Greatest Hits: Liberty Deserves Better From Me

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Liberty Deserves Better From Me: John Carey made a rather strong point.

Note that this post was originally published in 1-9-13

On this day in 1776 Thomas Paine published his pamphlet “Common Sense.”  This 47-page pamphlet made the arguments in favor of American independence.  Mr. Paine’s use of plain language spoke to the common people of America. It was also the first published pamphlet that openly argued for independence.  The powerful words of Mr. Paine helped galvanize a movement that before Common Sense was published was a scattered grumbling at best.

Paine fundamentally changed the tenor of colonists’ argument with the crown when he wrote the following:  “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America.  This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.  Hither they have fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”

H/T History.com

The power of words.  We must remember this when writing our articles.  The power of words can unite or divide.  They can turn a mob into a movement.  They can restore a republic.  In the next four years we’re going to face some serious challenges as a nation.  We going to see our constitution ignored.  We’re going to see more liberties stripped away from us.  And we’re going to see our beloved America begin to unravel.  The power of words can turn this around.  Think about the letter that former U.S. Marine Joshua Boston wrote to Senator Feinstein and the power of his words.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

H/T Daily News

The words in this letter went viral because it resonated with people.  It not only challenged her perceived authority on this matter, but it highlighted her arrogance.  It reminded people who we were as a people.  This is the power of words and how it can change the narrative.  This letter put Senator Feinstein on the defense and made her look smaller in the eyes of many.  Each day we write and publish articles that cover a wide variety of topics.  We do our best with each topic, but do our words really resonate with the people?  Are they powerful and factually sound?  I believe in the power of words.  I believe that each of us are using words each day to try to save the republic.  We must be make sure our efforts are meaningful and our words resonate with the people.  We must like Thomas Paine use the power of words to ignite a movement to restore the republic.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  Sentry Journal

Share

Greatest Hits: How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda:  My thoughts from 2010 on how regressives have to kill hope in order to subjugate the masses. 

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

Gas prices shouldn’t be high, but are: What gives?

Share

10 most expensive gas prices may 2014

We’re all tired of the impossibly high prices at the pump, but what can we do about them? During the debates, President Obama said that gas prices were cheap when he took office because the economy was at a standstill and now they’re going up because of his “robust” economic recovery.

Sorry, but I call Bullshit on that.

If that were true, during the Reagan years, gas would have tripled or quadrupled in price because the GDP grew on average 4.1% per year. Under Obama GDP is “growing” on average, 1% a year. So if 1% GDP growth increases gas prices by over 100%, from $1.78 when he took office to $3.67 per gallon now, under Reagan gas prices should have skyrocketed, yet they didn’t.

And gasoline prices are steadily on the rise.

gas pump

Is it demand? Oil production?

Rumors about the demise of U.S. gasoline demand have been greatly exaggerated.

Until late 2013, most energy observers forecast the world’s most reliably gas-guzzling market to consume less fuel this year. What was once thought to be a structural decline in demand, however, has proven more durable than expected.

As the summer driving season nears, retail gas remains stubbornly lodged near $4 per gallon. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices rose for 12 straight weeks through late April, and were 20 cents a gallon higher than the same point last year.

So what gives?oil well opec

“The world’s not swimming in crude or gasoline yet,” said Francisco Blanch, commodities strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, in an interview. “Despite all the crude and gasoline production in the U.S., international markets are not tagging along.”

International developments matter, analysts say, because gas prices are linked to internationally priced Brent crude. Turmoil in Ukraine and spotty supply from the perennially unstable Middle East has conspired to keep oil above $100 per barrel.

I see! It’s the rest of the world, if they’d just get their act together…

BofA-Merroil wellsill points out that domestic oil and gas production has driven gasoline imports to near zero, while the U.S. is churning out nearly 10 million barrels a day. Despite all this, there has been little relief at the pump due largely to factors outside America’s control.

The International Energy Agency said in its most recent report that OPEC will need to increase its own production this year to sate rising demand. Meanwhile, the energy watchdog said non-OPEC production is also falling short of expectations.

‘Shale boom may not be helping’

“In the U.S. and Canada, yes, there is a big shale revolution going on…but the rest of the world is not producing enough to feed itself,” said BofA’s Blanch. “That’s why oil prices abroad are elevated and why gasoline, which is pegged to oil prices, are so high.”

But never fear, the Feds are throwing us a bone.

The EIA expects crude oil prices to fall this year, which should keep a lid on gas prices. Still, the agency expects average gas prices to rise by 3 cents during the June—August period compared with the same quarter last year.

