Category Archives: A Broken System

The Republican Party: When the Body Guard joins the Bully!!!!!

Rush LimbaughI was listening to Rush Limbaugh (Wednesday Dec. 17, 2013) and he had a very interesting call from a woman relating to a survey Limbaugh discussed about men not arguing with or disagreeing with their wife.  The survey found that when men never challenged the wife’s decisions the marriage got worse instead of getting better as is the common belief.  The caller made the point that men who never stand up for their opinions and beliefs don’t get respect from women.

I am not trying to quote her but rather describe the impression conveyed to me as a listener.  She made a point that I have made many times.  I don’t know who she was or where she was from but she sounded like a plain everyday American citizen.  The interesting thing is that she applied this survey to politics in a way that is practical and makes sense, and goes beyond gender in the analogy.  She said that women respect Democrats, even when they don’t agree with them or like them, because they stand up for what they believe in, right or wrong.

I have written many times about my attitude towards Democrats and Republicans.  I have a respect for Dingy Harry Reid that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John McCain, or any other “moderate” Republican, will NEVER see come their way.  I despise everything Reid stands for, and would like to see him go to prison for the rest of his life for the Demomcrat Logocorruption and the violations of the rights of We the People, and the Constitution.  He has continually ignored the very Constitution he swore an oath to protect and defend.  But Reid is fighting for the tyranny he believes in, and regardless of whether I like his beliefs or not, I respect him for being willing to fight.

Okay, so now you know I don’t care much for Harry Reid.  The caller, like me, has no respect for the Republican Party because they are seen as wimps, and can never be depended on to stand up for us against bullies.  The constant “bi-partisanship” is not politically attractive to the average woman, or man, in America.  No woman wants to be bullied by a man, but no woman wants a man who will let others bully her either, or for that matter let her bully him.  Same goes for citizens and politicians.

The TEA Party, as defiled as it is, has a 67% following among American citizens.  We the People, the 67% TEA Party We the People, swept Republicans to record setting election results in 2010.  This woman caller seemed to be under the TEA Party banner philosophically.   The “body guards” (Republican Party) we hired in 2010, the ones who told us they would protect us cower in the corner while the Democrat bullies pound us into submission.  What good are they?  And now they are joining in with the bullies to pummel the Constitution and We the People.

Sarah Palin identifies with both men and women because she is rightly seen as one of us.  She is a fighter, a combatant in the war being waged for liberty.  When I see a “Joan of Arc” being attacked by those I send to defend her I am not Sarah Palininclined to ever trust them again.  I voted for Republicans in 2008, 2010, and 2012.  Now I hear them call me the enemy and a roadblock to “progress”!!!!!   The body guard has decided to join in with the bully and hope they get a small piece of the spoils.  And they can be sure they won’t be attacked by the bullies if they cower and passively go along with the bullying.

There are those men and women who stand up for us in the realm of politics.  Men and women in Congress like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert, Jim Bridenstine, Michelle Bachman, Marsha Blackburn, etc. ARE standing up for the Constitution and freedom of choice of citizens.  Not only are these “dedicated body guards”  seriously outnumbered by Democrat bullies, they now find themselves being stabbed in the back by those other “body guards” who promised to stand with them against the bullies.  The average American citizen wants security but not the kind of “security” we are getting out of those we send to “administer” our government functions.  We the People don’t want to be protected from ourselves.  We want to be protected from the bullies running a tyrannical government.

I don’t pay a bodyguard to join the bully and help him terrorize me.  We the People “hired” the Republican Party in 2010 to protect us from the bullies in the Democrat Party.  What do we see in 2013?? The Republican Party establishment, led by Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Reince Preibus, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John Cornyn, John McCain, Lindseyrepublican logo Graham, Peter King, etc. ad nauseum; attack those who are doing what we pay them to do.  These “RINO” Republicans have joined in on the bullying we “hired” them to stop.

Ted Cruz and those who stand with him are doing the job we paid them to do.  This caller to Limbaugh made the point that those standing against the Democrat bullies are the ones she admires and respects.  I was able to identify with her about three sentences into her call.  She first talked about the personal relationship a woman wants with a man and then made a political comparison.  I am not a woman but I understand basic human nature.  I don’t want “friends” who will turn on me when I need them and I don’t want political “representatives” who will turn on me because that is the easiest and most profitable path for them.

People who give me the “if you don’t blindly vote for Republicans you are voting for Democrats” line are wasting their Don't Tread On Metime.  I will vote only for those who will be the bodyguard I pay them to be and no one else, regardless of party.  The days of me voting for Republicans because they aren’t Democrats are over.  I really don’t see any benefit to vote for them.  When they aren’t cowering in fear they are joining in on the bullying, and that isn’t something I am going to vote to continue!!!!!

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

January 5, 2014

 

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

When will GLAAD Criticize Islam like They Do Phil Robertson?

Why is it that the Democrat Party, Republican Party, the media, homosexual groups like GLAAD, pro-abortion groups, and all other liberals who spout vile things about the TEA Party and Christians never have one word of criticism about Islam?????   Phil RobertsonA Christian can’t decline to bake a cake without national outrage but homosexuals being hanged for “aberrant sexual behavior” in Moslem nations bring no response.   If I called a homosexual any “defamatory name or term” such as “teabagger” I would immediately be inundated with the harshest of criticism but Moslems glue a man’s private parts closed and fill him with food and water until he is about to explode then hangs this same person and not a word is heard from the left wing homosexual crowd.

Phil Robertson expresses his views that homosexuality is a sin, and according to the Holy Bible they won’t go to heaven, but that he bears them no malice if that is how they wish to live their lives.  He is immediately pounced on by the twerps at GLAAD and every other Christian hating group under the sun.  Robertson is “suspended indefinitely” for his transgression.  I hear Moslems regularly calling for the murder of homosexuals, and actually see pictures of homosexuals who have been hanged or beheaded for homosexual activities.  I’m sorry GLAAD; I don’t recall your outrage at the “intolerance” of Moslems!!  I don’t recall a national outrage at this or the barbaric murder of Christians by Moslems in foreign nations.  Cat got your tongue?????  Where is the homosexual lobby outrage over Alec Baldwin and his continued verbal abuse of “faggot” reporters?????  Continuous homosexual slurs from Baldwin and not a peep out of those so outraged by Robertson’s innocuous comment.

Moslems hate America for its acceptance of pornography yet I never hear any liberals call them closed minded bigots.  Christians and Moslems both disapprove of the immodest way American women often dress yet it is the Christians who are taken to task and called names by liberals.  Why don’t these same liberals call Moslems closed minded prudish bigots for demanding women wear a burkha?????  Nudity and sex in movies and on television are just as unacceptable to Moslems as Christians, yet Moslems are not called “intolerant”.  I guess the difference is that Christians allow othershanging homosexuals4 to live their lives as they see fit. Moslems kill those same people.  Who is it that is intolerant again????? Maybe GLAAD should change their organization name to COWARDS!!!!!

And what about the “war on women”, allegedly being waged by conservatives??  Moslems either hang or stone a woman to death for adultery or the heinous crime of being raped.  Often it is a case of gang rape and when they are done, these savages murder the woman for “allowing herself to be defiled”.  And what about the genital mutilation of girls as young as six years old, or old men “marrying” an 8 year old and sexually abusing her to the point of her death?  When is the National Organization for Women going to denounce these practices????? Oh, sorry, they are busy denigrating Sarah Palin who is also being denigrated by the Democrat Party, and of course, the politically correct Republican establishment crowd.

Now we have NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) claiming that pedophilia is just as much a valid sexual persuasion as homosexuality.  Christians who call this activity child sexual abuse are smeared once again as closed minded bigots determined to deny the civil rights of others.  Of course, on this one the Moslems are right there with NAMBLA.  Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death unless the self-righteous Moslems are the ones defiling the young boys in the name of “allah”, at which time homosexual activity is quite acceptable.

So, GLAAD, whIran hangs homosexuals3y do you call a national boycott and file lawsuits over a man declining to bake a cake or take a picture based on his personal religious beliefs yet say nothing about people actually murdering homosexuals?  Why do you demand Phil Robertson be destroyed for expressing his opinion yet say nothing when Ahab the Arab hangs your kind for homosexual activity?  Take your dancing debauchery of “gay rights” parades to say, Tehran or Mecca.  See if they call you names or hang you!!!!!  Selective tolerance once again?????  Cowardice maybe?????  As far as I see you are tolerated a great deal by all of us “bigots”.  TEA Party Christians aren’t your enemies, Moslems are your enemies.  You are fighting the wrong people.

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

December 26, 2013

It’s Not a War on Christmas

As the season of “peace on Earth, goodwill toward men” goes forward, so too do the disingenuous protests of the secular activist Progressives; protests against anything that might be construed, interpreted and/or seen as the religiously based, existing in the public square, be it the government square or the private-sector square. Many Americans find the objections of these secular Progressive activists to be not only in bad taste, but an assault on reasonable sensibilities and traditions. But to the secular Progressives, this annual “offensive” is a necessity; a “nudge,” if you will. And it has a lot more to do with an overall ideological goal than it does with removing Christ from Christmas.

It is true that, whether you believe Christmas is centered on a celebration of the birth of the Christ Child or not, Christmas is a federally recognized national holiday. Christmas was designated a federal holiday by the United States Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870, however this only applied to federal employees in Washington DC, the designation expanding, applying to all federal employees in 1968. To this legal end, Christmas is codified. But even before the holiday’s official recognition by the United States government, Christmas was a culturally recognized holiday around the world:

“Christmas is an annual commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ and a widely observed cultural holiday, celebrated generally on December 25 by billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it closes the Advent season and initiates the twelve days of Christmastide, which ends after the twelfth night. Christmas is a civil holiday in many of the world’s nations, is celebrated by an increasing number of non-Christians, and is an integral part (central event) of the Christmas and holiday season.”

Given that the Founders and Framers of the United States of America rooted the entirety of our Founding Documents in the Natural Laws found in the Judeo-Christian philosophy, the recognition of a day designated to celebrate the Alpha and the Omega of this philosophy is not only fitting, but serves to offer up an opportunity to embrace a retrospect of what the root philosophy of all Americans is and should be.

To be sure, the United States is, in fact, a nation of immigrants; a diverse collection of cultures that over time have infused our unique American culture with rich and honored traditions. But, in each of these cultures, as part of each of these traditions, has always been, at their core, a celebration of thanks to the Deity, to God, to a Higher Power over the flawed egos of man. Perhaps that is what makes the traditional season of Christmas one that transcends cultures and languages; lines on a map; and political ideologies…all but for Progressivism’s most zealous.

At the core of turn-of-the-century Progressivism lays the notion that man can be perfected, nay, must be perfected if, in fact, there was to be a “Second Coming.” In an excerpt from The Social Gospel at DiscoverTheNetworks.org, authors, Daniel Flynn and Jonah Goldberg are credited with exposing:

“Flourishing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Social Gospel Movement was a Protestant intellectual phenomenon headed by clergymen who sought to reconcile Christianity with a Progressive social agenda; who saw the state as the instrument by which God could intervene in human affairs and promote the collectivism supposedly advocated by Jesus. This collectivism, said exponents of the Social Gospel, held the keys to the eradication of all manner of societal ills: inequality, alcoholism, crime, racism, poverty, ignorance, exploitation, and violence.

“Whereas Conservative theologians saw redemption and reconciliation strictly as matters between each individual and God, Progressives in the Social Gospel Movement held that redemption could only be achieved collectively, by means of unified, social and political activism. They maintained, moreover, that the Second Coming of Christ could not occur until humankind had eliminated all social evils by means of such activism. One notable mouthpiece of the Social Gospel was the Baptist minister and theologian Walter Rauschenbush, who said: ‘Individualism means tyranny.’”

Today, with the injection of hyper-secularism into Progressivism, an almost atheistic tenet has taken hold of the modern Progressive Movement. 21st Century Progressives (or modern day Progressives) are more inclined to believe that man – not a Higher Power, a Deity; not God – is the issuer of rights; that the rights we enjoy not only as Americans, but as “citizens of the world,” are derived from governments and not from Natural Law; from elitist oligarchs and bureaucratic experts and not by Intelligent Design.

So it is that modern Progressives need to expunge the idea of a higher power from the American (and, in fact the world) lexicon. If the idea of God, or Deity or Higher Power is to exist, then the authorities of man to establish right from wrong, good from bad, normal from abnormal, tolerance from intolerance, can always – always – be questioned. If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual “food chain.” The only way to do this is to eliminate the idea of the Higher Power; the Deity; God.

When one understands the need for secular Progressives to directly attack the idea of God; of Christ as the Son of God, it makes sense to take the fight to the opposition on their home turf, in this instance, Christians and Christmas (although Easter is actually the holiest day in the Catholic/Christian faith).

By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their religious beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive” for their wont that Christmas include the idea of the Christ Child, Christianity and Judeo-Christian ethos, i.e. The Nativity in the public square; Christmas Carols that feature Christian lyrics; and even merchants saying the salutation “Merry Christmas” for its root word of “Christ,” Progressives aim to “shame” the truly tolerant and inclusive (any true understanding of Christianity reveals that Christians, and not Progressives, are the truly tolerant and inclusive). By shaming or making the majority of Americans “uncomfortable” for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.

To wit, this is not a “war on Christmas,” as Bill O’Reilly would say. This is a war on the very notion of the existence of God.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

“Rendition”, Fact or Fiction? Totalitarian Government is Here

RenditionI watched the movie “Rendition” a few nights ago and began thinking about the situation in our nation today.  The movie is about an Egyptian man who has lived in the United States for 20 years, moving here when he was 14. He is a college educated chemical engineer, married, with a young son and a pregnant wife.  He has some relatives who have the same last name as a known terrorist so he is kidnapped by the CIA upon his return to the United States from South Africa.  When questioned by the CIA counter terrorism branch he denies any knowledge of terrorists, past terrorist attacks, or plans for future attacks.  As a result of his denial he is put on a plane and taken to a country in the Middle East (which I surmised to be Egypt) and is given to the nation’s secret police for questioning.  He is subjected to beatings, water boarding, and electric shock torture.  He finally gives up names of “co-conspirators” and is thrown back into a very small cell.

An American intelligence analyst who survived a terrorist bombing that killed his companion replaces the dead man as part of the interrogation team.  After days of torture the prisoner gives a list of names to his interrogators.  The American runs the names of the people given up by the prisoner through various intelligence agencies, including Interpol.  What he finds is that the names given are the members of the Egyptian National Soccer Team in 1990, the year the prisoner left Egypt for America.  In the meantime, the wife of the prisoner has contacted an old friend who is the chief of staff for a prominent Senator.  The friend is stonewalled and when he is faced with losing his job if he pursues the matter further he tells the wife that he can do nothing to help.   The analyst goes to the Minister of the Interior in this foreign country, shows the information he has found, and gets the man to sign an order for the release of the prisoner.  The American then arranges clandestine travel for the man to get home.

After September 11, 2001 I bought into many of the steps taken to find terrorists and stop them in their tracks.  I agreed with the Patriot Act at the time, when I knew only talking points about it.  Much has changDept Homeland Security Logoed in light of thirteen years of wars that have not really made our nation any safer from outside attack, but have certainly made the nation much more of a police state.  Today the story line of this movie is more than just a story about Moslem terrorism; it is much closer to home.

When I first heard Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and others call me a homophobic, Il Duce Obamaislamophobic, hate mongering, bomb throwing Nazi TEA Party “potential domestic terrorist” I took offense.  And frankly, they drove me deeper into the Republican ranks of voters.  But in the years since the 2010 elections, and especially in the last few months, I have begun to hear Republicans speak the same rhetoric as life-long Marxist Democrats.  John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, and others begin to call people like me the same names and refer to patriotic citizens in the same vein as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Schumer crowd.

This is alarming to me.  When I see the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, without trial, and without probable cause I begin to wonder.  I hear  those in both political parties call me and other patriots  “potential domestic terrorists” for having the temerity to staBi-partisanship logond up and demand our government follow the Constitution.  I wonder when they will subject me to the same treatment as this innocent man in the movie.  All that is necessary for me to be arrested and held indefinitely is for someone, anyone, to denounce me as a terrorist for my political beliefs and my rights under the Constitution are gone, just like that!!!! Call me crazy but this sounds like a movie right out of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, East Germany, North Korea, and countless Moslem countries.  Of course, politicians in both parties who are calling for these NDAA provisions say they will never abuse the Constitution and subject We the People to these provisions.   If that is the case then why even have those provisions in the bill?????

Our nation has lasted long past any form of government since the Roman Empire because the Constitution provides for “unalienable rights” given by God and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.  Those currently in charge of our government have already trampled on those rights.  The 1st Amendment, written to protect religious organizations FROM government, is constantly under attack where Christianity is concerned.  Atheists, agnostics, and Moslems aren’t attacked by those who are so concerned about the “separation of church and state”.  Only Christians are subjected to the restrictive decisions by activist judges.  The Secret Service now has the option of declaring the 1st Amendment  provision of “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” null and void if they decide they want to.  No justification is needed other than the President or other high level official will be present.  So they can prevent any dissent from being voiced by a gathering of protestors when it suits them.  I know what that sounds like to me, and it isn’t a free Republic!!!!!

Our civil rights under the 2nd Amendment are constantly under attack by local, state, and federal governments, despite the amendment very clearly stating that  ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  New Feinstein Veterans mentally illYork City and the State of California are using registration lists to confiscate the firearms of people who have done nothing to violate the law, and other states are not far behind.  This video is from Canada but it is coming here:

Some Senators are saying all veterans are mentally unstable and therefore should not be allowed to own firearms.  Colorado state legislators are being recalled by state voters for passing gun control laws that stand against the Constitution and the will of We the People because citizens are fed up and taking action.  Obamacare has provisions for the search of citizen homes without probable cause and without a warrant, violating the 4th Amendment.  The 9th and 10th Amendments are being rendered irrelevant by federal bribery and/or bullying of state governments who are so dependent on federal tax dollars that they refuse to stand on those provisions of the Constitution.  Add the fact that the political machines own most politicians at the state level, and many at city and county level also where do We the People go for redress of our grievances?

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, before he left office, outlawed what was it; salt, pepper, any soft drink over 16 ounces, among a host of unconstitutional actions.  The Federal Food and Drug Administration is about to outlaw trans-fats, and the EPA has now outlawed the use of wood burning stoves, just to name a few instances of government bureaucratic over-reach.  Wood burning stoves?????  I can’t eat what I want to eat now?????

Does anyone really believe these same people won’t subject We the People to the FEMA camps when push comes to shove and citizens have reached their limit of toleration of tyranny?  What have federal agencies, unconstitutional onesBarbed Wire at that, done to ensure that We the People will not be subjugated and led to the slaughter as were the Jews and others in Nazi Germany?????  It looks to me like they are doing exactly the opposite.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican battle here.  This is, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, ruling political elite vs. We the People, the working class American; and finally the Constitutional Republic vs. dictatorship.  From a practical aspect this is what we are facing, like it or not.  The Republican Party as currently controlled is as much a danger to liberty as the Democrat Party. They have teamed up to enslave We the People, and they are doing just that!!!!!

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

December 20, 2013

“Demoprisy”

DEMOPRISY:  the hypocrisy of the Democrat ideology’s reality. It’s real and it happens ALL the time!

Case-in-point:  Bill De Blasio, who was elected recently as New York’s new mayor with 73 percent of the vote has stated his first order of business is to shut down all the non-Planned Parenthood crisis pregnancy centers. Why? Because they don’t perform abortions. You see a crisis pregnancy center gives its patients all the information needed to make a real decision before ending the life of a baby in the womb. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t make millions of dollars like Planned Parenthood does so they can’t buy as many politicians.

The hypocrisy comes in when Democrats use terms like “equality.” Equality means “the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Let’s focus on equal opportunities, because that’s what everyone tells me Republicans are not into.

This new Democratic Mayor wants to give free space to Planned Parenthood on city-owned property and he wants to shut down crisis pregnancy centers. Does this sound like “equal opportunity”?

What are you afraid of Mr. De Blasio? Give women all the information. Allow them to understand what that “blob of cells” they are carrying really is. Let them see the sonogram pictures of the “blob of cells.” Let them read all the reports, the ones from the left that say the baby feels no pain, as well as the reports from doctors on the right that show that the babies feel the pain at as soon as 8 weeks.

He calls the pro-life pregnancy centers a “sham” because they don’t provide enough abortions to keep up with demand. Does he mean the demand of those irresponsible couples who refuse to take the proper precautions if they really don’t want to do what nature and God intended?

And, to top it off, he expects the government to pay for it all. Isn’t that nice? Just so New Yorkers don’t have to be careful at all. Free sex, free drugs, and free abortion.

Remember, we were promised that ObamaCare wouldn’t pay for abortions but states can add in that provision and that’s what he is going to do. I predict New York City will be a cesspool within 4 years, back to the days before Rudy Giuliani, mark my words.

This Socialist law breaker who just became mayor has no shame and no integrity. He is a self-proclaimed, card-carrying Democrat-Socialist. He traveled to the Soviet Union as a student and honeymooned with his wife, in violation of the travel ban, in Cuba. It was against the law!

According to a recent article in LifeSiteNews, the mayor-elect spent many of his early adult years traveling “to Nicaragua, where he supplied the Communist Sandinistas – whom he called “really inspirational” – and their allies with funds and food while working with the Quixote Center, a Maryland-based leftist Catholic group that once referred to American opposition to Communist leadership in Nicaragua as “spreading terrorism.”” Just amazing!

Do you really think this person is who our founding fathers had in mind to govern us?

Mr. De Blasio has been elected to one of the largest American cities. He was elected because of the freedom and liberty afforded him by real Americans who fought and died for liberty and democracy. He supports and endorses oppressive communist countries, believes in socialism, and can’t find the truth with both hands and a manual.

People like Mr. De Blasio are why this country is in the trouble it is. They want to wipe out the very freedoms that allowed Mr. De Blasio to win one of the most powerful seats in the country. They are so sure they know what needs to be done to the country that they are willing to ruin it to prove their points.

America… WAKE UP! Please! PAY ATTENTION! And make sure the people you vote for can, and will, do the job the REAL way… the American way!

The Attack on Americanism!

It seems lately there is no end to the stories highlighting what appears to be an all-out attack on Americanism.

A school district in Sioux Falls, SD has decided that the Pledge of Allegiance is more of a bother than its worth. The school board voted 5-0 to stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in high school because they can’t find the 15 seconds to do it. One of the board members told the news source that in high school there is very little time in the mornings or afternoon to pull it off. Can you say LIAR?!

These people need to be recalled. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, it takes 2 minutes start to finish, from the kids getting on their feet, to saying it, and then sitting back down. Two minutes. Do 2 minutes less of morning news. Cut the lunch period by 2 minutes. Cut sex education by 2 minutes. How about we just shut down the school all together, then we have all day to do it?

Do these administrators and educators understand that what the pledge stands for and what the flag stands for is what gives them the right to be idiots? The freedoms these things represent include people dying for them in other countries!

Then these yo-hos go on to say that the pledge will have more meaning if we only do it once in a while. Really? How does that work? You mean I’ll understand something and learn it better if I’m not as exposed to it and don’t do it as often?

Don’t educators believe in learning through repetition? Repetition works. It helps imprint it in your memory. How about you use it as a teaching moment to explain how and why the pledge came about instead of some other “elective”?

Even when a group of vets approached the board and pleaded with them not to nix the pledge, they were turned down, quickly and coldly. These people who gave up years of their lives, families who gave up loved ones, and some of these men and women who gave up limbs (and still carry other injuries) just so that a cold-hearted, short-sighted school board could have the freedom to discard the Pledge of Allegiance as insignificant and not worthy of the 15 seconds (or 2 minutes) it takes to recite it. In exercising their freedom to omit the pledge, this board is not only disrespecting this great country and those who secured our freedoms, they are also teaching the next generation to do the same.

This board needs to be fired, recalled, and dropped into some Communist, third-world nation for “immersion study abroad.” Let’s see how long they last.

Sadly, they don’t have the market cornered on “stupid” by any stretch …

A school district in North Carolina has decided not to allow an American Legion Post to put up banners with our national motto on them. OUR NATIONAL MOTTO?! When did that become illegal, immoral, or just plain wrong?

Our national motto, approved by our Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court is “In God we Trust.” Yes, believe it or not, it has been approved by the highest court in the land. Apparently, the board members in the North Carolina school district didn’t take that class. They had the men from the American Legion remove them because… wait for it… It’s a violation of “separation of church and state” (that non-existent Constitutional clause).

The American Legion produced 16×20 inch framed posters for classrooms with the words “In God We Trust,” and an American flag in the background. At the bottom it reads: “The national motto of the United States, adopted by Congress, July 30, 1956.”

A spokesman for the school district told the local Watauga Democrat newspaper that “In God We Trust” was banned on the advice of their legal counsel that it may be “unconstitutional.” Their fear was that someone would misconstrue it as promoting a religion.

Seriously?! First, fire the attorneys; they obviously have no clue about this. Any attorney worth their salt would have known within minutes of researching this issue that’s it’s already been tried and decided.

Second, please tell me what religion has “In God we trust” as part of their scriptures or writings? None!

The majority of our founding fathers were Christian, period. Deal with it. They wanted people to be able to worship as they pleased (or not pleased). “Freedom OF religion” is completely different than “freedom FROM religion.”

Teaching our nation’s history, national motto, Pledge of Allegiance, and patriotism in general, is not endorsing or promoting any religion.

As I keep saying… Americans wake up, rise up, and do the right thing or you will lose the country you love.

Obama Hates Black People

You may recall that, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it became popular for black Americans to quote a certain rap star and say, “George Bush hates black people.” Because blacks in New Orleans were suffering. But the shoe is really on the other foot.

I don’t understand how black Americans can say with a straight face that Obama is for them, not when you have an article such as the one written by Kevin D. Williamson in the National Review Online. The text of his piece shocked even my jaded eyes.

Williamson proves that point that Obama in general and the Democrats in particular really care very little for black Americans. He says, “Fifty years into the Democrats’ declaration of a war on poverty and President Kennedy’s first executive order for affirmative action, while spending $300 million a year on worthless diversity workshops and singing endless verses of ‘We Shall Overcome,’ after enduring endless posturing from Barack Obama and the moral preening of his admirers, that is what black American families have to show for themselves: an average household net worth of $4,955. The average white household in these United States has a net worth of $110,729. Black Americans’ median net worth is less than 5 percent that of white Americans.”

Read that again and really take it in. We have a large population in this country kept perpetually poor by political design or by choice, and I’m not sure which is worse, or a greater insult to the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can you pursue when you barely have enough to survive?

Williamson continues: “Everywhere it has been tried, the Democrats’ dependency agenda has been a social and economic catastrophe for black Americans — and a full-employment program for Democratic apparatchiks. This is not a conspiracy — it’s right out there in the open, every time a Democratic politician knows that he can count on 90 percent of the black vote without lifting a finger, winning the opportunity to add four more years to the 50 years of broken promises Democrats have made to black Americans, who lag their fellow countrymen on practically every social indicator. ‘These Negroes,’ said alleged civil-rights hero Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppity-ness. We’ve got to give them a little something — just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.’ So far, the LBJ plan seems to be working perfectly.”

This is nothing less than an effort on the part of Democrats to keep a class of people so tied to their tethers that they could never break free and discover their own potential. Of course, that assumes black Americans indeed want to do that, and go ahead and call me a racist, but I don’t see a lot of that happening here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I see a lot of the opposite. There are a few that have risen above, but they still cow tow to the left’s party line. I don’t know a single black person that didn’t vote for Obama. “Because it’s time,” they say, whatever that means.

Has there ever a greater example of cutting off your nose to spite your face? I don’t think so. Yet generations of blacks have been convinced that it’s the only way to be taken seriously, and I shudder to think what would happen if they suddenly switched sides and let the Republicans have a go. Probably not much, thanks to wussies like Boehner, McCain, Rubio, et al. One can hope that should this country have a chance to return to real economic prosperity that the blacks would not only take advantage, but prosper with the rest of us. That’s what the United States is all about, everybody getting a shot at the gold. Instead we have a class of people who think that they’re only value is as a victim, waiting for a hand out, it’s everybody else’s fault, etc., etc., and George Bush hates black people.

If Obama cared so much about blacks, the Washington Post would not report that black unemployment is sky high. Quote: “….the rate for adult black men, those 20 years and older, jumped to 14 percent last month. That’s up from 13.5 percent in August and only slightly below year-ago levels. It also contrasts with 6.1 percent unemployment for white men in that same age group.”

Fourteen percent. That’s a disgrace. This is not the America I want. This is not the America we could have. Instead of trying to raise a segment of the population out of the gutter, we give them free cell phones and food stamps.

Because it’s time.

As long as we have a class of perpetual victims, this is the America we get. Fifty years and counting. I don’t see it turning around.

 

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

The Opportunistic Politics Rolls On

Just as the American people begin eying the torches and pitchforks, readying their maps of Washington, DC, the establishment politicos have set themselves to brazenly cover their butts yet again. This time, they are proposing a way to absolve themselves from tough votes on raising the debt ceiling.

In the aftermath of our current President’s disingenuous declaration that raising the debt ceiling “doesn’t necessarily mean adding to the debt,” and his infantile temper-tantrum about the government being held “hostage” because House Republicans wouldn’t let him have the federal credit card for his “date with destiny,” it isn’t surprising that the usual suspects are floating a fiscally irresponsible, but politically advantageous, plan to avoid the ugliness of actually governing where the debt and debt ceiling are concerned.

RedState.com reports:

On Meet the Press, Chuck Schumer, who has enthusiastically praised [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell, (Ri-KY), for doing his bidding, announced that he would introduce legislation echoing the “McConnell rule.”

“Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will propose legislation that would make permanent a plan to take the decision to raise the country’s debt limit out of Congress’s hands.

“By making the so-called “McConnell rule” permanent, the president would have ultimate authority to raise the debt limit and prevent the United States from defaulting.

“Congress would still have power to oppose raising the debt ceiling, but would not have to vote to increase the borrowing limit.

“‘If we were to do that, the chances of going up to the brink again, the chances of this kind of debacle, will decrease,’ Schumer said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday.”

The politics is brazen. The abdication of constitutionally mandated obligation absolute.

It is not negotiable – aside from passing a constitutional amendment – that the US House of Representatives is tasked with the exclusive – exclusive – authority to generate legislation having to do with the raising of revenue. This means that no piece of legislation emanating from the Senate, no executive order, no agreement amongst a “Gang of Idiots,” has the constitutional authority to raise revenue, including the expansion of our nation’s level of debt.

Raising the debt ceiling so that the federal government can continue to operate in the red expands the expenditures of government. This can only be viewed as authorizing the need to extract revenues from the only constitutional source of revenue the federal government has: the American people via taxation.

Perhaps the American people have forgotten this critical point. The United States government does not produce a product. Therefore, the United States government cannot produce a revenue stream outside the realm of taxation, or, at least this was the way it was supposed to be before the federal government got into backing “winners and losers” (read: every Energy Department funding initiative) through government-backed special interest subsidies and the quasi-nationalization of certain private-sector companies (read: GM and Chrysler).

It is for this reason the generation of revenue legislation – and later legislation authorizing the extraction of taxes from the American people – rests solely with the US House; the elected body closest and most vulnerable to the people. It is for this specific reason that US Representatives are elected every two years instead of four or six, and why they represent the least number of people, by comparison, in our federal system of government. The Framers wanted these people – these elected representatives – to be vulnerable to their constituents. This was the “stick” to the carrot of elected privilege.

Creating a mechanism by which our elected representatives can simply remain silent in order to allow the Executive Branch (read: the President) to mandate the raising of revenue – in this case the debt ceiling and along with it the ability to spend – is literally unconstitutional. Additionally, that Senators are even broaching this subject presents as unconstitutional because the US Senate is not vested with the power of the purse, only the US House has that power.

People like Mitch McConnell and Chuckie Schumer get away with floating unconstitutional political mechanisms like “The McConnell Rule” because our citizenry exists as constitutionally illiterate and selfishly apathetic to their role in government: engaged oversight. Until the American people start to consistently and constantly embrace a jealous appreciation for limited government – and through that jealously an elevated addiction to freedom and responsible individualism – political reprobates like McConnell and Schumer will continue to destroy the Constitution and, along with it, our freedoms; your freedom.

Do we know how bad HealthCare.gov really is yet?

For the past two and a half weeks – sadly partially silenced by the government shutdown and debt ceiling drama – Obamacare as an information system has been melting down since enrollment in the “exchanges” or “marketplaces” for health insurance went live at the HealthCare.gov website on October 1, 2013. It’s clear that the situation is bad, and is starting to alarm even the most forgiving to the President and his policies, as liberal Statist sites like The Huffington Post  publish articles with titles like “Obamacare Website Failure Threatens Health Coverage for Millions of Americans”.

The actual file name of that post is simply delicious: “obamacare-train-wreck_n_4118041.html”.

We’re starting to see lots of material being published about how HealthCare.gov came into being, and either baffled disappointment or a sense of “what else did you expect?” at how a web application project that as much as $634 million has been spent on can’t handle user loads, deliver simple web pages, or manage to correctly display drop-down list box contents, much less enroll millions of uninsured Americans for soon-to-be-universally-mandated health coverage.

It’s also been reported that of the people who have managed to actually not have HealthCare.gov error on them and get themselves enrolled that incorrect information has been passed to the insurers via the government’s website and that possible compromises of personal information (leaving enrollees vulnerable to identity theft) have both occurred.

I work in information technology, and while I’m not a software developer, I’ve got a very good handle on the architecture and design that multi-tier application systems employ, of which Obamacare’s HealthCare.gov certainly is one. For those who aren’t as familiar, multi-tier applications use “front ends” (a website through which you enter or view data, for example) and “back ends” (databases or other systems for storing and organizing data). In between the front end and the back end is normally “middleware”; software that analyzes or processes data as it is inputted into the front end or retrieves data from the back end and formats it for the front end user to see. Based on the common problems reported with healthcare.gov thus far, I think it’s obvious that inter-tier communications between layers of the application are responsible for many of the failures.

It’s not like multi-tier applications are anything new. I’ve been working on multi-tier application systems for over sixteen years. Well, it appears that some software developers might need some remedial education on the programming languages, development tools, and multi-tier systems they’re working with. It certainly seems that interfacing with government-produced, supplied, or owned software components designed specifically for information exchange between applications or application tiers are a challenge for some.

Michelle Ray (Twitter’s @GaltsGirl) drew my attention to a support forum post on the Java.net site from September 4, 2013. I’m pretty sure that the author of the thread-opening post is Srini Dhanam, who according to his page on LinkedIn works for a web site called GetInsured.com. They describe themselves as, “the nation’s easiest way to shop for health insurance. Since 2005, we’ve helped more than 2 million people find the health insurance policies that best fit their needs and their budget.” Sounds like they were a private sector (gasp!) health insurance “exchange” before government had the brilliant idea they had to be, uh, invented by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Mr. Dhanam is probably in the clear as far as the HealthCare.gov debacle goes for that site directly, but his support forum post indicates use of application code or programming objects that derive from government sources. One namespace URL referred to by the detailed error message he’s trying to get assistance with refers to “applicant-eligibility.ee.ffe.cms.gov” (don’t bother trying to access it; the name does not resolve). However, “cms.gov” is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for administering Medicare and working in partnership with state governments to administer Medicaid. I’m speculating that Mr. Dhanam’s problem could be related to difficulties getting the government’s systems in the multi-tier HealthCare.gov system to interface correctly with private insurers’ systems, which he could be working with or on.

From a data security/information assurance perspective, Dhanam’s use (as he says in his post) of version 7, Update 21 of the Java SDK and corresponding run time environment is also problematic. It expired on July 18, 2013. Version 7, Update 45 is the current release and includes many security fixes for vulnerabilities found in the earlier code.

Another identifiable organization within the post’s content is “NIEM”, the National Information Exchange Model (pronounced like “neam”). NIEM was created in 2005 as an inter-departmental panel to facilitate information sharing standards between government computer systems, and the primary cabinet-level departments who contribute to the organization are HHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Is anyone comforted that with an eight-year old developing standard for information sharing standardization between government departments in place, HealthCare.gov is having problems with…information sharing standardization between government departments and the private sector?

Doing some web searches on the “applicant-eligibility.ee.ffe.cms.gov” string led me to a different support forum post that includes it, plus additional references to NIEM. I tried through various approaches, but I couldn’t shed any light on the identity of that thread’s initiator, known by the handle “wbisantosh”. The first responder to his problem though, shed some interesting light on Mr. wibsantosh’s skills as a programmer (click to enlarge):

overyourhead

“Have you attended the training?…[S]eems you are in over your head.” Whether “wibsantosh” is involved in the coding of HealthCare.gov or one of the multitude of systems interfacing with it or not, that still seems like a fitting description of what has produced the horrific user experience of Obamacare thus far..

Lest anyone think a connection here to the actual HealthCare.gov site is tenuous, there’s one more thing I found. If you Google search for just the “ee.ffe” portion of the cms.gov string found from the support posts, the first item returned takes you to…drum roll, please…HealthCare.gov.

I think we’ve only scratched the surface of the technical disaster, from both information technology operational and security perspectives, that is the roll-out of Obamacare.

What do operations in the HealthCare.gov data centers or technical support centers look like? Probably something like this excerpt from the classic 1957 film starring Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, Desk Set:

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

Why the government shutdown is the worst idea ever

johnboehner

House Speaker John Boehner flanked by his House colleagues. Photo credit: Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite.

Never, ever shut down the federal government again.

– President Bill Clinton, 1996 State of the Union Address

 

As everyone knows, on October 1st at midnight, the federal government shut down for the first time in 17 years. This event has had and will have lasting, serious, negative consequences for the entire country, and even moreso for the two political parties. This article will explain why, looking from a conservative Republican perspective, shutting down the federal government is the worst idea possible for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the country that my fellow conservatives claim to care about first and foremost. In short, the shutdown is bad policy AND bad politics.

Why it’s bad politics for the GOP and conservatives

Contrary to what many of my fellow conservatives think, nothing good can come out of this conundrum for conservatives or for the Republican Party (regardless of whatever future you wish for that party). This is a battle we simply cannot win, and no amount of throwing the RINO epithet at everyone who disagrees with you will change that fact.

Some have pointed out to polls supposedly showing Barack Obama’s approval ratings as being at 40% or lower, and disapproval ratings going over 50%. Even if these polls are scientific and accurate – and depending on who commissioned them, they might not be – these people completely ignore the fact that Congressional Republicans and the Tea Party have even lower approval ratings in the eyes of the American people.

According to polls commissioned by Fox News – hardly a liberal outlet – Congressional Republicans had only a 23% approval rating in June and August, with disapproval ratings of 67% and 66%, respectively. That means that fully TWO THIRDS of the American public view Congressional Republicans – especially their conservative wing – negatively.

By contrast, Congressional Democrats’ approval ratings, while still dismal, were better than Republicans': 32% approval and 60% disapproval in both June and August.

Moreover, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has the worst ratings of any major party leader in America today: 22% approval, 42% disapproval in October.  John Boehner has 27% approval and 51% disapproval ratings (in April, he had 31% approval and only 41% disapproval). Even Harry Reid now does better at 27% approval and 43% disapproval) in the same month. Nancy Pelosi is at 35% approval, 47% disapproval (whereas in April, she was at 31% approval and 48% disapproval, so her image has improved since then).

Barack Obama, meanwhile, while having seen his approval ratings slump somewhat, still enjoys much higher popularity than anyone in Congress. His approval ratings, according to various polls, average at 45%, and range from a low end of 40% (Fox News, 54% disapproval) to a high end of 47% approval and the same amount disapproving.

So no matter what poll you take, Barack Obama, while hardly at the peak of his popularity, is STILL seen far more favorably than anyone in Congress, ESPECIALLY Congressional Republicans, ESPECIALLY their conservative wing.

It is inevitable that this government shutdown will take a heavy toll on the Tea Party’s, the conservative movement’s, and the GOP’s image in the American public’s eyes, and it may well prevent Republicans from retaking the Senate and the White House in 2014 and 2016. Even before the shutdown began, polls were warning that more Americans would blame the GOP than Barack Obama for the shutdown. Now, after it has happened, the veteran political analyst Charlie Cook warns us that the shutdown could cost the GOP future elections.

Despite the garbage that the Tea Party and its allies on talk radio like Rush Limbaugh probably feed you, the reality is that the absolute majority of Americans wants moderate policies from the GOP and wants both parties – including Republicans – to compromise. Gallup has demonstrated this repeatedly over the last several years, over and over again, including here, here, here, here,  here, here, and most recently here. In fact, as the shutdown drew closer, Americans’ desire to see the two parties compromise increased.

According to that most recent poll, published just a week before the shutdown, 53% of all Americans (an absolute majority), as well as 56% of moderates, 65% of liberals, 55% of indies, 61% of Democrats, and even a plurality of conservatives (42%) said, just a week before the shutdown, that it was more important to compromise and avert the shutdown than to “stick to principles.” Just 25% of all Americans, and only a third of conservatives, said it’s more important to “stick to principles.”

The two groups most hostile to compromise were Republicans (only 38% supported it) and Tea Partiers (39%). 36% of Republicans and 40% of Tea Partiers said it’s better to “stick to principles” even if it means shutting the federal government down.

This fact is not lost on the American people; by far their biggest criticism of the GOP is that it is “unwilling to compromise.” This is the biggest criticism levied at the GOP by Dems, independents, and even Republicans themselves.

The current government shutdown will only aggravate this problem. The longer it continues, the heavier the toll on the GOP’s and the conservative movement’s image will be.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the likes of Rush Limbaugh tell you, the GOP is not “Dem lite” or “not conservative enough” and does not want to “surrender” on Obamacare. The GOP is, in fact, criticized by American voters, including a plurality of Republicans, for being too unwilling to compromise. And compromise is not nearly the same thing as surrender – under a compromise, EVERYONE has to swallow unpalatable stuff, Republicans as well as Democrats.

The biggest damage will be in the eyes of moderates, women, youngsters, and minorities – the very voters the GOP will need to win future elections, or to even stay relevant as a party.

Why it’s a bad policy

The shutdown is not only bad politics, it’s bad policy too. The GOP’s objective, as we all know, is to get rid of, or defund, Obamacare. However, that – or any other meaningful policy change – CANNOT come about while Obama is still in office and controls the Senate. Republicans simply CANNOT govern the country from one half of Congress – as the astute Charles Krauthammer, Brent Bozell’s MRC’s latest award recipient, has rightly remarked in a column warning Republicans against the shutdown.

To defund Obamacare, Republicans can do only two things: either shut the entire government down, as they have done, or somehow convince Senate Democrats to pass, and President Obama to sign, a bill defunding Obamacare.

As Krauthammer has warned in his seminal column, there is NO WAY IN HELL Obama will sign into law a bill defunding, or delaying the implementation of, his singular legislative “accomplishment” – the Dems had been waiting for over 50 years to check this item on “FDR’s Unfinished Business List”, as Ann Coulter calls it.

Obama will never agree to anything that defunds his sole legislative “achievement”, the sine qua non of a liberal welfare state, liberals’ Holy Grail. Nor will Senate Democrats, marching in lockstep with Harry Reid, vote for defunding or otherwise gutting Obamacare.

And short of them agreeing to the impossible, the only way to defund Obamacare is to shut the federal government down completely.

Republicans have already tried this, in a way. In 1995, under Newt Gingrich’s leadership, they offered President Clinton a budget funding parts of, but not all, of the federal government; cutting spending faster than he was willing to accept. When Clinton said no, Republicans shut the federal government down – and that killed their chances of winning in 1996. Eventually, Republicans had to agree to a budget on terms not much different from what Clinton offered before the shutdown.

So no, there is no way Republicans can win this shutdown battle – or to defund Obamacare while Obama is still in office.

And let’s use some common sense. Does ANYONE really believe that Republicans can undo ANY meaningful Obama policy – ANY significant part of Obama’s “legacy” – while he’s still in office, wielding a veto pen, a bully pulpit, and a 55-seat Senate majority?

Margaret Thatcher famously said “first you win the argument, then you win the vote.” What she forgot to add is “and only then can you make policy.” Thatcher would’ve never been able to make any policy changes had her party not won a clear majority in the Commons. And that, in turn, would’ve never happened if she had led her party to the right fringe of British politics, alienating the vital center.

Republicans first need to convince a clear majority of Americans that Obamacare still can and should be repealed, then win back the Senate and the White House, and ONLY THEN can they make any policy changes, like repealing Obamacare.

So the shutdown, however it ends, will CLEARLY fail to achieve the GOP’s objective: defunding Obamacare.

The damage to the military

In addition to the damage the shutdown will do to the GOP’s and conservatives’ public image, it will also wreak havoc on the US military, adding greatly to the damage being done by the sequester.

A government shutdown means that eventually, when the money runs out from previous years’ approps, there will be nothing to pay the troops with, no money for their and veterans’ care, and no money for current training and equipment maintenance, operations (like protecting the skies over the US), and the development and acquisition of new equipment, nor to pay DOD civilian employees (the majority of whom are not pencil-pushers but real hard workers, like mechanics at military depots).

Why shut the government down?

The ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu advised against fighting on ground, or at a time, disadvantageous to you, or when the enemy is too strong. He further wisely counseled (The Art of War, ch. 12, v. 17):

“Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.”

So how did America get into this mess in the first place? If the shutdown won’t achieve any conservative policy objective and will only do damage, why was this stand-off started?

Because the fringe of the GOP, including the Tea Party, which views any compromise as betrayal and anything other than scorched-Earth tactics as surrender, demanded that Republicans shut the government down over Obamacare. And most Republicans in Congress, scared to death of a Tea Party primary challenge, listened to the Tea Party and followed suit – thus driving America over the cliff.

Most House Republicans and many GOP Senators, including Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, come from single-party GOP monopolies where most people are hardline conservatives who see any compromise as treason. These politicians live in single-party conservative cocoons and are thus totally detached from reality and out-of-touch with most Americans (as is the Tea Party itself). Just check the PVI ratings of Raul Labrador’s district (ID-1) and of the states of Texas, Utah, and Kentucky. Their districts and states are no more representative of America than Nancy Pelosi’s SF district.

Thus, they have no incentive to compromise, and far more to fear from a Tea Party primary challenger than a general election Democratic opponent. So they continue pushing the country to the brink, as the Tea Party demands, the consequences be damned.

Sadly, they may well take the GOP, and not just the country, over the cliff with them.

NO to An Article V Convention (AKA Con Con)

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

In a recent series of articles, my CDN colleague Bruce MacIsaac has argued for calling a Constitutional Convention (AKA an Article V Convention) and has proposed, by his own admission, „numerous amendments to the Constitution.”

Among these (admittedly laudable) amendments are ones to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment, but also the monstrous „Balanced Budget Amendment.”

But even if all of his legislative proposals were good, it wouldn’t matter. The hell is paved with good intentions.

The fact is that an Article V Convention (AKA a Con-Con) would mean the end of the current Constitution, of the liberties of US citizens, and of the Republic as we know it.

Firstly, who would call the tune?

Firstly, let’s ask ourselves: who would appoint the delegates to an Article V Convention, and in what manner? How many delegates would be appointed? From what backgrounds? And what would their mandate be? To amend the current Constitution or to write an entirely new one?

Who will answer these questions?

Answer: the Congress. Specifically, the CURRENT Congress.

The same Congress that gave America a $17 trillion debt, nearly brought America to a first-ever default on its obligations in August 2011, and which utterly refuses to the blatant usurpations of power by the Executive and Judicial Branches. The same Congress where John Boehner is House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi the Minority Leader (and potential future Speaker), Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, and Mitch McConnell the Senate Minority Leader. This is the gang you’d be entrusting with appointing the delegates and setting their agenda.

Are those people really the ones you want to entrust your, your family’s, and your country’s future to? Because that’s EXACTLY what you’ll be doing if you support an Article V Convention.

And even if the delegates’ mandate is very narrow, what’s to stop them from writing, proposing, and adopting a new Constitution? Nothing.

Remember that the original Constitutional Convention’s mandate was only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Yet, it went far beyond that mandate and proposed an entirely new Constitution that created, for the first time ever, a federal government.

There’s nothing to stop a new Con Con from doing the same.

But if it is called and does so, you can bet it will propose a socialist constitution that will ban the private ownership of guns and limit religious freedom for Christians. You will be doing away with the greatest Constitution the world has ever known, and replacing it with a socialist system.

You say, „Oh, don’t worry, anything that a Con Con proposes would have to be ratified by ¾ of the states!” Really? Where does it say so? In the current Constitution. But the new, socialist constitution could have an entirely new method of ratification (just like the current Constitution did) – e.g. by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, or just the Senate.

I’ll say it again: if a Con Con is called, the current Constitution – the greatest document the world has ever known other than Magna Carta – will be done away with. Forever.

Finally, let’s remember one simple fact. Who is it that governs this country? Who is it that calls the tune in the US of A?

Why, of course the Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, and all the lobbyists and special interest groups on which the elected branches of government depend.

Look at how much power they have – over you, your family, your community, your state, and the country as a whole.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL GIVE AWAY THAT POWER, OR SHARE IT WITH THE COMMON CITIZEN, OR ALLOW AVERAGE AMERICANS TO DESIGN AMENDMENTS TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM THEM?

OF COURSE NOT!

And that defeats the whole point of a Con-Con. If anything, the federal government will get even bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive, and more expensive if a Con-Con is called.

Anyone who, at this point, calls for an Article V Convention is either a shallow, ignorant idiot or a deceitful, lying bastard.

But nonetheless, I’m still amazed how easily Tea Party People are fooled and manipulated by wolves in sheep’s clothing like Tom Coburn and Mark Levin (both of whom support a Con-Con). It seems that Tea Partiers are so naive that all a wolf has to do to fool them is to put on his sheep’s clothing and start lying – and they will listen to him and blindly follow him.

Folks, do not allow wolves in sheep’s clothing to manipulate you! Do not support an Article V Convention. For if you do and it is called, there will be no turning back. The current Constitution will be consigned to the dustbin of history, and YOU will be co-responsible.

Ted Cruz Opens his Mouth and Lets out the Stupid

We all have been watching the recent political soap opera with high interest. It was great to see Ted Cruz filibuster for 21 hours, unlike John Boner–I mean, Boehner (why can’t I get that right?)–and John “Ancient Gasbag” McCain, who attacked him for it (along with other Republicans). Finally, there was somebody who was going to take a stand against….wait, what?

Exactly. It’s nice to know that Republicans are against Obamacare. But what are they for? I’m having a hard time supporting the home team in this shutdown because I don’t know what they are counter proposing. Apparently they have an alternative to the ACA, but after the opening announcement was made, it faded very fast, and there has been no further mention of it. The Republicans aren’t selling their plan. They are so busy telling us what they’re against, we have no idea what they’re for. In other words, they are giving no reason for even us, the hard core base, to support them. The talking heads have better ideas than the people we vote for. Perhaps we need to elect Greg Gutfeld, TV’s Andy Levy, and Greg’s repulsive sidekick Bill Schultz to run the country.

I watched Ted Cruz on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, where Mr. O came up with very good points pretty much echoing the above, and all Cruz did was repeat the party line. I’ve tried getting my liberal friends (everybody needs one!) to explain why they think Cruz is an idiot (that’s all they seem to say about him) and all they can do is intensify the word idiot. I think they’re right. All Cruz said in response to Mr. O’s remarks is that it’s the Democrats fault. They aren’t negotiating. Bla bla bla. He really is an idiot. In the face of terrific common-sense, Cruz dug in his heels….for what? GIVE US A REASON TO SUPPORT YOU! GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH! It’s great that you’re against something, but WHAT ARE YOU FOR??????

All I know for sure is that Ted Cruz likes White Castle hamburgers. He said so during his filibuster. But everybody likes White Castle….unless you’re a communist.

So enjoy the shutdown, I guess. I have no idea what the plan is. I don’t think even John Boner–I mean, Boehner (dammit!)–knows. It seems the GOP is flailing in the dark, and since Cruz is Canadian, that should terrify him (because Canadians don’t like the dark) but he’s apparently acclimated. All we know is that the GOP doesn’t like Obama. Or something. Does anybody have a flipping idea what we’re doing here?

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

« Older Entries Recent Entries »