Michael Wolfe

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

Posts Tagged ‘communist’

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

Newt Gingrich: Progressive Internationalistst.

Posted by americana83 on May 25, 2011

Update: Having recently finished reading the politics of the third wave, I can summarize all but the last chapter of the book like this: Change is always resisted, We are on the verge of a massive change in civilization to the third wave, family, government, economics, everything is second wave (free market, constitutions, man-woman marriage, energy etc) and must be changed to avoid the bloodshed and chaos that typically ensues with a revolution. The final chapter presents that our government and constitution must be changed, or fundamentally transformed. The Tofflers believe hijacking the republican party is the best way to do this.

Its been a hard month for Newt. From attacking Paul Ryan to defending variant forms of health care mandates, Newt has been showing openly than ever his progressive side. Or has he? Newt has been an advocate of the “third wave,” a progressive post-constitutional movement. According to the New American Magazine:

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

In short, the man who has been running around trying to put out all the fires caused by his unexpected candid speech, has not been acting out of character. In fact, since 1990 he has been a member of the progressive Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful think tank dedicated to a post-national future where America surrenders its identity as a sovereign nation to the internal progressives behind the United Nations, which itself was founded in part by American traitor/Soviet Communist Alger Hiss.

The Mises Institute sums up the third wave like this: “If their (Alvin Toffler’s and Heidi Toffler’s) predictions are banal, and their social theory unfounded and simplistic, their recommendations for political change are more than a little sinister. Although constantly calling for decentralization, they also complain that we are “politically primitive and undeveloped” at the “transnational level.” Decisions must be transferred “up” from the nation-state (p. 100). Translating the Tofflers’ Third Wave argot into English, this is a call for global government. Not surprisingly, those who oppose Nafta are prisoners of the outmoded Second Wave. This is in reference to the progressive book to which Gingrich authored a forward: Creating A New Civilization: The Politics Of The Third Wave.

Creating a New Civilization: The politics of the third wave

Of course, this “Third Wave” goes way beyond government structures and economic theory. In fact, Third Wave philosophy may explain Gingrich’s personal morals and outlook on family values in general:

Today, once more, egos are breaking like eggshells against the wall. Now, however, the guilt is associated with the frac- ture of the family rather than the economy. As millions of men and women clamber out of the strewn wreckage of their marriages they, too, suffer agonies of self-blame. And once more, much of the guilt is misplaced. When a tiny minority is involved, the crack-up of their families may reflect individual failures. But when divorce, separation, and other forms of familial disaster overtake millions at once in many countries, it is absurd to think the causes are purely personal. The fracture of the family today is, in fact, part of the general crisis of industrialism—the crack-up of all the institutions spawned by the Second Wave. It is part of the ground-clearing for a new Third Wave socio-sphere. – Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave p. 208.

Toffler, in this book Newt once called required reading, goes on in the pages immediately following the above quote, to suggest that the only way to preserve the traditional family is to destroy modern technology and reintroduce poverty! But wait, there’s more. He also implies that contraceptives are the source of a woman’s freedom. It also goes on to praise the formation of new kinds of “families” saying that such things as homosexual couples, and “couples of various numbers, joint spouse sharing and other such things should be welcomed as a celebration of diversity and normalized! Does this sound like a book any genuine conservative would recommend?

But that’s not all. In the chapter titles “the invisible wedge,” Toffler places a very low value on maintaining a home and the raising of children: “The man took responsibility for the historically more advanced form of work; the woman was left behind to take care of the older, more backward form of work. He moved, as it were, into the future; she remained in the past.”

Let me me ask you, would any conservative endorse the idea that raising children is “backward” or a relic of the past? At every point progressive Newt must be challenged and confronted with his record of betraying conservatives. He is, like one man suggested “an embarrassment” to the party.

Required Reading:

A great summary of Newt’s record, followed by a top-notch detailed analysis:

An interesting study on the historical “third wave”

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

None Dare Call It Socialist: HR3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

Posted by americana83 on April 7, 2010

Are the claims of socialism new? Have government intrusions into medicine been opposed before Obama tried them? Does it matter whether Obama scoffs at those who call his plan “socialist?”

First, I will say that this bill does not create “single payer” government run healthcare. However, it does pave the way by extending current government “care” systems (and their under-reimbursement of health care providers), subsidizing insurance using tax payers’ money, and enacting a whole list of mandates on insurance companies, individuals, and employers. These mandates will increase the cost of insurance, possibility to the point of unsustainability, paving the way for the government to “save the day” by stepping in and seizing outright control of the entire medical industry. This, coupled with the push to legalize millions of illegal aliens, many of which would then qualify for coverage and the decreasing incentive for people to study to become doctors will combine to create the one thing everyone said would never come: health-care rationing.

Recently, the APHA (the American Public Health Association) made the following assertions about the recently rammed, bribed, blackmailed, forced through Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and its subsequent reconciliation (and college loan take over) package:

Not only will the law extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance, prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program, it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

Lets look at some of these elements individually:

extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans.

Since this number seems to fluctuate, that is not so much the issue, however this bill will force those who do not want insurance, typically the young and the healthy to purchase a product they neither want nor need. If you make $13 per hour and live in Ohio, the government already deducts about 25% of your pay (not counting sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other non-payroll taxes). 1 out of every 4 hours you work, you are working on behalf of the government. Now they are telling you how to spend your hard earned money, whether you want to or not. Sure the penalties are fairly small right now, but remember, the Federal Income Tax started out as a paltry 1% tax! My how big and hungry the tax beast has grown, and the more you feed it, the hungrier it becomes! (oh, and the whole “federal government forcing you to buy something” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

But wait, there’s more:

…provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance…

More of your tax dollars are going for NEW entitlement programs! (Never mind that current ones are unsustainable in their funding levels!). Charity has its place, and it is the VOLUNTARY donations from people who WANT to help to organizations that do more than just give out free goodies. Self proclaimed communist Van Jones’ railing demand of “give them the wealth!” can almost be heard echoing through the pages of this bill. Just like other government social programs, the costs associated with this will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimates and will help much less than the vaunted 32 million uninsured.

And now, we make insurance more expensive with this, causing more people to need to rely on Big Brother to help them:

prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program

While this sounds nice, it will raise the cost of everyone’s insurance. They can’t be charged more than everyone else, so the costs are spread to everyone. Again this is not charity. This is taking more money from hard working men and women.

it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

I do not want the government spending my money on condoms and telling me what to eat or how to exercise. Most areas already have local public libraries and charitable organizations that offer health information. It is about control. As the government foots more and more of the bills for health insurance/health care, it will demand more and more control and say in how and what individuals eat, when they exercise, and just about every field that is touched by health.

Also, with the president and other people who are part of the problem complaining about the deficit, where is this 500 million dollars going to come from? Well, the 10% tanning tax for starters. Then, in the spirit of promoting better insurance plan offerings (sarcasm), ObamaCare gives us a 40% tax on the best health insurance plans, with a few years delay for unions, who’s members generally have good plans and who might otherwise revolt against the leaders of their international unions.

Now lets look some bitter pills scattered throughout this bill (this is just a small sample of all the things hidden throughout the bill’s 2409 pages + 900 (amendment).

Full bill text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

16 MIUM.—

The title for this section actually says it all. It doesn’t matter that you’ve paid the same amount into the system as everyone else, now you get to pay more. More spreading wealth around, just like Obama promised.

Section 4201:

(B) ACTIVITIES- Activities within the plan may focus on (but not be limited to)

(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;

Ok, our schools are already failing academically, now we are supposed to sacrifice more class time so kids can run and jump around? More time telling them how wonderful they are (building up their self esteem/emotional wellness), and more telling them how to eat and what to eat? Every time federal control over the public schools increases, the quality of the education declines. Soon parents won’t have to take responsibility for anything, the state will raise their kids from cradle to graduation. Oh, and the federal constitution does NOT give the federal government authority over education, that is a right reserved to the states, respectively  or the people.

(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;

(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;

(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;

(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;

(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and

What does this mean? It sounds like an opportunity to spread more wealth around, that is until the feds run out of our wealth to spread around…

(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

I would encourage anyone interested in the realities of socialism and how it has come to the point where the federal government feels it has the authority (it doesn’t) to mandate individuals to purchase insurance to borrow, buy or check out the book: None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer. It recounts the heartbreaking saga of betrayal of the nation’s most cherished ideals and laws in the 20th century.

Here are a couple of very relevant exerts from this book published way back in 1964:

Magruder’s high school text, American Government, as mentioned earlier uses nearly every classical propaganda trick to confuse students into accepting socialism. Consider this non-sequitur under the heading, Medical Service Under Our System of Free Enterprise:

In a democracy we believe in evolutionary methods rather than the revolutionary methods of a dictatorship; and under our system of free enterprise, competition improves the standard of service and tends to reduce the cost. Therefore, instead of jumping right into socialized medicine, why not have the Government support projects such as the following. (pg 670).

If free enterprise medicine works so well, and Magruder acknowledges that it does, why consider socialized medine at all, either immediately or by the backdoor approach Magruder recommends. He advocates approaching socialized medicine through such steps as federal aid for training doctors, federal funds for hospital construction, and government payment of hospital costs for lengthy illnesses.(pg 110).

Then, on page 169, Stormer quotes approvingly this statement:

Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty. The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty. Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.

and this one:

I want to tell you socialists that I have studied your philosophy…I have heard your orators… I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for 30 years and know how you think and what you propose. I know too what you have up your sleeve. Economically, you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

Since the publishing of this book, the American welfare state has grown exponentially. Step by step creeping socialism has consumed the private sector, followed surely by expanding government, increasing taxes, and a continuing reduction of the realm of freedom. President Obama, with his incessant push for this healthcare bill, has accomplished the greatest harm to our constitutional republic since FDR first got people hooked on government cheese using the New Deal. Every elected official who voted for this healthcare bill has joined previous public officials who have violated their oath of office for the sake of expanding government power and subverting the constitution.

The answers to my introductory questions: No, Yes, NO! It doesn’t matter what Obama calls himself, what his policies are called, or even who suggested them first. They still have the same deadly affect on our freedoms, our way of life, and the long-term viability of the American experiment. Obama does not offer “hope” for America, Obama doesn’t offer anything new, just the same tired old socialist ideas that Americans have been fighting since Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax became law.

Oh, and one more link: the Communist Party USA’s magazine, people’s world, just offered their praise of Obama’s health care bill.

President Obama’s new health-care law is a “historic victory” that can lead to socialized medicine and “single-payer” health-care legislation, boasted Juan Lopez, chairman of the Communist Party USA in Northern California.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

“Meet the Candidates” Factcheck: Ohio15th.blogspot.com

Posted by americana83 on March 17, 2010

Just today ohio6win stumbled across the article I wrote about the recent Meet the Candidates Night. I say stumbled across because she apparently did not even bother to read the article in her haste to decry both Stivers and myself and got some pretty basic facts wrong.


* While Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy was in Washington, DC, there were some people that showed up at her local office with signs. A majority of the demonstrators supported health care reform, while the other side could be characterized as the pro-higher insurance premium/status quo group. I know that those that who were in favor of health care reform were actual supporters of Kilroy’s. Those on the pro-higher insurance premiums, tea baggers, and pro-GOP, looked like they all escaped out of the Franklin Co. GOP office or the local country club. The anti-health care reform group stance can be summed up by the comment made by a woman from the affluent suburb of Upper Arlington (Dispatch):

Perhaps ohio6win should have looked at the facts before condemning this group as “escaping out of the Franklin Co. GOP office. Some of these same people were recently protesting in front of the GOP’s building in Columbus over recent episodes involving GOP slight of hand to displace tea party candidates and pave the way for establishment cronies to return to office. In fact, this author was among them.

And then, we have the following error filled assumptions that show the ohio15th author (ohio6win) didn’t even read my article about the “Meet the candidates” night.

****** Republican candidate for Congress, Steve Stivers, a former lobbyist, attended a recent “meet the candidates” forum sponsored by an extreme right winger, Michael Wolfe. Here are some excerpts from Wolfe’s Platform page:

First, the Candidate’s night was hosted by the The Hilliard/Galloway and Union County 9/12 Projects. While I was at the event, it does not automatically mean that both Stivers and I harmonize on ideology. In fact, there are some who question how committed Stivers is to conservative and constitutional principles, including this author.

“Hate speech” laws criminalize religious speech, and penalize those who hold traditional moral values.

(Is Stivers against laws that protect various minorities?)

This tactic involves deceit and bypasses the issue altogether. How ohio6win  jumps from “traditional moral values” to minorities is a mystery, since the focus is clearly on sexuality, and they have ignored this author’s many articles condemning racism, but then progressives never let facts get in the way of a good tirade. And here it continues:

“Hate speech” laws silence those who would speak out against certain sexual practices for health concerns.
(Does Stivers agree with this????)

Does ohio6win believe that ALL sexual behaviors and practices should NEVER be questioned? I would make the assumption that Stivers would disagree with my assertions on this matter, given his ambiguities on the question asked at the candidates’ night on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

No government health-care.

(Does Stivers support Wolfe’s proposal to end Medicare, the SCHIP health care for children, and Medicaid?)

Does ohio6win know that these programs are unsustainable and bankrupt, and that I have no issue with individual states passing whatever programs they will, or that I support private charities that care for the poor and homeless and needy.

Despite these bizarre statements form Michael Wolfe, some of us wonder if Stivers himself believes in Wolfe’s “platform.” Has Stivers gone over to the far right extremists side of the political landscape? You can see more information on Stivers here. By the way, check out the pictures here and you’ll wonder if Wolfe and Stivers have gone off the deep end. Why did Stivers align himself with this obvious extremist?posted by ohio06win at 8:20 AM

First, Stivers has not aligned himself with this author, nor has he endorsed my platform. Obvious extremist? That I can live with. I am not ashamed of what I stand for, nor am I afraid to call for the phasing out of bankrupt, unconstitutional programs best left to private charities and to the individual states as their constitutions allow. Oh, and please do check out the pictures. A lot of hard work went into them, and I encourage anyone who wants to use them at their next tea party or rally, feel free. I stand behind the contents and message of each of these posters, and am not afraid to say that President Barack Obama is Communist/Socialist. Check out the exert from his book Dreams from my father about 3/4 of the way down this article. Also this article about Obama’s home church of 20 plus years. Also, check out WorldNetDaily’s article about Obama’s new spiritual mentor. And how about my article about the praise the Communist Party, USA has lavished upon Obama and his agenda.

Bizarre? OK, but remember, this is coming from a person who believes that the wives of politicians should not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights in a March 15th post on her sister blog, and who substitutes crude names and distortions for facts and figures. As bizarre as my beliefs may seem to one who is firmly entrenched in the progressive mentality, it is not bizarre to those who uphold the concept of a Constitutional republic based on the beliefs and values that made this nation what she is today. Perhaps I should be flattered. I’ve joined the ranks of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others who have been lied about and called names.

As for a post that is currently only showing up on google search from her stubborn liberal blog about “smart people,” it just happens that she admits that everyone she agrees with is smart, as are those who support them, whereas, all of her opponents are stupid, as are those who support them. As a college graduate, I am proud to say by God’s grace I saw through the fog that surrounded Obama. However, a college degree does not mean one is any more capable of picking good candidates, and her personal disdain for those who disagree with her is very evident in the tone of this and many of her other articles. I have never studied a candidate more thoroughly, and have decided to never support another candidate merely because they are “the lesser of two evils.” As for the article she quotes approvingly about what kind of “conservatism” is respectable, I will not take my advice from what “acceptable conservatism is from someone who doesn’t believe the wives of judges deserve constitutional rights. I’ll bet the “Republicans” in this list would also earn her unwavering support for their commitment to abandoning the precepts of conservatism to embrace the change no conservative could be honest with themselves and believe in… As for the Buckley-type “conservatism” she apparently approves of, check this article out.

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

The Crisis of the 9/11 terrorist trial.

Posted by americana83 on November 18, 2009

The real tragedy of this trial is a that it is a lose-lose.

1. By going to civil court, the rights of the constitution* are bestowed upon non-citizens who attacked us, and freely confessed to doing so. This unconstitutional precedent could be used as a legal basis to grant constitutional rights to illegal immigrants.

2. They have been denied Miranda rights, while being promised all rights. To mix things like this, could set a precedent that “legal” rulings could be reached in a court where a citizen has been denied one or more of their legal rights. Which of your rights would you be willing to have violated and still get a “legal” guilty verdict.

3. This trial is being help up by Team Obama as a shining example of the fairness and impartiality of the US legal system. However, Eric Holder has promised that these people are so guilty that they will never be found innocent, and even if they are acquitted that they will still be held. This in itself is damning in a couple of ways (Mega-dittos go to Rush Limbaugh for opening up this line of thought regarding this show trial):

1. How can it be “fair and impartial” if the verdict is certain? Other countries, and especially the Muslim world will be able to use this as bonafide proof that the US court system is biased, increasing resentment of the US.

2. It will set the precedent that people acquitted from a crime will be able to be held. This must certainly be Obama’s way to bring “prolonged detention” into the legal frame work of the United States.

The way this trial is being conducted the main disaster is not that constitutional rights are being given to non-citizens, but that very dangerous precedents are being set up to deny constitutional rights to Americans.

I hope it is becoming clear to even the most ardent supporters of Obama that he is systematically undermining not only our economic freedoms, but our other Constitutional rights as well. He is grossly violating his oath of office, perjury.

“I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America.” – P. Barack Obama.

Listen to his attack on the literal interpretation of the Constitution intended by our founding fathers when they authored it.

*these are above and beyond basic human rights. No one would argue that human beings deserve basic human rights regardless of citizenship, however, that does not include access to tax payer funded attorneys, the court system, 3 meals, room and board @ tax payer’s expense day in the US prison system, freedom to be given a venue to denounce the US, or Miranda rights.

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

How Slavery Came to ancient Egypt.

Posted by americana83 on November 14, 2009

What led to slavery in Egypt thousands of years ago? What can it tell us today? The Bible is full of spiritual truth, but it contains much more than that. It tells how great people fell, how the humble rose to great heights. It also tells of a people who sold themselves into slavery, without complaint or protest. It begins in the time of Joseph. The Egyptian government, under the wise leadership of Joseph, prepared for hard times. The Egyptian people, did not. Seven years of unprecedented prosperity went throughout the land. The people went about their lives, probably thinking it would go on forever. They ate, drank and were merry. They failed to make any kind of preparation for the times ahead. Eventually, as God had said, the good times came to an end. Famine was throughout the land of Egypt. The people consumed whatever feeble supplies they had left, and then went to the government. First went their money, until, the Bible says, money was gone throughout the land. Then they turned over their lively hood in exchange for survival. Now, with nothing else left, they consumed their substance, and surrendered possession of their lands and homes. Now, the people were total wards of the state, and again they ran out of food. So now, with nothing left, they turn once again to the government, with nothing to offer but their very lives. And they were made slaves. Everything they owned, was gone. Freedom was gone. Instead of planning for the future, when times were bountiful, they squandered their substance, and had no where else to look except to big brother.

Before Israel was forcibly taken into slavery by a pharaoh who “knew not Joseph,” the people of Egypt where themselves taken into bondage.

Let me quote the exact words of scripture, and you can read it yourself:

And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not aught left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.
(Genesis 47:13-26)

And now the second bondage: the Pharaoh that hired Joseph treated him and his family with gratitude, and one could argue he was a benevolent dictator, one who had absolute authority, but didn’t abuse it like he could have. He gave the children of Israel of the finest land in Israel. And here’s what happened.

And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.
(Exodus 1:6-11)

Thus, you have the perfect storm: A tyrannical ruler with absolute control. I’m sure dissent wasn’t tolerated, the people of Egypt owed their livelihoods to the pharaoh, who not only was held to be god, but had near-godlike power. It was the son of this man who would-be God that brought about the judgment of, and ultimate destruction of the world’s super power. The pharaoh’s pride reached up to the heavens. It was the hardness of this man’s heart, that sealed the fate of Egypt, which was brought down swiftly by the power of God himself.

Today in America, we can see a similar trend. The fat and goodness of the land is squandered. As the economy falters, men clamor for the government to give them food, housing, lands, healthcare, money. Indeed, the government already provides food and housing and money for many (and it does so above and beyond any constitutional mandate and restriction).

If we continue to demand the government to do everything for us, to give us everything, to cater to our every need and want, we will have traded our American birthright for a cheap bowl of pottage, and sold our children into socialist slavery.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bible, children, Christianity, communism, deception, Election, Election 2008, health care, news, Obama, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

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

Journey to Freedom: Mr DakLak Do Speaks out

Posted by americana83 on September 8, 2009

Vietnamese Immigrant Daklak Do.

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

The moral case for conservative economic policy

Posted by americana83 on July 21, 2009

Whether we like it or not, the fact is God provides wealth to individuals, and they in turn give to charity (note that God will hold accountable those who misuse their wealth, or who abuse others to gain it). With the exception of sacrificial giving, most families in America will only donate after the basic needs of their families are met. A system of government that encourages free and private competition is the economic system which God has used in America to fuel technological advance and wealth generation. For, money itself or the ability to generate large amounts of it is not the root of all evil, but rather the love of money.

Let us look at Ananias and Sapphira for some lessons about economics and morals.

(Acts 5:1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

A perfectly acceptable and moral way to raise money.

(Acts 5:2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

This verse reveals the source of the couple’s sin, but it also reveals something else: that men of wealth were receiving Christ and joining the church and were donating large sums of money, and that all the church was rejoicing in how God was blessing. While lying is an abomination, it does say something about the society that honor and exaltation was received by those who gave of their wealth voluntarily to further God’s work in the world, which would have been administering to the poor and widowed (as the bible calls “true religion), and presenting the good news of Christ to a lost and dying world.

(Acts 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Herein lies the sin: This couple has conspired together to deceive God, that they might receive honor for giving away such a great value as the entire price of what must have been a sizable possession (though in principle it would not have mattered whether it was a comic book or a Beverly Hills mansion).

(Acts 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

The early Christian church recognized the God granted right of private property. Civil governments work best when they honor the basic moral laws and principles explained in God’s word. As surely as lying and theft condemn single persons, so to will governmental theft and deceit condemn a nation. For the Bible says:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

When government steals from men and forcibly redistributes wealth, it breaks the process whereby men generate wealth, by destroying personal incentive by progressive taxation and other methods more recently discussed such as special healthcare taxes, special “windfall profit” taxes. The government also engages in theft when it breaks contracts held by private companies and individuals, such as GM bond holders. Governments, like people are not immune to the effects of sin. The offense of slavery nearly broke this country into pieces. American law at that time, in violation of both our own Declaration of independence, and the immutable laws of God robbed people of their most basic rights: life and liberty. Had we not learned the lesson, that would have been the end of America. Today, we are accelerating down a similar road. The government of man in America has completely lost sight of God spiritually, morally, socially, and economically. In the noble name of promoting “economic justice” (as opposed to equal access to the opportunity to engage in the “pursuit of happiness,” the president and his cohorts across all branches of government seek to destroy personal liberty and private prosperity. By doing this, many who currently work will lose jobs, and many charities will decline and fail (and this in addition to the president’s crass desire to deplete the tax credit granted to the wealthy who donate to charity).

This will not hurt the wealthy, who will merely reduce or eliminate charitable giving, but it will have a direct impact on, and increase the number of, those individuals living at or below the poverty level in the United States, and this even as the president wants to force billions of American dollars into the coffers of the United Nations to “loan” to dictators who can then use it to bribe loyalty and prop up their failing regimes.

The economic implosion being engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Volkner* and their cohorts will have a direct and decisive impact on charity and home and abroad. By limp-wristed diplomacy and kissing up to Anti-Israel forces, Islamic Iranian tyrants and Marxist Latin-American dictators he has set himself at odds with the cause of Liberty.

The bottom line is this: Obama is the current figurehead of a movement that, at its higher levels, seeks to subvert America and remake in their own image, which is revealed by looking that those who promoted his agenda and walked closed to him:

Reverend Wright (Who’s ride under the bus came about only when political necessity dictated Obama appear to distance himself from Trinity United Church of Christ)

Frank Marshal Davis (marxist whom Obama noted as his mentor throughout his autobiography, Dreams from my father.

Fidel Castro, who praised Obama as being “the most progressive on worker and human rights”

The Communist Party, USA, who hailed his agenda and his election frequently on their website, and in their journals, People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs

ACORN, for whom he trained community organizers.

The New Black Panther party, who called him “the only choice”

Val Jones, “Green Czar appointee”

*The head of Obama’s economic recovery team, Paul Volcker has openly advocated the enforced decline of the American standard of living. He said:

“The standard of living of the average American has to decline … I don’t think you can escape that” – Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, and current Obama adviser, in 1979

(note Mr. Volcker’s use of the term “average American” – not him and his type of course). (a Source)

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

DC Tea Party, Just the beginning!

Posted by americana83 on July 5, 2009

Photos here!

Approximately 2500 people from across the country rallied together in the shadow of the capital building this July 4th to send Washington a message: STOP with the deficit SPENDING! Countless broken promises and trillions of dollars of pork barrel spending litter the first months of the new administration. Change so far has been an unprecedented lack of transparency coupled with quickly ramming through unread and misunderstood bills which only serve to undermine freedom and grant the government ever more intrusive and unconstitutional control over the daily actions and decisions of Americans.

The Faces of the Tea Party movement

The way forward is clear: the people must wake up. An educated electorate is the enemy of tyranny. I’m not talking about Ivy League intellectualism, but an understanding of these things: The English language, The Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

The English language:

Politicians are are so good at bending words, and concealing true meanings, that they can say anything that sounds good. Knowing your words, means you can read for yourself and know your rights, and more importantly, the limits and restrictions placed on government power.

Tito compares Chavez and Obama policy, and reflects on his recent immigration to the USA

The Bible. Love it or not, most of the founding fathers had a great knowledge of the scriptures. Even those who may have been deists had a great respect for the system of morality put forth in the Good Book. It was on the 10 commandments of God that most of our laws were based. The founding fathers had a “firm reliance on Divine Providence” and it was the belief that Rights were “endowed by their Creator” that galvanized their resolve to stand up against tyranny.

The Speakers at the Tea Party made many good points and observations. I captured some, and once I get the videos formatted, will post them!

Thank you for visiting.

God bless America- Again!

Some “Tongue in cheek commentary from the National Taxpayers’  Union:

After the party: Exclusive interview with Kristen Woodruff on the Government health care system in Canada!

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