Michael Wolfe

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

Posts Tagged ‘progressive’

A Conservative look at the Heritage Plan “Saving the American Dream”

Posted by americana83 on August 16, 2012

Billed as a plan to “fix the debt, cut spending and restore prosperity, The heritage plan has some undeniably good elements. Unfortunately it does some things that seriously undermine its good points, which center around healthcare, taxes, the role of government and medicare. Ultimately, this is directed not at the Heritage foundation, but at their willingness to let an open advocate of progressive globalism draft a plan that uses Heritage’s good name and conservative reputation to further a plan that contains indisputably socialist elements and takes a wrong approach to what government must do on our behalf.


The plan does nothing to address the core problem facing healthcare in this country, and that is government subsidy and control. The plan accepts as gospel the indisputable fact that the Government can and must pay for healthcare. Not only that, but it accepts that the “rich” must continue to support it through their taxes, while receiving reduced ‘benefits’ or even none at all while those who contribute nothing will get it for free. In short it perpetuates socialism.


The plan actually fails in part because it pegs a FLOOR to government taxing, at a rate pegged by the Peter G Peterson foundation as being the highest rate people can comfortably tolerate (about 18.5% of GDP), and savings are to be poured into the health programs being run by the government, which this plan does absolutely nothing to phase out. It also carves out generous deductions (subsidies) for college. It should be noted that, according to a chart one on page four of the Heritage plan PDF, that 18.5 percent is only about a percentage point lower than the percent through the last term of G.W. Bush.


Role of Government.

It was President Obama who infamously said that you have to “spread the wealth around” and his wife that said, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

The Heritage plan would do just that. On page 10 we read:

Because the new Social Security is a real insurance system, designed to protect seniors from poverty, retirees with high incomes from sources other than Social Security will receive a smaller check, and very affluent seniors will receive no check.

First, it is not real insurance, we have no choice but to pay into it. And while the new rolled all into one tax plan obfuscates that, the fact is that taxpayers will be paying into a system that will reward those who have not paid into it and do nothing for those that have been forced to pay into it. This is not a conservative plan, this is marxist. On page 14, it breaks it down:

Under the Heritage plan, only about 9 percent of seniors would see their checks reduced and only just over 3.5 percent of seniors would receive no check.

They cite that taxes already dilute everyone’s Social Security checks, but this makes it a strict class-bias with the top 12.5% who have had the most money extorted out of them seeing nothing. Well, that is social justice in action.

But it gets better. Under this “conservative plan,” a new automatic opt-in is created:

Beginning in 2014, a new savings plan will be introduced over two years. Under this plan, 6 percent of each worker’s income is placed in a retirement savings plan that the worker owns and controls unless he or she explicitly declines to have such an account. (This approach is known as automatic enrollment.)

On page 15, it is claimed that the above elimination of benefits for the rich will, “drive the costs of Social Security below the level of taxes collected, those savings will go into the workers’ accounts.” There it is, the benefits paid for by “the rich” will be transferred to the automatically opted in “super 401(k)” accounts created by the Heritage plan. It sounds great, and since only 12.5% will be adversely affected, it will be perfectly fine. That’s democracy in action, right? Tell that to the people who have seen thousands of dollars of their hard earned income consumed by the Leviathan of government. At less than $15 an hour, I’ve already seen almost 900 dollars (plus the unseen 900 dollars taken directly from my employer by the government for the purpose of paying for this system. So I can imagine the cost to those who make way more than that. Of course, as heritage reminded us in the plan, what we pay now is going to someone else’s benefits, and it’s up to future generations to subsidize my generation. No matter what happens, my generation is going to lose money on this. An ideal plan would include the complete phasing out of Federal “retirement insurance” all together, as at least the losses would be limited in duration instead of extending out into perpetuity.


The Heritage plan also tackles Medicare reform. And has this to say:

When the changes are fully phased in, seniors will enroll in the health plans of their choice and receive a defined contribution (known as premium support) toward the cost of their plans, much as Members of Congress and millions of federal employees and retirees do through the FEHBP. (page 18)

The problem is again, what we have is not a plan to wean Americans off mandates, but a new subsidy for the purchase of insurance. We have a government body deciding what is an “adequate level of benefits” and telling us how to save and spend for retirement. Further, richer Americans are again left footing the bill for a plan which takes from them and doesn’t give back. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Is the apparent gist of the Heritage plan’s Medicare and social security reforms. Not to mention government subsidies and supports do little or nothing to decrease the cost of goods and services. Just look at what is happening to the cost of higher education. Government grants of all kinds not to mention state and local government support leaves no incentive for colleges and universities to control costs at all, or to offer degrees that are relevant to the needs of the economy or community. The same can be seen as the government has become a bigger and bigger payer for healthcare (though not yet the single payer, like Obama so badly wants). In short, it will not help the price of healthcare or medical care.

Wealth redistribution and market distortion are not proper roles of government, and are certainly not proper roles to be offered by a conservative organization.

Per our constitution, it is not the role of federal government to offer national retirement insurance, welfare, health insurance, subsidies for the purchase thereof, education, or subsidies for the purchase thereof. By offering so called tax breaks for the purchase of “higher education” or health insurance, the heritage plan does nothing to restore a true free market, which would lower the prices across the board as colleges and health care providers/insurers were no longer guaranteed government money or captive markets. The Heritage plan accepts the Government’s role as nanny. Further, it accepts as gospel the claims that reducing “redundant programs,” other waste and fraud will result in great savings in the political by and by twenty and thirty years down the road. 18.5% of GDP is too much. Almost one out of every 5 dollars in the economy belongs to the Federal government, not even counting state and local taxes?

By accepting 18.5 percent of GDP, we are accepting a government that spends roughly a percentage point below  Bush-Era levels, which is still way too high. The Bush Era saw the expansion of government medicine via Medicare Part D, It saw expanded federal intrusion in schools via no-child left behind and it saw the waging of two wars. We can and must shoot lower. As long as we accept a government that must act as a nanny state and custodian of our healthcare, education and retirement, we can forget about government ever being reduced to a size and intrusiveness (or lack thereof!) that will truly allow America to prosper once again.

Why is the heritage foundation offering up a plan which contains such explicitly socialist elements? The problem lies in large part with who they went to when creating the plan. The Foundation which apparently paid for and which authored this plan is the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, headed by a man of the same name. He and his foundation were also behind the deceptive “Owe No” Campaign, which was directed at the debt as well, and which involved a whole slew of big government socialism.

That Mr. Peterson and his foundation would promote progressivism and wealth redistribution comes as no surprise when you realize that Mr. Peterson is the Chairman Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful progressive think tank that actively promotes the UN, World Government, the global warming scam, and a whole slew of other progressive programs with the end goal being an invigorated UN serving as the foundation of world government. Most of your high profile RINO republicans will be associated with the CFR.

Believing the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council to be good organizations with many good goals, I would urge you to reach out to the FRC and heritage and let them know you reject Mr. Peterson’s big government socialism, and that you would like them to do so to.

In summary: Lowering the corporate tax rate and flattening the tax code is a great thing, but is ruined by mixing in socialism and doing nothing to reduce or eliminate the role of the Federal government in healthcare, education, charity, and retirement planning, ensuring that costs will continue to skyrocket. Mr. Peterson’s second debt solution plan is a Trojan horse for socialism, just like the last one.

You can read my previous article on Mr. Peterson and the “Owe No” Campaign here:

You can view for yourself the entire plan at savingthedream.org, which is currently linked from heritage.org. It even has nice graphical layouts showing people what freebies they will get depending on what demographic they are in!

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

The Emperor’s New Gender (a broken fairy tale)

Posted by americana83 on March 5, 2012

A tale Inspired (but not really based on) by the true story.


Once upon a time in the progressive kingdom of Yesweecan there was a great king, the greatest progressive leader that had ever governed Yesweecan. With his newly printed money, he was getting ready to mandate a higher living wage when word reached him that the greatest psychological guru in the entire progressive world had come to tour the kingdom of Yesweecan and to meet its leader. King Brother Keeper was delighted, and postponed his plans in order that he might meet this great and enlightened man.


The great doctor was ushered into the king’s court. After a series of rowdy parties in celebration of their honored guest, the doctor requested a private meeting with the king. The king readily consented and they retired immediately to the king’s office.


“King,” said the great doctor, “I see that your kingdom is truly progressive, but I must confess that there is one thing that would make it even more progressive.”

