justice” or “economic justice”, America is dead.

The real philosophical divide in the United States lies between the intent of America’s Founding Fathers and the intent of “progressives”, who favor the Marxist view.

The American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that We The People can govern ourselves. By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God we are entitled, by virtue of our humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for ourselves. These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

This is a distinctly exceptional American idea.

The “progressive” idea is that an all-powerful centrally planned government, with extreme hostility towards private ownership, forces redistribution of wealth in the name of social or economic “justice”. In order to ensure “fairness”, an oligarchy of self-imagined, self-appointed “intellectual elites” will control businesses, industries and people who are incapable of governing themselves. This was the position of a fringe minority who called themselves “progressives” until early twentieth century Americans saw for themselves exactly how bad “progressive” ideas were.

The “progressive” idea came to America from Britain’s Fabian Socialists, who advocate socialistic democracy, and from Germany’s Frankfurt School, who came to America after fleeing Adolph Hitler because they knew Hitler would kill them for being Communists.

These ideas are European, not American.

The settlers who founded America rejected European ideas in fleeing Europe searching for a better future.  America has been a success and a beacon to freedom seeking people for over two centuries because the American idea is the better idea.

Among Americans unpolluted by “progressive” ideas, there is little debate that the United States of America is the most inventive, productive, prosperous and charitable nation in the history of the planet. There has yet to be put forth one rational, logical argument to support abandoning the highly successful American idea in favor of a European idea that is currently failing in Europe itself.

Before voting on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, decide which fate America deserves.

Then vote not for revenge, but for love of country.

 

Why The Tea Party Matters

October 1, 2012

Tea Party principles are based on a belief in the U.S. Constitution.  Across America, a huge natural constituency exists for the bread-and-butter American issues of lower taxes, reduced government, a strong national defense, secure borders and a return to the traditional American values of: E Pluribus Unum, Liberty and in God we trust.

E Pluribus Unum means from many, one. It does not mean unquestioning acquiescence to multiculturalism and diversity.  Liberty means opportunity for all, not equality of results.  In God we trust means reliance upon the Creator of all things.  It does not mean passive acceptance of secularism, atheism or submissive surrender to “progressive” statist mandates.

The Tea Party movement began as a peaceful protest against big government, reckless government spending, high taxes and oppressive regulations. The Tea Party’s Contract From America expressed principles held by its members. The most basic being that “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.”

The principles of the Tea Party were clearly expressed in the Contract:  Protect the Constitution, reject Cap & Trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutionally limited government in Washington DC, end runaway government spending, defund, repeal and replace government-run health care, pass an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy, stop the pork, and stop the tax hikes.

The American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that We The People can govern ourselves.  By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God we are entitled, by virtue of our humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for ourselves.  These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a Constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.  This is a distinctly exceptional American idea.

These are the Tea Party’s principles, which today are largely viewed as being Conservative or “right wing”.  Adherence to these principles are shared by members of many political Parties, but rejected wholesale by the institutionalized “progressive” left movement, which has co-opted today’s Democratic Party.

If you are in the Tea Party, you believe in America.

If you believe in America, you belong in the Tea Party.

In an election where a decision will made between the American way of life and a nanny state “entitlement” society based on a European idea, the Tea Party Matters.

White House: Mid East Attacks Not Premeditated

September 16, 2012

The attack on America’s Benghazi consulate was not premeditated.

It was all about the video.

So said the White House, so said the State Department, so said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice:

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo.  In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there”.

Never mind that Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said the attack was planned in advance.

What would people who live and work in an official capacity within Libya know about what is going on in their country?

How could Americans possibly believe that the President of Libya knows more about what is happening on the ground in Libya than do Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice or Jay Carney?

Those Americans should be ashamed of themselves.

Rather, Americans are to believe that on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the United States no elements of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamofascist groups within Libya, Egypt, Tunis, or the other twenty odd countries that purportedly simultaneously and spontaneously erupted into violent anti-American hatred, planned to assault American embassies, besiege American consulates, burn American flags, hoist the Al Qaeda flag over the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and ruthless murder American Citizens in cold blood.

Nobody in any of those countries planned in advance.  No groups coordinated the date, the targets, the weapons, the tactics…nope.

It was all about the video.

It was all because of a low budget privately made video posted online by a relative unknown that a slim few had heard of, much less seen.

A video which, whether the White House, the State Department or anyone else within the institutionalized “progressive” left cares to admit, falls within an American’s God given, constitutionally protected Right to free speech.

The administration of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al are counting on enough American voters being so naive that they will blindly accept any flimsy cover story coming out of the White House.

Of course it definitely helps when everyone save for a brave few souls in the media obediently parrots the “progressive” Party line while hiding, obstructing or completely ignoring entire stories and/or pertinent facts in the process.

It is a pretty darned good bet the people buying this White House cover story concerning anti-American violence in the Middle East also swallowed the equally flimsy cover story about Fast and Furious…hook line and sinker.

Yes, the administration and like-minded members of the self-imagined, self-appointed intellectual “progressive” elite truly believe a sufficient number of Americans needed to re-elect them ARE that stupid, ignorant, sufficiently distracted or simply not paying attention.

Americans have the chance to prove them wrong on November 6, 2012.

Libya and Egypt; Mumbling, Bumbling and Stumbling

September 12, 2012

The killing of Chris Stevens and three staffers in Benghazi, Libya was tragic.  Heartfelt condolences to their families and friends are perfectly in order.  However, compared to coverage by international news sources, the way coverage is being handled by the American news media is revealing.

Iran’s Gooya News uses the headline:

America’s ambassador to Libya killed in protest of anti-Islam film.

Notice how a film considered incendiary by Islamists is featured within the headline.

The first paragraph of Gooya’s story speaks specifically about how the attackers, referred to as protesters, were motivated by an anti-Islamist film made by American pastor Terry Jones.

Following mention of remarks made by Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abvshaqvr and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the article launches into an aggressive verbal attack on Jones’ film, assailing it as an assault on the Koran and the Prophet of Muhammad.  Objections are raised to the film’s depiction of Muhammad as a child molester.  Ongoing objections concern themselves with Jewish funding of the film.

http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2012/09/146923.php

BBC Persia headlines their report with:

The killing of America’s ambassador and three of its diplomats in Libya is confirmed.

While the BBC headline manages to stay on point by reporting the killing of the American diplomats, the story follows the pattern of Gooya by blaming the attack on the Jones movie.  However, BBC largely stays focused on reporting the news event rather than assigning blame for its instigation.  It defers further comment about the movie until the end of the article, choosing rather to relay detailed statements of condemnation made by Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Libyan government.

When the BBC does mention the movie, it does so in the context of how the film is viewed in Iran.  They report that according to Iran’s government, the publishing in America of a film that insults the Prophet Muhammad is a despicable act.  “The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemns blasphemy and hurting the feelings of Muslims.”  Iran then warns America: “this dangerous trend of cultural hatred and insulting the Great Nation of Islam is blasphemy”.

BBC Persia then concludes by relaying how in the United States, preventing the publication of opinions is against the principle of free speech and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/world/2012/09/120912_l03_us_libya.shtml

Yahoo News uses its headline to focus on how Stevens was killed and his record of diplomatic service:

Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in rocket attack, served as envoy during revolution.

Yahoo commits multiple paragraphs to conveying circumstances of the attack on the Libyan embassy, Barrack Obama’s statement condemning the attack, and details about the diplomatic career of Chris Stevens.

Before featuring Stevens’ U.S. Embassy website bio, Yahoo describes how: “Mitt Romney condemned Tuesday’s attacks as “disgusting” and “outrageous,” but he also attacked the Obama administration for standing by a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that he claimed was an “apology” for American values”.

Romney later stated it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks”.

Wednesday morning Romney did not back down from his earlier remarks: “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.  It’s never too early for the U.S. government to condemn attacks on Americans and defend our values. … When our grounds are being attacked, being breached, the first response of the United States must be outrage”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html

Only when attempting to portray Romney as politicizing events by accusing him of “attacking” the Obama administration, does Yahoo even mention Tuesday’s apology, released by the Cairo Embassy apologizing to Muslims for hurting their feelings.

