You may remember, folks, that last year, the University of Maryland and the extremely leftist “Center for Public Integrity” commissioned a rigged poll which claimed that 66% of Americans supported cutting defense spending to the tune of $100 bn per year. Anti-defense groups such as the misnamed, Soros-funded “Project on Government Oversight”, and anti-defense writers such as Micah Zenko falsely claimed on that basis that most Americans support deep defense spending cuts, including sequestration.

There were, however, other polls saying something completely different, including one by the National Journal and one commissioned by the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Then, earlier this year, Pew conducted a poll showing that 73% of Americans oppose any cuts to defense spending (and similar percentages oppose cutting anything else).

And most recently, Gallup has released a poll showing that 36% of Americans believe the US spends the right amount of money on defense and another 26% think the US, if anything, isn’t spending enough – so in total, 62% of Americans oppose cutting defense. According to Gallup, only 35% of Americans think the US spends too much.

Moreover, the “don’t cut defense spending” view is held even more widely among the Independent and Republican electorates. 73% of Indies and 78% of Republicans share this pro-defense view, believing the US spends the right amount or an insufficient one.

Only among the Democrats does a majority think the US spends too much – and even among them, it’s barely a majority (51%). See here for details.

Gallup’s poll’s results mean that there is NO popular demand for defense cuts today, unlike the Vietnam War years and the late 1980s. All of that despite over 40 years of uncessant anti-defense leftist propaganda (particularly intense in the last 5 years). Gallup tells us that:

• “In the late 1960s and early 1970s as the United States was fighting the Vietnam War, Americans’ dominant view was that the U.S. was spending too much on defense.
• In 1981, just after Ronald Reagan took office after making concerns about U.S. military strength in light of the Iranian hostage situation and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan a major theme of his presidential campaign, Americans shifted to the view that too little was spent on defense.
• As the Reagan administration built up military spending in the 1980s, Americans again came to believe the U.S. was spending too much in this area.
• Near the end of the Clinton administration, as the government made an effort to reduce military spending and George W. Bush’s presidential campaign questioned U.S. military strength, an increasing number of Americans said the United States was spending too little on defense.
• In the first several years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which included U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans most commonly said defense spending was “about right.”
• Over the last five years, Americans have alternated in their views between believing the U.S. spends too much and believing it spends the right amount on defense, including this year, when roughly equal percentages of Americans hold each view.”

But what Gallup doesn’t tell us is that, in addition to the 36% of Americans who think the level of defense spending is “about right”, another 26% think the US isn’t spending enough, meaning that 62% of Americans – almost two-thirds of the society – oppose defense cuts.

This debunks yet another myth being spread by the left. Not only is defense spending NOT bloated, not only would deep cuts to it severely weaken the military (as sequestration is already beginning to do), not only would such cuts utterly fail to meaningfully reduce the budget deficit or attract new voters to the GOP, but also they are very unpopular: the vast majority of Americans OPPOSE them. There is NO popular demand for such policy, unlike the Vietnam War years – the time of the “guns vs butter” debates – and the late 1980s.

Not only that, but in contrast to the Vietnam War years and the 1970s, the US military is now held by the majority of the public, including 54% of young Americans, in very high regard.

Oh, how I miss true leadership!

We are being told from all directions by various kinds of people – from liberals like Clinton Admin official Gordon Adams to libertarians like Justin Amash and Mick Mulvaney to supposed conservatives like Rush Limbaugh that America can afford deep cuts in the defense budget and still have a strong military; or, in the case of other libertarians, like the Students For Liberty/Ron Paul crowd, that America doesn’t need a strong military, that it would only be a tool of oppression, and that America can safely retrench and hide behind oceans and nothing will threaten it.

But all of those claims are garbage, and in this article, I’ll show you why. They might’ve made some sense during the 18th century, when any attack on America would’ve had to be a seaborne invasion or one from Mexico or Canada.

But in the 21st century, when America has vital interests around the world, when its economy is deeply interconnected to those of its allies and friends (such as Japan and South Korea), and in the era of nuclear weapons, ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental bombers, EMP weapons, and cyber attacks, such beliefs are utterly ridiculous. Those who indulge them live in a kum-ba-yah world.

Let us start with this timeless principle taught by Sun Tzu in his Art of War (ch. 8, v. 11):

“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”

We should not delude ourselves that we will never be attacked, or not for a long time, or that America is somehow invincible or unassailable, or that its military is overwhelmingly superior when this is clearly not the case.

Providing for the common defense is not only necessary, it is the Federal Government’s #1 Constitutional DUTY. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution clearly imposes this obligation on the government; the majority of enumerated powers granted to the Congress deal with military matters; and the Preamble to the Constitution – makes it clear that one of the reasons why the federal government was create in the first place is to “provide for the common defense”. Furthermore, the military is the ONLY significant expenditure authorized by the Constitution. Federal entitlement and welfare programs are utterly unconstitutional and thus illegal.

Furthermore, the claim – often made by proponents of deep defense cuts in order to lull Americans into a false sense of security – that the US military is still overwhelmingly superior to those of other countries – is completely false (although I wish it was true). The militaries of China and Russia, as documented in detailed analysis here, have already closed the vast majority of the gaps between their and the US military’s capabilities, and are now working hard on closing the remaining few gaps. Where those gaps still exist, as in aircraft carriers, for example, China and Russia have created asymmetric advantages of their own with anti-access/area-denial weapons such as aircraft carrier killing missiles.

For a detailed analysis of China’s and Russia’s military capabilities, see here.

Another oft-made false claim which is supposed to justify deep defense cuts is that they could supposedly be done safely if the military were just granted the flexibility to decide where to make the cuts and that if such reductions are made “strategically”, in a “targeted” manner, they can supposedly be done safely.

The “studies” produced by CATO, the “Project on Defense Alternatives”, the Center for American Progress, POGO-TCS,  the NTU, and Sen. Tom Coburn (RINO-OK) are often invoked as examples and as supposed “proof” that deep defense cuts can be done safely.

But I have read and analyzed virtually all of these “studies”, and ALL of them would, if implemented (God forbid), result in the utter gutting of the US military. Why? Because the vast majority of the cuts they call for would be directed at the muscle and bone of the US military – the force structure (i.e. the size of the military), its personnel, weapons, munitions, and forward deployments.

These “studies” call for deep personnel, weapon inventory, weapon program, and force size cuts across the board to all four Services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) and to the already barely-adequate nuclear deterrent. They call for killing dozens of crucial modernization programs, including the Long Range Strike Bomber, the ICBM replacement program, the V-22 Osprey, the F-35, the Virginia class, and many others.

If one were to plan on how to completely gut the US military, one could not come up with a better plan than those produced by the above-mentioned leftist think-tanks (most of which, including CATO, POGO, and the CAP, are co-funded by George Soros) and by Sen. Coburn. These plans seem to be deliberately designed to gut the US military.

And NONE of these proposals or “studies” are really “strategic”, because none of them are underpinned by any strategy, only by a desire to gut the US military. Strategy is about setting priorities, funding them fully, and cutting back only on non-priority programs/objectives/activities; failure to set priorities and to fund them adequately is essentially the same thing as sequestration.

But in those “studies”, there are no priorities – like sequestration, they all call for deep, across-the-board cuts to everything the US military has and does – mostly to the muscle and bone of the military.

The first and only “priority” of these studies’ authors is to gut the US military, plain and simple.

I have refuted these ridiculous “studies” here, here, here, and here among other articles.

For his part, HumanEvents columnist Robert Maginnis wrongly claims that the US can make these cuts safely if it simply scraps a number of current missions.

But that is wrong. To make cuts on the scale of sequestration, the US military would have to jettison dozens of missions – including many crucial, necessary missions connected to America’s own national security (not just that of its allies). For example, air, naval, and ground superiority, nuclear deterrence, and missile defense.

Those who call for jettisoning many military missions and cuts on the scale of sequestration need to be made to say what exact missions they think the military should scrap and be forced to admit that doing so would mean not meeting America’s security needs and thus imperiling national security.

As then-SECDEF Robert Gates said in 2011:

“These are the kinds of scenarios we need to consider, the kinds of discussions we need to have.  If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as for the variety of military operations we have around the world if lower priority missions are scaled back or eliminated.  (…)  To shirk this discussion of risks and consequences – and the hard decisions that must follow – I would regard as managerial cowardice.

In closing, while I have spent a good  deal of time on programmatic particulars, the tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people – accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades – want their country to play in the world.”

Then there are those like Rush Limbaugh and Rand Paul who falsely claim that sequestration would be a mere cut to the growth rate of defense spending. But that is a blatant lie.

As the CBO has proven, and as I have documented here, sequestration would cut the base defense budget from $525 bn today to $469 bn in March and keep it well below today’s level (and even below $500 bn) for the next decade at least. By FY2022, the last year of the “sequestration decade”, the base defense budget would be at $493 bn – still below $500 bn and well below today’s level of $525 bn.

Meanwhile, OCO (war) spending is shrinking annually from its FY2011 peak and is set to disappear in FY2016, once all US troops leave Afghanistan.

The DOE’s defense-related (nuclear) programs and the DOD’s unspent balances from previous years are also subject to sequestration, as are all other national-security-related agencies.

In other words, sequestration would be an IMMEDIATE, REAL, DEEP, and PERMANENT cut in defense spending. It would not be a mere cut in the rate of growth. In other words, Rush, Rand, and other sequestration pooh-poohers are blatantly lying. (And the people spreading that lie are children of the Father of Lies himself.)

President Ronald Reagan articulated the need for a strong military – and the case against defense cuts – well here and here.

Let Robert Gates – a man of whom I’ve been very critical – nonetheless have the last word here:

“Since I entered government 45 years ago, I’ve shifted my views and changed my mind on a good many things as circumstances, new information, or logic dictated.  But I have yet to see evidence that would dissuade me from this fundamental belief: that America does have a special position and set of responsibilities on this planet.  I share Winston Churchill’s belief that “the price of greatness is responsibility…[and] the people of the United States cannot escape world responsibility.”  This status provides enormous benefits – for allies, partners, and others abroad to be sure, but in the final analysis the greatest beneficiaries are the American people, in terms of our security, our prosperity, and our freedom.

I know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the continued strength and global reach of the American military will remain the greatest deterrent against aggression, and the most effective means of preserving peace in the 21^st century, as it was in the 20^th.”

And I believe that if he were alive today, he would’ve been appalled to see what the GOP is today.

He would’ve been appalled to see the GOP slavishly agree to unfavorable, unilateral disarmament treaties (such as New START) and to massive defense cuts, including the sequester, which most Republicans voted for in August 2011 even though the sequester was Obama’s idea. By foolishly agreeing to it, they gave Obama and the Democrats a weapon with which to blackmail them and have forced themselves into choosing between two very bad options: either allowing Obama to execute the hostage (i.e. gut defense) or agreeing to tax hikes as a condition of sparing defense from draconian, salami-slicing budget cuts.

He would’ve been appalled to hear some Republicans advocate this (or a similar) course of action and agree with the disastrous, treasonous proposals of leftist, anti-defense think-tanks such as the “Project on Defense Alternatives”, the Cato Institute, POGO, TCS, and the Center for American Progress (three of these groups, namely Cato, POGO, and the CAP, take money from George Soros).

He would’ve been appalled to hear Ron Paul badmouth America and its troops everyday, call for isolationism and unilaterald disarmament, and call for a “hear no evil, see no evil, everything bad is America’s fault” foreign policy. He would’ve called on the GOP’s leaders to expel such politicians from the Party. He would’ve also deeply regretted ever endorsing Ron Paul for Congress, especially considering the fact that during his time, Ron Paul and his sidekick Lew Rockwell fought against him every step of the way.

He would’ve been appalled to see and hear pseudo-conservative, anti-defense, leftist libertarians such as Justin Amash (a Ron Paul clone), Tim Huelskamp, and Raul Castro Labrador be hailed as “Constitutional conservatives” and heroes.

He would’ve been appalled to see these people vote against a passable, fully workable, fiscally conservative budget plan, such as the Ryan Plan, simply because it wasn’t as good as they wished and to see the better become the enemy of the good.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans lose faith in supply-side, pro-growth economics and claim that the Ryan Plan would not jumpstart economic growth and balance the budget within 10 years under dynamic scoring. He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans reject dynamic instead of static scoring (a classic liberal method).

He would’ve been terrified to see that Republicans can’t prioritize federal spending and make cuts where they can be made safely – in domestic discretionary spending – even cut an Energy and Water Approps’ bill’s price tag by 1%!

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans failing to understand the Constitution, let alone commit themselves to abolish unconstitutional federal agencies and programs.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans unable to commit themselves to abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy – a cause he fought for – even long after George W. Bush has left the White House.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans attrite and weaken each other in nasty primary battles, thus helping them lose the general election.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans prioritize abortion and gay marriage above all other issues, while America’s defenses are atrophying, China and Russia are on the march, and the US is sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

He would’ve been horrified to know that Republicans prioritize – and are dividing the party over – such divisive issues instead of uniting the party and the people around common-sense bread-and-butter issues like deficits, debt, taxes, spending, defense, and so forth.

He would’ve been horrified to see Republicans not only accept, but even embrace and advocate, the use of police-state-like measures to fight “terrorism” but in fact to expand the federal government’s power over American citizens through the cynically-named PATRIOT Act (AKA the Ermaechtigungsgesetz), Know Your Customer provisions, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, and so forth.

And he would’ve been horrified to see Republicans repeat his own mistake from 1986 – accept and even advocate amnesty for illegal aliens, thus rewarding criminals who have broken the law and also committing suicide as a party.

He would’ve been horrified to see that, thanks to unlimited legal and illegal immigration, California has become a majority-minority state and such a liberal one that it’s incapable of electing any Republicans statewide anymore, with the consequence that state taxes and spending are rising and there’s no one left to pay the bill as most productive Californians leave the state in droves.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s better for Ronald Reagan not to be here today. He would’ve been horrified to see the state of the party and the country.

But we can finish his work and make him proud if we commit ourselves to doing the right thing and do it.

So today, on Ronald Reagan’s 102nd birthday, let us, as conservatives, pledge to each other that:

• We will identify and work on issues that unite us, not divide us.
• We will adhere to Reagan’s principles of fiscal and defense conservatism.
• We will work to elect the most electable conservative/Republican candidate in each district and state.
• We will work to make the entire GOP adhere to the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government.
• We will work to recommit the GOP to abolishing the Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development as a start.
• We will stop pretending that the federal budget can be balanced by simply eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse (as important as that is).
• We will work to commit the GOP to fundamental tax reform – either a flat tax or the FairTax.
• We will not tolerate within the Party or the conservative movement those who have slandered America, its honorable military, or Ronald Reagan, nor will we tolerate those who, like Amash, Labrador, Huelskamp, and Mulvaney, advocate gutting the military and are collaborating with the House’s most strident liberals towards that goal.
• We will commit ourselves and the Party to a commonsense, Reaganesque foreign policy: building the world’s strongest military while intervening militarily only where and when crucial American interests are at stake – and even then, only with clearly defined goals, a clear strategy to achieve them, an exit strategy to avoid endless entanglements.
• We will never advocate anything that would infringe US citizens’ civil liberties and will commit ourselves and the Party to repealing all of the existing such measures, including the cynically-named PATRIOT Act, KYC provisions, warrantless wiretapping programs, and indefinite detention. And we will not tolerate within the GOP those who, like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Kelly Ayotte, advocate such police state measures.
• We will wholeheartedly support the Ryan Budget Plan (at least until someone devises a better plan that can pass the Congress instead of being voted down by huge bipartisan margins) and work to secure its passage.
• We will work towards the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the abolition of the Federal Reserve.
• We will leave divisive social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia, to the states to decide. We will support the 10th Amendment all of the time, not selectively when it suits us.

Let’s win this one for the Gipper.

PS: A record 40 states, including even liberal states like California, Illinois, and New York, have issued proclamations designating today as Ronald Reagan Day. Only 8 states run by liberal Democrats have refused to do so, and 2 states run by Democrats are sitting on the fence.

(Video uploaded on You Tube Nov. 15, 2012 by Truthloader.)

Crossposted from American Millennium Online

American President Ronald Reagan

by Jeremy Griffith

As the title of this article suggests, the Israeli Iron Dome, an anti-missile missile system is saving lives in that country as Hamas, the Palestinian Terror organization, shoots hundreds of rockets at Israel from the West Bank and Gaza on a daily basis. The rockets create fear and uncertainly and can kill people and cause a lot of damage, but the Iron Dome is preventing many of these rockets from hitting their targets and achieving their goal.

I spoke to my brother recently who asked me to watch a You Tube Video on the topic and to comment upon it. My brother, Jason Griffith, is a Major in the Colorado National Guard and a Space Operations officer recently returned from a 9-month tour of duty in Afghanistan as the leader of a space team. He asked me this  poignant question.

“How many rockets are launched at Israel from Gaza?” he asked. I had no idea, but having been in the Holy Land once before myself, I knew it was a lot.

“Eight Hundred Seventy Seven,” he said. “And that is in just the last two weeks. How many of us would tolerate such a barrage from say Canada or Mexico?”

How many indeed?I think that most Americans would pummel the living crap out of those people attempting to assault us, but when it comes to Israel defending itself, the world urges restraint. RESTRAINT?! Please. This is an outrage. None of us would tolerate this, why should Israel? But instead of siding with Israel, who is the victim of these attacks, the Israelis are targeted by negative world opinion and labeled as the aggressors when they go into these areas and kill the leaders of Hamas responsible for the terror.

So here is my commentary on the video. Ronald Reagan was a demonstrable genius when he envisioned the so called Star Wars shield of anti-missile missile batteries when he came up against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. His greatest achievement was bluffing down the Russians and pushing off from the table at Reykjavik when Gorbachev asked him to give up Star Wars. Now the vision that Reagan had is a reality and all the idiots who called him an idiot can see for themselves the real life realization of his dream. The Patriot Missile batteries of the United States and the Iron Dome of Israel is the culmination of that dream, a shield that would block incoming ballistic missiles and keep a nation free from the threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles, especially nukes.

But we can take no comfort in the long lasting legacy of Reagan. While Israel continues to proof these great defensive weapons, President Obama plans to cut the military and what do you suppose will be among the first programs to cut? Intercontinental anti-ballistic missile systems, leaving us vulnerable to attack from without. Obama will not just stop at cutting Star Wars, he has already planned to cut back our nuclear ballistic missile capability to dangerous levels, thus making us weaker while emboldening our enemies.

This President doesn’t care about defense, which is the executive branch’s primary mission. We saw that with his reaction to Benghazi. Obama’s goal it seems is to continually steal from the taxpayer to pay off cronies and to redistribute wealth from those who have, and have worked to earn it, to those who have not, and who have no plans to ever work. Over half of Americans voted to re-elect a president so they could steal from you what they have no right to have and give it to them who have no desire to earn it. Amazing!

Well, there are consequences to elections people and we will be seeing them in the next few years as this President and his cronies in the Democratic Party, a degrading bastardization of the Party of Thomas Jefferson, drives us all over the fiscal cliff!

Take heart that at least Israel gets it and will likely be fine on their own. Necessity is the mother of invention. When we at last are threatened like Israel, perhaps we will come to our senses. I just hope that isn’t too late.

Watch this video from the US Missile Defense Agency on their prospective anti-ballistic missile capability in 2020.

With Sarah Palin America should be ready for a true conservative voice in the White House

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

Now no one is laughing, including President Barack Obama, who saddles up to Reagan-like comparisons when he’s feeling a little light in the accomplishment department.

It is far more important for Americans who are earnestly concerned about the direction of the nation and its drift away from conservative values. They want to support a true bona fide conservative leader like Reagan.

Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields. Conservative leadership is nourished in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Nevada and Colorado. Presidential elections are solidified with the commitment of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan and Tea Party patriot all over this nation!

It is the power and strength of conservative ideals that when fully embraced will see a repeat of the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party grass roots movement resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.

The keys to the White House Oval Office do not lie in the hands of the political power elite in Washington. They instead belong squarely in the firm grasp of Americans in the Heartland. There, with conservative families in states all over this nation the fate of America will be determined.

In 1980 America no longer wanted to be trapped in what President Carter called a “crisis of confidence” in his now famous July 1979 “Malaise Speech,” Instead, Reagan determined that America wanted to be freed up from government. He firmly gripped the reins away from moderation and liberalism. He grabbed the American microphone and said, “I paid for this microphone.”

America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!

( Click – Let me know what you think )

Today, despite the fact that their country is rapidly approaching $16 trillion in debt, there are millions of Americans wondering when they are going to get “their fair share” of what their country “owes them”.  Thanks to continued distortion and misrepresentation of the facts by those in whom they have misplaced their trust, these Americans are clueless to the reality that the “hope and change” they were promised will never materialize, never come to fruition.

Not one single time in the history of human civilization has a nation taxed and spent its way into prosperity.  That today so many Americans continue to believe they are “entitled” to “their fair share of free stuff” proves that P.T. Barnum was right many times over.

Americans have watched a “progressive” big government take over the banking industry, use taxpayer funds to purchase auto companies, seize control of the healthcare system, waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on failed “green energy” “investments”  and usurp the student loan process.  While this was taking place, the nation plunged deeper into debt, had its credit rating downgraded, suffered continued job losses, experienced stubbornly high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, higher food prices, rising energy costs, the abandonment of border security, a reduction in national security and growing disrespect for America on the international stage.

How did America get from where it was in 1960 to where it is now?

America’s Founding Fathers have been discredited and disrespected, its Constitution has been assaulted and ignored, and most importantly; reverence and respect for God is no longer viewed as a national necessity.

America is the land of Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust.  If Americans are to continue to hold the truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, Americans must return to reliance upon their Creator.  America must restore being one nation, under God.

Americans need to overcome the wrongheaded notion that “progressive” big government will endow them with anything but a future of slavery to a tyrannical State.

America’s Founding Fathers fought a war for freedom from this form of slavery.  They risked everything that they had.  They risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  And while doing so, they established the idea that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That is not freedom from religion.  That is freedom of religion.  It states that America will never be a theocracy.

George Washington, historically remembered as the father of his country said: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

We know the names and faces of the famous Founders.  But many anonymous Patriot souls died in that fight against tyranny so that future generations could enjoy the fruits of their struggle. 

A new generation of Americans must now declare to themselves, their fellow Americans and to the world that they would rather die free than live as a slave to “progressive” big government.   That they will exercise their right to worship as they see fit, and defend the right of every other American to do likewise.

Another inspiring President once said: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.  We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.  If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/in-god-america-must-trust/

Ronald Reagan

Would you, as a voter with conservative values and principles, vote for a candidate who says  the following?

• I will Raise Taxes 11 Times in 8 years
• I will Increase Government Spending
• I will Double or Triple the National Debt
• I will Increase the Size of Government
• I will Give Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
• I will Negotiate & Make Deals with Terrorists or Tyrannical Regimes

The answer is a John Boehner-esque “Hell No!”.

Ask a group of Conservatives, “Who is your political hero?” Invariably, one name will spring to life as an answer to the question.  That name, like the list of policies above, belongs to the 40th president of The United States, Ronald Reagan.

The problem with so many conservative voters today is that they hold President Reagan as their idol, and their idol did precisely the things that conservatives claim to be against.  These modern “Conservative Principles” are also what gave rise to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich as presidential candidates.  The atrocious record of Romney has been thoroughly placed in the public form, yet conservatives still support this guy.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Let’s start by looking at some of what “Reagan Conservatives” believe in, and comparing that to the actual results of Reagan’s Presidency:

Beliefs of Reagan Conservatives

• American Exceptionalism – The United States is an exceptional nation. No other country in the history of the world has done more to secure liberty and honor God-given rights of individuals. Our government is uniquely of, by, and for the people, not the other way around.
• Secure Borders – Legal immigrants have enriched this country. Illegal immigration undermines American sovereignty and weakens national security. The U.S. has a right and obligation to secure it’s borders.
• Strong Military – A strong military is a deterrent. The U.S. must maintain military superiority to ensure our security. The American military is made up of dedicated and patriotic individuals who deserve this nation’s full support.
• Energy Independence – For national security and economic reasons it is time that we as a nation become energy independent by exploiting all our natural resources responsibly while at the same time encouraging energy innovation.
• Individual Rights – The subjugation of individual rights in favor of groups rights is unconstitutional and has always lead to the trampling of individual freedom.
• Individual Responsibility – Individuals are responsible for their actions and the consequences. It is not government’s place to save individuals from their mistakes. This kind of government intervention only encourages irresponsible behavior and impinges on others’ rights.
• Limited Government - Thomas Jefferson was correct when he wrote: “That government is best which governs least.” Government should be limited to the powers delegated it by the Constitution. Beyond these powers, as government grows, individual freedom shrinks and the economy suffers.
• Low Taxes and Fiscal Constraint - Government redistribution of income through taxation is not constitutional. Individuals have a right to their income and are far better managers of their money than is the government. Free market solutions improve the economy while upholding individual freedoms.

Results of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency:

• American Exceptionalism - The term “American Exceptionalism” was first coined and used by Joseph Stalin – the communist Russian dictator responsible for the mass-death of millions of people – in statements regarding a Communist Revolution in America.  This is the same style of Communist Russian Dictatorship that Reagan battled  during “The Cold War”.
• Secure Borders/Individual Responsibility - Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted Amnesty to illegal immigrants
• Strong Military/National Defense – Reagan used the military as a “world police force” rather than a deterrent to attack on America.  He ordered military action in Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Honduras, Panama, and many actions in the Persian Gulf.  The Reagan government is also reported (but unconfirmed by CIA) to have directly aided and funded Osama bin Laden in the 1980′s.
  Reagan also negotiated a deal with the Iranian terrorists who held American hostages, by trading arms for hostages. 
• Energy Independence – In 1981, Regan’s first year in office, the US imported 2,188,420,000 barrels of oil.  By 1988, Reagan’s final year in office, imports increased to 2,709,140,000, after imports had dipped previously in the mid-80′s.
• Individual Rights/Adherence To Constitution – Throughout the Reagan presidency, the Supreme Court ruled that 9 acts of legislation were unconstitutional in whole, or in part.
• Limited Government - In Reagan’s first year, 1981, the US government spent $1.0518 Trillion.  By Reagan’s last year in office, the government spent $1.7713 Trillion.  Also, The national debt grew under Reagan as well, starting at $1,028,729,000,000 in 1981, and ballooning to $2,952,994,000,000 by January of 1989, when Reagan left office – almost triple what it started at.
  Furthermore, in 1981 there were 4,982,000 government employees.  By Reagan’s final year, 1988, the government employed 5,289,000 people – an increase of over 300,000 employees.
• Low Taxes - Ronald Reagan was not the tax-slashing president that many make him out to be.  In fact, Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his presidency – which is contrary to the view that many purport of him.

Where do the policies of Reagan fall in line with the principles of “Reagan Conservatives”?  Further, where do the policies of Reagan fall in line with Conservatism in general?

If you are seeking smaller government, lower taxes, less government spending, strong national defense, and adherence to the US Constitution – why would you idolize Reagan?

The fallacy of Reagan, I believe, is that people allow the personality and charisma of “Ronald Reagan, The Man” to overshadow the actions of “Ronald Reagan, The President” – much like voters did with President Obama in 2008.

Conservatives must replace Ronald Reagan as their posterboy.  It is time for conservatives to not only ‘talk-the-talk’, but it is high time that we ‘walk-the-walk’ as well.  For Conservatives to truly change this country, things must change with conservatism.  Not only should we support political candidates that actually adhere to conservative principles, but we must apply a face to the movement that does as well – a face that accurately represents the principles of conservatism.

—

ProveMeWrong@tjthompson.com

—

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/

Hoping to nudge companies into investing rather than paying profits to shareholders, the government plans to impose a new 3% tax on dividends. Other plans include raising levies on capital gains, a special tax on banks and on energy companies, as well as imposition of government policies requiring the sale of profitable businesses in lieu of closure.

France’s Socialist government will dictate that it is illegal for a profitable, privately owned business to close its own doors.

So much for having the French people engaged in business activity. This less business-friendly government is going about the business of smothering France’s economy.

The prospects of trying to do business in France’s new economic environment resulted in margins tumbling, cash flow dwindling and orders collapsing. The uncertain outlook has postponed or cancelled investment and hiring.

Medef President Laurence Parisot told a news conference “The first source of financing for companies’ projects comes from private investors. Increasing tax on dividends runs the risk that private investors either invest less or elsewhere. We’ve had many meetings with the staff in ministries to explain what’s happening, but we are becoming deeply distressed. We fear a systematic strangling. Let’s be careful not to transform our country into a super-rigid enclave completely out of touch with the functioning of market economies as found everywhere else.” Parisot said.

Statistical data from the INSEE agency shows that business confidence fell in June to the lowest level since 2009, when France’s economy first showed signs of emerging from the nation’s worst post-war recession.

Hollande was elected last month after pledging to fight unemployment and revive growth. What he and his government are planning is not the way to go about achieving those goals. Attempting to resolve an economic dilemma that nanny state entitlement spending caused by destroying the tax base through imposition of business strangling regulations and taxes, while increasing the amount of spending done on entitlement programs is like trying to get a drunk sober by giving him a case of champagne. It’s going to have an effect opposite to the one desired. It is only going to make matters worse.

The way to balance a government budget is to stimulate private sector economic growth. That is what creates the tax base required to fund the government. Making it more difficult and more expensive to conduct business in the private sector is counter-productive to balancing any government budget.

By following economic policies similar to those Hollande plans for France, the United States is currently experiencing 1.8% economic growth. At this same point in President Ronald Reagan’s first term in office, his economic policies had stimulated the private sector U.S. economy to a 7.2% growth rate.

Can you say duh?

Both America and France could learn a thing or two from the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. In the case of the current White House occupant, that does not include hollow, unfounded, meaningless claims that you are much like President Reagan. It makes no difference whether those claims are made by you or your eager, obedient lapdogs in the institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear machine, referred to by your dumbed down, ill informed “progressive” congregation as the mainstream media.

France has the second biggest economy in the European Union. If this is the best the French can come up with, it is time to bid adieu to France and to European Union stability.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/adieu-france-so-long-stability/

 

PAUL KRUGMAN: Can I just say, on the Reagan thing, if public-sector employment had continued to expand the way it did during Reagan’s first term, instead of falling by about 600,000 as it has, right there we’d have something like 1.4 million people working in this country.

So if you actually look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian and Obama — mostly because of political constraints, although a little bit of lack of conviction on the part of his own people, has been the anti-Keynesian. He’s been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.

Ronald Reagan was not a Keynesian.  As Milton Friedman noted in his speech at the opening of the Cato Institute in 1993, “Reaganomics had four simple principles: lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy.  Four cornerstones that led to the following:

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Yet, Obama is anti-Keynesian after spending $830 billion dollars on a failed stimulus program that had left the unemployment rate over 8% for over 38 months.  A program that would never allow unemployment to rise above 8% and would produce robust economic growth.  All of this would be induced by deficit spending. The president stated that the stimulus would create 2.5 million “shovel ready jobs” for infrastructure projects.  In fact, in an interview with Peter Baker of The New York Times, the president admitted that “he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat, realized too late that there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects and perhaps should have let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts in the stimulus.”  In addition, his Vice President, Joe Biden, reiterated the Keynesian approach of this administration three years ago by stating that we must spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Also, to say”[Obama's] been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer” is patently false.  Republicans aren’t for class warfare legislation, like the Buffet Rule tax reform, that institutes a mandatory 30% tax on millionaires, but leaves the charitable donation deduction.  Hence, the rich, also known and the job creating and investing class, could donate their way out of taxation.  Furthermore, Republicans never were for spending a trillion dollars on a new health care entitlement, Obamacare, that will cut 20 million Americans from their coverage while making 49 million more citizens dependent on government run medical services.

Nevertheless, it didn’t stop Paul Krugman from making more patently false remarks on ABC’s This Week.

KRUGMAN: Can I just — these are — these are — we’re talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15 trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program, which has been — by and large had a pretty good track record. Of course you’re going to find a mistake. I think, to be fair, that’s probably true in Massachusetts, as well.

But this is — this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain — Bain Capital had losers, too, right, even from the point of view of its investors? So this is ridiculous.

And the fact of the matter is, this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done. He — it’s terribly unfair that he’s being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.

First of all, concerning clean energy initiatives, Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg.  Furthemore, it’s not just $1 billion dollars as:

“CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose – even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans. Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview.

How safe were the loans?

[Economist] Peter Morici replied… It’s, it is a junk bond…but it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade. Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes. This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.”

Furthermore, Robin Millican, Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research, has stated how the Section 1603 program has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties.  Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.

Lastly, the president has achieved most of his domestic agenda.  Obamacare was the signature achievement in the president’s first term.  In addition, there was Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  If Mr. Krugman thinks the president is dealing with a hostile congress, he only needs to look at the docket that shows this hostility has produced a multitude of legislation aimed at creating jobs and curbing the debt and deficit.  Most of the bills have been blocked by the Democratic controlled senate.

(h/t Noel Sheppard)

Starting with 1923, with the biography of President Calvin Coolidge, all but one Presidential Profile on the official government website has been re-written to add Obama’s “place in history” alongside that particular president.

Evidently history cannot stand without Obama’s agenda, so a new footnote section has been added on each of the revised biographies, entitled, “Did You Know?”

This discovery was made by the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper, who said he originally found it “funny”, until he realized how many biographies had been changed. Mr. Cooper hit the twittersphere with the hashtag #ObamaInHistory, mocking Obama’s narcissism.

When asked about the additions to the Presidential Biographies, which were written by historian Michael Beschloss and journalist Hugh Sidey, a White House official, who spoke to the press on the condition of anonymity said:

“We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.govcontent, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site.”

Here are some examples of our new, re-written, Obama-agenda history:

• On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).   President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.
• President Herbert Hoover signed the bill founding the Department of Veterans Affairs July 21, 1930. President Obama is committed to making sure that the VA, the second-largest cabinet department, serves the needs of all veterans and provides a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life, and has directed his Administration to modernize the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation’s veterans.  First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden launched Joining Forces to mobilize all sectors of society to give our service members and their families the opportunities and support they have earned.
• On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.
• In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama Administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens,repealing  Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces. Source: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum
• President John F. Kennedy famously suggested the American people: “Ask what you can do for your country.” In 1961, the Peace Corps was created, facilitating service among citizens working toward peace in developing countries. In 2011, President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation.
• President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.
• In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

Last but not least, the man that Obama loves to blame the most, George W. Bush:

• In 2002, President George W. Bush’s State of the Union was the first to be live broadcast on the Internet. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama’s State of the Union speeches were available in an enhanced live stream versionthat featured infographics, charts and data side-by-side in real time with the President’s speech.
• In 2009, former President Bush partnered with 42nd President Clinton tohelp rebuild Haiti, after the country was devastated by an earthquake.

One thing is for certain: there doesn’t seem to be any other president in history that loved himself more than Barack Obama.

As the YouTube description states, this is called one of the best speeches that has ever been given, and rings more true today than ever before! America, we must fight! The time for choosing is NOW!