“What have we not done?” Said the king, going through a brief history of all the great progressive legislation, living wages of 50 dollars an hour, free universal compulsory public education through four years of college, mandatory health insurance, free birth control dispensed from machines on every street corner, the abolition of stock markets, private property, churches, even the private ownership of clothes!


“But, my dear king, you are still living with a regressive morality. I can tell from looking at you that you have an unresolved inner identity crises that you refuse to resolve.”


“Oh my,” stuttered the king, “I never realized it! Can you help me.”


“Why certainly,” said the great Psychologist. “And when I’m done, the kingdom will see that their leader is truly a great woman.”


“But,” said the king, but the great Psychologist interrupted,


“In time you will see the you inside you that you have suppressed ever since the day your father duped you into dreaming of dragon slaying and other such oppressive middle age artificial misogamist gender reinforcing behaviors. You see, the philosophy behind such antiquated models is that gender is biological. That men are born men and women are born women. For all your great progressive achievements, I cannot believe you failed to keep up with the latest and most progressive psychological models. Imagine the dozens of little boys that stopped playing with dolls when they were surrounded by an artificial reinforcement of male identity with the heroism surrounding your formative years as a knight and dragon slayer. These youth need a role model who will tell them that they do not have to accept the reality they have been given, but can construct their own reality and so expand their self esteem and become whatever they want to be without fear of a disapproving look from anyone!”

“My, you are truly a great psychologist! I have never seen it that way before. I cannot imagine how many young minds have been implanted with a sense of concrete reality because of my ignorant actions!” You must help me!”


“My friend, that is why I am here! You must follow everything that I explain to you in order to express yourself truly and let your real self shine through!


Over the following weeks, the king wasn’t visible in his kingdom and the good proletarians wondered where their leader was. It was later announced that a new agency  was being set up, the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry. The people marveled at how truly progressive and liberating that sounded, and knew immediately that the king had spend these past weeks consulting with the greatest progressive mind in the world.


By the time of the winter solstice holiday, the Great Psychologist appeared before the people.


“My dear friends, over the past few weeks we have been preparing a new agency that will bring untold progressive advancement throughout the kingdom. It will allow people the freedom to express who they truly are, no matter what their true self is. For too long we have allowed that regressive antagonist Reality to rule over the people, to demand that they accept his conclusions. The chief purpose of this new agency will be to see that Reality remains forever banished from this kingdom, for no kingdom can be truly progressive until Reality has been dismissed from its borders. For even your great Leader was still under the rigid control of Reality. Thus, to continue the expansion of your kingdom’s progressive status, your old king has decided to begin with his own person. I have succeeded in freeing your King from his bondage to reality.

The people were awed. They had never known that the menace of Reality still haunted their kingdom to such a great extent. Sure, they occasionally had an unruly child, who insisted a toy was “his.” Or some quack that insisted the earth was not some kind of cosmic accident, but such things were usually solved with more education and assignment to the finest mental health institutions in the kingdom. That their king was under the grip of Reality caused the people to collectively shudder.


Never fear, good subjects, I have succeeded in driving its icy influence from your wise leader. From this day forward, it will no longer be proper to address your leader as “King” or to call her “he.” All hail the great Queen of Yesweecan.


The ex King appeared on the stage. It was clear the People’s Treasury had invested a considerable amount. The people cheered, for the expense was a pittance to be paid in order that Reality might be banished forever from the kingdom. The people cheered as the Queen walked down the Royal catwalk while triangle pink and purple confetti rained down on them and the newly written progressive anthem, “Made this way” was belted out by the People’s Progressive Choir.


From the back of the great crowd a hand was raised and a shout of wait rang out. The proletarians ceased their cheering and the anthem died and the Queen froze on the walkway.


“But putting a dress on a man mutilating his body and replacing it with plastic doesn’t make him a woma-“ said the lone dissident, a vagabond youth from the kingdom’s flyover country, a barbaric and horrid place where the reach of the administration’s progressive dictates was weakest.


The youth’s statement was immediately interrupted by the Great Psychologist, who’s voice boomed out over the crowd. Good citizens, Reality has raised its ugly hurtful voice! Seize him!


The people, readily trusting in the most trustworthy and progressive voice ever known, made off after the youth, who had ran off into the wilderness preserve, which was forbidden by Environmental decree 103,0987,001 for any citizen to enter, lest his humanness contaminate it. And so he escaped into the wilderness, which was also a world heritage site. The Queen was relieved, and filed the proper paperwork to inform the United People’s Kingdoms of the violation and allow them to process the proper response.


And the great Psychologist, who was appointed to the well paid position of Czar of the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry, made a final address to the people.


Good citizens. In light of the shocking and terrible, albeit brief return of the monster Reality to our happy and progressive kingdom, as the Czar of the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry, I must append the following dictates to the Rules of Good Citizenship, page 100,460,666:


1. No one is to question another’s gender or sexual expression, unless by that expression they challenge another’s expression.


2. Anyone guilty of infringing on another’s personal-reality in a negative or unapproving way will be charged with Hate Crime.


3. Where current culture and science conflict with personal-reality, they must be modified to accommodate that personal-reality, unless that personal-reality is Hate Crime.


4. Anyone trying to force an objective Reality of any kind will be charged with Hate Crime.


5. Anyone charged with Hate Crime will be immediately remanded to the proper mental hygiene clinic for healing. Those found unhealable will be aborted in the most sustainable and humane fashion.

The people nodded in collective agreement. And so the citizens of the People’s Kindom lived happily ever after, that is until Reality, leading the rules of Society and Economics caught up with their progressive kingdom and it collapsed into anarchy and starvation. But even then, some took solace in defining their self-reality, despite the fact that their stomachs rebelled against them. 

 The End?

 (c) 2012


If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. – 2nd Chr. 7:14 – 1769 Oxford King James Bible ‘Authorized Version




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

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 »

Steve Stivers and the Budget “Control” Act

Posted by americana83 on August 30, 2011

Today, I saw a brand new mailer from Congressman Stivers. Unfortunately, Stivers is proud of his vote for the Budget (Outta) Control Act of 2011. I will address the 3 points he makes touting this piece of Status-Quo legislation, and urge you to contact him (information on my Ohio 15th watch page):

Point 1: Cuts government spending

  • Reduces government spending by a greater amount than it increases the debt limit
  • The CBO estimates the bill would initially reduce deficits by 917 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees future additional cuts of up to 1.5 trillion making the total deficit cuts of at least 2.1 trillion over 10 years.

Does anyone really believe that 2.1 trillion in deficit cuts (that is a reduction of the rate at which the deficit grows, NOT an actual cut in real and current spending levels, which will continue to increase even if future congresses follow the absolute letter of the law) over 10 years is anywhere near the 2 trillion dollar debt increase given to status quo politicians through 2012 and likely to continue every year over the next 10 years? This bill is nothing but a campaigning smokescreen. Two trillion over 10 years does not equal 2 trillion this year, it breaks down to 200 billion per year, which is a joke, and which makes the very generous assumption that future congresses will adhere to what amounts to a non-binding resolution. And again a reminder this is not an actual spending reduction, but merely a promised decrease in the rate at which spending increases. So, claiming this bill’s decade long stretch of  promised “deficit cuts” are equal to the 2 trillion dollar give away THIS YEAR is, to be polite, a lie.

Point 2: Controls government spending

  • Caps discretionary spending immediately
  • Imposes spending caps that would set clear limits on future spending and serves as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows

Capping is not reducing. What are we going to do, freeze spending at 2011 levels? Is that fiscal responsibility? These spending levels helped downgrade our credit rating (along with this irresponsible piece of legislation). This is status quo, and unacceptable and unenforceable. If it is as the mailer says a “barrier against government expansion,” then it is a barrier built of air and wagging fingers. Neither of which is capable of stopping the creation of new departments, new regulations, or new and expanded regulations.

Point 3:  Fights for a balanced budget

  • Requires both the house and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year.

How is forcing congress to vote on an amendment “fighting for a balanced budget”? Do you expect an amendment with any real teeth to make it through a still-progressive congress? Moreover, with the government’s constant attempts to end run the Constitution over even just the past couple years, what honest good do you think adding another amendment would do? The most it would do is add another sheet of paper to already massive bills explaining how the bill is “fiscally responsible” and inline with the amendment. It is another smoke and mirrors campaign in lieu of actual government spending.