Yahoo never mentions the movie.  How convenient.  When the movie is not mentioned, there is no need for Yahoo to explain away the Cairo Embassy apology.  Since Yahoo publishers chose to omit specific details, there is no need to defend the Obama administration for apologizing (again) to the Islamist world for America.  Out of sight, out of mind, right Yahoo?

An American leader would have immediately condemned Islamists attacks on American Embassies, especially on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

Yahoo News, like other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, continues to run interference for the Obama administration, and remains devoted to using their voice in the U.S. news media to ensure his re-election through selective censorship.

Surely Tim Russert is rolling in his grave.

Close The Book Forever On The Failed “progressive” Experiment

August 28, 2012

The current White House occupant, in a calculated, targeted attack against Republican rival Mitt Romney, attempted to dismiss a key Romney rationale for his presidential candidacy by saying: “When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.”

It is quite obvious that occupy Oval Office is shockingly unfamiliar with the concept that jobs are downstream from profits, not the other way around. With the exception of the original staff, which is hired to launch a company via startup capital (notice that here too, private capital comes before hiring), businesses only become financially capable of hiring more workers after they have made profits. Being profitable gives them the capital needed to pay for expansion, which then creates the need to hire additional employees. This is especially true of small businesses, most of which are decidedly not over funded with start-up capital.

According to “progressives”, the rich are somehow preventing the middle class from having a fair shot because the rich are depriving the middle class by not paying “their fair share” of taxes. The “progressive” concept of the middle class having a fair shot is stealing money from those who have earned it through initiative, hard work, risk and sacrifice within the free market capitalist system through “progressive” taxation and use that money, acquired through legal extortion, to hire unionized government sector workers. Workers who will not only be paid more than their counterparts who are doing the same job in the private sector, but who will enjoy Cadillac healthcare and pension benefits provided to them by a taxpayer funded job from which, thanks to union demands, being fired will be a virtual impossibility.

Still wonder why “progressives” love government sector unions?

Such an arrangement is perfectly suited to “progressives”, who are huge proponents of centrally planned big government. Workers dependent upon government for their livelihood are reliably more likely to re-elect big government candidates. They are also far more likely to pay little concern to how much the rich are taxed, since the taxes of unionized government workers won’t be affected.  That is, if they’re even required to pay taxes. Their big government big brothers take care of them.

Winston Smith, where are you?

Of course, the “they don’t pay their fair share” rhetoric is a complete sham, a straw-man argument. Truth be known, the “they don’t pay their fair share” rhetoric is a bold faced lie. The top 10% earners in America pay 70% of the income taxes while 47% of Americans pay no income tax. They pay zero.

How much of a tax on the rich would be enough to satisfy “progressives”? How much of someone else’s money does the Oval Office need to take for the middle class to have “a fair shot”? The 100% rate Barrack Obama Sr. sought to impose on Kenya’s rich after he seized power?

Can you say redistributive dreams from my Marxist father?

This clearly demonstrates how clueless Barrack Hussein Obama is about the way America was designed by its Founding Fathers. Having a fair shot in America has never been about big government stealing from the rich to finance hiring unionized government sector workers.

Having a fair shot has always been about a constitutionally limited government not interfering with the private sector free market’s ability to afford equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of their starting point in life. In America, government’s job is not to “take care of us”. In America, a centrally planned big government can never replace the initiative, creativity, hard work, sacrifice, risk, and reward of free, private Citizens working to provide for their own needs through the pursuit of happiness within the private sector.

If it ever does, America will have ceased to exist.

Instead of digging the United States into an ever-deepening hole by reducing available free market capital through higher tax rates, how about creating some certainty for investors by making permanent changes to America’s needlessly complicated tax code? How about creating a simplified tax code that provides incentives for investment? How about creating a tax code that’s doesn’t punish small businesses by forcing them  each year to divert limited precious capital to pay the cost of hiring accountants and attorneys to decipher an ever “evolving”, increasingly complicated tax code? How about creating an economic environment where the rich, middle class and poor alike all feel it’s worth the risk to invest in a start-up business? Thanks to existing, unnecessarily high “progressive” tax rates and expanding, restrictive, needlessly expensive regulatory oppression, starting up a new business today is practically impossible.

Better still, how about “progressives” going back to school to learn what America is really all about? In the meantime, they should leave running America to Americans.

