Monthly Archives: October 2013

Phyllis Schlafly on Immigration Reform: Why Can’t the GOP Listen To Reason?

Rove’s Amnesty Wedding is ON again it seems! It was disorganized most of the summer, and all but stalled in September after the town halls. There was not enough support or time to legislate, but on October 1st, Steve King warned of backroom deals that were being worked up, to keep watchful. Sure enough, here we are.  With a dowry the size of this bride’s and aggressive donors who are heck bent on getting what they pay for, the GOPe is not about to be let off the hook that easily. The donors will not take losing lying down. Our spineless and corrupt sellouts can’t handle the pressure. Ask Paul Ryan who said this summer he’d defy John Boehner’s promise to bring a vote to the floor following the Hastert Rule. It won’t even matter if Boehner kept his word, Ryan’s ready to take him on.

These excerpts are taken from a Breitbart article: “Corporate Executives Join Soros-Backed ‘Fly-In’ Campaign to Push Amnesty”

Ali Noorani, the executive director of the Soros-funded NIF, told Bloomberg News that the effort will bring in 600 activists who plan to have personal meetings with at least 80 House Republican members.

Noorani’s organization is one where Soros has spent millions helping build support for amnesty. Soros has, over the course of several years, spent about $100 million of his own money lobbying for amnesty in the United States by creating the appearance of grassroots support for policies that he personally believes in and would likely be financially beneficial to Wall Street figures such as himself.

Marriott International CEO Arne Sorenson, also lobbying Congress for amnesty, greeted the group saying: “It is time for Congress to pass pro-growth, pro-security measures that modernize our truly dysfunctional immigration system.

The next day (yesterday), Tuesday Oct. 29, the group met with pro-amnesty leaders like Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist and American Conservative Union (ACU) President Al Cardenas at the pro-amnesty Chamber of Commerce, across the street from the White House in downtown Washington, D.C.

*********************This just in (from NewsMax):************************

Republican Rep. David Valadao is backing a comprehensive House Democratic  bill to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. The California congressman said in a statement Wednesday that he is joining  with like-minded Republicans to show to the House GOP leadership that it should  deal with immigration legislation before the end of the year.

Valadao is the third Republican to back a Democratic bill that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants living here illegally and tighten border security.  California Rep. Jeff Denham and Florida Rep. Ileana  Ros-Lehtinen have announced their support for the bill.

Most Republicans have shown little interest in a comprehensive bill, favoring  a piecemeal approach to addressing the issue.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may  not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Read Latest Breaking News from Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Some of these lists are long: there are members or Congress in some, others have members of the Senate. But you can get the idea that the special interests are not about to cancel their wedding plans. God help us. If Amnesty passes, we all know it will be the end of our party, and the two party system as we know it. There is an avalanche of corruption. This must be scrutinized. What we must do is expose each one of these donors and their connections to our representatives.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has nearly 400 member companies, which have offices or facilities in all 50 states and almost all 435 congressional districts. They have partnered with:

  • The Consumer Electronics Association, the Business Roundtable,,
  • Information Technology Industry Council, Semiconductor Industry Association,
  • Tech America, TechNet and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  • Their Meetings in Washington included partnerships with:
  • The California Strawberry Commission as well as the nationwide nonprofit Bibles,
  • Badges and Businesses, which represents faith groups, law enforcement and business.
  • These alliances sent a powerful message around the Capitol and beyond:
  • National Association of Manufacturers CONTACT
  • American Hotel & Lodging Association, Compete America, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft,
    the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S.
  • Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  • American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin
  • Americans for a Conservative Direction, led by former Gov. Haley Barbour
  • American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas
  • Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Koch brothers’ political group
  • Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist
  • Faith and Freedom Coalition – Ralph Reed
  • New American Economy – Jeremy Robbins (Bloomberg Group)
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Randy Johnson
  • House Democrats: Zoe Lofgren, Xavier Becerra (communisists)
  • Congressional Black Hispanic Caucus
  • Evangelicals, the Catholic Church needs the money, Sojourners, National Association of Evangelicals
  • The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
  • The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
  • National Immigration Forum (NIF)
  • The unions (half of the members of the SEIU are illegal immigrants)
  • 4 groups putting pressure on House GOP
  • 53 Pro-Illegal Immigrant Democratic Representatives that need to be replaced
  • 32 Kansas mayors urge immigration reform

The Senate Bill would create up to 57 million new citizens over the next 20 years, creating a subclass. Many 2nd and 3rd generation would consume more welfare and not pay in taxes what it will cost government programs they will require, including Education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Total madness! Americans would be burdened, earning eligibility benefits per 40 quarters worked as follows:











Remember the loopholes in the bill would allow many to get away with not paying their fines or back taxes and slush funds for laRaza would help pay for them if needed. Also, the problem with a piecemeal amnesty bill being pushed is that once it is sent to the Senate, where the pieces would be thrown aside and the basic Amnesty Senate bill would take be passed.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report Illegal Immigration Reform would add to the 11.1 illegal immigrants here already,
30 million immigrants in 10 years,
46 million immigrants in 20 years.
A surge of up to 57 million “new citizens”
400 million population 2030.

Adding unskilled foreign workers will result in decreased wages per worker per year, for the next 12 years. The projected Average Monthly Change in Payroll Employment 2015-2018: 171,000 jobs/mth (not enough to reduce unemployment);  2019-2023: 75,000 jobs/mth. GDP would continue to increase, but more importantly GDP per capita would increase, meaning that, on average, we will have less money to spend, that is, except for the top 1%.

And now, the voice of reason.  Time to leave the GOP house of horrors and turn to the lady who should have their ear. Why are they stuck on F.A.I.L?  Why do they insist on pushing an agenda that will damage (and end) not only the part according to Phyllis Schlafly, bu the country itself?  They all belong behind bars for tricking us in the dead of night and without our knowledge. WE don’t want Amnesty. How many ways can it be expressed?

Phyllis Schlafly

By Phyllis Sclafly

First Lady of the Conservative Movement Phyllis Schlafly has an incisive article on Townhall explaining why conservatives – and establishment Republicans – should oppose President Obama’s push for amnesty for illegal aliens.

As Mrs. Schlafly points out, “The current level of legal immigration to America adds thousands of people every day whose views and experience are contrary to the conservative value of limited government… Under current law, 1.1 million new legal immigrants come in every year. The Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that amnesty, plus its scheduled increases in legal immigration, will add an additional 4.6 million new voters by 2014.”

More to the point, Phyllis Schlafly documents that “An enormous body of survey research shows that large majorities of recent immigrants, who are mostly Hispanic and Asian, hold liberal views on most policy issues and therefore vote Democratic two-to-one. Their motivation is not our immigration policy; it is economic issues.

“The 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey found that 62 percent of immigrants prefer a single government-run health care system. The 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 69 percent of immigrants support Obamacare, and the Pew Research Center found that 75 percent of Hispanic and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government.”

It is also worth noting a Harris poll Mrs. