Monthly Archives: July 2012

Occupy The DNC Event Planned

Using the left’s tactics against them creates a rather delicious (kinda like bacon.. with anything) irony. Heritage, FRC and AFP are involved so why not you?

I wanted to send you an updated guide with schedule for our historic event taking place during the DNC convention in Charlotte, NC. Please check out the video link below.

The website is

Last week we added Heritage Action and FRC as partners for the event and AFP has already agreed to bring the November is coming bus to the location!
Please note that we do have hotel room blocks and that our space is in a prime location in relation to where the DNC is meeting.

As we prepare for one of the most important election in our lifetime, I hope you will join me as Conservatives go on the offense to save our country. I will be following up with you this week regarding attendance and/or sponsorship opportunities. I hope to see you in Charlotte!!!


A New Positive Ad: Olympics

Watching a news show this weekend I heard one analyst remark, “Whoever manages to go positive in their ads first, will win the election.”

While I am not sure how well that theory will hold up, it was certainly good to see this positive Romney ad created by Restore Our Future on my Twitter feed today. We hear lots from Team Obama about Mitt Romney leaving Bain Capital to run the Olympics. This ad puts that whole situation into a new light. With words from the Olympians themselves it shows the effect being a good manager Romney gave to the Salt Lake Olympics.

I bet you’ll like it too.

Teen Entrepreneur & Patriot

It is exciting to see young entrepreneurs starting their own business, especially when the goal is to pay for something as important as college.

Meet Bryan Thomas from Pittsburgh, PA owner of Patriot Type. Just 18, Bryan has his own graphic design website and is busy selling patriotic artwork.

Visit his website or Facebook page to see his current poster offerings. He wants to pay his own way through college, an admirable, conservative trait.


Government or Business?

A review of history shows that smaller government and lower tax rates consistently prove more fiscally sound and achieve greater success at stimulating economies than do the big government, big spending policies of the current administration and fellow “progressive” Democrats.

The White House’s agenda is disastrous for economic growth and stability. Much of what the Oval Office occupier calls “tax cuts” are rewards for participating in an unproven, inefficient, unreliable “green energy” fairy tale.  To a large degree “green energy” has proven to be nothing more than a thinly veiled means of redistributing wealth from taxpayers to the administration’s “progressive” political cronies.

Despite misinformation coming from the White House, faithfully parroted by their willfully complicit co-conspirators within the “progressive” Party Pravda, a one-time annual tax credit of $5,000 to hire an employee that will cost a business far more in salary and benefits is not a tax cut.

When “properly” spun by the misleader in chief, reductions in the payroll tax for working people sound good, but in reality are further defunding the nearly bankrupt Social Security Ponzi scheme.

The government loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to banks. In exchange for those billions the government received preferred shares of stock in those banks. Holders of preferred stock are first in line for any dividends paid to shareholders. Since the banks must pay the government back, holders of common stock will be receiving no dividends. Everyday investors will not buy stock in those banks; instead they will sell their shares in order to use that capital on investments that pay a dividend. This is de facto nationalization of the banking system.

Stress testing banks requires them to maintain balance sheets that are deemed “acceptable” by unelected, unaccountable government regulatory bureaucrats.  In order to maintain those balances, banks are reluctant to lend money to small businesses, many of which are dependent on small loans from local banks to compensate for periodic income shortfalls experienced during normal business cycles.

If re-elected, the current White House occupant will continue to use class warfare as an excuse to reduce and eliminate taxes on political groups inclined to elect proponents of nanny state big government programs.  As envisioned by “progressives”, eventually a majority of Americans will no longer pay any taxes. Meanwhile, the administration will increase the tax burden on successful businesses and individuals; the rich who do not pay “their fair share”.  The majority of people will not care how high tax rates rise.  Since they will no longer be paying taxes, higher tax rates will not affect them.  As businesses fail under the added tax burdens, more people will be laid off and require government assistance.  This will create a huge underclass of Americans dependent upon government for survival who will exist under government control.  This is not coincidental.