Obama has had four years.  He got his fair shot, and he blew it.

After 100 years of progressively expanding government intrusion into the God given Rights and Liberties of free people, it is now time to forever close the book on the failed “progressive” experiment.

America Needs the Tea Party More Than America Needs the GOP

August 27, 2012

Explaining his endorsement of the current White House occupant on the administration’s infrastructure spending, healthcare reform, and position on abortion, Florida’s former Republican Governor Charlie Crist endorsed him on the eve of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa.

Crist has betrayed American taxpayers before.  He supported the $787 billion “stimulus” boondoggle, which did little to fund shovel ready infrastructure projects but went a long way towards rewarding big “progressive” 2008 presidential campaign bundlers who “just happened” to run “green energy” companies with lucrative loan guarantees and grants.  It also bailed out state and local governments guilty of practicing irresponsible fiscal policies for decades, especially where spending on government sector union contracts was concerned.  It was no accident that the lion’s share of “stimulus” spending “just happened” to have gone to “blue states”.   Crist’s decision to support the highly partisan, pork stuffed “stimulus” bill helped get the monstrous waste of money through Congress.

“Moderate Republican” go-along to get-along me-first career politicians who, like Crist are so willing to compromise with the institutionalized “progressive” left cannot be trusted.

Tea Party principles are America’s principles.  To an intolerable degree, “Moderate Republicans” do not believe in or follow Tea Party principles. Quite often they appear to be completely devoid of principles.  They game the political system to gain power and prestige for themselves and themselves alone. They will turn on Americans faster than you can say Specter.

Conservative Tea Party Americans like Allen West, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Pat Toomy, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have the guts to stand against the institutionalized “progressive” left.  They have the willingness, backbone and fortitude to preserve individual liberties, restore the U.S. Constitution, and a return to constitutionally limited government, a balanced budget, equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for all Americans.

Today’s Democratic Party is not your father’s Democratic Party.  They keep insisting that Tea Party Republicans and their affiliates are “extreme”.  Since when are protecting individual liberties, following the U.S. Constitution, having constitutionally limited government and a balanced budget extreme?

The Tea Party’s positions are extreme only when seen as standing in the way of establishing an all-powerful, centrally planned big government controlled by a self-appointed oligarchy of self-imagined “intellectual elites” i.e. a Communist state.

The institutionalized “progressive” left in 2012 America is acting exactly like every other Communist power grab in history.  They lie, cheat and steal to win elections.  Then they will lie, cheat, steal and kill to consolidate and strengthen their grip on unrestrained power.

The institutionalized “progressive” left complains about how “extreme” Tea Party Republicans refuse to compromise.  The Tea Party knows that Communists have no interest in compromising with anyone.  The institutionalized “progressive” left’s negotiating position has been, is, and will continue to be: What’s Yours is Negotiable, What’s Mine is Not.  Those who hold this negotiating position, when they do finally obtain an iron grip on unrestrained power, do not compromise with their political opposition.  They eliminate them…permanently.

America is at an historic crossroads.  The 2012 election will determine what life in America will be like for the next and following generations.

In the words of Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the United States of America:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Where Are America’s Heroes?

August 20, 2012

America faces attacks upon its economic well-being, its historic values, principles and traditions, the very moral fabric of its society and the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. The enemy attacks from within the American education system, in movies, on television, in newspapers, magazines and from within local, state and federal government.

Where are the defenders of the American way of life? Where are the defenders of America’s culture? Where are the defenders of equal protection under the law? Where are the defenders of the Constitutional Republic?

They are certainly not to be found within the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where the nomination and eventual confirmation of two activist radical fringe left “progressive” Supreme Court Justice nominees were allowed by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, who justified his votes by saying “Elections have consequences”. Certainly not within the Federal Court system, where Arizona’s legally passed defense of land and law was overruled by Bill Clinton appointed U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. Certainly not among “Conservative” television pundits, who continue to allow flat out, bold faced lies spoken by radical fringe left “progressive” pundits go unchallenged.

Where are the heroes?

Are they only to be found within the American people? Is defense of the nation’s values, principles, and way of life left up to We The People?

If so, so be it. If it’s up to Patriotic Americans to preserve, protect and defend their nation, their culture, their land of laws, their values, their traditions, their moral fiber and their Constitution, they couldn’t be in better hands.

Americans fought and won independence from tyrannical monarchal government in the Revolutionary War. Americans fought and won against racist attempt to divide the nation during the Civil War. Americans fought and won the struggle against the tyrannical forces of Fascism in World War II. Americans fought and won the Cold War against the tyrannical Communist forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Now America is engaged in a war of ideas here on its own soil. To win, Americans need not fire a single shot. There are more Americansthan there are “progressives”.

Stand firm in your resolve. Do not ever back down. Be an American hero.

Make sure that this November, you and your American brethren go to the polls in record numbers and vote the radical fringe left “progressive” extremists who seek to destroy your country out of office.

This is not just any old election. November’s election is the battleground for America’s very survival. We The People are responsible for the outcome. To honor those passed who fought to defend America. To preserve the future for you, your children and your grandchildren. Go to the polls and ensure the outcome of this November’s election.

Whether or not it was sought, now is the time for this generation to become the new Greatest Generation. Americans are up to it. It’s in America’s DNA.

America, show the world what you are made of.

More Government or Less?

August 13, 2012

Following GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, the All Barrack Channel, commonly known as ABC, assumed the form of Amy Walter to administer a spoonful of “progressive” medicine intended to stop the American sugar for going down.

http://news.yahoo.com/ideological-battle-voters-dont-want-100144850–abc-news-politics.html

By calling Ryan’s budget plan synonymous with political polarization, then portraying Mitt Romney picking Ryan for VP as guaranteeing an ideological debate, Walter displays nothing short of utter contempt for voters and their ability to research, learn and decide for themselves.

Even if Walter is correct in saying that a debate over the role of government is looming, she is wrong in assuming, presuming, dictating that swing voters do not want that debate.  Closer to the truth, “progressives” do not want the debate to take place because it could lead to swing voters learning the distinctions between the differing philosophies.  Hence, ABC and other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda publish “information” that preordains the conclusion to which readers must necessarily arrive: Voters do not want to debate the proper role of government.

Voters are most certainly interested in what their government does, how far it reaches into their lives, and the scope of its power.  Voters have interests that surpass simply having a government that works.

For “progressives” and their Pravda lapdogs, it feeds their agenda to determine and present as fact that voters only want a government that works efficiently.  Safe to say, “progressives” living in America are highly motivated to be primarily concerned with a government that efficiently rewards them with their “fair share” of food stamps, welfare checks, “free” healthcare and other so-called “entitlement” goodies.

The Nazi government was highly efficient in taking a defeated, bankrupt country to the brink of global domination…and slaughtering millions.  When it came to the systematic removal of millions of Chinese, Chairman Mao had a well-oiled government.  The Soviet system very effectively created a manmade disaster while committing genocide by starving millions of Ukrainians to death during the Holodomor.  Che Rivera was ruthlessly efficient in eliminating Fidel’s political opposition in Cuba.

The silent majority, astonished, alarmed and disgusted by the scale, scope and over-reach of the fringe, radical, anti-American agenda enacted by “progressives” armed with unrestrained, unbridled power, got up off the couch and formed the Tea Party.  Contrary to what Walters would have readers believe, the Tea Party is as popular and influential as ever.

The 2010 election that swept Conservatives back in control of the House was indeed a mandate: Do not compromise with those whose negotiating position begins and ends with “what is yours is ours and what is mine is mine.”  History repeatedly reveals that whenever those with this negotiating position obtain final grasp of unrestrained, unbridled power, they do not compromise with their political opposition, they eliminate it.

The reason Washington DC is polarized and ineffective is the harsh, uncompromisingly rigid partisan positions taken by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the current Oval Office occupier and their “progressive” collaborators.

The November 2012 election is a decision voters will make between two competing ideologies.  Voters will determine what role government plays in the lives of people.  Whether “progressives” like it or not, a small government with limited power is the basic construct of the American idea; one “progressives” have long sought to destroy.

Americans want to have the debate “progressives” do not.  The simple reason “progressives” do not want that debate and are so eager to convince swing voters they do not want it either is simple.  That debate is one “progressives” will lose.