If I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Read more here.

Share

Mitch McConnell on Conservatives: ‘I think we are going to crush them everywhere’

Share

My favorite term as of late has been “crapweasel.”  Basically, it conveys the dismissive, yet contemptuous attitude regarding another person.  Given that, I think Mitch McConnell fits that perfectly. 

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that he would work to destroy the efforts of conservative organizations seeking to primary mainstream Republicans. “I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” he stated. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

Over the past two election cycles, mainstream Republicans have become more and more upset over the rise of Tea Party-backed candidates who have primaried GOP incumbents, then proceeded to lose general elections. McConnell has been personally attacked by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which supports businessman challenger Matt Bevin. McConnell recently began running an ad targeting both Bevin and SCF. The ad accuses SCF of soliciting “money under the guise of advocating for conservative principles but then spends it on a $1.4 million luxury townhouse with a wine cellar and a hot tub in Washington, D.C.”

If I were not a Christian man who really tries to walk the walk, my response would consist of a profanity laden tirade.  But, we’ll keep it clean and make the observation that the GOP has never really liked Conservatives.  They hated even Reagan, and only took to him after he won by landslide.  Most typically, they run mild and unexciting candidates, and they lose far too much.  They stand for nothing more than a cowardly caution.  They stand for little, and inspire even less.  Mitch McConnell would prefer that-having the GOP attack only those that would strngthen it, rather than the democrats.  Forget standing up for something-just trash the ones that would.

In all honesty; Mitch McConnell and his ilk disgust me.  I expect the democrats to be traitorous slime-it’s in their DNA.  When the GOP does it?  Let’s just say I have always expected better.  Now however, I had she that unrealistic expectation.

H/T: IOwnTheWorld

Share

Reagan: A Time for Choosing

Share

After spending so much time slugging it out over a vast variety of issues, from social, like #FreeKate, or policy, like ObamaCare, it’s nice to be on a bit of a break.  But, to consider our ideas, it’s always good to take a look back, and see how our ideas have developed.  Here is the classic speech from Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing.”

 

Share

ObamaCare: The Best Thing For The Conservative Movement Since Ronald Reagan

Share

ObamaCare may accomplish what Republicans and Tea Party members could not. It may reverse the Road to Socialism that this country has been on for the better part of a century. (Source: Monty Pelerin’s World)

With all due respect for one of my favorite pundits, Pelerin my be a tad optimistic to think the failure of ObamaCare could reverse this country’s journey down the Road to Socialism. But, I do agree that Obama’s legacy is going to take a serious hit as more and more young adults become aware of how badly they are being screwed by ObamaCare. Unfortunately, most won’t learn for a while yet because of the ObamaCare web site disaster. (Fox News reports that one expert estimates that as many as 5,000,000 lines of code may have to be rewritten.) They will learn sooner or later that ObamaCare will force to pay more for health insurance that has a higher deductible. Then they will recall what that crazy guy, Ted Cruz, was trying to warn them about. They are going to learn that those free lunch programs they voted for have to be paid for by someone and this time it is them that will have to pay. They have consistently supported President Obama’s wealth redistribution policies. But, they are not going to be so happy when they realize that ObamaCare redistributes wealth from the working poor and middle class to those who can not afford health insurance. They are going to realize that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi designed ObamaCare to do just that. They are going to learn what we conservatives have always known: socialism is great for those who don’t have to pay for it.

Although I do not agree that ObamaCare alone will cause America to reverse the course it is on, I do agree with the case that  Pelerin makes that Obama and the Democrats are going to pay a price for their ObamaCare disaster:

The Democrats may have backed themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. They have taken an existential position on ObamaCare; they are all in and must fight for their Frankenstein monster no matter what.

ObamaCare represents President Obama’s signature program, arguably his only real success. For about a century universal healthcare has been the dream of every Socialist. Like all Socialist dreams, it looks better in the dream than when the lights go on. Now it is here with more than its share of warts and defects. The old warning about being careful what you wish for seems especially appropriate.

As the details of ObamaCare become known, it is likely that their blind commitment to this dysfunctional program will torpedo whatever advantage they might have gained from the shutdown. They are stuck defending what will increasingly be seen as indefensible.

Generally speaking, the American electorate suffers from having very short memories. However, the personal monthly cost increases of ObamaCare will serve as a constant reminder and we should see the tangible results in the 2014 mid-term elections. At least that is the straw at which I am currently grasping.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

How Have Blacks Fared Under Obama as Compared to Reagan?

Share

President Obama has stated that he was going to focus on Black unemployment like a “laser beam.”  Unfortunate for black Americans, the laser Obama chose was a death ray, as black unemployment is a national tragedy.  But, since Obama looks at himself as a transformative figure, let’s take a look at another transformative figure, Roanld Reagan, and see how blacks performed under that President.  Conservatives for Palin has the data…

Richard Rahn, an economist, compared the relative economic fortunes of African-Americans under Presidents Reagan and Obama. The results are startling:

If you knew nothing else about President Obama other than looking at the data, you might conclude that he was insensitive to blacks, given that they have done far worse economically under his administration than Hispanics or whites. What is striking is that the president and his advisers still seem to be clueless about which economic policies work and which don’t work. Despite his (at least for this week) emphasis on the economy, he persists in being the anti-Reagan, with anti-growth policies. In his speech Wednesday in Illinois, the president came up with no new pro-growth proposals, just more of what has not worked.

President Reagan reduced the maximum tax rate on job creators by 60 percent; Mr. Obama increased the maximum tax rate on job creators by 17 percent. Reagan cut non-defense, discretionary, federal government spending by a third as a percentage of gross domestic product; Mr. Obama has increased it. Reagan cut government regulations while Mr. Obama has greatly increased them.

The results are:

Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics.

It seems that Obama has made things much worse.  Forget that, it doesn’t seem that way, it is that way.

Share

Low Information Folks Sign Petition to Legalize 4th Trimester Abortions

Share

Dan Joseph of MRCTV went out to see if there were low information voter with low enough information to sign a petition aimed at legalizing 4th trimester abortions.  He went to a university, where low information people seem to congregate.  Needless to say, there were no shortage of takers…

I know that someone going to come along and suggest that university students are so enlightened and have so much knowledge.  Well, maybe we can reference our old friend Reagan

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

On a sad and serious note, we have explored that there are a lot of Abortion doctors and activists out there  that have no problem killing live babies, and the Democrats do resist any efforts to assist ones that survive abortions, so maybe this isn’t so outlandish after all.

Share

Resource Post: How the Soviet Union Collapsed

Share

Law-books

Some of my Conservative friends might be put off by this, but take a look at this video on how the Soviet Union collapsed.  The Classic Liberal posted it, and it is an hour long.  However, it is worth the time to view, or at least listen. 

Now, one of the premises here is that Reagan confrontation of the Soviet Union, both rhetorical and military, was not a significant contributory factor in the fall of the Soviet State.  Now, think about this.  On the surface, leftists might celebrate this, saying that Reagan really wasn’t the hero that so many make him out to be.  However, then those leftists would also be admitting that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of their own failure.  Reagan didn’t “kill communism,” communism died because it was an enviable abomination that is so totally inconsistent with human nature, that it could not have survived, and only lasted as long as it did on the massive piles of corpses that it generated.

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse Retroactive: Liberals Cheered When Ronald Reagan was Shot

Share

It’s been a while since we’ve done a Great Moments in Civil Discourse post, and this one is vintage.  It seems that 32 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was nearly killed by an assassin’s bullet, liberals burst into cheers. Tom Blumer at Newsbusters has more…

Two years ago today, I chronicled wire service reports which appeared shortly after John Hinckley’s unsuccessful attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 reporting that schoolchildren in many parts of the country cheered when they heard that he had been shot.

At the time, I suggested that school teachers and administrators who were appalled at the reactions might have been protesting a bit too much. Today, I located a 2004 item at National Review by Stanley Kurtz about another group which was happy to hear about the assassination attempt. The left’s hypocrisy about “civility” — and for that matter, basic human decency — clearly goes way, way back:

… just around the time Ronald Reagan took office, I moved to Berkeley, where I began to question the direction of contemporary liberalism. I remember the fabulous daily scene on campus, with rock bands blasting, students feasting on fare from an incredible variety of restaurants, and Marxists leafleting on the plaza. Having just encountered a living socialist state with a shamefully poor food supply (in a previous visit to the Soviet Union — Ed.), and having seen the dangers individual Russians courted in their attempts to get hold of forbidden rock music, I wondered if these Berkeley radicals understood the implications of the ideas they were playing with.

When Reagan was shot, I remember being on campus and hearing people cheer. That disturbed me deeply.

… I’ve already written about the famous fracas over the visit of Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, to the Berkeley campus. It wasn’t surprising that radicals tried to shout her down. What shocked was that even faculty members started arguing that “oppressors” have no free-speech rights (this, in the birthplace of the free-speech movement). That was the beginning of campus “political correctness,” before the phenomenon even had a name. Obviously, some terrible deformation had developed within liberalism — a rejection, in the name of freedom, of the very principles of liberty, along with a mental migration from America itself. Meanwhile, the real victims of oppression, the brave dissidents within the Soviet Union, saw Reagan and Kirkpatrick as heroes.

Shumer’s article has even more, but I want to focus in on how leftists “work.”  In the excerpt you see some familiar themes.

1.  Shouting down people with differing opinions.

2.  Expression of the idea that people with differing opinions have no right to express, or even have those opinions.

3.The irony that the home of “free speech” are filled with the people that deny that right to anyone but themselves.

4.  The additional irony that the leftists at Berkely were claiming freedom while pining for the most oppressive form of government in the history of man.

These folks are much like every every petulant adolescent that you’ve ever met.  They are self absorbed.  Yes, they speak of justice, fairness, and equality, but they reserve it only for themselves, and deny it to others.  They are hypocrites, preaching understanding while dealing in hate.  They talk about responsibility, yet they blame others for all of their own failings.  It’s like the teen that decries bullying, but mistreats the people that he does not like.  It’s as if to say that “only my ideas and my feelings matter.”  And so it is-others are denied the right to speak.  And, if this particular brand of petulant soul gains power, others lose their other freedoms as well, up to and including the freedom to be at all.  Just ask all of the others that were killed by communist regimes in the 20th century.

Yes, this is the liberal version of Civil Discourse  It’s only uncivil when someone else does it.

Help support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Share

More Signs That Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0

Share

Those of us old enough might remember the following speech from Jimmy Carter…

Well, it appears that Obama is becoming the Jimmy Carter 2.0, and Newsmax can explain why.

Americans’ optimism about their country is at its lowest since when Jimmy Carter was president in 1979, a new Gallup poll has found.

The survey of 1,011 adults conducted Jan. 7-10 found that only 39 percent — or fewer than four in 10 Americans — rated the country positively on a 1-to-10 scale, Gallup reports. While the number is about the same as in 2010, it is at its lowest since 1979.

However, they were more optimistic on where the nation will be in five years — with 48 percent giving a positive response — but that is also as low as in 1979.

However, there are two very sad differences between now and then.

1.  Million of brainwashed or dependent people voted for more of the same, if not worse.

2.  Mitt Romney was no Reagan.  NOT EVEN CLOSE.  There was no real Conservative message-no real alternative.

So, while Obama is actually worse that a Jimmy Carter 2.0, the slippery slope of indoctrination, dependency, and general failure is allowing Obama  to do what Carter could not-destroy our economy.

Share

Liberty deserves better from me

Share

As a conservative I’m fighting each day to restore the constitutional republic our founding fathers gave us.  My weapon in this fight is the words that I use in the articles I write.  After all this an ideological war, one that pits two very different views about the role government should play in our lives.  It’s a topic that has been debated since the founding of our great nation.  Great minds like James Madison and Patrick Henry had two very different views on the role government should play in our lives and they matched wits against each other during the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788.  Both men were Patriots and both men were concerned with securing the rights of the individual.  They just had different ideas on the best method to use to secure those rights.

James Madison believed government should play a stronger role in our lives and therefore pressed for the ratification of the constitution.  He believed that without the constitution the union would eventually unravel and come apart.  He was a Federalist and one of the chief architects of the constitution.  Patrick Henry on the other hand believed the constitution was too vague and that there would come a time when men who were not the same caliber in terms of the character of the founders would twist and distort the constitution to expand their power at the expense of liberty.  Mr. Henry believed the states were sovereign entities that were more than capable in securing the rights of the people and that an all-powerful central government was not needed.  Two opposing views desiring to achieve the same goal; the securing of individual rights.  Mr. Henry was an anti-Federalist.  Some of the best arguments for both sides of the debate occurred between these two men during the Virginia ratifying convention.  You can read more about the debate here.

Even though both men philosophically opposed each other they also had respect for one another.  They were cordial to each other and did not call each other names because they disagreed.  Each man presented their arguments in support or opposition to the constitution to the Virginia Assembly.  For both men the cause for liberty was greater than themselves so they chose their words carefully when they spoke.

The other day I wrote an article Why I didn’t watch President Obama’s acceptance speech and in that article I used the term Kool-Aid drinkers.  When my wife read the article she said she liked everything about it except when I called Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers.  She asked how do you expect to win over the hearts and minds of people when you resort to the same tactics the left uses.  She said you’re smarter and better than that honey.  At the time I really didn’t take her words to heart.  I didn’t think calling Obama supporters Kool-Aid drinkers was that big of a deal.  That changed when my wife shared the article on her facebook page and one of her friends responded with the following:

The kool-aid drinkers and the ignorant….nice one! I can respect the fact that people have different political views than mine, I have no respect for the people who resort to degrading and belittling the people who don’t agree with them!! While it is quite despicable, it’s eye-opening at the same time…this country still has a long way to go!!!

My first reaction was who does this person think she is, lecturing me about civility and name calling.  After all the left labels me and calls me racist, Nazi, and extremist so why not push back.  And I said as much in my response.

I respect your opinion and this by no means is a knock against you personally. In regards to trying to weed out name calling and intolerance you need to look no further than the people who claim to be so tolerant of all…the left. People on the left who claim to be so tolerant are actually intolerant of my beliefs just because I refuse to blindly submit to an ideology that has failed over and over again throughout history. They’re the ones calling me a racist, a Nazi, an extremist because I believe in the individual and liberty and reject collectivism. They’re the ones calling me extreme because I believe we should restore the law of the land that is our constitution. I really don’t need to be lectured by people who are intolerant of me because of my beliefs and who have a great deal of contempt for our founding principles that promote individual liberties. You’re right we have a long way to go, and perhaps I could have taken the high road and dropped the name calling, but I felt I needed to push back with the same tactics used against me from the left.

After I posted my response my wife looked at me and said, “You’re missing the point.”  I responded by telling her that I’m not going to be ridiculed for what I believe and I’m certainly not going to stand for being lectured by someone who throws their lot in with the people who label me.  She smiled and said, “Babe you already have the winning argument, how is name calling going to add value to it.”  The more I thought about it the more I began to understand what she was saying.  The case for liberty is a winning argument no matter what political party you claim.  And each day we fight, we fight for the liberty we once had as a people.  This cause for liberty is bigger than us and it deserves better than petty name calling or the labeling of people.  We have a responsibility to frame it in the correct context to advance it for all Americans.  Resorting to name calling tactics takes away from the message we’re trying to convey and in this case actually became a barrier against effective communication.

Ronald Reagan was a rock solid conservative who embarked on a journey to advance the cause of liberty in America.  He didn’t advance it by labeling or calling his opponents names.  He advanced it by making the case for liberty through his words and actions and because of this he smashed down the barriers political parties had erected.  A large number of Democrats received his message and crossed over the political divide to support his candidacy in 1980 and his reelection in 1984.  They didn’t cross over because he was a great speaker or because of name recognition.  They crossed over because he made the case for liberty and economic freedom.  So from this point forward I will choose my words carefully.  I will no longer use labels like Kool-Aid drinkers or Obamabots.  I will advance the cause of liberty by making the argument that individual liberty is last best hope for America and I will take this charge seriously.

We can disagree with the left on the role government should play in our lives.  But we’re going to lose this ideological war if we can’t sell the case for liberty.  And when we stoop to their level and name call we shut down the lines of communication and greatly reduce the chance for liberty to be advanced.  The cause for liberty deserves better from me.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

Arthur Laffer: Economic Statistics, Some Matter and Some Are Deceiving

Share

At Real Clear Politics the other day, I came across an article by economist, Arthur Laffer in theWall Street Journal. the same Arthur Laffer whom developed the Laffer Curve during the Reagan administration. As I often do, I scanned the article and bookmarked it as a possible source for a post. Then this morning I had an e-mail in my in-box from Pat Slattery of The Free Market Projectsuggesting that I consider doing a post on an article by John Hayward about the Laffer article. And, I thank him. So, I will discuss both the Laffer and Hayward articles in today’s post on economic statistics.

Economic Statistics that Deceive

With good reason, we mere mortals, without a PhD, have to wonder if government agencies and politicians, including the President, are lying to us. Well, of course, they lie to us. That is a given. But, when it comes government generated statistics, they don’t so much lie to us as they don’t tell us all that we need to know. In other words, they tend to cherry-pick data to put the economy in the best possible. With today’s economy, that is more difficult than usual.

One example of government cherry-picking data is the reported inflation rate. According to the Federal Reserve, inflation is negligible. We know that is not true. The reason reported inflation appears low is that they do not include price changes in oil, gasoline, and food. The items that impact the budgets of 90% of the  population the most are not included in the calculation of inflation.

Anther example of the government only telling us part of the story are the monthly employment numbers. I watched a news video the other day Debbie Whatshername-Schultz say how proud she was of Obama because under his leadership we have had 29 consecutive months of job growth. PROUD!  Give me a break.! The workforce participation rate is getting smaller by the month! The July jobs report announced that non-farm jobs increased in July by 163,000. This was more than what was expected. The stock market went wild.  If you want to know what really happened with the jobs market, check out this article at PJ  Media and this article at Inform the Pundits. You will find out that there was a net loss of jobs in July. Just ask yourself why the unemployment rate increased to 8.3%?

So, with all the efforts to put our economy in the best possible light, our GDP is growing at an abysmal rate of 1.5%. That is pathetic! Let’s find out why our economy is so anaemic.

Some Economic Statistics Matter

The Obama administration, more than any administration in my memory, has based their economic policies on nothing more than tax and spend. Obama has set the all time record for government spending “crapweasels” like Paul Krugman and Democrats in general and the main stream media keep calling for more and more stimulus. (Crapweasel is a term Kurt Silverfiddlealways uses when referring to Paul Krugman.  It fits.)

One of the best ways to measure the success or failure of an economic policy is to look at the empirical results where that policy has been tried. This is exactly what Arthur Laffer has done and reports on his findings in this Wall Street Journal article and suggest that:

Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.

Dr. Laffer looked at 34 countries that implemented stimulus programs after the 2008 financial crisis. The results weren’t very stimulating:

It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.

There is a table in Laffer’s article show just badly stimulus worked for these countries. John Hayward in his Human Events’ article about the Laffer report, like this quote from Laffer:

Often as not, the qualification for receiving stimulus funds is the absence of work or income – such as banks and companies that fail, solar energy companies that can’t make it on their own, unemployment benefits and the like. Quite simply,government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don’t work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment.

” a surefire recipe for less work, less output, and more  unemployment.” This reminds me of a conversation back in the eighties, to which I was present, between brother-in-law and two of his friends. They were all UAW members and employees of the Chevrolet plant in Flint, Michigan. They were all in their middle fifties and they had been doing some sharp penciling about whether it made sense for them to take early retirement at age 58.  They concluded that with their General Motor’s pensions and Social Security (in those days you could opt for early Social Security at a reduced rate at 58) that it made no sense to keep working 40 hour weeks for just a few hundred dollars more. I’m thinking that the same thinking applies to many of our citizens on welfare and other government assistance. They are likely figuring why should they take a forty-hour a week job when they can do nothing for only a few hundred dollars less..

John Hayward would add something to Laffer’s analysis:

The other obfuscating factor I would add to Laffer’s analysis is that government spending is treated as highly significant by the media, while private investment is either ignored or criticized.  The financial papers might carry tales of business success, and once in a while the public imagination is captured by a company like Apple… but none of that compares to the front-page, above-the-fold coverage given to huge government spending initiatives.

We know what Obama and his team are up to. With the support of the main stream media, they want to pull the wool over the eyes of those that still have a job (the majority of voters) by convincing them that the economy, however slowly, is steadily growing and now is no to change horses. Economic statistics do matter and it is going to be up to us, the conservative bloggers, to get the truth out there.  It won’t come from the media, that is for sure.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:Conservatives on Fire

Share

Just How Delusional Is Barack Obama?

Share

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer fromillusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] _ (Wikipedia)

In the early days of this blog,  I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece in which I suggested that there was a psychological explanation of why Barack Obama thought he was so smart when he clearly was anything but smart. I had come across an article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it seemed to fit Obama to a “T”. At the risk of over simplification, describes people who are in fact inept but see themselves as smarter than anyone else. They are incapable of seeing their own ineptness no matter how many facts or counter arguments are presented to them. So, I ask that you keep this simple definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in mind as we review a couple of articles that were recently published.

Paul Mirengoff , of Power Line, decided to weigh in on the now famous statement by our Fearless Leader that the private economy is doing fine.

… In my view, Obama was driven to his unfortunate remark by frustration with the private sector for “sitting on its money.” Since the president always thinks it’s about him, I imagine that he takes it personally that businesses are hoarding their money, rather than expanding rapidly, as he wishes he could direct them to do. Since he naturally takes an adversarial view of the private sector, he must feel it is out to get him.

[…]

What a sorry combination of self-pity and ignorance. And how ironic, coming from “no drama Obama,” our “smartest president.”

Okay, admittedly, this is supposition on the part of Mr. Mirengoff. But, what he suggest does seem to fit what we know about our President, doesn’t it? So, let’s move on to something that is not supposition.

When I read the title to this Fox News article by Edward Klein, What do historians really think of Obama?, I don’t know what I expected; but, it wasn’t this:

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his  administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to  dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff,  Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the  meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed  the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians  provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go  off the rails.

Unbelievable! Obama has been office but five months and he was already looking for his place in history. We know this because Klein knew one of the “presidential historians” that was present at this and two other such meetings with Obama. Klein names all the historians present; but, of course, does not identify the one he interviewed. here are some revealing excerpts from the interview:

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind:  how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic  trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson,  another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while  implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that  he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He  could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions  of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile  the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

[…]

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past  presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents  he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F.  Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy  Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

[…]

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in  2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to  the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team  botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States  government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It  revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

Klein wanted to know “ how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the  president’s promise with his performance ” here is part of the historians response:

There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and  disappointment,”…

For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his  political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of  his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public’s imagination  and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn’t enough in a president. Great  presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example  and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald  Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared  deeply and personally about them.

[…]

More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets.  Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely  that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter.”

Yes, indeed! And when that verdict comes in, you can bet that Barack Obama will be standing in his study with his head turned up and his jaw jutted out and he will be thinking “Those fools are too stupid to see what a great President I was.”

Is it Eextreme narcissism, delusions of grandeur, Dunning-Kruger effect, or is he just a man-child who took to heart his mommy’s assertions that her little boy was “soooo smart”. I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Why the hurry?? We The People have a Primary to participate in.

Share

This is going to be a short post, not rife with sources or videos; just my opinion. I am detecting a pattern with certain pundits on some supposedly Conservative talk radio shows and on network and cable TV outlets. This pattern was something that I became aware of recently and after listening to Mark Levin’s radio show from last Wednesday, the 14th I was gratified to hear that I wasn’t the only one who saw this – and that I wasn’t alone in my disdain for it.

What I am referring to is this notion that certain talk show hosts and political pundits or “talking heads” are trying to peddle that is basically saying that unless we stop right now, and coalesce behind Romney, it will hurt his chances against Obama in the fall. That this year’s GOP primary process is making him and our party weaker, not stronger. These talking heads are already positioning themselves to be able to say, in the event that Romney (or whoever gets the GOP nomination) loses, this hard fought primary will be the reason.

This is utter bullsh*t. Gerald Ford said the same thing after losing to Carter in 1976, he blamed his loss, his weakness as a candidate on Reagan. He contended that had he not had to fight against Reagan he would have been able to beat Carter. My question to this is, “Why?” Ford was exactly as Reagan said he was, a weak moderate candidate who could not show enough of a contrast to win the general election. The same sort of talking heads back then parroted that same old, tired argument. The GOP establishment was furious at Reagan. Four years later, they remembered it and, I believe to try and unify the party, that is why he chose one of his opponents, George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

But like I asked, why does fighting and winning a primary race for your party’s nomination make you a weak candidate? If that were true, then why has the primary process lasted so long in our nation’s history? Why do we even have it?

Because long ago, some very smart men thought that if you wanted to hold the highest office in our land, you ought to have to let the people know your stance on the issues. You ought to have to travel to the various states and compete for the right to represent your party in the general election to become President. That you should have to persuade as many folks as you can that your platform is the best.

And lastly, that you ought to have to EARN the right to represent your party in the general election.

This notion that we have to drop the process so that we can get behind Romney, our putative front runner, is, well, it’s pure horse puckey. This idea that by having a hard fought process, we are making Obama stronger and our side weaker is completely false and wrong headed thinking. Of all the countries in the world, ours puts the process before the candidate. Ours puts the interest of the voters before the interest of the candidate. Is it a perfect system? No. Has it, at times been corrupted? Yes. But of all the systems in the world, past and present, ours is the best.

I hear people say that Santorum or Gingrich ought to bow out for the good of the party.

Why?

And I ask this question without taking into account why someone might or might not like certain candidates. Put that aside for now, and ask yourself this. If Romney is weakened by fighting a tough Primary, what does that say about him as a candidate. Now I only pick Romney, not because I do or don’t like him, but because the establishment, the talking heads have chosen him as our front runner. But remember, these same taking heads at first didn’t like ANY of the candidates. They tried to woo Mitch Daniels, and then Chris Christie into running. Then when that failed, the looked around and said, “Romney is our man!! He’s the front runner!! Everybody fall in line and decide who is going to drop out, and in what order.”

I put this to you, our loyal readers here at CH 2.0 – if a candidate is weak, then it matters not how much we get behind him. If he is too weak to garner enough votes, then he isn’t going to be strengthened by eliminating his primary opponents. If he is too weak to fight the general election, it has nothing to do with this one or that one staying in or dropping out of the primary.

No, I think that it is just the opposite. I think that the harder, tougher and more raucous the primary process is, the tougher, stronger and more hardened the eventual nominee becomes.

Then I hear the argument that the Obama campaign will use soundbites from the opponents of the eventual GOP nominee. That, too is horse puckey. First of all, Obama doesn’t need to rely on us to do his opposition research for him. There isn’t anything that is appearing in any of the millions of dollars in primary GOP ads that the Obama campaign hasn’t already thought of, dug up or decided to use. And so what if they run an ad showing Gingrich calling Santorum this or that. So what if they run an ad showing Santorum calling Romney whatever, or Ron Paul saying this or that about Newt. Do we really think that the Obama campaign is going to have to rely on this? And if they do show such an ad, that is what archives are for. You can find plenty of video of Hillary and Edwards lambasting Obama on his lack of experience from the Democratic primary in 2008. As a matter of fact, given the disaster that is the Obama Presidency, that might not be such a bad idea, but you get my point.

No, what we have to do is to keep our focus on casting our votes, if we live in a state that hasn’t yet had a primary or caucus, for the candidate that most closely lines up with our values and mores. That is what the primary process is all about and it’s about damned time that the talking heads, the pundits, the establishment learned that our vote counts, and thank you very much, but shut the hell up and let us do our thing. This is our time now. This is our process, so back off and let us do our thing. Then in a few months, the spotlight will be on two candidates, one from each party and then the brawl will begin. But for now, stop telling us what we ought to think, who we ought to vote for. We The People aren’t necessarily in a hurry to pick someone. Maybe the talking heads are so wrapped up in pushing Romney, they have forgotten that no matter what, we cannot cross the bridge that is the general election until we get to it.

Thank you for your time, I know that at the beginning of this, I promised a short article. Well, in my defense, I guess that I just needed to rant a bit.

Do chime in and let me know what you, our great readers of CH 2.0 think about this. I am interested to know if I am alone among you, a group of like minded folks that I have gotten to know since my time here at CH 2.0. Without getting corny, I value your opinions, for or against.

Share

Apparently Some Polls and More Important Than Others: Harry Reid Thinks 80% of Americans “Meaningless”

Share

We’ve been looking at the selective outrage of the regressives as of late, as well as their (sadly successful) attempts to distract the national conversation away from Obama’s failures.  However, their selectivity also extends to polls.

If you recall back to 2009, during the debate around HR 3200, CBS published the results of a poll, suggesting that 70% of Americans wanted a public opition.  Needless to say, the MSM, lefty sites, and the regressive as a whole sang the virtues of this poll to the heavens themselves (or perhaps they were looking to the opposite direction of heaven).  Then, once people looked at the poll’s internals, it was realized that Democrats were over-sampled over Republicans by an almost 2-1 margin.  In other words, they cooked the books, cheated, and bamboozled.  But, that poll was the gospel truth.

Fast forward to now, and polls have an entirely different meaning.  CBS published the results of a poll, emulating the famous Reagan quote, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”  Unlike the answer to Reagan’s question, the question under Obama is apparently, “not so much,” as 80% of respondents either indicated, “worse off,” or “no change.”  Since these results are not proclaiming the glorious-unicorn-farting-rainbows-epic-win of the Obama administration, it isn’t quite as “true” as the 2009 poll.  Even Harry Reid thinks so!

(Kindly hit the link to see the video, it doesn’t seem to want to embed here.)

Wow, how times change!

Share

I’ve Found a Presidential Candidate I can Support: Unfortunately, He’s British

Share

Yes, I know that we can’t run him for POTUS, but I really wish we could.  For the evidence, behold this rhetorical masterpiece.

I know this is a long shot, but given all the conspiracy theories of late, perhaps we can say he was born in, for the sake of argument, Hawaii?  Now, does anyone know Photoshop?  We need a birth certificate!

Seriously though, Mr. Hannan has a better grasp of our founding documents, and he ideas of the founders, than most of our own so-called Conservatives.  We’d do well to listen to this man, even though we cannot elect him.

H/T: Hot Air

Share