Monthly Archives: February 2013

Religion under attack in America!

It is my opinion, and I do believe, that religion of any kind is under attack here in America. However, the primary targets, for now, are Christian.

Let’s start with the pope announcing his resignation due to health issues. The news was a big deal both inside and outside of the Catholic community. Many Catholics were saddened to hear of his early departure. Many non-Catholics and non-religious people said there were other reasons, possibly more sinister reasons. Some said there were more issues that were going to come out against the church and they (whoever “they” are) wanted him out of the way.

How about this for an explanation? He is old. He is sick and feeble and feels that he needs to get out of the way to best serve the institution that he loves. Imagine that.

Have we become so cynical as a society that we couldn’t possibly believe anyone does anything for honorable reasons?

There are still many people who believe their God and their church are worth sacrificing and dedicating their life to. It’s not a club or a group or a committee. It’s a core belief, the foundation of a person’s life.

Some are now saying, those mostly on the left, that this is a great opportunity for the Catholic church to “upgrade itself” to usher in women priests, a female pope, gay marriage, abortion and more.

To a Catholic (and Christian), God’s word is just that. It’s His word. He’s the only one who gets to change it, not us. Scripture is clear on this matter, and with the exception of a few “progressive” scholars, almost all Christians can agree on what God’s word says about these things. These are God’s laws for us to live by, and there are consequences for ignoring them.

Maybe there is a direct correlation between our disregard for religion and our disregard for the Constitution and its laws. Is anyone “sold out” to anything anymore?

Let’s make it simple. I am “sold out” to my wife. I believe in her. I love her. I trust her. I trust her words and her actions, especially as it pertains to us. I believe in her so much that I don’t try to change her. She may have some minor things that I don’t care for, but they aren’t important enough to take up brain space. I joined with her for who she is.

When someone joins a church and believes in its core values, those values are unchangeable. Asking someone to go against scripture is like asking or encouraging a child to disobey his parents.

Progressives don’t seem to grasp that there are foundations that make religions and this country great. They think that if something in those foundations makes one person in the group uncomfortable, then we should change them.

Progressives don’t seem to have boundaries or rules that are cemented in facts, and proof doesn’t seem to be important in making decisions.

You cannot ask religious people to go against their Creator or their Creator’s words. It simply won’t work. It’s called being dedicated to what you believe in.

Progressives keep asking religious people and institutions to give up their individuality and violate their belief systems to come in line with the rest of society, “get with the program” and accept what they believe society should accept.

First the Constitution came under attack, now religion, and next comes socialism. Check your history books, people. History is on the road to repeating. Don’t let it happen to US.

Student reprimanded, demeaned for ‘inappropriate’ shirt promoting abstinence

Administrators at a Florida middle school recently targeted a student they felt violated the school’s proper attire guidelines by wearing a T-shirt she brought home from a Christian youth conference.
Participants in The Silver Ring Thing promise to postpone sex until after marriage and Summer Schreiner sported a souvenir from the event as part of her school wardrobe.
The shirt, which contained the phrase, “Don’t drink and park: Accidents cause kids,” was not appropriate in the eyes of the school’s assistant principal.
Schreiner said she was on her way back from lunch when “the assistant principal tells me I need to go to the office and change my shirt.”
School leaders pointed to dress code restrictions for attire “which contains sexually explicit or oriented wording” as the basis for their complaint.
While I agree with Schreiner and her family in their contention her shirt should not violate that guideline, this was unfortunately not the end of her harsh treatment by administrators.
The 15-year-old was forced to wear a shirt proclaiming, “Tomorrow I will dress for success” for the remainder of the day, which her mother said was “humiliating for her because she came dressed for success.”
Adding insult to injury, she was not only told her morally uplifting clothing was inappropriate, she was made to look as if she arrived at school with some vulgarity emblazoned across her shirt.
“I was pretty upset,” Schreiner said. “I thought it was silly. It’s not like I was wearing a curse word or something that was promoting violence.”
For it’s part, the school district is backing up the decision to reprimand her.
The district’s communications director explained “there is sexual innuendo on the shirt and so we believe it violated our dress code policy.”
It constantly amazes me what outrages those in charge of public schools – a group overwhelmingly comprised of leftists.
While it is perfectly acceptable, if not mandatory, to teach grade school students how to engage in sexual acts of varied nature, a shirt bearing a Christian statement in favor of abstinence is deemed unacceptable.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

 

Why Romney REALLY lost, and how to win in the future

There is a dangerous myth circulating around the Net that Mitt Romney lost because he was not “conservative enough”, that millions of Republican voters supposedly stayed home on Election Day, and that the way to win future elections is to nominate “the most conservative candidate”. Any GOP problems with women, youngsters, and minorities are being explained away by claiming that “better communication of conservative principles” will solve everything.

But all of these claims are wrong. In this article, I will show you why Mitt Romney really lost the election, and how Republicans can win future elections.

As to the first issue: while many factors contributed to Romney’s loss, there are three that truly cost him the election:

1)      He was running against an incumbent president who also happened to be the media’s darling and faced no serious primary challenger. Incumbent presidents usually win reelection; they lose only if they face serious primary or third-party challengers or if a total disaster befalls the nation. Ann Coulter has nicely summed up the five rare cases that this has happened in the last 124 (!) years

  • In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt fought a bloody primary against President Taft, and after losing the primary, mounted a third-party challenge against him, thus costing Republicans the election and delivering the White House to Woodrow Wilson.
  • In 1932, Hoover faced serious primary challengers such as former President Coolidge, and the nation was 3 years into the Great Depression.
  • In 1976, President Ford couldn’t defeat Ronald Reagan in the primaries, barely defeated him by a squeaker on the convention floor, and narrowly lost against Jimmy Carter just 2 years after Watergate, 1 year after America’s defeat in Vietnam, and into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  • In 1980, Jimmy Carter was badly bloodied and battered by Ted Kennedy (who ran as “the true liberal”) in the primaries, losing primaries in states such as California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, and faced a third-party opponent, John Anderson, who siphoned votes away from him knowing full well he was helping Reagan.
  • In 1992, President Bush, after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge, faced a formidable primary challenger, Pat Buchanan, and a third party opponent, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the popular vote and siphoned enough votes away from him to deliver the White House to Bill Clinton. (Republicans take note: disunited parties don’t succeed.)

2)      Romney had to expend a lot of time and resources defeating unserious primary challengers, all of whom eventually succumbed, none of whom had any business running for President – solely because the GOP base thought that Obama’s extremism and temporary troubles left them free to follow their hearts instead of their brains.

3)      Like other Republicans, and the GOP as a whole, Romney was very unpopular with Hispanics (whom he lost 27-71), young people, and the ladies (whom he lost 44-55).

That last point is also the key to understanding what Republicans need to do to win in future elections. Let’s look at who voted for or against Romney.

Despite the myth that millions of conservatives stayed home, Romney got the votes of 82% of conservatives and 1 million more votes overall than John McCain in 2008 – four years earlier. Romney won easily among reliably conservative voters: seniors, members of the military, veterans,  regular churchgoers, protestants, born-again Christians, and so forth. (Catholics were almost evenly split, 50-48 in Obama’s favor, and among them, likelihood to vote Republican also correlates with how frequent they go to church.) Geographically, Romney won all of the South – except the moderate states of Florida and Virginia – quite easily, and he retook Indiana and North Carolina. He won the middle class and wealthy voters, married men and women, as well as those with high school, “some college education”, or a college degree.

The voters who really rejected Romney were the demographics that have traditionally held all Republicans – not just Romney – in low regard: blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, and young people; poor people; unmarried people; high school dropouts and postgraduate degree holders; and people between 30 and 39 years of age.

These demographics have never been friendly towards Republicans (except in 2004, when Bush made a partially successful effort to woo them), so the problem is much larger than Romney. It’s the entire GOP’s problem.

The problem for Republicans is that these demographic groups are the ones that are growing in size, while traditional Republican demographics – seniors, whites, regular churchgoers – are declining. Thus, unless the GOP makes a serious and successful outreach to those demographics which aren’t currently friendly to the GOP, it will become a permanent minority party.

Some claim that conservatism is enough to win again. It’s not. Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1980, but in that year, the electorate was almost 90% white. In 2012, it was just 72% white and is on course to become “majority minority” by the 2040s.

Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote last year – more than Ronald Reagan in 1980 (56%). The problem is that this just isn’t enough any longer. Republicans thus must reach out to minorities, youngsters, and the ladies. The sooner, the better.

So how to win future elections? How to reach out to those groups?

Republicans need to face up to the unpleasant fact that – as so many have already observed – their extremist stance on immigration completely disqualifies them with Hispanics (and with most Americans of all races), and that this cost Republicans Colorado, Nevada, and Florida. True, immigration was not the absolutely #1 issue for Hispanics (the economy was), but it was nonetheless a very important issue for them, and it weighed heavily in their voting decisions.

Polling shows that the vast majority of Hispanics (and Americans in general), including a sizeable minority of Republicans, supports legalization of illegal immigrants. Yet, most Republicans not only reject it, they talk about immigration in terms that are very offensive to Hispanics (even Hispanic US citizens), such as “illegal alien” and “self-deportation”.

Republicans should also nominate a Hispanic candidate for President or Vice President, preferrably Marco Rubio, who also happens to be a solid Tea Party conservative with a 100% lifetime score from the American Conservative Union.

Republicans also need to make peace with the ladies and with young voters, the majority of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and seldom go to church. That means at least modulating the GOP’s stance on social issues, especially gay marriage which the majority of Americans now supports. It also means denying Republican nominations for all offices to the likes of Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Paul Broun, and Steve King.

But, as with immigration, the problem isn’t just Republicans’ extremist stance on these issues – it’s also the way they express it. Todd Akin’s and Richard Mourdock’s comments like “awww, if you get pregnant from rape, don’t worry, because pregnancy from rape is a gift from God!” are just the tip of the iceberg.

Most women, most youngsters, and most Americans in general are pro-gay-marriage and pro-choice, and Republicans will need to at least soften their stance and explain how can they support Limited Government on fiscal issues but Big Government on social issues. Another way to solve this problem is to devolve these divisive issues to state governments (federalism). After all, they’re just a few among the million of issues reserved by the 10th Amendment to state governments.

Those reforms will, like any bold reforms, be vehemently opposed by the fringe of the party. But they must be carried out if the GOP is to survive, let alone to win elections.

If they are implemented, Republicans can win back more than enough states to win 270 EC votes and create a new, durable Republican majority, which will consist of voters from all walks of life and of all races, religions, and social groups who support low taxes, low spending, limited Constitutional government, and a strong national defense, even though they will disagree on social issues.

If Republicans make peace with Hispanics, women, and youngsters, they can and should target the following states: Florida (29), OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), and possibly even PA (20). This, even without PA, will give them 275 EC votes in addition to the 206 votes won by Romney last year.

God, Guts, and Guns: Defeating The “Common Sense” Gun Control Lie

Well, here we go again with the “common sense” gun control laws.  Republican Senators are about to do their normal 2nd Amendment Eaglesurrender of our rights again.  A “bi-partisan” Gang of Howmany is sitting down behind closed doors to decide how to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, AGAIN!!!  It matters not that We the People pay them to govern according to our Constitution, they have decided they know better than “us peasants” what is in our best interest and what will be allowed.

Yesterday I wrote about the lie that is the” Sequester”.   The issue of gun control is being handled in the very same manner.  First, Diane Feinstein wasn’t happy with the results of the “testimony” before the “investigative panel” so she has decided to convene her own panel and call her own “witnesses” to “find a resolution to gun violence”.  Of course, that packed court resolution stops at We the People not having any way to protect ourselves from criminals, or a tyrannical government.

This pattern of indoctrination follows the same path as every other power grab by politicians in both political parties. The Democrats demand total disarmament.  The Republicans put on their white hats, jump on their whrepublican logoite Demomcrat Logohorses, and gallop to the rescue.  YAY REPUBLICANS!!!   Well, not quite so much.  Republicans offer a “compromise”.  Let’s just register every firearm and make ANY transfer of said firearm subject to “background checks” by the federal government.  While they propose this as a “common sense compromise” it is nothing of the sort, and both parties know it.

This is nothing more than a conspiracy to disarm We the People before they swoop in like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama, and every other despot the world has known, to turn our Republic into a dictatorship with FEMA indoctrination/work/death camps in our future.  Nothing about any proposed “compromise” will line up with our founding document, or the will of the American people.

The worst of it is that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) is part of the gang, along with Chuck Schumer.  The quote in the article in which Schumer says “both sides are talking in good faith” would be funny if it wasn’t so ludicrous and dangerous.  That man wouldn’t knowIl Duce Obama good faith if it bit him on the butt!!!  Add traitorous RINO’s John McCain and Susan Collins into the mix and we have the makings of total disaster for the Constitution and We the People.  Coburn will give cover to those who need cover to get re-elected, while We the People and the cause of liberty die.

This cannot be allowed to happen.  We the People MUST stand up now.  There is no fallback position for us.  There is nothing behind us but the ditch for our lifeless bodies to collapse into when they finish us off with a shot to the back of the head because we refused to acquiescjohn-mccaine to tyranny.  If we surrender to this tyrannical act we will have no chance of retaining the liberty that has been won with the blood of so many patriots throughout the last 237 years.

Our Constitution guarantees us the God given right to defend ourselves.  Registration has led to confiscation every time it has been done.  Do you think this time will be different? It won’t!!!!  The problem with this, like any other gun control legislation, is the people doing it.  Those desiring to take away our means of protection from evil are the very evil we oppose.  Evil can only prosper when there is no Constitutionopposition and unarmed people are not an opposing force to anything; they are subjects, slaves.  The politicians of both political parties are teaming up to take the only means of preserving liberty from us.  They make it sound so noble and so just, “for the children”, but it is nothing more than a lust for power that mirrors the power lust of all tyrants.

There are things we can still do.  GOD: First and foremost we need to get on our knees and beg God for forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and courage.  GUTS: Secondly, we must use the guidance, and courage God gives us to stand up and make ourselves heard and obeyed, TODAY!!!   It won’t be easy as politicians and their NWO globalist handlers have almost completed their tyrannical plan of enslavement.  They see themselves on the verge of their “utopia”.  We need to burn up their phone, fax, and e-mails letting them know where we stand and that we will stand behind the pledge “I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!”.

Many county sheriffs are standing strong and have formed an organization to unite with We the People to fight this federal abuse of power.  Please find your state and county, and sign up to help and stay informed.  Right now is the time to show courage rather than despair.  Let your “representatives” in Washington know where you stand.  Make sure they hear and understand you loud and clear.

GUNS: Our last resort is our guns, hence the hurry to remove them from our possession.  If we surrender our firearms, or allow registration that will lead to confiscation, there will be no chance to recover the nation given to us by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Nathan Hale, and the countless patriots who gave lifeEagle Changing Things I Cannotg Accept and limb to win the freedom we inherited from generations of patriotic and brave Americans.  A war is not the answer that I would choose if I have a choice but it is far better than that of a life of slavery, brutality, and tyranny.  That is the life we face if We the People bow to the masters and give up our firearms.

Like firearms, liberty once taken will not be given back.  It took 70 years for the peasants of Eastern Europe to throw off the shackles of Soviet oppression and that was only accomplished because Ronald Reagan built the United States of America into a nation that could and would stand with those behind the “Iron Curtain”.  When we are the ones behind the “Iron Curtain” of Soviet style government who will be there to help us win our liberty back?

God, Guts, aAfraid to speak against tyrannynd Guns; in that order, is the answer to the tyranny we face in today’s United States of America.  These are the answers to the dilemma we have in front of us and we must be up to the task.  God will be with us if we will turn to him and ask for his forgiveness and mercy. The Israelites defeated mighty nations against seemingly impossible odds when they turned to God. When We the People follow God’s way and take the steps that we must take He will be with us and we will regain our nation.  We need the courage of faith to stand up and must have the firearms necessary to defend our way of life.  If we fall short in any of these three categories freedom will be lost for generations.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 25, 2013

New Obama PAC Gives Donors Special Access. Surprised?

chuck toddWhen MSNBC calls you out you know it’s bad.

Reporting on a New York Times article Chuck Todd of The Daily Rundown, stated that donors who raise and or contribute more than $500,000 to a new group called ‘Organizing for Action’ will gain special access to the president. Organizing for Action wants to raise $50 Million and convert Obama’s election campaign to an advocacy network. These wealthy contributors will be able to meet quarterly with the president and his administration to promote their causes.

Is there anyone who is surprised that this president is utterly and completely beholden to wealthy special interest individuals and groups?

As Chuck Todd says, “This just looks bad.”

Conservatism and Music

canorus (CC)

canorus (CC)


We politicize everything, it seems. Lately, it’s been seeping into the world of entertainment, particularly music. And if there’s one quick and easy way to make me furious, it is by screwing around in that arena. Anyone that pays attention to me on Twitter knows by now that I am a Spotify addict, but what they might not know is that I haven’t come close to adding my personal music collection, let alone the new stuff that keeps crossing my path elsewhere. A running joke around my hometown is that the local fire department doesn’t want to end up putting out a fire at my house, because they might end up swimming in a pond of melted vinyl from all the records that are stowed away throughout the house.

But that’s what you get when you’re raised by parents that collected records and appeared as DJ’s on-air, and off-air in dance halls for the better part of two decades. Thanks to them, my personal record collection has a little bit of everything, from Bruce Springsteen, to The Who, to Jimmy Beaumont, to Tchaichovsky, to Louis Armstrong, to the Cure, to Agnostic Front, etc. (My digital collection is far more diverse.) And they didn’t stop with just encouraging me to listen to music. Not unlike Billy Joel, they forced me to learn to play the organ – that turned into learning piano. Later, I ended up picking up the flute, percussion instruments in general, string bass – jazz-style, and a little acoustic guitar. And that lead to more than a few situations where I ended up “jamming” with friends of my parents that were involved in the Pittsburgh music scene.

The most important thing I learned along the way came from a man named Joe Rock – the man who wrote “Since I Don’t Have You” that was performed by Jimmy Beaumont and the Skyliners. He was their manager for years, before he moved on to Nashville, and one thing everyone could agree on about him was that he knew music. And one day, he sat me down and asked me about a few songs from some bands that wanted him to represent them, mostly because my father had been bragging about how well he had taught me about “good music.” Rock wanted to see if that was true, so he played the records for me, and asked which bands were worth representing. I was terrified, but answered – and named the ones he was interested in dealing with anyway. He looked me straight in the eye, and told me, “Music is a personal thing. There’s music you really love, and then there’s good music that you know someone else might really love. The good music that others might really like is stuff you might want to own, but the stuff you love owns you.”

He was talking about the industry when he said that, and it took me years to realize what he really meant. It was a statement about having the ability to recognize talent, without being subjective. It was about listening to music without letting one’s personal opinion about it taint that determination. Rock hated each one of the bands he played for me that day, but he helped them make it anyway. He didn’t like their music, but he knew they had talent, and the potential to make it. And that is how I listen to music, to this day. I have hundreds of albums, and only a handful that I can tolerate listening to from beginning to end. There are probably at least a hundred albums that I own simply because I liked one song, and couldn’t find it as a single – even do that today, since iTunes restricts purchasing of some songs to “album only.”

About eight years ago, I was in a local bar listening to a young girl sing. She looked like she was terrified of the crowd. She had zero stage presence, and to call her “less than confident” would have been extremely kind. Her mother was there, biting her fingernails, and I felt sorry for them both, primarily because I couldn’t help thinking that I knew right then and there what Red Foley must have felt when he first heard Brenda Lee sing. I knew one way or another that scared girl was going to end up in the industry, and I was right. Her name was DeAnna Dawn Denning, and now she’s the lead singer of “Difference United”, a Christian rock band out of Nashville. And yes, this atheist that can’t stand that genre of music at all has added that band to Spotify, because I still love her voice.

And what does this have to do with conservatives? Well, there’s been a little war of sorts going on, involving some high profile conservatives and some struggling musicians. No, I won’t mention names because it’s not necessary, and honestly doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. The stupid posturing and bullshit that’s been going on is why conservatives are failing miserably at what Brandon Morse over at Misfit Politics aptly pointed out that we need to succeed at doing. We, as conservatives, are failing at connecting with the public, because we can’t speak on a cultural level. And it’s no wonder that we can’t, when we have people running around picking on stupid things.

I’ve listened to music from more artists than I care to think about, and own music from just about every genre out there, with the notable exception of rap. (Sorry, but I just can’t make myself tolerate rap in general, certainly not enough to shell out cash to own it.) Like I’ve said, I don’t love it all. But I can still spot talent and potential as well as I ever could. And there is quite a bit of it out there in the ranks of conservative artists. Big Dawg Music Mafia has plenty of artists to choose from, in several genres. Do I like them all? No. Do I think they all have potential? I’ll get back to you on that one, once I’ve taken the time to hit at least a few tracks from each of them. But, no matter what, there’s one thing about each and every one of them. They are out there trying to do what we need to be doing as conservatives – they are out there delivering our message in a way that has the potential to reach masses far beyond our ranks.

One thing we have to remember about these people is that there’s a very good reason why many musicians have agents – they need them, to deal with the industry, and the public. I don’t know any performers that are “normal” by any stretch of the imagination. Some of them do manage to put up a very good front, and appear that way. But, for whatever reason, creative people simply don’t fit molds – myself included. So, to run about crucifying them because they have trouble occasionally playing like social butterflies is beyond counter-productive – it’s downright stupid. It only shows that one has no decency or character – you know, the sort of person Sarah Palin would rail for using the “R-word.” Hate someone’s music? Fine. No one’s saying you have to love it simply because the artist is conservative. But don’t run them down to everyone else either! What you think sucks, might be great to someone else. That’s just arrogant, and insulting – to not only the musician, but also everyone else. Sure, I share my playlists with the masses on Twitter, but I don’t sit there and say that if someone doesn’t absolutely love everything I listen to regularly, they’re idiots. Even my playlists are full of songs that I rarely listen to, because I have to be in the “right mood” for certain stuff.

So, the bottom line is, if you’re out there telling people not to pay attention to a conservative artist, shame on you. I’m not saying you need to campaign for them, especially if you honestly don’t like their music. But, if you’re telling everyone that someone’s music isn’t worth listening to in the first place simply because you don’t like it (or worse, because you don’t get along with the musician), you’re part of the problem conservatives are having getting our message out to a wider audience. Just like your mother should have taught you, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all!”

The Sequester Lie

Eagle Fighting for FreedomThe big deal they are making over this sequester nonsense is giving me a headache.  I have made this point on several social network site discussions so I thought I would put it all together on one place.  Obama, his cabinet minions, and all of the members of Congress come out and say; Social Security checks will stop, meat plants will shut down, the FBI won’t be able to track terrorists, the Border Patrol won’t be able to secure the borders, airports will nearly shut down, pony rides in national parks will end, the sun won’t come up on March 2, and on and on and on.  And the RINO’s in Congress aren’t doing any better.

This is such tripe that it is actually embarrassing, and infuriating at the same time.  This is the best we have to govern our nation?  For anyone who doesn’t already know, let me lay out a few facts that you won’t hear on any “news media” outlet, including FOX News. The “media” covers the false flag talking points arguing but not the factsEagle- America Deserves Better. NOTHING IS BEING CUT!!!!  That is just the truth of it.  The “baseline budgeting” system our government runs under calls for about 1.8% – 2% increase every year.  This is how they do it, every year.  They build in an automatic increase in every department in government, and they do it for the very reason you are seeing played out again for the 300th time in the last 25 years.

Follow me here because this is the crux of the game being played by both political parties.  Spending goes UP, every year, in spite of the “horrendous cuts” they are “forced” to make.  The federal government is expected to spend approximately $3.7 trillion in 2013, yet they are wringing their hands and fretting over cutting $85 billion out of that total, which is 1.1% by the way.  According to figures released by the Heritage Foundation the federal government spent $3.6 trillion in FY 2012. If we take $85 billion off of the projected $3.7 trillion in 2013 we still find the government spending $3.615 trillion in 2013.  What the “the sky is falling” politicians are telling us is that spending $61.5 billion MORE,  1.66% more, in 2013 than they spent in 2012 is somehow a cut in spending, and will cause untold calamities if it happens.  How does that work?  I must have had a defective education because that doesn’t look they are spending less to me.

The “hawks” on defense want social items cut and the “hawks” on social items want defense cut.  So, they come to a republican logo“compromise”, eventually.  They posture and argue and pound their chests for their cause and in the end some things may get cosmetic ”cuts” (read less increase than planned) but spending overall still goes up.  They have “fought” on television, on radio, on the floors of the chambers and told us how ”terrible” life will be if we cut their pet project.  Both political parties get their sound bites in so low information voters on both sides of the aisle get just enough to think someone actually cares about what affects them and hence can count on that vote the next time it is needed.

The question I have, and one that never gets answered, is “if the country is going to almost totally shut down because we “cut” $85 billion, why are they spending $3.7 TRILLION and where does the rest of it go?”  This “spending cut” is going to cause firemen, policemen, and teachers to be laid off?  Since when does the federal government pay for these services?  Isn’t that why I pay county property taxes and state taxes?  Social Security checks won’t go out, pony rides in national parks will end (sad face), soldiers won’t haveDemomcrat Logo what they need to fight, and 700,000 federal employees in the Defense Department will be laid off? WHY??? Won’t the $61.5 billion MORE they plan to spend this year cover those social security checks, pony rides, soldier supplies, and employees just like they did last year?  Every politician and every bureaucrat comes out and cries about how their particular area is going to die a death of financial starvation, yet government is going to spend more money than last year.  Sorry, I guess I am just too stupid to understand their logic; at least they think so.

And to spending cuts, I have yet to hear Obama speak about cutting back on his vacations to Hawaii and Spain, golf with Tiger Woods, a special Leer jet for his dog to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or a junket on Air Force One to Nevada or wherever  to announce another of his “green energy” or “jobs” scams that he could have announced from Washington.  I haven’t heard about ‘Ole Nan’ giving up her first class jet for a broom.

Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 that he was authorized as a Senator but didn’t spend.  Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been doing this for years.  A side question is “how much money do they get for ‘office expenses’?”  Apparently too much!!

I also haven’t heard anything about cutting congressional or White House staff, not to mention the pay raises they seem to get quite often.  We hear the horror stories about how We the People will suffer due to “cutbacks” but never how Congress or Il Duce Obamathe Executive Branch plan to do with less.  It is always We the People who must do with less while they spend more on themselves, with never a true cut in government spending. Rush recently mentioned on his radio show that 7 of the 10 richest counties surround or are very near Washington, D.C. (De Cesspool). No recession in or near Washington!!!

In the real world they are scamming liberal and conservative voters alike.  The people running OUR government take We the People for being so stupid we can’t figure this out.  The sad fact of the matter is that about 51%, at least, buy into this lie. How do people like Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Diane Feinstein, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charles Rangel, Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, etc. continue to get elected?

Much of the problem comes from the Republican Party yet these same people who turn their backs on conservatives get elected time and again. WHY????  I don’t know of a single major promise Republicans have made in 20 years that they have actually followed through on, yet they continue to receive the same support from the same people.

The problem is that we have no other options. It is either ultra-liberal Democrats or very-liberal Republicans.  We vote time and again for the lesser of two evils because that is all the options we have.  That has to change if we are going to salvage the Republic established in 1791 and defended for all these years by the blood of American patriots.  The biggest problem facing America is career politicians and bureaucrats who could care less what We the People think or what the Constitution says.  A 3rd party encompassing the 67% of We the People who make up the TEA Party could cure these problems.  Where are the leaders to step up and lead????

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 24, 2013

Rebuttal of the “we can cut defense spending deeply at no cost to security” notion

In a recent 3-minute video, Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute falsely claimed that the US could “spending considerably less on defense at no cost to security”. That was just one of the many blatant lies made in the video; it, like others, was refuted in a recent article, but this lie was particularly blatant and egregious, and therefore, I have decided to write a more detailed rebuttal.

The claim that the US can “spend considerably less on defense at no cost to security” is a blatant lie.

Firstly, any large-scale defense spending cuts would have to “come out of somewhere”, i.e. something specific would have to be cut deeply to make large cuts to the defense budget topline.

There isn’t nearly as much waste in the defense budget as is often alleged, and not nearly enough to allow for deep cuts, so any steep topline cuts would have to result in deep cuts in one or more of the following:

  • The number of military personnel and the care they receive;
  • The military’s force structure (i.e. its size and the number and size of its units);
  • Training and the maintenance of existing equipment and bases;
  • The execution of missions (ranging from air patrols over the US to submarine patrols to fighting pirates);
  • The development and acquisition of new equipment – from ships to aircraft, to ground vehicles, to munitions.

Deep cuts in any of these areas would severely weaken the US military. This is because:

  • With little or no new equipment, the US will not be able to defeat its enemies, who are fielding very modern, very good weapons in rapidly growing quantities, and the US military’s current, aging, worn-out equipment will eventually wear out and age out (i.e. reach the end of its service life) – sooner rather than later.
  • Poorly trained people wouldn’t be able to defeat anyone – not even a trivial enemy. Troops need much time to gain and hone their skills (whether in seamanship, piloting aircraft, or marksmanship); if training funding is dramatically cut, they will lose those skills, which will take a lot of time and money to regain.
  • Significantly cutting funding for missions means that many, if not most, missions would not be executed.
  • Significantly cutting funding for maintenance means, of course, that much, if not most of the military’s current equipment and bases would not be properly maintained. There wouldn’t be enough spare funds and fuel for the equipment, nor enough money for the maintenance and renovation of military installations – thus turning them into slums, as happened during the 1990s.
  • Significantly cutting the force structure would make the US military – which has already been dramatically cut across the board since the end of the Cold War – unable to defend the US, not to mention its allies, because there wouldn’t be enough people, ships, planes, and ground platforms to defend even the US itself (a huge country with long land borders, 3 long coasts, and a huge population), let alone its interests around the world or its allies. It could also mean cutting the already barely-adequate US nuclear deterrent, which could invite a nuclear first strike on the US by Russia or China.

No, the US could not “considerably reduce defense spending at no cost to security”. Not even close.

Deep cuts in defense spending on the scale of sequestration would have the consequences of sequestration. And what would those consequences be? The Joint Chiefs of Staff explained this precisely during a recent HASC hearing.

Among these would be:

  • Ceasing of deployment of at least one carrier and of any amphibious assault ships to the Persian Gulf, and of any warships to the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and the Horn of Africa;
  • Ceasing of deployment of any ships to the Carribean and of the drug interdiction mission there;
  • Ceasing of the Marines’ many missions around the world, including deployments to the Philippines, Japan, Pakistan, and many countries elsewhere around the world  (including the Persian Gulf, “to do the nation’s bidding there” as the USMC Commandant said) and deep cuts in the force structure, training equipment maintenance, and modernization of the Marine Corps; the Marine Corps would have to ground at least 4 of its 9 F/A-18 Hornet squadrons;
  • Deep cuts in the force structure (to the tune of 200,000 soldiers), training, and modernization programs of the Army (78% of Army brigades would not receive the training they need);
  • Delaying hundreds of base repair and renovation projects around the country (note: in the US, not just abroad)
  • Deep cuts in the USAF’s flight training programs – both basic and advanced – leading to woefully undertrained pilots; possibly also cuts to the long range strike bomber program due to topline cuts;
  • Cuts to the number of hours during which missile attack warning radars would be operational; and
  • Deep cuts in everything the National Guard does – from training, to equipment, to missions.

You can (and should) listen to the Joint Chiefs here.

And as the Joint Chiefs have made clear, the problem with sequestration is BOTH its salami-slicing method AND its magnitude; Gen. Dempsey, their chairman, has even said that “I can’t give you another dollar” if the nation continues to ask the military to do what it’s doing today.

Some will likely say, “Then let’s start jettisoning missions and commitments!”. But that would also be a foolish mistake which would cost the US dearly in terms of security.

Those who advocate deep defense cuts need to be forced to say which exact missions do they want the military to cease performing, and forced to admit that foregoing many of these missions would cost America dearly in terms of security.

Significant cuts in defense spending cannot be made solely by terminating the defense commitment to Europe (through NATO) and to South Korea (and dumping those allies in the face of rapidly arming and increasingly aggressive Russia and North Korea, as both of them grow and modernize their nuclear and ICBM arsenals, would be a huge blunder, BTW).

Jettisoning those two commitments will not come even close to paying for the deep defense cuts that some people demand.

Such cuts would mean going far deeper than that and jettisoning entire missions crucial to America’s own security: air superiority, sea control, ground superiority, early warning, ISR, cyberwarfare, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, etc.

Scrapping any of these crucial missions – all of which are crucial for and directly related to the security of the US homeland (to say nothing of America’s interests or its allies) – would severely imperil US security, because you can’t be secure if you don’t control the air, sea, ground, space, and cyberspace, don’t receive early warning of incoming attack, or cannot provide nuclear deterrence and missile defense to your own country (let alone to allies, who will have to develop their own nuclear weapons if the US doesn’t continue to provide a large nuclear umbrella; this would make the nuclear proliferation problem so much worse).

Then there is the threat environment. Despite the CATO Institute’s and other anti-defense organizations’ blatant lies that the threat to US security has dramatically declined since the end of the Cold War (it was true during the 1990s, but it is no longer true today, due to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran), the world is currently more dangerous than at any time during the Cold War (except maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis) – as the Joint Chiefs have testified. During the Cold War, the US had to deal only with the Soviet Union and its clients; today, the US has to deter China, a resurgent Russia buoyed by huge oil revenues, North Korea (which now has nuclear weapons and ICBMs capable of reaching the US), and Iran, which is speeding towards nuclear weapons and has an assymetric arsenal of weapons capable of crippling the US military in the Gulf through A2/AD weapons and tactics.

Detailed analysis of Russia’s and China’s capabilities is available here and here.

Some, including CATO, claim that “the US has significantly cut its defense spending after every major war; it’s normal”. But it was a grave mistake, and the US deeply regretted it (later on) everytime it did that.

In the 20th century, five times US policymakers and citizens wrongly concluded after major wars that there was no longer any significant threat, that mankind had changed for the better, and that the US military could be cut deeply; and they proceeded to cut it severely.

Everytime they did that, they regretted it later on, because the military was gutted and unready for other, including future, threats; America was drawn (usually unwillingly) into a new major war; and the military had to be painstakingly rebuilt at a much higher fiscal cost than what it would’ve cost to maintain high readiness permanently.

So defense cuts don’t even save any money in the long term – they only lead to war (provoked through America’s weakness) and to much higher defense rebuilding costs (as well as human casualties) later on. Thus, they’re not only suicidal, but also immoral, because people needlessly die as a result of deep defense cuts.

No, America cannot afford to “spend considerably less on defense at no cost to security”. “Considerable” defense cuts lead to a significantly weaker military – for the reasons I stated above.

Media,Dem and Obama Scare Tactics

Here we go again, just like under Clinton when budget cuts were on the table. The media then sounded off like the end of the world was coming. At that time they said Jellystone National Park would be closed and kids wouldn’t be able to take the sleigh rides through there. Now today the Obama mania media with their heads so far up his rear end they can’t see daylight are now spreading lies and distortions scaring the pants off the general population and blaming republicans naturally when it was Obama’s idea in the first place. Even Bob Woodward has admitted in his latest book and more recently on TV that the budget cuts came from the whitehouse.

During the fiscal cliff negotiations last year Obama suggested much needed cuts to ward off the cliff. He said he would veto any legislation that would end any of these cuts. Now he hasn’t passed a budget in four years and we are spending a trillion more than we take in each year. After careful negotiations Congress came up with cutting back 85 billion dollars from three trillion. That amounts to only 2% and every dept. is getting more than last year only not as much as requested. Noone is cutting back to zero. As Greg Gutfeld said on The Five on Fox the other day,”It’s like watching two fat people argue over whether they should include olives in their salad or not.” But to hear the Obama mania media say it it’s like the book of revelations is here and the seals have been broken.They say first responders will be cut and Obama appeared with a bunch of them behind him, teachers will be cut, schools and companies will shut down, hospitals will close, mass hysteria and on and on when none of that is true. Naturally because of all these lies spread in the general media when they take polls people respond it’s the republicans fault which is what the biased main stream media wants.

Prepare for the end of food safety as we have known it. For a breakdown in public order. For little children languishing in ignorance. If only Edward Gibbon were here to chronicle the devastation. On March 1, the fabric of our civilization begins to unwind.

That’s when the economy begins to stall and we turn our back on our values, all because the federal government will have to begin to cut a few tens of billions of dollars from the largest budget the world has ever known.

This is the lurid fairy tale spun by President Barack Obama. In the fight over the sequester, he is resorting to the tried-and-true (and tiresome) strategy of every official confronted with unwelcome budget cuts, from the commander in chief to a lowly bureaucrat toiling at some school district: maximize the scaremongering and pain.

In Hans Christian Andersen terms, Obama is the princess and the sequester is the pea. Over the next 10 years, the sequester amounts to a $1.16 trillion cut, or roughly 3 cents on every federal dollar. If we can’t squeeze a couple of pennies out of every dollar, we might as well begin our great national bankruptcy proceedings right now.

This year we are supposed to cut $85 billion from a $3.5 trillion budget. And it won’t even be that much. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government won’t be able to cut the full $85 billion. It will manage to cut only about half that in 2013.

MEANWHILE while all this is happening, China is hacking into our computers gaining massive amounts of information about us and how we operate including law firms, contractors, government buildings,etc and North Korea is firing missiles over the Philliipines. So where is Obama and the mainstream media on all this??? He’s out playing golf with Tiger Woods and they are upset because they couldn’t get a picture of Obama playing golf with Tiger Woods. What a country!!! No wonder why Rush Limbaugh is ashamed of his country. Every patriotic freedom loving American should be too.

 

WOODWARD: Obama fibs on budget cuts…

Firefighters facing possible discipline after appearing with Obama…

» The Great Sequester Panic » Fresh Ink — GOPUSA

Obama Pushes “Chaos” Narrative

Philippines condemns North Korea for missile launch – …

45 Gun and Ammo Suppliers Refuse Sales to 2nd Amendment unfriendly state

Well despite all the doom and gloom that keeps our attention these days I read something that can shed some optimism. There are 44 gun suppliers that are refusing to ship firearms or ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are infringing on 2nd amendment rights.

Barrett Firearms followed by the list of others who are doing the same. Please show your support by thanking them, and sending letters to other gun suppliers, your local, state, and federal reps, as well as local police and sheriff departments.  Remember people: UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

You can also cut and paste the last article I wrote here  at Conservative Daily News  to send as email attachments or via snail mail. Please do not sit by idly – that is NOT the American way.


This is a great beginning –

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/

College charges returning soldier higher, out-of-state tuition rate

Brian Stone took four years off from college to do the most selfless thing a career-minded young man could do: he joined the military.
Following his years in the U.S. Navy, Stone naturally re-enrolled in the University of Michigan. Upon receiving a large, unexpected statement from college creditors, he realized the school felt he no longer met the requirements for in-state tuition.
Stone said he “got a letter in the mail saying that due to my overseas service that I may be considered an out-of-state resident,” adding he “had a $6,000 bill that was left for me.”
In the wake of such an anti-military policy coming to light, Stone said a large portion of the veterans enrolled in the university have decided to study elsewhere.
The sophomore paid the higher tuition for four months before university officials decided to reinstate his prior rate. Through the school’s Student Veterans Association, of which he is a member, Stone is asking the university to change its policy when it comes to veterans.
Additionally, he has been circulating a petition that, in part, includes the account of a Marine Corps veteran in a similar situation and another student told to divorce her out-of-state husband to qualify for lower tuition.
Time will tell if the university will think better of its shortsighted policy, but in the meantime Stone isn’t holding back in his criticism.
The rule is “outrageous,” his petitions claims. “Do they think Iraq and Afghanistan are military VACATION HOMES?” [Emphais in original.]
It’s unfortunate a veteran, who should receive every courtesy from his school in light of his voluntary sacrifice, is reduced to starting a petition to help administrators see what should have been apparent in the first place.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.