Corporations don’t pay taxes. They pass the cost of those taxes on to consumers. The elimination of corporate taxes will lower the cost of goods to consumers and incentivize investments by individuals and investment groups. It will also eliminate the need for corporations to finance Congressional lobbying in pursuit of more favorable tax structures or the creation of additional tax loopholes.

A cut in business tax rates will leave more money in the hands of businesses that succeed, and help those businesses grow through the reinvestment of profit. A growing business has a need to hire new employees. Growing companies that are hiring workers instead of letting people go make employees more secure in their own economic future and thus more likely to engage in consumer spending.

A cut in personal income tax rates will help stimulate consumer spending, thus improving the demand side of the economic equation without cumbersome, inefficient, wasteful government spending that requires borrowing with interest or printing money, which fuels inflation.

It is abundantly clear which direction should be taken by the United States.  Will America recover by electing a successful businessman?  Or will the U.S. continue lurching “forward” in fits and starts until it collapses under the “stewardship” of an unqualified community organizer with a sketchy, predominantly hidden past who’s only business experience prior to seizing power was one real estate deal between himself and a convicted felon?

Mitt Romney Delivers Foreign Policy Speech From Israel [Full Text and Video]


 Full Text of Mitt Romney’s speech from Israel:

Thank you for that kind introduction, Mayor Barkat, and thank you all for that warm welcome. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to be in Israel again.

To step foot into Israel is to step foot into a nation that began with an ancient promise made in this land. The Jewish people persisted through one of the most monstrous crimes in human history, and now this nation has come to take its place among the most impressive democracies on earth. Israel’s achievements are a wonder of the modern world.

These achievements are a tribute to the resilience of the Israeli people. You have managed, against all odds, time and again throughout your history, to persevere, to rise up, and to emerge stronger.

The historian Paul Johnson, writing on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish state, said that over the course of Israel’s life, 100 completely new independent states had come into existence. “Israel is the only one whose creation can fairly be called a miracle,” Johnson wrote.

It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. We’re part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization.

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. And ours is an alliance based not only on shared interests but also on enduring shared values.

In those shared values, one of the strongest voices is that of your prime minister, my friend Benjamin Netanyahu. I met with him earlier this morning and I look forward to my family joining his this evening as they observe the close of this fast day of Tisha B’Av.

It’s remarkable to consider how much adversity, over so great a span of time, is recalled by just one day on the calendar. This is a day of remembrance and mourning, but like other such occasions, it also calls forth clarity and resolve.

At this time, we also remember the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches who were massacred at the Munich Olympics forty years ago. Ten years ago this week, 9 Israeli and American students were murdered in the terrorist attack at Hebrew University. And tragedies like these are not reserved to the past. They are a constant reminder of the reality of hate, and the will with which it is executed upon the innocent.

It was Menachem Begin who said this about the Ninth of the month of Av: “We remember that day,” he said, “and now have the responsibility to make sure that never again will our independence be destroyed and never again will the Jew become homeless or defenseless.” “This,” Prime Minister Begin added, “is the crux of the problems facing us in the future.”

So it is today, as Israel faces enemies who deny past crimes against the Jewish people and seek to commit new ones.

When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust or speak of wiping this nation off the map, only the naïve – or worse – will dismiss it as an excess of rhetoric. Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way.

My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country. As Prime Minister Begin put it, in vivid and haunting words, “if an enemy of [the Jewish] people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him.”

We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again.

It would be foolish not to take Iran’s leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy.

Over the years Iran has amassed a bloody and brutal record. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats, and killed its own people. It supports the ruthless Assad regime in Syria. They have provided weapons that have killed American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has plotted to assassinate diplomats on American soil. It is Iran that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and the most destabilizing nation in the world.

We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

We should stand with all who would join our effort to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran – and that includes Iranian dissidents. Do not erase from your memory the scenes from three years ago, when that regime brought death to its own people as they rose up. The threat we face does not come from the Iranian people, but from the regime that oppresses them.

Five years ago, at the Herzliya Conference, I stated my view that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability presents an intolerable threat to Israel, to America, and to the world.

That threat has only become worse.

Now as then, the regime’s claims that it seeks to enrich nuclear material for peaceful purposes are belied by years of malign deceptions.

Now as then, the conduct of Iran’s leaders gives us no reason to trust them with nuclear material.

But today, the regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons capability. Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.

I want to pause on this last point. It is sometimes said that those who are the most committed to stopping the Iranian regime from securing nuclear weapons are reckless and provocative and inviting war.

The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers. History teaches with force and clarity that when the world’s most despotic regimes secure the world’s most destructive weapons, peace often gives way to oppression, to violence, or to devastating war.

We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option. We must lead the effort to prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons capability. We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so. In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel’s right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you.

These are some of the principles I first outlined five years ago. What was timely then has become urgent today.

Let me turn from Iran to other nations in the Middle East, where we have seen rising tumult and chaos. To the north, Syria is on the brink of a civil war. The dictator in Damascus, no friend to Israel and no friend to America, slaughters his own people as he desperately clings to power.

Your other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, is under the growing and dangerous influence of Hezbollah.

After a year of upheaval and unrest, Egypt now has an Islamist President, chosen in a democratic election. Hopefully, this new government understands that one true measure of democracy is how those elected by the majority respect the rights of those in the minority. The international community must use its considerable influence to ensure that the new government honors the peace agreement with Israel that was signed by the government of Anwar Sadat.

As you know only too well, since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, thousands of rockets have rained on Israeli homes and cities. I have walked on the streets of Sderot, and honor the resolve of its people. And now, new attacks have been launched from the Sinai Peninsula.

With Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel from the north, and Hamas rockets aimed from the south, with much of the Middle East in tumult, and with Iran bent on nuclear arms, America’s vocal and demonstrated commitment to the defense of Israel is even more critical. Whenever the security of Israel is most in doubt, America’s commitment to Israel must be most secure.

When the decision was before him in 1948, President Harry Truman decided without hesitation that the United States would be the first country to recognize the State of Israel. From that moment to this, we have been the most natural of allies, but our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests.

The story of how America – a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region – rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation’s history.

Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.

We both believe in democracy, in the right of every people to select their leaders and choose their nation’s course.

We both believe in the rule of law, knowing that in its absence, willful men may incline to oppress the weak.

We both believe that our rights are universal, granted not by government but by our Creator.

We both believe in free enterprise, because it is the only economic system that has lifted people from poverty, created a large and enduring middle class, and inaugurated incomparable achievements and human flourishing.

As someone who has spent most of his life in business, I am particularly impressed with Israel’s cutting edge technologies and thriving economy. We recognize yours as the “start-up nation” – and the evidence is all around us.

You have embraced economic liberty. You export technology, not tyranny or terrorism. And today, your innovators and entrepreneurs have made the desert bloom and have made for a better world. The citizens of our countries are fortunate to share in the rewards of economic freedom and in the creativity of our entrepreneurs. What you have built here, with your own hands, is a tribute to your people, and a model for others.

Finally, we both believe in freedom of expression, because we are confident in our ideas and in the ability of men and women to think for themselves. We do not fear open debate. If you want to hear some very sharp criticisms of Israel and its policies, you don’t have to cross any borders. All you have to do is walk down the street and into a café, where you’ll hear people reasoning, arguing, and speaking their mind. Or pick up an Israeli newspaper – you’ll find some of the toughest criticism of Israel you’ll read anywhere. Your nation, like ours, is stronger for this energetic exchange of ideas and opinions.

That is the way it is in a free society. There are many millions of people in the Middle East who would cherish the opportunity to do the same. These decent men and women desire nothing more than to live in peace and freedom and to have the opportunity to not only choose their government but to criticize it openly, without fear of repression or repercussion.

I believe that those who oppose these fundamental rights are on the wrong side of history. But history’s march can be ponderous and painfully slow. We have a duty to speed and shape history by being unapologetic ambassadors for the values we share.

The United States and Israel have shown that we can build strong economies and strong militaries. But we must also build strong arguments that advance our values and promote peace. We must work together to change hearts and awaken minds through the power of freedom, free enterprise and human rights.

I believe that the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. No country or organization or individual should ever doubt this basic truth: A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel.

And standing by Israel does not mean with military and intelligence cooperation alone.

We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel, voice their criticisms. And we certainly should not join in that criticism. Diplomatic distance in public between our nations emboldens Israel’s adversaries.

By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together. No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.

Thank you all. May God bless America, and may He bless and protect the Nation of Israel.

Martin Luther King’s Dream in the 21st Century

Martin Luther King had the courage to stand up for what he believed in- the idea that regardless of a man’s skin color, he should be treated equally. He should be judged on his character not his skin tone. It is appalling that in 1963 he should have to make such a statement. Just as it is appalling that in 2012 it is justifiable to call a conservative a terrorist merely because they are conservative.

I have a dream that I and those who believe as I do will not be called names, that our beliefs will not be the subject of fear mongering and vicious slander merely because of their position on the political spectrum. I have a dream that one day, I will be judged on the content of my character, the courage of my convictions and the merits of my beliefs, not a party affiliation.

I have a dream that one day reason will overcome prejudice. That some day a person will look at me and say, “I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to express it because I have the same right. And I will debate the merits of your ideas, not attack your character.”

That debate will be arbitrated by the pursuit of truth through ideas, not by the double-speak and half-truths of dishonest politicians seeking support.

That one day the desire to do the right thing, purely because it is the right thing, will be the motivator of public policy, not the desire for power. That men whose ideologies are different can overcome their differences when they agree and work together because it is the right thing to do.

That people idolize the merits of men-  a desire to serve truth,  a commitment to honesty, a dedication to equal justice for all, that they have integrity in all their actions. That they can look at someone they disagree with and say “At least he is living by the principles he believes in” and respect that.

That one day those whose actions are driven by a lust for power, and who believe the ends justified the means will be universally despised, because these actions show no respect for the rights of others.

That change for the sake of change becomes suspicious because there is personal motive behind it. That change be based on objective, rational analysis and a genuine desire to improve.

I dream that we can meet on the battlefield of ideas, where the primary objective is to seek out and serve truth. Where the desire to avoid uncomfortable thought does not trump the pursuit of the truth. Where the fallacies of a man’s argument are willingly surrendered to right.

I dream that one day the motto of all men will be to question with boldness because the truth has no agenda.

Most of all, I have a dream that one day the following statement will be the governing principle in the minds of men when their ideas conflict-

When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will. One of us will win but both of us will profit.-Ayn Rand

This is Martin Luther King’s dream in the 21st century. It is now universally appalling to judge a man because of his skin color. Let’s hope that someday very soon, the same thing can be said for ideologies- that men will be judged on the content and character of their ideas, not becaues they can apply an ideological label to themselves.

Mayor Knows Best?

No longer is it ‘Mother Knows Best.’ Today it’s the Mayor who knows best how to raise our children.

Mayor Bloomberg, who daily works to promote a Nanny State in his city, has now become a Nanny. At least, that’s what he says. He knows better than new moms how to feed their babies.

Beginning in September hospitals in New York City will keep all baby formula under lock and key. New mothers will not be provided with baby formula unless they sign a consent form just as they would for medications. If mothers want to use formula they must first undergo a lecture on the benefits of breast feeding by hospital staff. The New York Health department will monitor formula usage and request a medical reason for its use.

Health officials are applauding the city for its latest push. Thomas Farley, Health Commissioner said, “With this initiative the New York City health community is joining together to support mothers who choose to breastfeed.”

What happened to something as personal as choosing whether to breastfeed or use formula becoming a decision made by the government?  No one argues the potential benefits of breast milk over formula, yet, why is this not a choice that is made by the mother, in consultation with her doctor?

As the Nanny State continues to grow one looks at the irony. Those who fight tooth and nail to offer the woman’s choice to abort a baby are now limiting a woman’s choice to raise a baby.

Or maybe it’s not irony, maybe it’s a trend.

Only a few years ago the idea of a nanny state in America was only promoted in science fiction. Yet today we must wonder how long it will be before the government tells mothers it knows better and takes the children to be reared by appropriate workers.

Why Don’t Our Representatives Represent The Constitution?

There was a time in this country when the representatives we elected to office actually defended our rights under the Constitution. What has happened to these representatives? They now seem more interested in defending political correctness than in defending our Constitution. The Aurora tragedy and the war on Chick-Fil-A are just two recent events elevating the question: does Congress defend the Constitution?

The first is the Chick-Fil-A controversy; Dan Cathy  president of Chick-fil-A, recently put his company in activists’ sights by donating money to same-sex marriage opponents and defending his conservative views on gay rights. Mr. Cathy is entitled under the Constitution to have his own views and express them how he sees fit. Here is a successful business owner who believes in traditional values (as do I) and wants to support those values and what happens, elected representatives from Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C. and New York City are trying to prevent him from doing business in their cities. Hey A-Holes, I have news for you, you were elected to uphold the Constitution, not uphold your personal views. The Constitution is there to protect all people, not just left wing liberals who think that the Constitution is there for them to interpret any way they want. It has been my observation that liberals believe in free speech, only if it is their speech, all others can go to hell.

Look beyond the First Amendment part for a minute.  Thirty-Million people in this country are either unemployed or underemployed and these so-called representatives want to stop Mr. Cathy from opening up stores that would create jobs. Do they really care about the people they are elected to represent? Don’t they want to let more businesses in to their cities just to have more jobs? They must be following the Obama philosophy, keep the people on unemployment and food stamps so they will vote Democratic. Morons.

The second event was the mass murders in a Colorado movie theater; this was a tragic event, it is unbelievable what one human being can do that will affect so many other lives, and to make it a political talking point is reprehensible. Once again, we see politicians on the left taking any opportunity to jump all over the Second Amendment. MORE LAWS, MORE LAWS, that seems to be their favorite saying whenever someone is shot in this country. When will these Constitution hating liberals learn, more laws is not the answer. We have plenty of gun laws in this country, maybe they just need to be enforced. Another thing these liberals do not understand, we can outlaw guns entirely, make it a crime punishable by death and criminals will still find a way to get guns. Gun laws only hurt the law-abiding citizens who are looking to protect themselves, so all the laws that liberals want to pass, will not stop criminals from their deadly endeavors.

Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms, and will get hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not. To expect a mass-murderer to be concerned that his firearm is obtained outside the law is just like expecting him to be concerned that he walked out of a store with two candy bars, while only paying for one, he just does not care.

I read an article a while back that said in 2008, 20% of the country considered themselves liberal, as compared with 18% today. (Do you think Obama had something to do with that?) So it seems there is hope for this country, when this country gets back to traditional values and commonsense instead of political correctness, we will once again be on the right track. However, we must start electing representatives that believe in the Constitution, and not representatives that try to change it.

This is one man’s opinion.


Valerie Jarrett Blocked Three Bin Laden Kill Raids

We’ve all seen the brilliance of Obama’s Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, in action.  She stated that unemployment stimulates the economy and the distribution of the related checks is good for the economy.  How far gone would you have to be to believe this drivel?  However, in the realm of foreign affairs, it’s more unbelievable.   According to the Daily Caller, Jarrett put the kibosh on plans to kill Bin Laden not once, but three times!  The Executive Editor for The Daily Caller, David Martosko, wrote on July 29 that:

 In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

What possible reason could one have for not killing Bin Laden?  Reasons that don’t include the typical characteristics of liberal academia, which usually revolve around the incessant reiteration of international law, moral authority, martyrdom dilemma, and outright weakness.  We don’t need notes from study sessions to be factored into the methodology for every executive decision. We killed bin Laden, his martyrdom hasn’t really galvanized the Arab world, and international law was kinda rejected since we did, in the end, violate the territorial integrity of Pakistan. No major backlash.  So what was the problem?  Valerie, we’re waiting on you.

A World Without America

“There’s a great deal of ruin in a nation,” Adam Smith said to an anxious young man named John Sinclair, who was concerned about the British’s surrender to a rag-tag outfit of colonialists at Saratoga in 1777. Smith’s maxim is certainly being tested to the utmost by an American political class seemingly bent on national implosion.

Since the precarious period when America’s fate as a free nation was yet to be decided by a test of arms, the rugged and fiercely independent people of the New World built a country that ascended to the world’s greatest embodiment and defender of ordered liberty.

Yet a government charged to preserve the morally just system of human freedom, based on the individual rights to be secure in person and property, now threatens to be undone by a rapacious political class bent on subsuming all under an oppressive regime of coercive equalization.

Human history’s greatest champion of liberty is in dire threat of being lowered to the mediocre tier of middling dictatorships and disintegrating European welfare states.  There is a great deal of ruin a nation, as Smith once said, but the political elites who have been at the helm for the last one hundred years have in the main done everything conceivable to usher in America’s demise.

The successes of the last century are attributable to the afterglow of a philosophical revolution that sought to liberate mankind from the arbitrary caprice of statist overlords. Everything from the invention of the lightbulb to the mass production of the automobile was predicated on a consumer-driven market that exalted the profit motive as emblematic of the American Dream and a way of ensuring people were getting what they desired.

If people don’t get what they want in a market, they can stop paying for it. If the government doesn’t get what it wants from the people, it can tax them, fine them, and put them in prison. This is the normal state of affairs for mankind: some form of enslavement to whip-bearing masters.

But while the country was roused to fight and defeat European and Asian aggressors in defense of freedom, the fundamentals of civil society and market economy were being undone at home. Since the Wilson administration’s Espionage and Sedition Acts, a throwback to the rebuked Alien and Sedition Acts and Lincoln’s temporary suspension of habeas corpus, followed upon by Franklin Roosevelt’s desire to establish permanent central planning via the New Deal, the United States as a beacon of liberty has been waning.

Perhaps there was no perfect “Golden Age” of American liberty, as conservatives imagine, when the government restrained itself in deference to the rights of the people. Rather, millions of Americans were able to escape the long reach of government in the Manifest Destiny period, when the government was preoccupied with fending off external adversaries and didn’t have the manpower and resources to track tax absconders down. In any event, the settlers were serving the government’s purposes of colonization; just as did the building of the railroads. This arrangement made “freedom” all that much easier to sell in Washington.

The condition of slavery and the ineluctable but painful process of emancipation tarnished this period, when a fully committed experiment in human liberty might have demonstrated more impeccably the merits and the potential successes of the project. Yet the philosophical underpinnings of the revolution, as expressed well in the Declaration, had provided the impetus and inspiration for greater equality under the law, including Women’s Suffrage.

Surely, there was one prior period when the nation was in tremendous danger of falling apart at the seams; as Lincoln had said at that moment of tremendous trial, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” But we should also point out that a house without a foundation cannot stand.

The American Empire is consolidated, and the wars against major external foes won. The great powers of the world possess nuclear weapons, making acts of aggression against one another suicidal. We are in an extremely dangerous period when the elites of the world see one another as natural allies against the people, instead of rivals for power on the world stage.

We must grapple with the fact that those of the political class of the United States see themselves as having more in common with European sophisticates and Chinese mandarins than with the shuffling masses; or at least, America’s elites aspire to the towering heights of political control and social esteem of their globalist colleagues.

Our elected representatives are being led by their unchecked egos into a world of miserable mediocrity, inescapable impoverishment, and unrevenged atrocities; in sum, a world without America. It is a willfully blind movement of shamelessly arrogant intellectuals who refuse to grasp that even their benevolent intentions cannot ensure that vast accumulations of power will not be abused by an increasingly unaccountable stable of central planners.

And their drive also reflects a hopelessly naive outlook that cannot fathom how a world of socialist despots, Islamist potentates, and petty tyrants would want to see America brought low for less than honorable reasons. In these warped individuals’ minds, it is America, the indisputable emancipator of tens of millions from state terror and ritual genocide, which is the aggressor and the one that should be humbled. And without a doubt, there are men scrambling for power over this country whose intentions can be considered anything but benign.

But our supposed betters should ask themselves a few questions before laying low the most magnificent empire in world history:

Where will all the socialist regimes of the world be without the despised capitalist economy of America to consume their goods? Where will the hopelessly oppressed peoples of the world turn to without a country that not only cares about them but will come to their aid and rescue? Where will the money come from to pay for the exorbitant generosity of politicians who bribe voters with the money of their children?

A world without America is a lonely place without a champion of liberty. But the good news is that the nation is ultimately a reflection of who we are as people. If we seek to restore this country to greatness, we must personally embody the ideals of our Founding and promote them in the culture despite all adversity.

In essence, we are the torchbearers for our Founders’ legacy. We must enter the philosophical cave of darkness to cast light upon mankind’s future travails if our nation should fail freedom. The struggle that many American “conservatives” refused to take seriously and thus forsook for decades, which is taking the fight to our political opponents on the basis of moral principles, must be taken up in earnest if there is to be any hope of winning the long ideological war to restore the noble America of our longing.

Media Apoplectic Over Romney’s Faux Gaffe in UK

The liberal media was was off to the races after Romney’s alleged Olympic gaffe.  It would be all the more interesting if this was actually  a story.  Romney was still called Mitt the Twit by The Sun. Why? Because the presumptive Republican nominee said  “there were a few things that were disconcerting- stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials. That is not something which is encouraging.”  CBS This Morning’s Jan Crawford gave this sensationalized report on July 26:

JAN CRAWFORD: That [statement] caused a storm in the tea cup and started a transatlantic war of words after Prime Minister David Cameron said this.

DAVID CAMERON: We’re holding an Olympic games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course, it’s easier, if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.

CRAWFORD: Cameron was responding to a question about subway delays, not Romney and his aides later said he was not referring to Salt Lake City. But the mayor of salt lake thought otherwise. Seeing the coverage, he took offense, releasing a statement inviting Prime Minister Cameron to “stop by any time. We’d love to have him and happy to send a map so he doesn’t run into trouble locating the middle of nowhere.” And The Daily Telegraph opined that Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who can start a trip that was suppose to be a charm offense by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive. After a meeting with Cameron, Romney walked  back his critique.

CRAWFORD:  Now Prime Minister Cameron said after his meeting with Romney, he knew Romney had run a successful Olympics and he appreciated that vote of confidence. But Gayle and Charlie, I’ve got to tell you, all of this here has really overshadowed one of the main reasons Romney was coming to London, which of course was to remind Americans of his role in saving those troubled Salt Lake City Olympics ten years ago.

What gaffe is the liberal media talking about?  Romney only reiterated what many in the UK were already saying about Olympic security.  As indicated by RBpundit, the British press, the same blokes blasting Romney, were in a frenzy over Olympic security a week before the event.

Liberal Media Fail

CNN reported on July 17 that:

The security concerns were triggered last week when it emerged that private security contractor G4S [a UK security firm], which was supposed to have provided 10,400 guards for the Olympics and Paralympics, would not be able to deliver.

Its failure to recruit, train and vet enough staff in time led the government to announce last week that it was deploying an extra 3,500 troops to cover the shortfall.

G4S said it has only about 4,000 guards trained and ready, although it hopes to have 7,000 fully accredited by the time the Games begin on July 27.

Even members of parliament were uneasy with the “making it up as you go along” approach, which forced the government to deploy more troops to provide adequate protection.  There was even a whistleblower in G4S who claimed that x-rays failed to detect a phony nail bomb, which should be a cause for alarm.

This is not a “controversy” or a “gaffe.”  It’s the Democrat Media Complex on the war path.  The Washington Examiner did some digging into Obama’s British gaffes and here are a few of them that were published on July 27.

March 2009: Obama “too tired,” to properly host Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to visit the President at the White House, but the British press reported there was no “full-blown press conference” or “formal dinner,” as has been customary. The British Press reported that the President was “too tired” to properly host the Prime Minister because he was dealing with the economic crisis.

Even worse was this reported quote from an anonymous State Department official:  “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

March 2009: Obama gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of DVD’s

While visiting the United States, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the president a pen fashioned out of the same wood as the Resolute Desk. What did Obama give him in return?

“Barack Obama, the leader of the world’s richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films – a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks,” reported the Telegraph.

What’s worse, the set of DVD’s was coded for the United States and unreadable by UK DVD players.

April 2009: Obama gives Queen Elizabeth an iPod

White visiting the Queen, the Obama family gave her an iPod,prompting raised eyebrows from the British Press. The MP3 player came pre-loaded with photos from President Obama’s inauguration and audio files of the president’s speech as a senator to the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2009 inauguration address.

The queen reportedly already had an iPod.

April 2009: First Lady Michelle Obama breaks protocol by touching the Queen’s back

Via the Telegraph, “Some observers winced at the sight of that hand pressed firmly across the royal back. They thought it an appalling solecism and an offence against the Queen’s dignity.”

January 2011: Obama calls France America’s ‘strongest ally’

While President Obama was visiting France, the British Press was particularly vexed when he told French President Nicolas Sarkozy that France was America’s strongest ally.

“The UK has lost nearly 350 troops in the war against the Taliban – seven times as many as France.” noted the Daily Mail.

May 2011: After toasting the Queen, Obama continues speaking as the band starts playing ‘God Save the Queen.’

This awkward moment had both countries wincing, as the President presumed to keep speaking even though the band started playing.

The BBC notes: According to protocol, however, he (Obama)  should have stopped after the toast.

May 2011: Barack Obama snubs British scientists by refusing to receive Royal Society medal

The Telegraph reports: “Sources close to the state visit said members of the Royal Society were ‘deeply offended’ by the snub and had accused Mr Obama of being obsessed with his ‘street cred.’”

December 2011: President Obama refers to the British Embassy as the “English Embassy”

From the Daily Mail: In an interview yesterday, Mr Obama said: ‘All of us are deeply disturbed by the, err, crashing of, err, the English Embassy, err, the embassy of the United Kingdom.’

June 2012: President Obama refers to the Falkland Islands as ‘the Maldives’

This was a mistake on top of a gaffe, as the Maldives are actually in the Indian Ocean. Obama was trying to say “Malvinas” — the name given to the Falkland Islands by the Argentine government, a British possession which Argentina invaded in 1982. This was the British equivalent of suggesting that the U.S. hand Pearl Harbor over to the Japanese. As The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner writes:  “This is a position that Britain views as completely unacceptable, and with good reason.”

(H/T Sooper Mexican)

All of this and Bob Gibbs, in his insufferable wrongness, had the temerity to say:

Mitt Romney wondered aloud whether London was ready for the Olympics, and I think it’s clear that voters in this country wonder aloud whether Mitt Romney is ready for the world…I think the world is not yet ready for Mitt Romney, he [Gibbs] added. To go overseas, stand in the country of our strongest ally, in an Olympics they’ve been preparing for years for, and question whether or not they’re ready does make you wonder whether or not he’s ready to be commander-in-chief.

Hey Bob, first of all,you can go shove it. Second, France is our strongest ally.

Mitt’s Olympic Gaffe–Or Was It?

Two quick pictures for your perusal.

You heard about Mitt Romney’s ‘gaffe’ during an interview on NBC last week. During the interview Brian Williams asked Romney who headed up the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics about any concerns. Romney answered as only the President and CEO of the first Olympics following 9-11 could, with his concerns. The security questions mentioned by Romney were being reported just weeks earlier. (Guardian July 12)

If you missed the NBC interview here is the pertinent part. It’s just 30 seconds…

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Apparently, the Brits took offense that anyone would question their readiness. Much was made of this gaffe and Romney was the butt of jokes for the next two days. Media outlets in the U.S. jumped in to the fray claiming that Romney had made a terrible mistake, but not generally stating what the mistake was (perhaps, due to the realization this was not really a faux pas at all.)

Picture number 1

Today, there are new stories. Those of traffic issues, poor ticket availability but empty stands, and yes, security problems.

Picture number 2

Interesting. Kind of makes you wonder about the readiness…

Romney Gives Speech from “Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel.”

In a strong foreign policy speech, Mitt Romney reminded Jews that they have a friend in the United States.

“It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.
Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. We’re part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization.
It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. And ours is an alliance based not only on shared interests but also on enduring shared values.”

Romney’s speech honored the past tragedies that are memorialized on Tisha B’Av and he looked forward reminding Israel that the United States stands with them as allies against countries like Iran.

“We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again.”

At a time when the current U.S. administration’s attitude toward Israel is tepid at best and when Press Secretary Carney is unable to acknowledge Israel’s chosen capital this speech by Romney is refreshingly clear.


You can read the text of Romney’s speech here.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »