Tag Archives: government

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

RE: The US Senate Race in Kansas

“Independent” Greg Orman, who has so many Democrat Party operative working on his campaign one expects to see Nancy Pelosi’s name on his campaign headquarters door, has stated that he will caucus with whatever party presents the best ideas.

Mr. Orman’s campaign website states:

“If Greg is elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, he will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.”

Therein lays the problem, and a perfect example of: a) how constitutionally illiterate our political class has become; b) how constitutionally illiterate our citizenry has become; and c) why the 17th Amendment is the most damaging action ever executed by the Progressive Left throughout US history.

When the Progressives of the early 20th Century marshaled through the 17th Amendment, they did a great damage to the symbiotic set of checks and balanced that achieved protections for both the individual and the individual states, where the power of the federal government was concerned. Under the guise of putting more control of government into the hands of the people, the Progressives, under Woodrow Wilson, literally destroyed the check and balance that protected state sovereignty and, through that erosion, the sovereignty of the individual.

At its inception, the US Constitution mandated, in Article I, Section 3, that:

“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…”

The appointment of senators by the state legislators thwarted political faction on the floor of the US Senate. With each senator held accountable by their respective state legislatures for their votes, alliances and actions, the onus for political survival for the senatorial class was devotion to the well-being of their home states. The political ideology or factional allegiance of the senator was irrelevant for the most part. If a senator chose political party over the needs of his home state, the state legislature could – and would – simply recall him through an act the State House, replacing the senator with someone who held allegiance to his home state – and the constitution of that home state – above national political faction.

Understanding this original intent that the Framers built into the Constitution, the idea of Obamacare, or suffocating national debt, or an aggressive IRS, EPA or NSA, would never have come to be. The unfunded mandates of Obamacare would have seen the 54 senators from the 27 states that refused to establish ACA health insurance exchanges – and most likely more from states that did – voting against the bill in its infancy because the legislation harms the well-being of the individual states and usurps the authority of most every state’s constitution. So too, the national debt would never have been allowed to accumulate because it passes down to the citizens of individual states. The IRS would be little more than a gaggle of accountants, the EPA would not exist and the NSA wouldn’t be allowed to operate on US soil, if at all.

Simply put, there would be no party politics in the US Senate. It would be an assembly of representatives of each state’s government, tasked specifically and exclusively with the protection of the home state and her constitution. The passage of the 17th Amendment killed that protection and facilitated political faction on a national level to metastasize in the US Senate, something Pres. George Washington warned vehemently about in his Farewell Address.

The 17th Amendment mandates:

“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…”

By tricking – and that’s exactly what the Progressives did – the populace into thinking the popular election of their senators gave them more power over government, it literally established the opposite; delivering great power to national political parties and the federal government, while extinguishing an essential check and balance over said political parties and the federal government. The 17th Amendment took power away from the people and the states, and delivered it to the political parties and the federal government.

So, why is the Senatorial Election in Kansas a perfect example of constitutional illiteracy and Progressive manipulation? Would the 17th Amendment have not been passed Mr. Orman wouldn’t need – or aspire – to caucus with any political faction or party. He would, instead, be carrying out the will of the Kansas State Legislature and, through them, the will of the people of his state. There would be no need – or desire – to “caucus” with those of any particular political “flavor” because the well-being of each state is dictated by the needs of each state and her people, not the leaders of any political party.

To wit, imagine that the 17th Amendment had never passed, or that a smart-thinking Congress repealed it. No longer would we see any – any – legislative gridlock; no longer would we amass unrepayable debt; no longer would we see hyper-partisan or ideological pieces of legislation rammed down our throats; no longer would the American people – and her government – be held hostage to politics…no long would the American people be held hostage to politics.

Still think Progressives are on the side of the people? Yeah, neither do I…I haven’t for a very, very long time.

The Lightening-Fast Reflexes of the Obama Regime

The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, announced October 28th that his agency has raised the security level for federal buildings in the aftermath of last week’s terror attacks in Canada:

“The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently,” Johnson said in a statement. “Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance in the protection of US government installations and our personnel.”

Aren’t you absolutely bowled over by the cat-like reflexes of the Obama Administration? I mean really, we have only seen the fall of every major town in Iraq, sans Baghdad, the engagement of even Islamist countries in the fight against the Islamic State, beheadings and actual declarations of violent intent from the Islamic State and associated Islamist terror groups. We have seen “faceless selfies” of wanna-be jihadis and jihadist sympathizers featuring signs with pro-Islamic State propaganda in front of buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC. And we have seen beheadings on American soil in the name of Islam. Why should we expect any meaningful and/or timely response from an administration that is still trying to figure out if an infectious disease should warrant a quarantine of travelers arriving from infected countries?

Oh sure, the brilliant mind that is Barack Obama doesn’t succumb to the knee-jerk decision, especially where national security and foreign policy are concerned. That’s probably why he is still deliberating the security of the US border in the face of Islamist terrorists who have declared they will bring car bombs and beheadings to US soil; and why he is purposely ignoring the transportation of infectious disease across the border in the form of Enterovirus 68. Titrated to the Obama Administration’s response rate to serious issues facing the American citizenry, he will probably see our border secured after the 27th car bomb goes off in New York (after he chastises politicians there for their kneejerk Islamophobic responses) and after all of the schools in every state on the Southern border are quarantined.

My deference to Mr. Obama’s intelligence, and his ability to react in a timely manner to any crisis, is Obviously mired in sarcasm. Truth be told, I am more inclined to believe that Mr. Obama – whose entire tenure has been an exercise in group-think and governance by committee – is the dullest crayon in the White House box. Do you think for a moment that if he had achieved exemplary grades at Harvard or had penned a groundbreaking essay for the Harvard Review that the Progressive Left wouldn’t have showcased that behind the altar at the Church of Perpetual Obamaisms? No, it is likelier that he was a sub-par student whose falsely elevated self-esteem afforded him the opportunity to be “good at the mouth” and little else.

We all should have known this – or at least the voters on the Left side of the aisle should have known this – prior to his election in 2008, his only accomplishment being the failure of his community organizing efforts at the Altgeld Gardens in Chicago, still a cesspool of poverty, drug dealers, prostitutes and welfare queens to this day.

Of course, to have discerned Mr. Obama as wholly unqualified for the job would have required Liberal voters to actually think for themselves – before they voted, and to possess the integrity to understand and accept that race isn’t a qualification for office – at any level. To have realized the mistake of Obama – preemptively – would have required those on the pretentious side of the aisle to acquiesce to the notion that their ideological mindset just might not be as “fantabulous” as they think they it is.

Sadly, and to the detriment of liberty, personal freedom and representative government, we all know that the likelihood of a Liberal epiphany is next to nil. Liberals, led like clueless lemmings, will continue to fall prey to the emotionally marketed manipulation of their Progressive overlords; overlords who have co-opted their political party; self-centered and opportunistic overlords who have hoodwinked them into the chains of ideological slavery.

Parenting (citizen) and Kids (government) Story

A little story about parenting: Imagine: Parents have told their kids that they had better clean their room or they don’t get any ice cream. Instead of cleaning the kids making it messier, thinking that they will PUNISH the parents- that the they parents will break and give in. How dare the parents deny ice cream? Parents still say no. So the kids smear the walls with feces, dump out the drawers, tear everything from the closet. The kids invite their friends over. Other kids that raid the cabinets and refrigerator. Taking whatever they want without asking or replacing. The parents still say ,”NO, you cannot have ice cream! Look at the mess you’re making! Someone HAS GO TO CLEAN this disaster up! Your friends have got to go to their own home and clean their own messes up!” The kids, while standing in the middle of the room, throw garbage, clothes, feces, hamsters, and pet chihuahua in the air say, “OK, give us the ice cream FIRST, THEN we’ll clean up this mess. WE PROMISE! If you don’t accept our terms: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE and it means you HATE us. You hate my friends! WHY do you have all these RULES?!?” The parents in weakness and at their wits end with seeing the mess and destruction, wanting to do anything to have all this cleaned up and back the way it was, relent, “Okay, okay, come on and have the ice cream. But you had better come back upstairs and get this cleaned up.” “Sure, mom. Sure Dad,” the kids say, as they look at each other grinning behind the parents back as they walk down the hall to the kitchen, giving each other a wink and a nod. There will always be ice cream, cookies, movies, games- wants and needs that are considered more important than the REAL WORK that needs getting done. It’s never in the interest of the kids to clean up their mess, only the getting of what they WANT that matters to them. They know that one day they will be gone and it will be SOMEONE ELSE’S job to take care of all the trouble they created. That room will never cleaned and certainly will never be the same again.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how our government is run.

—————————————————————————–

Tom can be found on Facebook

and as the author of LONE WOLF, SUCKER PUNCHED, and BLOOD OF PATRIOTS – BLOOD OF TYRANTS on AMAZON

Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

Perhaps when our time is relegated to the history books it will be remembered as the “Era of Self-Important Divisiveness,” or something to that effect. Truth be told, there have been few times in the history of our nation when politics was so basely divisive. I say basely because although politics in the time of our Founders and Framers was combative, it was so on an intellectual level; a battlefield of higher thinking, as it were. Today, our politics is centered on the self-important stature of those whose only claim to narcissism is the falsely elevated self-esteem foisted upon them by the Progressive operatives who have commandeered the education system.

Today, our society lauds the illiterate rap artist and the talentless faux-beauties of Hollywood; thugs with a cursory grasp of rhythm but not music, and surgically enhanced spotlight seekers completely devoid of talent. Today, our culture’s media places more importance in the political opinions of an American Idol runner-up, than those who served in government during an era when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union disappeared from the maps of the world.

So, it is no surprise that our narrative-controlling media (or at least that’s what they strive for) would be wasting the precious “attention span time” of the non-engaged and no- and low-information American public with the candidacy of Clay Aiken, nominee in the North Carolina 2nd congressional district election. Not to take anything away from Mr. Aiken’s musical talents (he is a talented singer), but to quote a superior musician, Frank Zappa, “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

The Washington Times is reporting:

“Democrat congressional candidate Clay Aiken has reportedly deleted a tweet in which he fantasized about punching conservative author Ann Coulter ‘in the face.’

“‘Anyone else watching @piersmorgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face?’ the former American Idol runner-up tweeted in October 2012…

“Mr. Aiken won the North Carolina Democrat nomination last week with a lead of less than 400 votes, just one day after his main contender, Keith Crisco, was found dead in his home.”

For a moment let’s skip the embarrassing fact that Mr. Aiken only beat a dead guy by 400 votes. One has to wonder if he would have lost if he were on the ballot in Chicago, what with all the dead people who vote there.

I could ask a question here. Is this the type of person that Democrats want to have representing them in Congress; a person who advocates for violence against those with whom he disagrees, even as he preaches acceptance and tolerance for “protected” demographics in our society? But the answer here is one we already understand: purporting inclusion and non-violence while advocating for the beating of those with which you disagree is okay if you are a Progressive. It is a hate crime if you are anything but.

Mr. Aiken didn’t stop there, either. In referencing Ms. Coulter a second time, he tweeted:

“Since Ann Coulter says it’s ok 2 b offensive when describing people, let’s ‘C’ what words we can use 2 describe her huff.to/P8moE7”

An obvious reference to a word that gets guys slapped squarely across the face when heard by females.

Caustic indignation has become the “new normal” for the Progressive Left. They have always used the tactics of “divide and conquer” and “slash and burn” in their politics, but in the days past they did it with much more subtlety, preferring the artful spin of an issue (the issuance of disinformation and manipulative propaganda) to the overt brutality of arrogant and belligerent calls for violence, whether under the banner of the “rainbow flag” or not. Today’s Progressive activists – and, evidently, congressional candidates – seem to have no problem advocating for violence against those with whom they disagree; advocating for the denial of free speech rights for those who do not obediently follow their shallow vision of what a diverse society should be.

Our nation’s motto is E Pluribus Unum: “Out of Many, One.” In this simple statement we can understand what the United States of America was supposed to be…and what it is not today. Our nation was supposed to be a nation that embraced the differences in all the peoples who wanted to shed their labels and become Americans, simply Americans; not hyphenated Americans or protected Americans, just Americans. In the vision of e pluribus unum, our nation would see no differences among its citizenry based on color, economic wherewithal, religion, gender or profession; it would only see a melting pot of people who came to this land to be free.

Our nation was designed to be a safe haven for all people, a safe haven from the oligarchs and the despots, the totalitarians, dictators and fascists; a safe haven where people could worship freely, freely express their beliefs (both societal and political), and have the freedom to pursue happiness, both in spirit and in commerce. Today, we have transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic to a nation governed by an elitist oligarchy, hell-bent on attaining and then retaining power, influence and riches derived from We the People. And We the People, for our apathy, for our self-importance, for our stupidity, have brought it upon ourselves for our abdication of responsibility to protect the Charters of Freedom; for our abdication of responsibility to hold those elected to office accountable for their malfeasance and treachery.

We have true scandals facing our nation today, scandals that, in the long run, will be found to be criminal and actionable in nature, yet our media decides Clay Aiken’s “sissy-fit” with Anne Coulter is news. Then, what can we expect from a mainstream media where one network president, CNN’s Jeff Zucker, said,

“We’re not going to be shamed into [covering the Benghazi scandal] by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something.”

Is the assassination of a US ambassador and his security team by an enemy aligned with the group that slaughtered 2,975 people on September 11, 2001 not worth covering; not worth examining until all the questions are answered? Should we be satisfied with the determinations and findings of a “stacked-deck” investigative panel more concerned with political vanity than truth?

We the People are less concerned about how Mr. Aiken is, well, “just all tied up in little pretty knots” about Ann Coulter’s comments, and much more concerned that half of our government doesn’t care that:

▪ an act of war was perpetrated on an American ambassador and his security team in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and our President, his administration and his party’s congressional contingent overtly seek to cover-up Executive Branch complicity;

▪ the IRS was illegally targeting political advocacy groups that represented easily half of the electorate’s political views;

▪ the Veteran’s Administration has been cooking the books for the sole purpose of gleaning taxpayer-funded “bonus money” from the Treasury while veterans died – and lay dying – waiting for basic treatment;

▪ the Department of Justice – run by an overt racist – not only spied on journalists in order to intimidate the First Amendment protections of the press, but has routinely refused to enforce laws based on politics and racism;

▪ the singular “achievement” of this administration – the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (and you thought I was going to say the fundamental transformation of the United States of America) – is robbing our citizens of jobs, even as the administration’s penchant for acquiescing to global governance literally extracts massive amounts of wealth from our shores.

But then, Progressives are in control of the mainstream media and the news narratives; narratives sympatico with those on Pennsylvania Avenue who are more concerned about the “fundamental transformation of America,” than with doing the jobs for which they were elected. That said, is it any wonder Mr. Obama always finds out about what his administration is doing from the “news media reports”?

Going back to Frank Zappa for a moment, a very talented musician in my book,

“I believe that, in a [constitutional republic], government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a ‘temporary license to exist’ – in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a [constitutional republic] you own the government – it doesn’t own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the ‘pursuit’ is in progress.”

Maybe it’s time for Mr. Aiken to take some private lessons in government, philosophy and civility. Too bad Mr. Zappa isn’t available.

Roberts Rules Again…Poorly

Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

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

 

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Real-Time Evolution of ‘Soft Despotism’

Today, many who consider themselves “visionaries” are sounding the alarm about the size and scope of government. From Obamacare to the Right to Bear Arms they decry government over-reach and the bureaucratization of our government. But those who truly understand the agenda of the Progressive Movement in the United States have been sounding this warning for years, explaining that for the Progressive’s agenda to be achieved a strong and authoritative centralized government must exist, unfettered by the interference that a free people, armed with Natural Law rights, would inject. Sadly, even those who brag about understanding these points, do very little about it, choosing to complain while failing to support the foot soldiers fighting the battle.

The frustration among those who are moved to action; who are moved to sacrifice time, treasure and station, is palpable. Further, as Progressives use the many-tiered bureaucracies – at all levels of government – to advance their agenda (and make no mistake, they are advancing), those American citizens moved to defend the freedoms bequeathed to them not only stand alone in their fight, they are often penalized and ostracized in the pursuit of defending their rights.

To wit, the BaltimoreSun.com reports:

The Howard County father whose arrest became a viral web video and a cause célèbre of conservative talk radio won’t be prosecuted for disrupting a meeting on state education standards.

The Baltimore County state’s attorney’s office dropped assault charges Monday against Robert Small, who had been led out of the Thursday night meeting in Towson by an off-duty police officer. Small interrupted education officials, complaining that new standards were aimed at sending children to community colleges…

After a lengthy presentation by [US Department of Education] officials, members of the public were asked to submit their questions in writing. Baltimore County School Superintendent Dallas Dance then selectively scanned the pile of questions and picked out ones to be read aloud…

The Ellicott City father of two wasn’t satisfied that his question would be answered so he stood and interrupted Dance. He said he believed the new standards would lower expectations for students and that teaching would be aimed at “getting students to community colleges rather than Harvard.”

Mr. Smalls was then arrested…silenced…denied his First Amendment Free Speech Rights and his right to redress his government.

Whether or not you agree with the Common Core initiative is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make here, although it should be noted that Common Core, in the form in which it is being implemented, is a dramatic over-reach of federal authority and a mere shadow of what the National Governor’s Association intended for it to be. Textbooks are being geared toward the suggested curriculum standards and Progressives are taking the opportunity to advance their agenda (read here and here) through these textbooks and curricula.

The larger point I am making here is that our government – in the form of those elected to serve the citizenry – has not only gotten too large and too dependent on bureaucrats and the bureaucratic process, but arrogantly totalitarian as well; totalitarian to the point of usurping the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution.

It cannot be denied that Baltimore County School Superintendent Dallas Dance picked non-inflammatory and Common Core sympathetic questions to feature from the pile of questions submitted. Only an intellectual midget would suggest otherwise. And while this is disingenuous at best, it pales in comparison to the panel’s use of force to silence a parent…a taxpayer…the very person who pays the salaries of each and every authoritarian who sits on the panel that silenced him.

Redress of government is a constitutional right, at every level. When a parent – a taxpaying parent and an engaged and educated parent – is denied his or her constitutional right to redress government at the most base level; when a concerned and informed parent is silenced from questioning the implementation of a program he or she feels denies their children a basic education, tyranny reigns. In the Baltimore County School System, tyranny reigns, supported by the oppression only afforded by an oligarchical and corrupt system.

Democrat strategist Pat Caddell opined on this issue saying,

“What we saw here is much bigger than just this. It is the idea that the people work for the…that people are the slaves to the officeholders. Superintendents of schools who won’t take questions…We see this sort of thing with security…We see it when the EPA goes to Alaska and raids with armed people and four agencies going in with guns on gold-mining operations in some little town. The things the government does now to oppress people, the laws we have now…the NSA spying on them…the fear…and imposing of a ‘soft despotism,’ which is, ‘if you get out of line will come get you’…”

Mr. Caddell’s frustration and – dare I say fear-based concern – was palpable, and rightly so.

Make no mistake, as government grows this “soft despotism” with expand, morphing into full-blown oppression: Free speech will be a concept recalled with longing as “hate speech” laws expand; Redress of government will become non-existent, those courageous enough to defend liberty and freedom sequestered for “threatening the government” and/or publicly ostracized to the point of demagoguery. We have witnessed the latter in the despotic treatment of the TEA Party by the mainstream media and Progressive Movement, conciliatory and vulnerable establishment Republicans in tow.

Mr. Smalls not only deserves better, he should bring legal action, not against the Baltimore Police Department, but directly against those who violated his constitutional rights.

The people of Baltimore County deserve better and they should demand that they receive better. But that can only be achieved through action; at the expense of time, treasure and station. The concerned citizens of Baltimore County should stage a recall of their Progressive school board members and then run for those positions themselves. Once elected, they can provide constitutionally conscious oversight of the day-to-day operations of the country school system, including curriculum and textbooks.

And finally, the people of the United States deserve better than the elitist, oligarchical, career-conscious, gaggle of political opportunists currently elected to office. A perfect litmus test for divining the opportunistic among this class is to juxtapose their campaign promises with their chamber votes. If someone ran on defunding, repealing and replacing Obamacare, but now provides politically opportune and cowardly excuses for not doing so, identify him or her as the elitist, political opportunist that he or she is and act accordingly.

Additionally, hold your no- and low-information family, friends and neighbors accountable for their abdication of responsibility to the community; their abdication of responsibility to be informed and engaged. Truth be told, if you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged, then you are an intellectually lazy and societally narcissistic, willing to benefit from the diligence and hard work of someone else; expecting someone else to provide the oversight to government so sorely needed today. If you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged then you are societally selfish and deserve neither the Natural Law rights bequeathed to you, nor the protections they afford. If you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged then you are the problem.

Personally, I will not exist as a slave to an oligarchical government because 41.8% of the US voting population thinks that it’s not worth their time or that they are too good to do the hard work of keeping an eye on their government’s actions, size and willingness to oppress.

I stand with Mr. Smalls. I will not sit like “cattle” as elitist oligarchs destroy our country. How about you?

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge Sept. 7th

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Jason Pye from United Liberty, and Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks join Taylor to talk Syria, liberty, and more.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Declaration of War…Declared by Congress Executed by the President

Reason # 1 Not to Have a Constitutional Convention

Navy shipsGreat Britain demonstrated how a nation should declare war…have representatives debate, vote. After British Parliament debated, and then they voted not to intervene in Syria’s Civil War. But Wait! That’s how our founders established our country within the Constitution, for Congress to declare war and the Commander-in-Chief to execute it.

The Constitution is vague, but not in declaring war. Our founders gave Congress the power to declare war, to raise and support the armed forces while the President is Commander-in-chief…a separation of powers. Apparently, the War Powers Act has muddled the waters of declaring war. The Act provides means by which the President can act without Congress declaration or authorization. If a national emergency is created, the President needs to notify Congress within 48 hours and execute whatever actions within 60 days.

Former Congressmen such as John Kerry and Leon Panetta believe that the President has the authority to declare war, claiming a declaration is not needed. In addition, former Representative and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta testified that an international coalition must be built and he’d advise Congress on what was decided. Former Senator and Secretary of State, John Kerry believes the President’s has an obligation to act.

Congress has declared war five times. The last being 1942 for World War II and has never declared war after the inception of the United Nations. Over the past two years, the United Nations has passed two resolutions involving conflicts with Mali and Libya while Russia continues to veto Syria…

Americans should understand why we’re going to war, so debates on the floor should be conducted between Representatives. There should be no secret in justifying war, once Congress has declared war than allow the Executive Branch to conduct it. If chemical weapons were used, then let the debate begin. 79 percent of Americans believe that the President should seek Congressional approval and it appears he is. It is clear that we should return to a Constitutional Republic rather than pursue this haphazard constant intervention seeking to be the World’s police. According to Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war and Article 2 assigns the President as Commander-in-Chief.

If our Representatives debate and vote to go to war, then Americans have an understanding of the reasons these Representatives supported. If they do not reflect the decisions of their constituents then their vote should be noted… If they have good reasons for war, then we’ll understand those reasons. We may not like them but our founders placed our military under the umbrella of a federal government…and for good reason. A country could not provide national defense with 50 different militaries. If Congress declares war, the Constitutional process is not broken.

Let the debates begin!

Government Shutdown?…Blame Obama & Reid

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

The End Of Policy Revisited

us_map_flagNote from Taylor: My buddy, William K, sent me an email last week in reply to this article from Reason Magazine. I don’t 100% agree with him, especially on foreign policy where I think he’s dead wrong, but he brings up some excellent points.

Hi Taylor,

I almost agree with what he’s saying. I do agree that the GOP has an almost non-existent public policy. I disagree with the idea that the Democrat party has no public policy. It may be that there is nothing distinctly new about their policy, but I believe their policy is to chisel in the public a new dependence upon the types of central planning (efficient government or some other euphemism) which provides the essentials (food, health, transportation, even jobs). Most of the impactful parts of Obamacare have not actually been implemented and can, in theory, still be brought down. What I do agree about is the sort of dishwater leadership we currently have in both chambers and the party at large.

Furthermore, there’s nothing “wrong” with the Democrat policy agenda. It’s working as long as they can tie their failings to the nebulous “other” which is the source of all wrongs. Were it not for the “other,” we might have found the philosopher’s stone of governance. In any case, true scandals (intelligences leaks, Ambassador Stevens killed in the Islamist attack on Benghazi and the subsequent obfuscation of what happened and why, the IRS targeting conservative oriented non-profits which faced scrutiny at a rate of almost 15:1, etc.) have yet to stick or gain traction. There are three more years and no sign that any of these will actually matter.

Regardless of the legality or the propriety of their actions, what the Democrat party is doing is working, even if it is slower than what they prefer. This incremental approach works, even if it is frustrating for them. If a conservative compromises on a law over a conviction, he moves further away than where his ideals state he should be. If a liberal compromises the same way, his march is simply a little slower.

Finally, I want to point out one thing that bothers me about libertarians, especially the more fiscally conscious ones – the ones with whom I am probably the most aligned. There seems to be a streak of isolationism in them and a aversion to defense spending. While a lot of energy based problems are self-inflicted, one cannot deny that the American Navy has kept the seas safe for international commerce. Our Navy basically guarantees that the crude petroleum produced in the Levant is able to make it to America as well as the mostly free Western Europe. Our defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been falling for decades. If our Navy shrinks too much, we risk conceding important trade routes and strategic seas. China has recently published a map which claims Philippine territory de facto and de jure controlled by the Philippines which is slowly being consumed by Chinese soft invasions (invasions which we are, by treaty, supposed to repel, but for which we do nothing).  Without defense spending, we have no ships, no fuel, no sailors to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. I honestly even hate the euphemism “interest” because it makes it sound like protecting commerce on the seas and protecting territorial integrity of allies is just a hobby, like knitting or bird watching. These are not pedestrian dawdlings – this is impactful for not only our way of life, but for the mostly democratic and free way of life that is genuinely threatened by the Communists in China and the Oligarchs in Russia.

Sincerely,

William K.

Are Texans Innately Conservative? Liberal? Or Libertarian?

Texas-flag-lone-star-state-300x288

Note: This was originally posted at Free Radical Network

There is going to be a big fight in Texas.  The Battleground Texas group is trying to make inroads into the state, in hopes of turning Texas either purple or blue.

They think the best strategy is ‘get out the vote’ campaigns.  Executive Director Jenn Brown told “The Dallas Morning News” she thought Texas is a “nonvoting state,” then claimed Texas wasn’t “innately conservative.”  She attributes her belief to the low voter turnout in the 2012 election, and election results that show a mere 18-percent of the voting population voted for Governor Rick Perry in 2010.  Her comments drew an unexpected response from Texas blogger/journalist Scott Braddock who said Texas was “innately libertarian.”

He was “dead serious“, and probably right.

Texas does have a very broad belief in freedom, and also in avoiding bureaucracy and a massive welfare state.  It’s not just rhetoric by Perry or others in power across the state; Texans have enjoyed rebelling against the “establishment” and striking back at what they saw as government intrusion.

The obvious example is the 2012 U.S. Senate race.  Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was seen as the odds-on favorite: he had the backing of the state party and pretty much everyone else in the Texas political machine.  Ted Cruz had a small coalition of people who supported him.  He was the upstart who talked up his libertarian leanings, speaking about actually obeying the U.S. Constitution, and seeking to keep the federal government out of Texans’ lives.  One of the chief reasons why “The Dallas Morning News” and “Houston Chronicle” supported Dewhurst was his coalition building.  While that is attractive in state politics, U.S. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their states.  Cruz understood this; Dewhurst didn’t.  “The Dallas Morning News” even supported Democrat Paul Sadler over Cruz in the 2012 General Election because he’d bring money to Texas, while Cruz would only do so if it involved “roads, freeways and ports.”  You know, Constitutional reasons.

Obviously Texans rejected both Dewhurst and Sadler by sending Cruz to DC, but it shows how the state wants the federal government to leave them alone.  They’re not interested in having DC determine what Texans do.  That’s rather libertarian.

But Texans’ desire to keep the government from taking over their lives isn’t just aimed at DC.  They’ve also pushed back against attempts by the state government from doing it.

The best example may be the Trans-Texas Corridor. In short, Perry was hoping to create a “super-highway” which would span from the southern border all the way to the Red River.  Perry praised it as something which would help shippers, reduce pollution, and fix roads.  He promised the tolls would keep taxes from having to be raised and that it would “improve the interstate concept.”

Texans revolted.  They spent hours upon hours pointing out the eminent domain issues, loss of tax revenue, how the proposal was too much like California’s Route 91, and just how poorly it was designed.  The push-back was so fierce, not only did the Trans-Texas Corridor die; but Perry ended up signing stronger laws against eminent domain in 2011.

The same can be said about the current fight in the state Legislature over transportation funding.  Perry, Dewhurst and other Republicans were hoping to get a constitutional amendment passed which would have diverted oil and gas production tax money (meant for the Rainy Day Fund) for transportation, instead.  Some House and Senate members revolted against the plan over concerns as to whether there was a “floor” provision in the bill.  That would have meant if the Rainy Day Fund reached some designated floor, 100% of oil and gas production tax money would start going into it again.  Killing the bill was probably the right move because it’s a bad bill and, as with most taxes, the money runs out at some point.

There’s more to be said about Texas’ libertarian streak. “Texas Monthy’s” Erica Grieder even wrote a book pointing out how low taxes and low services helped Texas.  In a column to “The Dallas Morning News” she wrote, “Texans don’t expect that much from the state,” and she’s absolutely right.  Many people who grew up in Texas don’t expect that.  The help ends up coming from either cities or the community in a crisis.  There are parts of Texas which are struggling, like the Rio Grande Valley, but there are charities and non-profits trying to help where they can.

Battleground Texas wants to change that by getting more Democrats elected and changing how the state operates.  They want Texas to be the next Colorado, which would be horrific.

The good news is, it’s a fight which opposition groups aren’t taking lying down.  FreedomWorks plans on $8-million in spending to fight Battleground Texas, and state Attorney General Greg Abbott calls the group “far more dangerous” than North Korea.  U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s campaign manager also said Battleground Texas is a “real threat in the years to come.”

Hopefully other freedom-loving groups, and the Texas Republican Party, will actually pay attention.

 

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 27th

When:Saturday, July 27th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor talks to  Liz (yes the co-host) about her recent Politichicks article found here: http://politichicks.tv/column/sex-lies-politics-priorities-self-respect-walking-in-huma-abedins-shoes/ It’s awesome you should read it.

Also expect Texas politics talk, tattoo talk (again) with a heavy dose of freedom and liberty.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

« Older Entries