Tag Archives: entitlement programs

Romney Is Not Reagan, But Is The Best Option

While it was definitely one of the elements, Ronald Reagan did more to help defeat the Soviet Union than conduct financial warfare via economic pressures.  U.S. defense spending increased during his administration.  Having faced the brunt of Adolf Hitler’s blitzkrieg, which was built post WWI in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the Soviet Union’s Politburo watched this spending increase and knew its meaning.  That understanding and their fear of SDI made them respect Reagan and convinced them that Reagan was willing AND READY to protect, defend and advance American influence and power around the globe.  Reagan saw the USA as a force for good around the world.  Had he been merely interested in protecting the territorial landmass of the United States he would not have lifted a finger to help free Eastern Europe from Soviet oppression.

This increase in defense spending was an underlying cause of budget deficits that “progressives” still use to smear Reagan’s name and justify tax hikes under the misperception/misinterpretation/misrepresentation/outright lie that “Reagan’s tax cuts led to huge deficits”.  That lie is currently being recycled for the George W. Bush tax cuts.  It was also the “justification” behind a “progressive” offer to “compromise” with Reagan: Spending cuts (which never happened) in exchange for tax increases (that did).  A dishonest tactic they also employed on Bush the elder.  To this day, “progressive” Democrats love to harp about how “Reagan raised taxes…Reagan raised taxes”.

…*squawk*…Polly want a cracker.

“progressives” refuse to even think about thinking about addressing the true cause of America’s exploding debt: Big government “progressive” socialist “entitlement” programs which make people less self-reliant and more government dependent.  Worse yet, today, in the name of “social justice” and/or “economic justice” “progressives” use the emotional argument that “we need to take care of the less fortunate” by enacting additional “entitlement” programs (obamacare, massive increase in food stamps usage, etc.) and further hocking America’s future by giving boatloads of freebies to illegal aliens.

To balance the budget and follow the Constitution, the United States needs to defund and disassemble all the central planning, control “the masses”, big spending, socialist programs and dismantle entire Cabinet Departments that over-spend taxpayer’s money while stifling business and indoctrinating America’s children into hating America, free market Capitalism and believing Socialism and Communism are not so bad (Viva Che!).  There is no Constitutional authority for Social Security, Medicare or obamacare.  You can thank “progressive” FDR’s willingness to bully and threaten the Supreme Court into submission for their existence.  Likewise, there is no Constitutional authority for the Department of Energy or the Department of Education, the EPA and other unaccountable bureaucracies.

There is Constitutional authority for defense.

There are calls for cuts in defense as part of plans to balance the budget.  Peace through strength does not mean unilateral disarmament through cuts in defense.

Peace through strength means that you have, and your enemies KNOW that you have the military capability and the willingness, even if reluctantly, to do the following:

If attacked, the United States will declare war on its attackers and turn where they live into a crater filled parking lot that looks more like the moon than part of planet earth.  Then the U.S. will bring its troops home and leave the attackers to rebuild their lives without any help from the United States.  Anytime they or anyone else chooses to attack the U.S, it is guaranteed this process will be repeated.  That goes for Communist China, Imperialist Russia, Fascist Islam, their surrogates and everyone else.

For so long as there are enemies to the United States, this readiness must be maintained.

If the rest of the world wants to live in peace, they will keep peace with the United States.  We will be happy to engage in international commerce and mutually beneficial interactions.  If they choose to fight, they are toast.

This conclusion is reached by studying history and independent of the influence of America’s corrupt “mainstream media”.  Oh so lovingly referred to as the “progressive” Party Pravda.  It was blatantly obvious from day one that “Conservative” FOX News was in the tank for Romney.  Romney was nowhere near the top of many lists for the GOP nomination.

True Reagan Conservatives who voted for and lived in America during his Presidency, and witnessed that President Reagan’s winning coalition was based on fiscal responsibility, American security and the championing of America’s traditional moral values and principles, Conservatives will rally around Mitt Romney.

Given a choice between a peace through strength Romney, cut defense to balance the budget Ron Paul and gut defense to have more money to spend on socialist programs obama, Romney is clearly the best option.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/romney-is-not-reagan-but-is-the-best-option/

NEWS FLASH: Lindsey Graham is a “top conservative”!

Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, Gregory Lemos and Sherisse Pham, part of the collective, useful spokes-tools employed by ABC News and the “progressive” Party Pravda’s online misinformation outlet known as Yahoo News are at it again.

To begin with, this “progressive” misinformation’s “headline” is pure, pre-fabricated nonsense that reads:

“Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge”.

This “headline” is garbage.

First of all, save for his consistently patriotic support for the United States military and for American troops, Senator Lindsey Graham is about as moderate as Republicans come. Some Conservatives might characterize him as a “progressive” Republican. Even more may openly label him a RINO. The thought of his being a “top conservative” comes from the minds of institutionalized “progressive” leftists, not reality. Secondly, not once in the interview does Graham ever utter the words “read my lips”. Again, readers are witnessing fabricated “progressive” wishful fiction, not fact. Furthermore, never did he say “don’t sign the ‘no new tax’ pledge. Not even once. Not ever.

The entire headline is a total lie. It’s a complete falsehood. The “news” presented in this “headline” is “progressive” fabrication that goes light years beyond the outer limits of “spin”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

Thanks to a “headline” that’s contains not one ounce of truth, the article is automatically discredited in the minds of informed voters, those who are obviously not the target audience of Karl, Coolidge, Lemos and Pham.

What Graham did say is that he is willing to be flexible on applying one fourth of revenue collected by the IRS through elimination of tax loopholes and subsidies towards reducing the nations nearly $16 trillion in debt. The other three fourths would continue to follow the No New Tax Pledge’s formula for applying such revenues solely towards tax cuts. For Graham to accept this compromise, Democrats would be required to respond in kind to work in a bipartisan fashion towards reducing the national debt via “entitlement” program reforms.

That such inaccurate “reporting” could be considered, even for a fleeting moment, as real journalism, that these liars are actually getting paid to propagandize pure fiction as fact shows how low are today’s standards for journalistic integrity. This “headline” is going to give a large number of low-information, “sound bite news voters” a completely incorrect image of reality. It’s not even close to being true. All visible evidence points to clear intent to mislead misinform and indoctrinate masses of online readers.

How about giving this story a more objective headline, a headline that reflects the truth while accurately respects the content of the story? One more like: Graham Willing to Discuss Tax, Entitlement Compromise.

How difficult was that?

Perhaps for self imagined, self-appointed members of the “progressive” intellectual elite, it’s just too simple for their brilliant minds.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/news-flash-lindsey-graham-is-a-top-conservative/