Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

« Previous Entries

Ann Coulter’s Downward Spiral

Posted by americana83 on November 17, 2011

“Its a slow fade, when you give yourself away. Its a slow fade when black and white have turned to grey…” – Casting Crowns.

It seems the downward spiral that started with Ms Coulter’s acceptance of GOProud to her embrace of it as their spokes queen has finally come full circle. Now, abandoning all pretense of fiscal conservatism, Ann has decided to jump the gun and throw her diminishing conservative capital behind the most liberal of the Republican candidates: Mitt Romney. This isn’t a post primary call for unity around whatever candidate is selected, this is a call to embrace the liberal IN THE PRIMARY! The who implemented ObamaCare before we knew of ObamaCare, the guy who implemented gay marriage in Mass by executive fiat, the guy who believes in global warming, the guy who petitioned Ted Kennedy for federal money for his state-run government mandated healthcare. The guy who shed his pro-abortion, gay marriage record for some shiny new election season campaign rhetoric about being “pro-life” and marriage. Point blank, the guy doesn’t even qualify for a fiscal conservative.

Ann concludes her embrace of Romney by basically telling us we shouldn’t bother vetting candidates, or revealing the unsavory liberal things we find:

“Instead of sitting on our thumbs…conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We’ll attack him when he’s president.”   It’s fun to be a purist, but let’s put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please. “

Anyone who is a geniune conservative, or I should say, anyone who learned a lesson from the 2008 election, should support VET VET VETTING these candidates. John McCain was the “electible” candidate in 2008. Where did that get us?  Keep us in line Ann!

A summary of Ann’s points for Romney (With my counterpoints, sorry Ann!) are:

  1. He can “trick liberals into voting for him.” Duh! Obviously if you are running ON a liberal platform, you will attract liberal votes. It wasn’t a trick. It was called a liberal record. Ted Kennedy certainly approved.
  2. He came close to beating Ted Kennedy. So what? Ann, he appealed to Ted to get government money to fund his ObamneyCare! Ted accepted! Remember the DeDe Scozzafova Newt endorsed? Yeah, that’s the kind of republican Mitt Romney is.
    Where was Romney when he came “close to beating” Ted?
    Here’s a brief reviewof Romney’s public record on gay rights in his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy.

    • Supports federal legislation to prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.
    • Supports President Clinton’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
    • Says homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts.
    • Endorsed by the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans. – ontheissues.org
  3. He’s “not part of the washington establishment.” So what! Need I remind you, Ann, that Obama was not “part of the washington establishment” either!
  4. He can talk? Again, so what? He can talk so well he can do it out of both sides of his mouth! Just like Obama!
  5. Yes Ann, Federalism gives us the opportunity to see what a would be president will try to do with his executive power in a more unfettered fashion. Romney chose to empore the executive branch, fiat gay marriage and signing health care mandates. Its called abuse of privilege, and we should not trust him at the federal level.
  6. Who cares if the heritage foundation supported mandates at that time? That doesn’t make it a good thing.
  7. You’re right Ann, he probably will try to “repeal” ObamaCare. I mean, he is really good at talking, and he never ever talks out of both sides of his mouth. You can trust him. 16 months of smooth conservative rhetoric means he has abandoned a lifetime of liberal progressivism. But remember, its a “repeal and replace.” It certainly won’t be a full repeal, and it will involve big government “solutions” and intrusions. That is, if a crises doesn’t arise and call DC’s attention to something else long enough to forget about ObamneyCare. Remember, Mitt doesn’t oppose ObamaCare on PRINCIPLE, he opposes it for political expediency. It he opposed it in principle, he NEVER would have signed it into law in Mass. Remember, when he was “tricking” progressives into voting for him! Come on Ann, what has happened to you?

Ann, I can forgive you for being so infatuated with Chris Christie. I mean, at least he was a loud and proud geniune conservative on one important issue, and most serious conservatives applauded his handling of that matter. But I cannot forgive you for trying to delude people into dispensing with vetting candidates and embrace a candidate who has spend most of his political career as a gay affirming-global warming-gun hating, healthcare-mandating progressive. You have done all of conservatism a huge disservice with your “cease and desist” order on vetting Romney.

Here’s what I say Ann: Mitt Romney is a Dede Scozzafava Republican

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Full text of Gov. Rick Perry’s Remarks to the Border Summit

Posted by americana83 on September 13, 2011

I provide the following information in the hope that people will see what Perry’s true opinions are on the borders, on healthcare, and on the independence and sovereignty of the United States of America well before he had to tack to the right to enter a national polical scene where the Tea Party weilds enough clout to cause even CNN to host “the Republican Tea Party Debate. Not one word has been altered or ommitted, save bolding on key thoughts. This is important as our freedoms and prosperity are continually threatened by international agreements and programs, and you will see that Perry, in his own words, favors a bi-national government health program! It makes me wonder on what ground Perry, who tried to executive order HPV vaccines, stands against ObamaCare, except perhaps that it is not bi-national in nature…

Source: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/

Thank you Senator Lucio. President Nevarez, UT-Pan American is to be commended for its vision and leadership in hosting this unprecedented border summit in the beautiful Texas town of Edinburg. My friends from Mexico, including Governor Tomas Yarrington Ruvalcaba of Tamaulipas, and Governor Fernando Canales Clariond of Nuevo Leon, it is an honor to be in your presence. I want to extend my gratitude to our Mexican neighbors for hosting me this July as I sought to learn one of the world’s great languages, Spanish. I enjoyed your hospitality, and was grateful for your patience as I worked on my vocabulary. No longer do I refer to “la verdad” as “la verdura.” I am delighted to see friends from the U.S. side of the border as well, including our distinguished members of the Legislature, and our county and city leaders along the border.

Today we begin a new dialogue about our shared future, a future of promising potential if we work together to solve the challenges we both face. It is fitting that we convene this summit where the great, meandering river known as the Rio Grande – or the Rio Bravo – forms the long border between Texas and Mexico. In years past, that famed body of water has been seen by many as a dividing point, If you were to walk along its banks and look to the other side, based on the stereotypes of the past, you would think you were seeing things a million miles away, instead of a stone’s throw away. But I am here today to say that while we have honest differences, there is more that unites us than divides us. The Rio Grande does not separate two nations, it joins two peoples. Mexico and the United States have a shared history, and a common future. And it is along this border where we will either fail or succeed in addressing the education, health care and transportation needs of our two peoples.

 It is not up to an American governor to address the needs of the citizens of a foreign country. That is the duty and sworn responsiblity of their own national government. If private citizens want to launch a private charitable venture, that is perfectly fine.

Critical to our future is meeting our border infrastructure needs. We must get traffic moving along the border so that businesses along the border and thousands of miles away can deliver products on time, and continue to grow. Companies from Spokane, Washington to Concord, New Hampshire depend on Texas highways and Texas bridges to move their products south. Seventy percent of all U.S.-Mexico truck traffic goes to, or through, the Lone Star state. Fifteen of our twenty-seven border crossings with Mexico are located in Texas. Fifty-four percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade crosses just between Brownsville and Laredo. This year the Texas legislature appropriated approximately $1 billion more in transportation funding. But more can be done.

 

With Texas serving as the Gateway to Mexico, it is time that we receive congressional funding that reflects the instrumental role our state plays as a port of entry. With a Texan in the White House, I believe there is no greater opportunity to end the funding discrimination that crippled Texas infrastructure under the previous administration. Good infrastructure is essential to the free flow of commerce. It is a matter of economic fact that free trade lifts the tide for all the boats in the harbor. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased by 500% since 1994. Exports and imports between Texas and Mexico now exceed $100 billion dollars annually. Thousands of jobs have been created for Texas and Mexican workers, confirming the indisputable fact that trade with Mexico is big business for Texas.

 

The fruits of NAFTA have just begun to ripen. At the same time, we must not allow the roots of the tree to become poisoned. The NAFTA agreement not only signaled a new era of economic possibility, but a new era of bi-national cooperation. That is why it is wrong, and inherently detrimental to our relationship with Mexico for the U.S. Congress to pursue a protectionist policy that forbids Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways. It is bad public policy, and it violates the terms of the NAFTA agreement we agreed to. Mexican trucks that meet our safety standards should be given the same access to U.S. roads as our Canadian neighbors to the north.

 Indeed, the fruits of NAFTA have ripened, and we wonder why manufacuring is moving out of the US. The truth is the US cannot cede its domestic authority to an unacountable international bureacracy. That is the fruit of NAFTA. Gov. Perry feigns conservatism and yet here his is appealing to INTERNATIONAL law to complain about US domestic policy. He also completely ignores the considerable abuses occuring along the Mexican border. Also, need I remind anyone that the European Union began as a mere trade agreement?

Mexico, too, must be vigilant in realizing its treaty obligations. For more than half a century, under the 1944 Water Treaty our two nations have cooperated so that the water needs of both countries are met. But as of late, Mexico is behind in delivering the water it has promised to the U.S. A Mexican judicial injunction now threatens the livelihood of our Rio Grande Valley farmers, and has become a source of contention between our two nations. It is time to end this dispute. I would ask that the Mexican government meet its obligation under the treaty, Texas growers are depending on it.

 Why are US citizens dependent on the actions of another nation’s government? This is unacceptible.

There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. A lack of preventative medicine means conditions that could have been eliminated through childhood immunizations show up in disturbing numbers later in life. Limited availability of medical specialists means conditions like heart disease and diabetes go untreated at alarming rates. In Texas, we recently placed a strong emphasis on preventative care when we expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children by making the Medicaid enrollment process simpler. We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. An outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis, for example, endangers citizens of both our nations. We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.

Gov. Perry, how can you complain about ObamaCare when you expanded government healthcare in your own state? Both you and Obama have done it in the name of compassion but at the end of the day its wealth redstribution and things that government ought not be involved in. Oh and yes, like with RomneyCare, the states do have more leeway than the federal government, however you should be careful with that authority, because by exercizing it, you show what things do not bother you, and negate any moral challenges you may claim to have against forced government medicine, because when the discretion was yours, it was “compassionate.” How do you expect us to believe you have qualms with national programs when you were ready willing, and able to support state healthcare?

Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance.This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.

 If you are so excited about extending tax payer funded medicine to residents of another country, I have to ask, on what grounds do you oppose ObamaCare? WHY is the government of TEXAS working on MEXICAN healthcare?

As a compassionate state, we know that for our children to succeed, they must not only be healthy, but educated. The future leaders of our two nations are learning their fractions and their ABC’s in classrooms all along this border. Immigrants from around the world are being taught in Texas classrooms, and our history is rich with examples of new citizens who have made great contributions. We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.

 ”Yes we can?” What a familiar sound that has to it… I was referring to the slogan, but the instate tuition for illegal immigrants sounds familiar too, kind of like the repeat of a bad DREAM… Way to go Perry, isn’t it great that Texas took the “national lead” in accomodating and pandering to illegal aliens?

We also know that poverty is not unique to either side of the border. Some of Texas’ poorest citizens live in colonias all along the border. They often lack basic infrastructure many of us take for granted. Just today, the North American Development Bank announced it will provide $6.3 million in funding to hook up colonia residents in six border cities to water and wastewater lines. More than 18,000 residents will benefit from these water or wastewater hookups. And this November, by approving Proposition 2, Texas voters can ensure that their neighbors in colonias have quality roads so that school buses, emergency vehicles and postal trucks can reach residents, and residents can get to a job or a school reliably.

 No it isn’t unique, and as our governments work harder and harder to provide illegal immigrants with more and more services, healthcare, education, it will only continue to become more common.

President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues. At the same time we must continue to deepen our economic ties, expanding opportunities for Mexican and U.S. companies to do business on both sides of the border. The outlook is promising, even if the road to prosperity is a long one. We share a bond as neighbors, and we find our culture north of the Rio Grande to be increasingly defined by the strong traits of people of Hispanic descent. Texas has long enjoyed a unique identity, an identity forged by an independent spirit, and the convergence of many different peoples. We must welcome change in the 21st Century as we have in every century before it.

Then why do you constantly throw up the “obstacles” that make it an issue? Why do you try to give state benefits to illegal aliens? Don’t you know that such actions subsidize illegal immigration? If you want to have anything close to “open borders” you have no choice but to eliminate ALL subsidies of ANY kind to illegal immigrants.

Today, as we look to the south, we see a rising sun. It is perched above a people whose best days are in front of them. Let us endeavor to make the most of this new day through a new dialogue. Let us work together to combat disease, expand trade and provide educational opportunities. If we do, there are no limits to what we can accomplish for the betterment of all of our citizens. Thank you, and God bless you.

It is not the governments duty to provide educational opportunities for citizens of foreign nations. Private colleges want to do so, private universities, perfectly fine! But it is not government’s role to do so. Expanding trade is great, as long as it doesn’t erode our freedoms and sovereignty.

What is shocking about this speech is that this transcript is still posted on Perry’s official governor’s website (see link at begining) as of today (9/13/2011). Please circulate this article or even just the official speech link and help get the word out about Perry’s progressive globalist tendencies.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Reflections on Ron Paul and terrorist trials.

Posted by americana83 on August 14, 2011

I’ll admit there is an immediate and understandable reaction to Ron Paul’s statement that terrorists should have trials. I had the same reaction, though many of the points in that article are extremely valid, especially in light of other events. It was an outrage an affront to Americans and the memory of 9/11, an act of war by a then unknown group of assailants. They were clearly terrorists. However, in light of recent events, I’ve had to revise my understanding of the whole matter. We have a cultural understanding of terrorist, that is we basically see them as foreign nationals and Islamic radicals. However, the government sees terrorist in a far broader context. And once you see that context, you might see that Ron Paul’s statement suddenly becomes imperative for protecting the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Quite literally, our government has adjusted the meaning such that Americans who: protest taxes, access alternative media (such as what you are reading now), protest abortion, illegal immigration, fear communism. From WND:

“Rightwing extremism,” the lexicon defines as those “who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Just recently, the government added those who pay with cash and those who shop places such as military surplus stores and people who take the government’s own advice on emergency preparedness purchasing. Obama’s team may well have floated the idea for a trial for the 911 mastermind as a way to inoculate the American population against the idea of trying anyone branded as a “terrorist” in a civilian court. You can see that the government’s definition is overtly broad and likely encompasses a fair portion of the population of the United States. Further, have you considered the terrorist nature of the following crimes, and how easy it would be to include anyone suspected of such things in a terrorist list, thereby depriving them of their constitutional rights:

Suspects in a rape

Suspects in mass shootings

armed bank robbery

Certainly, most crime has a terrorist element in it, and yet according to the Constitution, “no person is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

We must be vigilant and not fall into the knee-jerk reactions the progressives at high levels are directing us towards.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Recipe: How to make a “Sugar Coated Satan Sandwich”

Posted by americana83 on August 7, 2011

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s infamous name for the Budget Control Act actually has more truth to it than one might realize. Here is my analysis of what it took to make the budget control act a real “Satan sandwich.”

1. Sugar Coating:

~2 trillion parts cuts

10 years

Promises

Mix together thoroughly, making sure everyone thinks that 2 trillion dollars of cuts over 10 years equals 2 trillions of dollars of deficit spending in one year. Further, pretend you can pin down and require future congresses to act on your desires. Ensure further that they don’t see that the cuts will actually be in the rate of spending increase, not actual cuts. In other words, don’t let them know that spending will continue to increase at a “drunken sailor” rate even if future congresses agree to these cuts.

2. Sandwich.

12 parts super congress

1 part shredded constitution.

Mix together 6 members from each house. Imbue them with power from below, to leverage “revenue enhancements” and “cuts.” Put a gun to their head (forced cuts) with noone to pull the trigger. Discard the one part shredded constitution, as this super committee/congress violates the constitution’s granting of the power of the purse to the House.

3. Nancy Pelosi’s side order of Satan Fries.

100 parts partisanship

10 parts grand strategy

Dilute the constituency into thinking this Budget Control Act is a complete capitulation to the tea party. Conceal that Obama got everything he wanted in this legislation (a historic increase in the debt ceiling with only promises of cuts later, along with a super congress that will help the next progressive president sidestep a pesky house with a conservative majority with a good liberal coating of hot partisan rhetoric.

4. Blame Sauce.

By presenting this fine dish as a product of the tea party, when the inevitable fallout comes (debt downgrade, stocks, inflation, all the stuff that was supposed to happen if NO “deal” was reached!). The progressives will be able to blame the tea party for the mess. Unfortunately, in as far as tea party freshmen and supposed conservatives voted for this bill, it will be their fault. However, Stalwarts like Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul voted against serving this toxic Sugar Coated Satan Sandwich to the American people as a tonic that will move us closer to a responsible and restrained government. But the media doesn’t care about facts, and you can bet the conservative Republicans in the house will be slammed by the MSM.

Here’s a breakdown of who voted how:

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/boehner-budget-control-act-vote-who-voted-nay/

One of my friends had this to say about the deal, and I think its worth repeating here:

2008: Pass the bailout, or we’ll have a financial crisis! 2009: Pass the stimulus, or we’ll have 9% unemployment! 2011: Raise the debt ceiling, or we’ll lose our AAA rating! Are you starting to see a pattern here?

A recent redistricting meeting where myself and others questioned the integrity of the system after an article mentioned some anonymous sources purportedly “close to the redistricting process” indicated that Jordan’s disloyalty to the debt plan could cost him his district. As much as we are willing to call out politicians who renege their pledges to their constituencies, we must be willing to stand up with and for those statesmen who risk it all to do what is right. Is there not a cause?

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the Debt Ceiling Matters

Posted by americana83 on July 18, 2011

Republicans are faced with a historic opportunity. It they hold firm, they can make a strong statement and begin the process of actually reducing government spending. By refusing to grant an extension of the government’s credit limit, cuts will have to be made.

However, despite historic fear mongering (everything done by Obama is “historic”), team Obama can not justify ending social security payments. Though insolvency resides for it in the future, right now, money that was payed into Social Security is there to continue making payments to those who were forced into the system and who paid into it. Obama is shamelessly lying about these payments for political gain.

There are those who urging the tea party GOP freshmen in the house to surrender their fight, calling any victory on the debt ceiling, ceremonial and empty, instead urging the old “go along to get along” strategy of the past 100 years that got us to the mess where we now find ourselves. Whether it is McConnell’s outright surrender of the power to the white house to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, or for the House to rubber stamp any old budget that Obama comes up with in the name of “saving face” from the lies and scaremongering about unsent social security checks. They harken back to Newt and the 1995 government shutdown scare. Never mind the fact that Newt may well have sabotaged the GOP on that issue (this is speculation based on Newt’s ideology as a progressive futurist and his complete failure to repeal the Department of Education as part of the Contract with America) with his comments about wanting to shut down the government. The house has made a budget. The White House doesn’t want it. The answer is not to give Obama what he wants. The answer is to buck the trend of the past hundred years and stand firm, no matter how much the TV talking heads scream about electability and no matter how much Obama lies about Social Security payments. The freshmen GOP were not elected to enable runaway government, but to check it. It is fiscal insanity to vote a budget where almost have of each dollar is deficit spending.

While they may not be able to get a budget that Obama will endorse (unless they pass HIS budget), they can halt the process by refusing to allocate money for his programs. It is risky, since people are not familiar with politicians holding their ground on principle. No doubt the lying attack adds will be launched. But then again, if they DO endorse the Obama budget and do whatever they can, surrender what ever principles they have to in order to prevent a government shutdown, they will be attacked. The left will not give them a moment’s rest. They will alienate and neutralize their base. And America will continue, unabated, on its road to perdition…

STAND FIRM. Keep the debt ceiling on ice.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Audacity of Ignorance

Posted by americana83 on July 13, 2011

Most of us Tea Partiers know what its like to be slandered. Whether it’s being labeled racist, “astro-turf,” anti-government, etc. The far left in this country is busy doing its best to thwart the revival of interest in government by those who wish to see it smaller and more constitutional. But sometimes the damage is done by one of our own, that so believes in moderates that he is willing to throw under the bus those groups that have been stigmatized by the main stream media for decades, and whom is willing to cast off the concept of long term strategies to focus solely on one election at a time. These individuals believe in the so called inevitable march of “liberal democracy,” (most tea partiers and birch members would tell you we are a republic not a democracy) and that societal evolution is such that totalitarianism (such as communism and fascism) can never again threaten America or the rest of the world. Upon mentioning the fact that at a town hall meeting in the international Union SEIU’s union hall I saw the distribution of the People’s Weekly World, he proceeded to say that the Communists were the left’s radicals, like the John Birch Society was the right’s radical group. This likely stems from the fact that he believes totalitarianism is dead, and an unsubstantiated slur from the far left that the JBS was somehow a racist organization (those of us in the tea party should be all too familiar with this slander, and . Whatever the reasons, it was clear this gentlemen had no understanding of the Birch Society, or of the Tea Party and 9/12 movement in general. Which was shocking to me, seeing as he was addressing such a group. Most of us happen to believe the government is rapidly expanding and moving towards socialism. The only real element of doctrine some tea partiers may disagree with the JBS is on the element of foreign policy, however there are numbers among the Tea Party who endorse that as well, seeing the value in the US curtailing its policy of nation building and redistributing American wealth in the form of foreign aid and “free” world policing. However, this hardly makes the JBS more radical than the tea party! The JBS has been right along side the tea party in ohio collecting signatures for the Health Care Freedom Amendment, and it has been in the arena fighting since the days of open Communism. Today the concerns are similar, with the old left preferring the term “progressive” over communist, and operating under the authority that has been ceded thus far to the United Nations. Our institutions are grand, but they are not immune to corruption at the hands of progressive radicals bent on “fundamentally transforming” this country. One can see how over the past century power has been consolidated in Washington in general, and in the presidency in particular (From FDR’s gold seizures to vast executive bureaucracies in the EPA, FDA, DoE, HUD, DHS, TSA to Obama’s recent interventions by fiat in Libya). Focus on the immediacy of an election is good, but it should not be at the expense of creating an electorate educated in the foundation of constitutional liberty and the nature and doctrines of those who oppose it. This has been a part of both the Tea Party and the John Birch Society. Long term strategy and understanding of the true nature liberty as well as of those who oppose it is essential to defending liberty. As to communism being dead, why not visit the party’s official website, http://www.cpusa.org and seeing for yourself the praise they lavish upon many of the Obama administration’s policies and agenda items. Even in Europe, masses of people are being stirred up by communists and socialists against austerity measures designed to save governments hemorrhaging euros due to massive socialist welfare states. Communism is dead in a sense, that few want to be identified as such. But the underlying philosophies are alive and well. As is progressive internationalism in organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations, the SEIU, George Soro’s Moveon.org, and any organzations promoting and funding the United Nation’s Agenda 21.

I had the opportunity to meet up with members of the John Birch Society in 2009. They were hosting a speech by the Society’s president McManus, a speech about the economic crises and I decided to go and see what they were about. As it turned out, what they were saying was in line with the Tea Party’s stance on the size and scope of government spending. Afterwards I was able to grill some members about the Society, most notably the racist issue because I will not ever knowingly associate with a group that does harbor racist ideologies. As it turns out, the nebulous charges I had heard as a youth were as accurate as those thrown against the Tea Party today. To sum it up. I joined two organizations and one movement in 2009: The Union County 9/12 Group, the John Birch Society and the Tea Party. All of these are, in a sense, radical organizations, but to those concerned with liberty, they are hardly radical, but are practical and essential allies to the cause. But the empty charges of “out of the mainstream” really aren’t holding water any more as more and more people continue to wake up to the dangers presented by an out of control federal government.

An interview with the president of the JBS on the floor of the We The People Convention.

If you would like to find out more about the John Birch Society, and how they have been aiding the cause of Liberty in America, check out the following sites:

http://www.thenewamerican.com

http://www.jbs.org

Robert Owens, The Ohio Liberty Council’s Tea Party PAC endorsed 2010 candidate for Ohio Attorney General is the head of the Delaware, OH Chapter of the John Birch Society.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to look for in a presidential candidate, or any candidate for any office.

Posted by americana83 on June 10, 2011

I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:

Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.

Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.

End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.

Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!

Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.

Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?

Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?

Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.

Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.

Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.

Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.

All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:

Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).

I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.”  It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.

Posted in Presidential, Election, deception, Obama, Barack Obama, communism, news, taxes, health care, Ohio, culture, Immigration, politics, Election 2012 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An Analysis of Mitt Romney’s “Growth Agenda”

Posted by americana83 on June 6, 2011

MItt Romney - Job Creation Quote

Mitt Romney explains what he thinks the government's role in job creation is.

While no one can argue with low taxes, the rest of the list- remember this is in relation to the federal government- should give any conservative pause.

“Dynamic regulation,” seems to be an unusual position for one branding himself as a conservative. Flexible regulations with no relation to what they actually say would only cause confusion amongst business forced to attempt to comply with them. Reducing regulations, while seeking to prevent new ones would be a the best idea of a president looking to use his role to reduce the post-constitutional mentality of the modern federal government.

“Educational achievement.” The more the federal government has taken over education, the more it has degraded. Further federal subsidization or manipulation of what should be local or state matters will only serve to spend much more money and achieve poorer, albeit more “politically correct” results.

“Investment in research” This is code speak for spending tax dollars on federal projects. While this may create a few jobs, they are not the free market, and thus are a burden to the economy and not a benefit. Let the free market choose where to invest in research.

“Robust Competition” Again, here is something that one cannot really argue with. However, in light of his commitment to “dynamic regulation” and his own ObamaCare, Jr, one has to doubt seriously a President Romney’s commitment to the principles of a free market of “robust competition.”

“Free Trade” As far as this goes towards supporting multinational agreements that take American trade policy control outside of the US will be the extent to which it actually undermines trade policy that will benefit the US.

“Purposeful” Immigration. This is probably the most meaningless statement on the entire page. Every immigrant, illegal or otherwise, has a purpose in coming to America. More than likely, it is code for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is itself code for amnesty for illegal immigrants already here.

“Seeking to eliminate government waste” Even Obama utters this phrase from time to time. Merely streamlining existing government spending will not do anything to balance the budget or allow the free market to create jobs.

“Seeking to eliminate excessive litigation” This sounds good too, but who determines what is excessive? Is it referring to frivolous suits against corporations and businesses, or is it referring to litigation against the government’s overreach? Its pretty hard to tell.

“Runaway healthcare costs” The government has supposedly been battling this for a while. But it seems the more the government gets involved, the more skewed health care costs become. How will Romney attempt to battle “runaway healthcare costs?” Probably like he did as governor, that is, his own flavor of mandated healthcare insurance and government control thereof.

“Dependence on foreign oil” Romney, Obama and everyone else claims to want to do this. Yet since the creation of the Department of Energy, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. Will Romney roll back federal restrictions on exploration for oil, or perhaps return federally occupied lands to the states wherein they reside? It doesn’t seem likely.

America’s only economic agenda ought to be to ensure a free market and an honest judicial system in which to resolve disputes.

Mitt then goes on to list some policy positions based on the above “growth agenda” (SOURCE: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/job-creation 6-6-2011)

Smaller Government

Reverse President Obama’s massive expansion of federal power
We must cut federal spending to free up resources for productive investment, and curtail ever-expanding federal authority to provide businesses with the certainty and stability they need to make those investments. As President, Mitt Romney will place a hard cap on federal spending, forcing Washington politicians to control the size and growth of government.

There are some serious flaws in the above. First and foremost, the President does not have the power of the purse, that lies with Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Second, The government must NOT cut spending to “free up resources for productive investment,” it must cut spending to return to solvency WITHOUT taking on more spending, no matter how “productive” it may promise to be.

Economic Competitiveness

Make America the most attractive place in the world to do business Today, more than ever, new businesses can choose where to form and existing ones can choose where to invest and hire. America has long been the most dynamic economy in the world, and we must not let our government change that. As President, Mitt Romney will:

  • Lower taxes on businesses to keep America competitive in the global economy
  • Slash bureaucratic red tape and place a hard cap on the impact that federal regulations can have on the economy
  • Limit the corrosive influence of union bosses on productive businesses
This sounds good, but instead of attempting to place an undefined “hard cap” on the impact of federal regulations, why not delete the actual regulations causing the problems. Well, again the problem is the fact that congress has the law making power, not the president. The most the executive branch can do is to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. How does a president limit “the corrosive influence” of union bosses on productive businesses? It would seem to me that labor laws are the jurisdiction of the states per the 10th amendment.

Free Trade On Fair Terms

Open markets on fair terms for our products and services around the world
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.

Who is defining fair? America must only accept agreements that are beneficial to itself. Our government is not a charity, and harming hardworking Americans to earn federal politicians international fame is disgusting. If the commitments that were “already made” are illegal agreements which the government did not have the authority to create or enforce, then they should be terminated as well.

Energy Security and Independence

Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels
We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.

We do not need to lower the amount of energy we use, or if we do, it is not a governmental concern. Government should neither be a partner, nor an obstacle, but the states and companies should lead the way in their own efforts. The best things the government could do is end immediately all subsidies for so-called alternative energy sources and let them fight for competitiveness on a level playing field. Necessity breeds invention, and those with the incentive and skill to perhaps make wind and solar energy work will be drowned out in the sea of subsidized “green” companies who do not have to improve their products or attain ever increasing levels of efficiency in order to be profitable.
Perhaps the most ominous phrase in this section, and the one which completely destroys Romney’s claims of free market champion is this: “Address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.” This should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves freedom because what this means is this: The people operating on the principle of freedom of economic choice are not making the decisions we (the government) like. Therefore, we need to nudge them (command economy, socialism) towards the things we think they should be purchasing.

Training and Preparing America’s Workers

Prepare the American workforce to succeed in a 21st-century economy
Our economy is rapidly changing. Some of the steps we must take to restart economic growth—for instance, expanding trade relationships and developing new sources of energy—will only hasten that evolution. We need to eliminate ineffective government handouts, and instead give workers the resources and responsibility to develop valuable skills and make the transition to new types of work.

The federal government has no role to train workers, nor to allocate tax payer money for the purpose. The federal government also has neither the credibility nor authority to determine what constitutes “valuable skills” or to plan the economy.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney does not have a conservative economic agenda which, even aside from the above analysis of his presidential economic platform, should be apparent from his endorsement of RomneyCare. He also lacks an understanding of the proper authority vested in the Executive Branch  by the Constitution.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, deception, Election, Election 2012, Immigration, Legal, Obama, Presidential, public schools, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Why Obama released his birth certificate now

Posted by americana83 on April 30, 2011

Obama has fought now for years to keep personal documents relating to his birth and education secret, spending a substantial amount of time, effort and money to do so. What has happened since the last presidential election that has changed his mind?

The political environment is different. The unpopular and unconstitutional legislation being discussed is no longer Bush’s, it is his own. His precurser to an open nationalized healthcare system (obamacare), his quiet reauthorization of the Patriot act, and his push for carbon taxes (cap and trade) has drained enthusiasm from the independents, and his vaunted internationalism has alienated the US in the world, even among our closest allies. His lips speak of austerity, but his budgets hemmorage more red ink with each passing year.

Also different is the loudest voice demanding it’s release: none other than progressive insider turned tea partier Donald Trump. Trump has been loudly shouting about the birth certificate and apparently Obama has capitulated, releasing what is allegedly his long form birth certificate. Why? Because ‘The Donald’, unlike early ‘birthers’ such as Jerome Corsi, has no concern for the constitution or reducing the size and scope of government.

Just last year, his donations to Harry Reid helped topple tea party favorite Sharon Angle, and his substantial donation to Rahm Emmanuel’s campaign made it in just in time to avoid new campaign contribution limits in Chicago this year.

I believe that Obama has done this for two reasons. First, to nudge conversation away from his unconstitutional agenda and redirect media attention to his birth certificate. Second, Trump is a perfect opponent. His practical differences of agenda with Obama boil down mostly to some good rhetoric, especially in light of his substantial decades-long support of open progressives and a few rinos. In his book, he extols universal government healthcare which means that, like Romney, his purported critique of Obama’s government run health care plan falls a little flat. This in addition to Trump’s own ‘soak the rich’ plan and his eager use of eminent domain to have the government do his dirty work. In short, Trump is a big government progressive and thus giving him some power and attention will do nothing to harm Obama’s agenda. And as a bonus to Obama, Trump will draw away those tea partiers more interested in a personality to clash with Obama in a beautifully choreographed dance and a few strategically placed profanities than in substantial policy differences. These are the so-called tea partiers who snarl and call you an Obama supporter for daring to criticize their favorite (pseudo) Conservative Idol.

The irony of this is that only a couple short years ago, it was Obama supporters showing the exact same mentality in their deflection of all criticisms of their so called chosen one.

The fact of the matter is that Obama’s eligibility for the presidency is an issue, and he should be vetted for such eligibility prior to the 2012 elections (just as moderate McCain was in 2008). However, when it drowns out discussions of other more dangerous unconstitutional power grabs, it aides and abets the progressive cause.

The bottom line is this: if a president Trump or Romney gets the tea party excited, then the movement as it was founded has already failed and its founding principles have been abandoned as surely as the government has abandoned the Constitution.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

My brother’s keeper?

Posted by americana83 on February 26, 2011

There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:

Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm

And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone

It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:

Genesis 4:5-9  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  (6)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  (7)  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (8)  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.  (9)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:

Genesis 4:10-11  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.  (11)  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of  “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.

This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).

Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.

Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…

This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, health care, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.