Another point, though not listed as a point, but rather in big bold letters to the right: NO TAX HIKES! As a major victory for families and businesses, these budget and spending reforms were accomplished without raising taxes. There will be NO TAX INCREASES as part of the Budget (outta) Control Act of 2011.

What it doesn’t mention is that the extra constitutional Super Congress created by the Budget (Outta) Control Act can and will likely increase taxes. In fact, Stivers doesn’t mention this new body anywhere in the mailer. Further, where is the spending reform? Caps on current rates? Laugh out loud! Promises of future reductions in the rate of spending increases by future congresses? Kicking any meaningful reductions down the road? This bill does NOTHING now, EXCEPT give progressives a 2 trillion dollar credit card extension through the 2012 elections. It is laughable for this bill to be touted as some kind of victory for fiscal responsibility.

Mr Stivers, voting against this monstrosity would have shown that you had a genuine commitment to fiscal responsibility. Perhaps you could confer with Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Paul or perhaps even fellow Ohio Republican Jim Jordan on what it means to stand up for fiscal integrity even in the face of intra-party opposition.

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

Anita MonCrief: Beyond Blowing the Whistle on ACORN

Posted by americana83 on July 6, 2011

It takes courage to stand up. Especially when it was something you had grown up believing in since childhood. But for Anita it came during Obama’s campaign, when she saw first hand that “her side” was cheating to get ahead, as if law was of no concern. It started her on a journey that has led to the total severing from organizations and a political party that she believed to be helping the downtrodden and voiceless. But how many of us have been charged with denying their culture, their heritage, merely because they decided that liberty was precious and that the freedom to innovate and earn ones own way would pull more people out of poverty than billions of dollars in government redistribution programs? Did you know that by today’s standards historic leaders like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and David Walker would be denounced? Reading their stories and works show that these were by and large God fearing men and women who laid it all on the line, NOT for a government handout, but for the chance to be a person- an individual, to have the simple rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence: Life – to live free, Liberty – to own themselves and their time, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to have the chance to buy a house, pursue a career, make a life for themselves! I’m sure these are ranks she would deny, but having heard Anita teaching, preaching and pleading for people to wake up and clean up our system and defend their freedoms, her spirit definitely puts her among these leaders.

It seems that there is a reason the progressives, typically headed by the Democratic party, have worked so hard to target the Black community is that Blacks in America are the least removed from the abject abuses of a state run amok, and were thus most capable of blowing the whistle on progressive intrusions on the liberties of all. The passionate spirit as in David Walker‘s Appeal had to be squelched. So the progressives, the communists, everyone in America with a desire for a totalitarian welfare state, targeted the Black community. Whether it was spiritual destroyers such as Rev Wright and Black Liberation Theology, or political destroyers, or the cultural usurpers, it was part of a push to make Black synonymous with progressive. Further, even president Obama, in his book Dreams from my Father, denies that cultural identity is a personal choice, denigrating a lady he calls Joyce because she refused to identify with political activities she didn’t want to identify with. Modern progressivism has some common ideological foundations with the slavery system.

#1. Man is an animal. Frederick Douglass hated being considered an animal, slaves were seen as mere animals. Today, progressives assert by and large that all men are animals, accidental byproducts of an unguided “process” called evolution. Evolved animals have no unalienable rights, because they have no creator. The slaver’s denial of black personhood is just as false as the “modern” progressive’s denial of personhood, of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

#2. Slaves have no right to private property. Slave owners owned everything used or possessed by the slave. Progressives likewise believe that private property, outside their own, is evil, that it stands in the way of “equality” and “progress.” They believe that it is okay to deny property rights for “the greater good.”

#3. Slaves had no right to the fruits of their labor. Some slavers were “generous” and sometimes let their slaves keep a pittance of the income from any extra work they did above and beyond the things assigned to them by their master. The master enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the slave, believing that the rewards of the slave’s labor rightfully belonged to him, the master. Progressives today revile private wealth, again with the exception of their own, which the super rich amongst the progressives sometimes shift to tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, or the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. They support “progressive income taxes” and believe that private wealth actually belongs to their government. They also support redistributing this wealth to people who did not earn it, but who none the less feel entitled to receive it.

#4. Slaves had no parental rights. The master owned any children brought into this world, and could separate families, sell children, or do whatever they wanted with any member of the family. Today, progressives fight against parental rights at every step, whether its the right of parental consent for abortions, mandated sex education in schools, and many other areas where the state usurps or attempts usurp the parent’s rights.

#5. Slaves had no right to pursue education. Educated slaves were dangerous to the slavers’ power structure. A slave that could read and write could learn and become independent and start longing for more freedom. The state of the public schools as the federal government has taken ever more authority over them should show how much progressives like the NEA value true education, preferring that students learn to feel good about themselves, exercise, use condoms, and that its cool for Heather to have two mommies.

#6. Slaves had no right to religion, namely Christianity. Slaves were only permitted snippets of the Bible, proof texts for embracing a life of servitude and slavery. A full knowledge of the liberty in Christ, that God is no respecter of persons, that all are one in Christ Jesus, was extremely dangerous, the slave might end up thinking that they too were created “in the image of God” and that they too were human.  They might be inspired by the accounts of captives set free in the Bible. Today, the progressive is at war with “fundamentalist Christianity.” From the contents of David Walker’s Appeal, it is clear that a concise and face value understanding of the scriptures predates the label “fundamentalist,” and that such truth preached without compromise threatens tyrants and progressives. And so we have the war against God. God must be kicked out of every public square, the 10 commandments removed and repealed (so to speak, the folly of man who think they can revoke divine law), and any religious critique of the culture or government must be silenced. Of course they also have their counterfeit religion, led by people like Jim Wallace and Dr. James Cone, who preach a collectivist gospel that is so much like communism, the Communists are willing to partner with such churches as Trinity United Church of Christ to spread communism among the Black community! Even today, we can see how slavery can sneak up on a people in the words of scripture.

Of course the chief difference between the two ideologies is that of private ownership. Under slavery, individuals owned other individuals. Under progressivism, the individual is “owned” by the state. The state has right to his person, his children, his property, his wages.

One other difference is that the slavers embraced a distorted creation account, somehow factoring that Black persons were not people. They had to cringe when the 3/5th’s compromise identified slaves as “3/5ths of all other PERSONS.” Progressives embrace the hypothesis set up by Charles Darwin that man is an animal with no creator, the byproduct of some unknown accidental process spanning billions of years. Thus many have no problem with things such as abortion, euthanasia, and early progressives like George Bernard Shaw had no problem with committing genocide on those who could not “justify their existence.” They have no problem lying to prove their case, and they are doing just that when they pose as the defenders of the rights of minorities. And that’s the kicker, they don’t even believe individuals have unalienable rights. They seek to accumulate wealth and power while suppressing a people, giving them only collective identities and enough pottage in exchange for the chance to legislate away the very freedoms fought for so fiercely by people like Tubman and Walker. They prattle away, claiming that those fighting for individual liberty are using race as a wedge, when these progressive leaders are the  very ones driving the wedge. Because they know this truth: United We Stand, but divided we will fall.

God bless those who are willing to stand up.

Quotes on Faith, Freedom and Tyranny


Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.  -Frederick Douglass

I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted. -Frederick Douglass

One and God make a majority. -Frederick Douglass

I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. -Harriet Tubman

I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me.  -Harriet Tubman

If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more.  -Harriet Tubman

We must and shall be free I say, in spite of you. You may do your best to keep us in wretchedness and misery, to enrich you and your children, but God will deliver us from under you. And wo, wo, will be to you if we have to obtain our freedom by fighting. Throw away your fears and prejudices then, and enlighten us and treat us like men, and we will like you more than we do now hate you; you are not astonished at my saying we hate you, for if we are men we cannot but hate you, while you are treating us like dogs. – David Walker (the Appeal)

Should tyrants take it into their heads to emancipate any of you, remember that your freedom is your natural right. You are men, as well as they, and instead of returning thanks to them for your freedom, return it to the Holy Ghost, who is our rightful owner. If they do not want to part with your labours, which have enriched them, let them keep you, and my word for it, that God Almighty, will break their strong band. – David Walker (the Appeal)

PDF of the appeal here: http://www.jpanafrican.com/ebooks/eBook%20David%20Walker%27s%20Appeal.pdf

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 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 »

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 »