Category Archives: featured opinion

Migrant Children – Pawns in an Insidious “Game”

Never could I have imagined that an authority of our government would dare to suggest that children be used to further political gain.  Clearly, the children crossing illegally into our country don’t have the capacity to understand how they are being used to perpetrate a 21st century “slavery” scam.

These children will become wards of the state.  The government will control what they receive in terms of entitlements; they will control where they will live, they will control who will raise them, what they will learn in school – and perhaps most importantly what they will learn about their new country, they will control how they will vote, who they will marry – the list is endless.

The plethora of obvious questions now must come to any sane and reasonable mind.

Who will take care of these children?

Will an open door exist for unlimited and unaccompanied children to pass through? It’s ludicrous.  I guess if the goal is to create a new generation of “slaves” of the government then the notion is not so ludicrous; just morally bereft.

Who will manage this elaborate $3.5 billion scam?  Is “Homeland for Migrant Children” now to become another department of our increasingly oppressive government?

What of American citizens who are presently seeking to adopt children from other countries?  Will all of those processes now stop in favor of our government telling them to take in illegal children?  And what of the countless dollars and red tape spent by anxious couples hoping to adopt – will those funds be reimbursed?

What happens when our citizenry, not looking to adopt, is told they must?

Has our “regime” now chosen a new demographic and protected class for which taxpayers must “foot the bill?”

What is to become of the biological parents of these children who will most certainly attempt to make a claim against our government for their own welfare?  Won’t these children become de facto citizens who can then bring their relatives here?

These initial questions only scratch the surface of what should be a more thorough understanding of the dire consequences of this latest action.

The most disturbing question that should be asked is:

Will we tolerate our authorities to use children for political gain?”

This latest maneuver is diabolical, deceitful and insidious.  And it is all being done on purpose.

Our government has put us in “Check”. We need to wake up before they say, “Check Mate”.

Stopping Illegal Immigration

Recently I have been listening to many different ideas on what we should do about illegal immigrants. People such as Bill O’reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Charles Krauthammer, just to name a few, have put forth their ideas. It’s funny how only Conservatives seem to be coming up with ideas, after all, we all know the Liberal plan, AMNISTY FOR ALL ILLEGALS.

Can we stop illegal immigration? The answer is yes we can. But there is not one politician in this country who has the stomach to do it. There are plenty of ways to handle it, but because of political correctness, no one dares. Well, I’m going to tell you my plan to stop illegal immigration and I don’t have to worry about political correctness. Here’s the Chris Vaca plan.

  1. First we stop all immigration for two years. Doesn’t matter who you are or what country you are from. For two years no one gets in.
  2. Make sure both borders are secure. If you have to use the army, national guard, a new fence whatever. We will never get anywhere unless our borders are secure.
  3. Cut off all freebies. If you can’t prove you are a citizen of this country, you get nothing. The only exception is if it is a life and death situation.
  4. If an employer knowingly hires an illegal he gets a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR fine plus ONE YEAR IN JAIL for each illegal in his employ, no exceptions.
  5. If a landlord knowingly rents an apartment to an illegal the same thing. TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR fine plus ONE YEAR IN JAIL for each illegal they rent to. No exceptions.
  6. Do a two year sweep through the country, rounding up every illegal they can find, and deport them. If you are not here legally, you are gone. No exceptions. Each state has its own National Guard unit, there is no reason why they cannot be used.

If we do not start getting tough on illegal immigration, it will never end. People keep flooding our boarders because they know they will be allowed to stay and we look like fools because of it. I don’t know one person who is against immigration, as long as they come here legally, people that come here illegally and get to stay, is just a slap in the face to all the immigrants that put in the time and effort to come here the right way, my grandparents included.

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book” A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

Immigration Plan

This is one man’s opinion.

 

 

Happy Birthday America?

ObamaUncleSam

You know that awkward moment when you go to your wife’s, aunt Mabel’s, second cousin’s 96th birthday party? She is in a wheelchair, doesn’t really know who is in the room with her, and has to be fed and cleaned by others. Everyone remembers when she was a vibrant, smart, and loving person, not always nice, but always fair. She helped whenever she could. You don’t know whether to wish her “Happy Birthday with many more to come” or “God’s speed” to be in the presence of the Almighty, pain-free and without earthly shackles.

I felt that way this past week. How was I going to wish America a Happy Birthday when I wasn’t really sure if the America we all know and love would exist as that “shining city on the hill” next year or in years to come?

America’s birthday (4th of July), according to John Quincy Adams, and Christmas (birth of Christ) were intrinsically connected. He went on to imply that on the 4th the Founders simply took the precepts of Christ and incorporated those principles into civil government.

The Founders understood that for America to survive it had to have a solid code by which it functioned and existed. It had to have a moral compass and guide. But who’s? And what kind?

The French? No, that was a monarchy and tyranny. The Spanish? More of the same. The Brits? That’s what they were running away from. The Germans? Who?

They wanted freedom for man. None of these provided that. The ultimate power was in a King, a man. That’s not what they wanted. They wanted freedom for the citizenry to choose their leaders, their way of life, their religion, to start or not start a business, to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas or any other holiday! Complete freedom!

The America my grandparents came to live in, the one my mom came to live in, the one I saw those many immigrants that came to the Italian North End of Boston to work and start their own business in is no longer here. Now for clarity, many of the immigrants I have spoken with over the last year say America is still much better than where they came from, but that even they have seen freedoms erode since arriving.

We no longer have 3 branches of government. We have one. The chief and grand supreme dictator, Barrack Obama. His pen and his phone will do all the work. His “Capos” will carry out his commands and he will run America the way he sees fit. It won’t matter what his experts say. It won’t matter what history has seen. It won’t even matter if the facts and figures show him to be wrong. He will continue do it his way.

Great presidents before him understood how the Constitution worked and usually reached out to all parties. Reagan and Tip O’Neil worked together, Clinton and Gingrich did too, and they got things done. It was not uncommon for those presidents to call the speaker of the house and others over to discuss working through these issues with both sides giving and taking to come up with a solution.


Read the rest at http://therealside.com/2014/07/happy-birthday-america-2/#e33wkmQQ5qAZAdGc.99

Reinventing the Founders, or: A Response to Jill Lepore on July 4th, 2014

brian0

While sipping my tea this wonderful July 4th, I came across an article on Bill Moyers’ site where the author stated that the Founders would not recognize the Tea Party or their ideas; in fact, they would be appalled by them. Jill Lepore, the author of the piece, seems to know her subject, and she brings up some good points regarding how the Right Wing in general and Evangelical Christians in particular view the Founders. You can read her remarks here, but I’m going to provide a summary of her opinion with my response to follow.

Basically, the Founders are no help to us today. They wrote and said so much to so many, in some cases contradicting each other and themselves as time went on, that to strictly interpret their words and our Constitution is moot. We’re on our own in interpreting their words for our time and following the spirit of their efforts to shape America into what she should be, and that means the Founding Documents must evolve too. They aren’t written in stone, after all, but paper that degrades over time. The Founders didn’t create a perfect union; they created a flawed one, and it’s up to us to get it right. They weren’t the faithfully religious Christians the Evangelicals would like you to believe, so presenting them as such is also an error, and we cannot rightfully claim that the U.S. was built on any kind of Biblical or moral foundation because their recorded remarks simply don’t back that up. In other words, they just ain’t the guys you want to hold up as a standard-bearer. In fact, they got it so wrong the first time that we had to fight a Civil War to make corrections.

I think she’s right on a few things. Christians and conservatives have built the Founders into Saints, and they don’t belong there. They were men of their time, following the passions and ideas of their time, and if they were here today….well, I don’t think the Church would approve, certainly not of Ben Franklin and his dalliances with French ladies. Jefferson’s pantheism would send conservative Christians into furious rage.

I will go on record as saying that the experiment in self-governance that the Founders initiated was simply that. They read some books and considered some ideas and were able to take advantage of a situation in which to stir up a rebellion. They were in the minority. Plenty of Colonists were perfectly happy living under British rule, but the Founders were passionate enough to try. In other words, they weren’t fighting for the freedom of you or me. They were fighting for their own freedom, a chance to see if self-governance could work. Did they have future generations in mind? Surely they at least considered it. Some of them, like Jefferson and Franklin, didn’t think we could keep this Republic going. In the end I don’t think they looked further ahead than their own lives, and they lived long enough to see America grow as a free nation. When the last of the Founders passed, that was the end of their involvement in this experiment. It was a success, and left to the rest of us to carry on, if we could keep it.

While, philosophically speaking, man should be free to govern his own affairs, the fact is that only a small percentage of man is capable of doing that. The rest want a “safety net” and somebody to look after them should a problem arise; even more want a king to tell them what to do because life is tough, and it’s tougher when you’re stupid.

Man’s natural state is to live on his knees. He wants somebody to rule over him, not necessarily violently, but he certainly wants control over his life because of the chaotic state which is life’s way of doing business, assuming, if we must, that “life” is sentient. Because sentient life is out of control, we need some sort of man-made control to weather the storm. When you look at other governments around the globe, none are like ours. Progressives love to point out that because we don’t have some of the programs and ideas that other governments have, it means we’re less civilized. There are people who not only want to live in shackles, they indeed race to the front of the line to get their shackles before anybody else. It’s a badge of honor.

The Founders and those that inspired them refuted that, and it doesn’t matter if their own words contradict each other. Let’s go to the basics of what inspired them: Man should be free. What did they do? Create a government in the best way they knew how to ensure that man could be free. What happened instead? Those unable to take care of themselves, over time, made enough noise so that they could have the government take care of them, and since we are all our brother’s keepers, we must all contribute to the welfare of those who are unable to help themselves. Those same people exploited the flaws in the personal lives of the Founders to discredit their ideas and cast doubt on this great experiment.

And as for putting these men on a pedestal….well, that’s what man does, too, going well back to the golden calf. Man not only wants to live on his knees, he wants to worship what he can see. For all the talk the Church makes of not worshiping idols, we sure have a lot of them. It puts a burden on the Founders they were never meant to have, and gives ammunition to the progressives who gleefully point out that they can’t measure up to their Sainthood.

The Founders, though, are partially responsible for where we put them. Their recorded words still resonate; they have resonated with future generations that agreed, yes, man should be free, and those future generations have done everything possible to keep their ideas alive, because they are worthy ideas.

Instead of worshiping the men, however, what we should look to instead is the spirit of their ideas, and to the writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment who inspired them, to see how we too can be inspired today. The idea is more important than the man who communicates it.

Man should be free. Man should not oppress other men. Man should be allowed to forge his own way with as little restrictions as possible considering he must coexist with other Men. That means compromise, which is now a dirty word that neither the left nor the right will admit exists in our vocabulary.

In a perfect world, that’s what we would have. Instead we have strife. Man vs. Man. Conflict. Each side thinks it knows best and works to subdue the other side. Because my enemy rises against me, I must smite him because I was meant to be free. Today I use words same as Thomas Paine, though certainly he was far more eloquent. Perhaps someday I will use a rifle as those many nameless Revolutionary soldiers were forced to do, so many years ago, because the enemy refused to allow their freedom. As far as this nation has fallen, I’m frankly surprised I’m not writing this from a trench somewhere in the middle of America with enemy guns over the horizon as we march toward Washington for a final battle, because still we fight for an experiment that is by far the most worthy experiment ever devised.

Jill Lepore is wrong. In trying to discredit the Founders, she has shown her own bias and continues to fan the flames of a conflict we cannot afford. We can indeed look to the Founders for how we should govern ourselves today. They laid it all out in great detail; problem is, the progressives think we must all live as a Collective, with their own ideas of “mild” oppression, and here I am being kind. Conservatives have their own “mild” oppression on the agenda, too, which is equally repugnant. Examples will occur to you.

If we are to truly honor the ideas of the Founders, none of the above can happen here. Does that make me a pariah for not toeing the party line? Does that make me a Communist? I don’t think so, but plenty will accuse me of exactly that. So be it. My bullets will go wherever I aim them. Because the more I examine the ideas of the Founders, the more I am absolutely forced to toss religion and the “party” out of the discussion, the more I have to admit that there is a lot we haven’t done right, and if we truly believe in this experiment of self-governance than we need to stop fighting and forge the perfect union that has so far eluded us. Am I making Lepore’s point? Absolutely not, because I’m not arguing from the side of the Collective; nor is she truly arguing from the side of the ideas expressed by the Founders. She advocates her own progressive interpretation, which is wrong. I also don’t think I’m arguing for the conservative side. I want to get back to basics, to the original, uncorrupted ideas, which is what we need to do in order to keep this Republic. Unfortunately, we have dug so deeply into our parties and our “sides”, I do not believe that kind of compromise is possible.

 

BRIAN DRAKE’s new novel is The Rogue Gentleman: Mine to Avenge, available at Amazon.Com.

Of Freedom, Patriotism, and American Exceptionalism

flag2

flag2“Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” Those lines from our National Anthem reflect what has been felt by most Americans over the years; that this country is the land of the free, and precisely because of those who are brave.

There has historically been a sense of pride in the level of freedom and liberty afforded Americans; a time when our National Anthem reflected a grateful people who lived in relative freedom from government coercion and tyranny. And as a people, we were proud of our heritage of liberty. But two new polls reflect a drastic change in how we view our freedom, and our pride in being Americans. There is perhaps no better time, than the celebration of our Independence Day, to reflect on what it means to be an American.

Just eight years ago, when Americans were asked in a Gallup poll how they felt about their individual liberty, 92% were satisfied, and felt they were living the American dream of optimal personal freedom. At the time, that was enough to earn the United States of America the top ranking, globally, in personal freedom. In just a few short years, Americans have responded to the same question in ways that reflects the diminution of liberty that comes from expansive government intrusion and a floundering economy that severely restricts economic freedom. We now rank #36 in the world, according to Gallup this week.

We were not the only nation to experience such a precipitous drop in our sense of freedom. Other countries that experienced comparable declines were Egypt, Greece, Italy, Venezuela, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Romania, Yemen, Pakistan, and Spain.

Certainly a significant contributor to this deterioration is the rise of governmental power and the micromanagement of nearly every aspect of our lives. Governments, and those who wield power within them, are historically the culprits in coercive erosion of freedom. But another component is likely economic, as it’s hard to feel free when jobs are scarce, good-paying jobs are even more scarce, and when the middle-class in America has taken a 9% trimming in real median household income, from $54,489 at the end of 2007, to $50,020 last year.

Patriotism-FlagPerhaps even more disconcerting than the perceived erosion of our liberties, is what was revealed in an extensive typology survey released last week by Pew Research. One of their shocking findings in their 187-page paper researching American attitudes was that a full 44% of us are not proud to be Americans. They separated polling groups by substrata of political self-identification, but in the conglomerate, 60% of “strong liberals” answered “no” to the question of whether they “often feel proud to be American.” The only groups that solidly agreed with the statement were those on the conservative side, from 72-81%.

Patriotism is now quantified as a dying trait of 21st century Americans. There was a time not long ago when in spite of ideological differences, the common glue holding our nation, society, and culture together was a shared love of country, a commitment to leave her better than we inherited her. We recognized that we were all Americans, and that we were a unique nation established upon fundamentally correct principles recognizing the equality of man because of our God-given inalienable rights.

9-11neverforgetReflect on how the nation coalesced for a time after the attack at Pearl Harbor, or even more recently, after the attacks of 9/11. As a nation we were unified with a love of country, a patriotic fervor, and a determination to overcome all obstacles and enemies that stood in the way of our perpetuity as a free and prospering nation. Flags, patriotic bumper stickers, and unifying messages on signs and placards were virtually omnipresent. Such unity is predictable from people filled with the American spirit, when we feel we are at risk and fighting for our survival.

I would submit that we are still fighting for our survival, and the risks are no less onerous or menacing now than they were in 1941 or 2001. But even more than those exogenous threats to our physical existence, the policies of governance today, which are so intuitively antithetical to those upon which the nation was founded, are a fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson’s fear. As he said, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” The greatest threat unraveling America today is domestic, and ideologically driven.

There is nothing erudite or chic to those who harbor antipathy toward America. It may indicate some deep psychological maladies, but it’s certainly not “cool.” Not only is it possible to love America and all she stands for while still being critical of politicians and policy, but I think that’s what is meant by dissent being the ultimate form of patriotism: a devotion to America and a commitment to her perpetuity so great that we speak out in opposition to those policies that we’re convinced challenge the unique position America bears as an ensign of freedom to the world.

960x540There are some incontrovertible facts about America that must be recognized across the entire political spectrum, for they are historical verities. For example, we all should recognize that for the first time in history, a nation, even this nation, was created by people, for people, based on a series of principles and tenets recognized to be God-given, not government bestowed. As James Madison said regarding the patriots who founded this nation, “Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.”

For the first time in history, a group of agrarian subjects united to throw off the tyranny of their monarch, and establish a new nation founded in the notion that rights are not simply granted by the ruler, but by God. And that since they were granted by God, they were inalienable, meaning that they were unable to be separated, surrendered, or transferred. And that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the essence of American exceptionalism.

Even those who engage in national self-loathing, lamenting America as the cause of all the world’s grief, must recognize the power behind a country founded on the principle that for a government of free people to be legitimate, its powers must be derived from the consent of the governed.

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather QuillAmerica’s greatness is not based in an arrogant presumption of supremacy on our part, but on a recognition of our unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, distinctive political and religious institutions, and of America’s qualitative dissimilarity from all other nations. It is not arrogance to claim greatness in this young republic; it is historical and empirical fact. Our Declaration reduced government from master to servant for the first time in history, regardless of the fact that the role has in recent years been reversed.

Our United States of America is not perfect. No temporal entity operated by man can be, yet the principles upon which this country is founded are fundamentally correct, based in freedom and individual liberty, and the resulting government by and for the people, at one time was the best on earth.

patriotismPatriotism is not a matter of waving a flag, but is rather manifest in how we talk of America, and how we treat her and our fellow citizens. Adlai Stevenson admonished us that our patriotism should not be “short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

In this context, to be true patriots, we don’t just fly our flag on the 4th of July, but we live lives of dedication to preserving this land, and passing it on to later generations in better condition than we received it from our forbearers. To fail in this most basic task is to fail as Americans.

“Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” To which we answer unwaveringly, “Yes!”

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

Treason

The dictionary has the definition of Treason as:

1. The offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Each elected official in Washington from the president to senators to representatives, all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, their allegiance is to the Constitution, not their party and definitely not to only one man. I have read many stories lately, of how many of the Democrats who backed Obama, knew from the beginning that he was incompetent, yet they shouted that he was the best thing for this country since sliced bread. Is this treason? It seems to me it falls under the definition 2. A violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state. 3. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. After all, their allegiance is supposed to be to the Constitution and the country.

Even the Royals of the Democratic Party, the Clintons know what Obama truly is. In a new book titled “Blood Fued,” Hillary was quoted as saying that Obama was, ‘incompetent and feckless’ then went on to say, “the thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time,” ‘That’s the story of the Obama presidency, no hand on the f***ing tiller,’ and also “Obama has turned into a joke,” and ‘You can’t trust the motherf***er. While Bill said, “I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,”‘ Yet they also shouted that he was the best thing for this country since sliced bread. Is this treason?

Yet, in the 2012 election, Bill and Hillary shouted from the rooftop, that Obama was the only one who can save America. Instead of backing the best man for America, they went with a man who has no clue about running a hot dog stand, let alone a country. Why did they do that, who benefits from their deceit? Bill and Hillary, naturally. Putting their self interests before the country’s is the opposite of what Bill and Hillary are supposed to be doing, is this treason, intentionally putting the country in harm’s way sounds like treason to me. Bill and Hillary are set for life, so what do they care who runs the country, everything that they do benefits them in one way or another.

Let me say that I am a firm believer in loyalty; I believe that loyalty is one of the most noble qualities a person can have. However, there comes a point when you have to draw the line, a president like Obama, who seems like he is intentionally trying to run this country into the ground, should be exposed, not protected. Still, the Democrats who know in their hearts that Obama is a disastrous president still praise him and his policies. Is this treason?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are guilty, putting self-preservation before country seems to be a pre-requisite of becoming a politician, it just seems to me that the Democrats go overboard. I am not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer, all I know is what I read in the dictionary. I’m not accusing anyone of treason, but the definition I believe speaks for itself.

Hey Alan Colmes ‘I Read Your Book’ A Republicans Rebuttal. Available here.

Treason

This is one man’s opinion.

U.N. Assistance requested for Detroit water bills: what it really means

Detroit asks for United Nations help

Detroit asks for United Nations helpNews agencies across the continent today reported that more than half of Detroit’s residents were refusing to pay their water bills. In response, the politicos have requested the United Nations to intervene.

Now, a collection of activists has requested that the United Nations aid Detroit citizens who are being left without access to water.

While access to the necessities of life are certainly a basic human right, getting them without work, effort, payment or any measure of .. well .. anything .. is NOT!

Many of the residents are actually choosing not to pay their bills as Detroit Water Department Spokesperson Curtrise Garner said, “once we shut water off, the next day they are in paying the bill in full.” That’s strange, they aren’t destitute, they just were using the money for other things until someone threatened to take away the water.

People can work for food, have the right to purchase food or raise food for themselves. There is no inherent human right that says that free food must fall from the sky, appear at the door or be shat from magical ducks. Freedom allows one to pursue food, water, clothing, housing, medical care, cable TV, wi-fi or just about anything else. It does not give a guarantee that they will get any of those things. Nothing can do that.

This is the odd argument of the left – all humans need things and therefor should have them – regardless of effort or sacrifice. It is the foundation of “from each according to ability to each according to need.” An ideal proven failed over, and over, and over, and over. If it worked, more able citizens would have stayed in Detroit to provide for the needy ones. Instead more needy appeared from every corner while the able fled for areas less destitute.

When those unwilling to sacrifice or put forth effort are afforded the necessities of life anyway – why should they expend their limited resources on the necessities of life? I mean, seriously, if housing is free, spend your government check on an iPhone. If food is paid for, spend more of your resources on things like a new video game, a flat screen TV or a trip to the coast. Now.. if water is also free, just imagine what else someone could spend their money on.

Consider if your house was paid for, food provided and cell/internet included? That’s a lot of money not going to pay for services that you are consuming – free lunch! Except… someone must be paying for them…

The problem in Detroit is that after the progressives ran the city into the ground on Utopian promises, tremendous over-spending and crony politics, all the people with real resources left. Now, as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once put it, they have “run out of other people’s money.”

So we have the intersection of Socialism’s failures with Socialism’s promises. When Socialism is in trouble, who do you turn to? Obama isn’t getting much of anything done and at this point doesn’t seem to care. Harry Reid is too busy catering to his cronies and the right is bickering over amnesty.. or something.

Bring in the United Nations .. to the United States… to straighten things out.

Which city or state will request U.N. help next? California, Cumberland, MD, Harlingen, TX?

The real question is what the heck happens once the U.N. is given authority to act on American citizens?

Obama Executive Order: Girlfriends, associates and just about anyone else to be buried in National Cemeteries

Arlington National Cemetery

Arlington National CemeteryToday, President Obama signed an executive order allowing those not legally married to deceased veterans to be buried with them in national cemeteries.

Bowing to the progressive constituency, the President’s desire is to let unmarried gay couples to be buried together. As usual, the unintended consequences could make that choice look foolish.

By law, veteran’s benefits are conferred to those legally married to a service member or born from such a legal partnership.

But, as AOL.com puts it, the President seeks to circumvent that problem:

“Aiming to circumvent that issue, the Veterans Affairs Department will start letting gay people who tell the government they are married to a veteran to be buried alongside them in a national cemetery, drawing on the VA’s authority to waive the usual marriage requirement.”

Can high-school flings, that girl at the bar, some guy at the dance club or an ex-wife now be eligible to haunt that brave soldier, marine or airman in the afterlife? Under Obama’s policy – absolutely.

That’s right – simply tell the VA that you’re “married” to a service member and you get benefits. What could go wrong?

Just like the the obviously terrible strategy of enticing hundreds of thousands of diseased Central American children to rush across the American border, this decision shows a complete lack of forethought.

The better way to handle this is allow gay couples who are engaged in a civil union to be buried together. Opening veterans’ benefits to anyone who “claims” to be married is dangerous and insulting to those spouses who actually supported their service members prior to their sacrifice.

This is obviously a gay rights ploy. Unfortunately, it affects more than same-sex couples.

The President didn’t think through the repercussions of his choice before pushing more “transformational change” on America – once again.

Eric Cantor Picked the Wrong Base

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor's loss.

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor’s loss.

It’s no mystery why Eric Cantor lost his primary last Tuesday. He simply failed to turn out his new Hispanic base. And Cantor is not completely to blame for this failure, because events outside his control were also working against him.

On the day of the vote many members of his new voting block, Futuro Ciudadnos for Cantor couldn’t votar because they were waiting outside the local bus stations and airports to be reunited with younger members of their extended family. It’s really a shame Cantor lost because footage of these tearful reunions would have made great feel–good television spots in November, as long as the crew made sure no weeping taxpayers could be seen in the back of the frame.

[CULTURAL SENSITIVITY NOTE REGARDING OUR NEW NEIGHBORS: When Gringos send their unaccompanied minors to visit the ex, they complicate the process with needless rules and bureaucracy. On United Airlines — my carrier of choice — parents pay a fee of $150 each way for an unaccompanied minor, on top of what the airfare cost. The parent or guardian is required to arrive early at the airport, with photo identification and contact information and the same info regarding the person meeting little Belgium at his destination.

The child gets an I.D. badge and experiences the tender mercies of the TSA, which may include being felt up. When boarding the plane, flight attendants greet him personally, escort him to his seat and buckle him in. At the destination a United employee meets your child and escorts him to the arrivals area where the identification of the ex is checked closely to make sure there is an exact match with the data supplied before the child boarded.

Once the paperwork is complete, Belgium is handed over.

Futuro cuidadnos in need of an anchor adolescent have a much simpler system. First of all it’s a one-way trip. Jesusito — who can be a son, cousin, uncle, nephew, foster child, drinking buddy or fellow gang member — is tossed on the nearest autobus heading for El Norte. His documentation, if any, consists of tattoos and a handwritten note listing the town where his ‘relatives’ are living in the shadows doing the work US business won’t pay citizens enough to do.

Once he arrives at the border he wades, rides, walks, sneaks, jumps or runs across. If he’s not lucky enough to be captured immediately by the Border Patrol, Jesusito must track one down and inform the CBP officer of his rights and what services the officer needs to provide to avoid a UN investigation.

On the United flight the unaccompanied minor gets a bag of pretzels.

At INS Daycare Jesusito gets food, a bed, his diaper changed (only if necessary), a shower, entertainment, visits from befuddled Members of Congress and transportation that will reunite him with the family whose deportation he will prevent in the future. And it’s all free! Well, free for Jesusito since the taxpayers are footing the bill.]

So it’s no wonder Cantor lost with that kind of distraction affecting his base. Of course there is no guarantee Eric would have won even without the interference of the infant invasion. His new amigos aren’t known for displays of gratitude, in fact amnesty advocates invaded Cantor’s ‘Victory Celebration’ after he lost demanding legislation he was in no position to pass after the polls closed.

Now that he’s no longer a political factor the rumors of how hard it was to work with Cantor’s arrogant staff start to surface. This is plausible. Cantor was House Majority Leader, so he gets funding for two sets of staff members: The Congressional staff and the majority leader’s staff. I used to work for a majority leader and in DC this officer holder is not a mere congressman or representative. People address him as ‘leader’ and do so with a straight face. It’s like ruling in your own private North Korea without the really bad hair and mass starvation.

You can imagine what a shock it must have been to go back to the district were voters not only didn’t call him ‘leader,’ they asked impertinent questions and wanted college recommendations for their kids.

The same goes for the staff. In DC everyone treads lightly around these pencil necks because they have Cantor’s ear and can make your political life miserable. But they, too get no respect when some rube from Virginia calls wondering where her Social Security check is and why her son can’t get full disability after that unfortunate explosion in the meth lab.

The only portion of Cantor’s new base that came through for him was the big business money that allowed him to outspend opponent Dave Brat by 25–to–1.

Which reminds me: How many of you took my excellent advice shared here and contributed to Brat’s campaign BEFORE he won? I feel like one of those guys that bought Apple stock before Steve started using deodorant and came back to save the company.

Cantor is another one of those too–clever–by–half politicians that outgrew their voters and made the fatal mistake of letting the voters know it. His focus–group tested language and his amnesty triangulation — conservative enough to confuse the district, but not so much that the US Chamber of Commerce, agriculture lobbyists and HB–1 visa proponents would shut off the money spigot — had one fatal flaw. Clinton, the inventor of triangulation, did his in the general election, not the primary.

Brat’s campaign and his fund raising just got him over the threshold of credibility and angry voters did the rest. But Brat should take care that Cantor’s defeat doesn’t go to his head. When an incumbent loses the vast majority of voters don’t vote for the winner, they vote against the incumbent. Brat just happened to reap the whirlwind.

He must still continue to make the case for his ideas and build strong ties with the district before November.

In the meantime conservatives can enjoy watching the amnesty lobby explain how illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with Cantor’s loss. In fact, if Cantor had only come out stronger for amnesty and Chipotle has closed early on the day of the primary, he would still be the Congressman.

It’s like trying to explain that Noah’s flood didn’t wipe out the earth’s population. The root cause was lack of oxygen and no Corps of Engineers.

Sure… Bergdahl Left Because His Platoon Was Full of Psychopaths.

party9

What are the chances? Now we have a senior ranking official in the Obama administration suggesting that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s entire platoon was crazy. Because that’s so much more likely than just one guy deserting?

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Brandon Friedman went so far as to call members of Bergdahl’s platoon “psychopaths”. Seriously? Someone needs to check on this Friedman guy. There’s a lot of speculation and theory about what happened to Bergdahl


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/06/sure-bergdahl-left-because-his-platoon-was-full-of-psychopaths/#R0jeVZHOQDKHmC8l.99

Freedom of Speech on Democrat’s Chopping Block

wZjgGFRUQz24ZcVNXCBG5Q

First-Amendment-RepealedFreedom of Speech is something we often take for granted. We can express our approval or disapprobation of events, inanimate objects, people, and even politicians. We often feel that there are unwritten political-correctness forces at work attempting to stifle expression regarding certain subjects, but as stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” That is, until now. Forty-three Democrat senators are backing a bill to do just that.

In politics, communication and freedom of expression are not only protected activities under the First Amendment, but they are requisite in order to educate, campaign, and influence voters. The primary means of such communication are through the media and through advertising. And advertising is only possible with money, and lots of it. So when controls are placed on the raising and spending of campaign funds, such controls restrict and constrain political free speech. And that’s precisely what is being attempted.

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the first round of hearings on the Senate Joint Resolution 19. The bill is sponsored by Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM), and cosponsored by 42 other Democrat senators including Tom Harkin (D-IL), Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Harry Reid (D-NV).

Foden20090816-Beck20090816024309The bill summary, as found on the congressional website, says it is, “A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” Per the bill, “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including setting limits on (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.” Then in appropriate plenipotentiary arrogance, they grant to states the same authority at the state level. And all of this is done under the guise of advancing “the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes.”

But then, so as to not reap the displeasure of their friends in the mainstream media, they have the temerity to declare, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” This is not surprising since, according to a new study of the media, released last month, and conducted by two Indiana University journalism professors, four times as many journalists self-identify with the Democrats than those who identify themselves as Republicans. It’s obvious that the senators pushing for this new amendment don’t mind losing a little of George Soros’ money, as long as they still have the mainstream media in their pocket. They apparently feel this is the only way to curtail the influence of people like the Koch brothers, whom Harry Reid has made a nearly daily sport of verbal dribbling on the floor of the senate.

free-speech-300In other words, Congress is appropriating to itself (contrary to the Bill of Rights which they’re attempting to amend) the authority to limit political expression, or speech, while conveniently and strategically carving out a pragmatic exemption for the primarily liberal mainstream media.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), says of the resolution, “So The New York Times is protected, but it doesn’t say the same thing about the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say the same thing about religious liberty; what it says it that politicians in Washington have unlimited constitutional authority to muzzle each and every one of you if you’re saying things the government finds inconvenient.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pointed out the impact of this legislation by saying it “…would enable government to limit funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates.  That would give the government the ability to limit speech.  The amendment would allow the government to set the limit at zero.  There could be no contributions.  There could be no election spending.  There could be no public debate on who should be elected.  Incumbents would find that outcome to be acceptable.  They would know that no challenger could run an effective campaign against them.  Rationing of speech at low limits would produce similar results.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), told the committee, “Benjamin Franklin noted that ‘whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.’ The First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom, and it has never been amended.” He continued, “I understand that no politician likes to be criticized — and some of us are criticized more often than others. But the recourse to being criticized is not to shut up our fellow citizens. It’s to defend your ideas more ably in the political marketplace, to paraphrase Justice Holmes. Or it’s simply to come up with better ideas.”

Free-Speech-ZoneThis is not just a bill, it’s a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would give Congress unlimited control of one important aspect of our freedom of speech. If Senate Democrats have the pompous audacity to presume that they can ration or limit political speech, it’s only logical to conclude that they’ll likewise assume they have the right to ration, limit, and regulate other forms of speech at some point. If they think they can deny even a scintilla of political speech, effectively muzzling their critics, they clearly are predisposed to denying or controlling all speech.

Passage of the bill, and ratification as an Amendment is unlikely. But the trend toward government control of everything in our lives, and the suppression of our constitutionally assured rights is unmistakable. And one salient fact that should not be lost on the electorate is which Party is leading and facilitating that trend.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

If You Like The VA, You’ll Love Obama-Care

It is said that every cloud has a silver lining, we are all outraged about all the recent stories about how our veterans are being treated by the Veterans Administration, another outrageous scandal the Obama administration can claim as their own. But this scandal is different, like all the other scandals, Obama found out about it while watching the news, or so he says, which just proves how inept this president actually is, he has no clue what is going on around him.

But what this VA scandal is showing us, is what all Americans are in for when Obama-Care is fully implemented, (The silver lining I was talking about). Everything that the Republicans were warning us about Obama-Care is unfolding before us at the VA. Putting a government bureaucracy in charge of one’s health is a gamble likely to end badly. Yet, if Obama-Care stands, that is precisely the gamble every American eventually will take. Sarah Palin was ridiculed when she talked about “death panels,” but that is exactly what we are looking at in the VA system, some government bureaucrat deciding who will get treatment and when.

Obama-Care is simply the VA on Steroids. Whatever the problems are with the VA, they will be multiplied a thousand times under Obama-Care. The long lines for health care because of doctor shortages will be an everyday occurrence, people waiting months for an appointment, rationing of care and medicine, reduced service is everything the Republicans said would happen, but the Liberal, Progressive, Democrats turned a deaf ear to reality.

The Democrats own Obama-Care, they all voted for it and they will be taken down because of it, maybe if they took the time to read the 2,700 page bill, they would have realized what a dangerous and disastrous bill it actually was. It’s too late for the Democrats, they voted for it, they defended it, they own it, it is up to we the people to make sure it gets repealed.

There is no doubt that the Democrats want government run health care, but all you have to do is look around the world at countries that already have Socialized Health-Care, like England. Here is a few clips from an English newspaper.

“My wife had treatment at this hospital and it was beyond belief. Staff tried to get my wife to believe she had already been given her tablets when they hadn’t; later admitting they ran out and did not want to call out the Pharmacy! People were screaming for the toilet as their requests for assistance went unheeded.” Mick, Stafford

“My mother in law died at a hospital where her ‘care’ was almost non-existant. She died screaming in pain because nobody could be found to replace her morphine pump.” Claire, Norfolk

“When my father was in hospital for months, he lay in a bed with dirty, torn blankets and grubby sheets. I asked to see the Hospital Manager and was walked through the most plush of offices. I was sickened and told her so.” Sammy, UK

“My sister recently qualified as a nurse. During her training a fellow student commented to a manager that a doctor hadn’t bothered to change his scrubs after undertaking a minor operation on a patient and wore the same ones for his next operation. She was warned any whistle blowing of that sort would result in her being kicked out.” Jo, Middlesex

article-1162552-03f45d8b000005dc-518_468x377

 

Pic

Make no mistake, if Obama and the Liberal-Progressives get their way, you will be reading storeis like this in our own papers. Obama-Care will turn this country into a two tier health-care system, where the top 10% will get the best health-care because they can afford to pay cash, while the rest of us will be writing stories, just like the ones in England to the newspapers. Where do you think Obama and all the Democrats that pushed the bill will fall into?

“Hey Alan Colmes I Read Your Book.” (A Republicans Rebuttal) Available here.

 

ObamaCare

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Obama Requests $1.1B for Gun Control – and does it wrong

Obama-470x315

Like the Senator that thought magazines were disposable, another that thought ARs could shoot 30 rounds in 1/2 second and the list of other politicians that misunderstand every aspect of gun ownership – Now, our President has put out a request for more than a billion dollars to spend on a list of gun control measures that is clearly upside down.

From Breitbart.com:

President Obama has requested $1.1 billion and the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for $382.1 million for gun control “to protect Americans from gun violence.”

Included in the DOJ’s $382.1 million figure is a request for $2 million for smart gun technology grants.

According to The Washington Beacon, Obama’s $1.1 billion “[includes] $182 million to support the president’s ‘Now is the Time’ gun safety initiative.”

“Now is the Time” includes the following:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Now, if someone is serious about ending the school shootings and the recent mass-knifing at a school were really serious, they would look at the common cause – mental illness. They wouldn’t be focusing on the weapon. A mentally ill person can do great harm with a knife, dry ice bomb (gonna outlaw dry ice?), pressure cooker or whatever they can find. Let’s first examine the President’s list:

1. Require background checks for all gun sales.

It says sales, but I think they mean transfers. It’s hard to tell with liberals – definitions of words mean little to them. I don’t want to have to do a background check on my son when I give him a new dove gun.

2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.

Honestly, the NRA and I agree on this. More criminal data in the system is necessary and a long time coming. What’s scary is that we don’t honestly know if what the President means by this is what WE mean by this.

3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.

No such thing. Should we also ban “assault knives” like the one the kid used to harm 23 people today or “assault pressure cookers” like the ones use in the Boston bombings? The weapons they want to ban are semi-automatic rifles (today.) Once they get those, punp-action or bolt-action guns will be next. They just want to push things one step further and give it a scary name. AR actually stands for “Armalite Rifle.”

4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

This will destroy the competition-shooting community and does nothing to promote safety. This is irresponsible and anyone who re-elects someone that votes for anything like this is just waiting to have them decide that 5, or 3 rounds are enough next time. 

5. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets

Yes, because those are used every day to … well actually they aren’t really used against armored targets in much of any crime. Just think of all the bank robberies or convenience store hold-ups this would prevent … or something

6. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime

This one, I agree with. As long as I understand what a gun crime is. Fast and furious? That seems like a gun crime.. guess they need additional tools to prosecute someone.. anyone .. for that debacle.

7. End the freeze on gun violence research

Research away, studies come to the conclusion of the organization paying them to do so. More government studies telling us the new ice age is coming (circa 1970) should be totally paid for by American tax dollars .. or something

8. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates.

Armed security yes. Nurturing climate? Seriously? Whose the parent here? Ahhh… yup, just got it.

9. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Who believes the government can make that happen? They can’t even create an effective healthcare marketplace. Imagine a government-regulated mental healthcare regime…. 

The real list is simpler:

  1. Do some research on the anti-depressants, ADD, and other anti-psychotic drugs that a massive and unavoidable majority of the mass-violence culprits were on
  2. End gun-free zones. Most attacks end the instant someone confronts the attacker with a firearm – police response times are long and won’t get better as the population grows.
  3. Don’t nurture kids at school, make them strong and independent. Teach them that not everything is easy, success is not guaranteed and perhaps more of them won’t be propelled into psychosis when the least small thing goes wrong. Let them have their tantrums as 3 year olds or they might just have them at 17 instead.

Stop Maligning the Export-Import Bank. America Needs It.

Recently, pseudoconservative Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and a few of his Congressional chums, along with the neoconservative Heritage Foundation, have resumed their utterly misguided and dishonest propaganda campaign against the Export-Import Bank, maligning it with a litany of lies. Furthermore, because the Bank’s 2-year operating authorization is set to expire soon, Lee and his fellow pseudoconservative Congressional pals seek to kill the Bank, as does the Heritage Foundation and its lobbying outfit, Heritage Action.

They falsely claim that the Bank hands money out to “politically connected” businesses, skews free markets, and exposes taxpayers to unnecessary loan risk. They falsely claim that over 80% of its loans go to huge corporations like Boeing and General Electric. They malign the Bank as a “crony capitalist” agency.

All of their claims are utterly false, however. In this article, I will correct the record.

The Facts About The Export-Import Bank

Here are THE FACTS about the Export-Import Bank:

  • It does NOT receive any funding from the taxpayers and does not cost them a single cent. In fact, thanks to its interest rates, it returns a profit to taxpayers every year – to the tune of $1 bn last year.
  • It does NOT provide any subsidies to anyone. It only provides LOANS to businesses – which have to be (and are always) fully paid back with interest.
  • Over 90% of its loans are provided to SMALL BUSINESSES, NOT big companies like Boeing and GE.
  • It is NOT a crony capitalist agency, because crony capitalism is the act of providing handouts to those individuals or businesses who are politically connected or sympathetic to a sitting government. The Ex-Im bank provides loans without regard to businesses’ and their owners’ political sympathies or contributions.
  • It is absolutely necessary to help American companies level the playing field on the global market, which is heavily skewed towards foreign competitors who are lavishly subsidized (not merely provided with loans, but outright subsidized) by their national governments. Foreign countries always have (and will, for the foreseeable future) lavishly support their manufacturers, especially in key industry sectors. The only choice for the US is to either do the same or stop aiding its exporters and thus lose its industry entirely over time.
  • Big companies, such as Boeing and General Electric, receive only a small portion of the Export-Import Bank’s loans.
  • Ex-Im has NEVER loaned any money to Solyndra, despite Heritage Action’s utterly false claims.

Ignoring these facts, Sen. Mike Lee nonetheless presses for the Export-Import Bank’s deauthorization and has recently declared in the National Review that “whether the Export-Import Bank provides loans to respected, successful companies like Boeing or failed companies like Solyndra is irrelevant.”

Excuse me? Whom it provides loans to is irrelevant?

Are you on drugs, Sen. Lee?

It matters a lot!

Whom the Bank loans money to matters, because it determines whether the loan is likely to be paid back with interest or not. In the last 27 years, it has always been in all cases.

Sen. Lee protests that it’s irrelevant because loaning money to private companies – even to American exporters – supposedly skews the free market and violates conservative principles.

But as I will demonstrate, this is utter gibberish.

Economic Nationalism Leads To Prosperity, Free Trade To Economic Decline

Supporting American exporters – especially with loans rather than subsidies – does NOT skew free markets and is NOT a violation of conservative principles.

Globally, there are NO free markets – the global marketplace is already heavily skewed… in favor of America’s and American companies’ competitors, that is.

Virtually all major traders around the world, except the US, protect their industry with subsidies, loans, protective tariffs, and in many cases (e.g. China), currency manipulation.

China, India, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Mexico, Canada – all of them, and many other countries around the world, protect, nurture, and generously aid their industries, especially exporting companies.

The US and the UK are the only major traders in the world who don’t do so and instead indulge in “free trade” fantasies.

It is therefore no surprise that the US has huge trade deficits with almost every other country around the world: with Italy and Ireland, $20 bn annually each; with Germany, over $30 bn annually; with Mexico, over $60 bn per year; with South Korea, $25 bn per year (it has tripled since the ratification of the KORUS free trade agreement).

America’s trade deficit with Japan is the largest America has ever had with Nippon.

America’s trade deficit with China last year was the largest ever recorded in human history between any two countries, at over $300 bn! Not just the largest between the US and China, but the largest trade deficit ever recorded between any two countries!

Such are the disastrous results of suicidal “free trade” policies that the GOP and the Heritage Foundation have promoted for decades.

These folks, including Sen. Mike Lee, are obviously ignorant of the fact that EVERY country which ever became an economic power did so by protecting and supporting its industrial base, especially exporters: England under the Acts of Navigation, Britain until the mid-19th century, France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Napoleon, Prussia under the Customs Union, Germany since the 19th century, Japan since the Meiji era, America from the 1790s to the 1960s, China today.

NO country has ever become an economic power, or generated prosperity, by indulging in free trade fantasies. Free trade is only for dupes and idiots.

America’s own history is instructive here. The US used to be, economically, a totally independent country and THE world’s factory of all sorts of goods. Today, it has been largely deindustrialized and is dependent on China for the necessities of life – thanks to suicidal “free trade” policies.

From the Founding Fathers’ era until the 1960s, the US followed the Founding Fathers’ economic preceipts: Manufacturing, not finance or services, is the nation’s economic muscle. Trade surpluses are preferrable to trade deficits. Exports are preferrable to imports. To protect the economy and Americans’ jobs, the US industrial base must be protected by any means necessary. “Made in the USA” should always be preferred.

It is no coincidence that all four Presidents who made it to Mount Rushmore were protectionists.

“Thank God I’m not a free trader”, President Teddy Roosevelt remarked once.

But starting in the 1960s, America began to unilaterally open up its huge market to foreign companies without obtaining reciprocation from foreign countries.

Thus became the deindustrialization, and the unilateral economic disarmament, of America.

And even though it was a Democratic-controlled Congress who passed, and a Democrat President (JFK) who signed, the Trade Promotion Act, it is Republicans who have led the way in this unilateral economic disarmament.

And, predictably, it has proved just as disastrous for America’s well-being as the Democrats’ campaign to unilaterally disarm America militarily.

Indeed, America now has two pro-unilateral-disarmament parties: the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Edward Markey, want to unilaterally disarm America militarily. Republicans, led by Sen. Mike Lee, want to unilaterally disarm America economically.

America has now fewer than 25% of the nuclear arsenal she had in 1991, at the Cold War’s end, and one of its last protections for the US industry is the Export-Import Bank. If that is terminated, the US industrial base is likely to go the way American civilian shipbuilders went after the Reagan Administration cut off aid to them: out of business.

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »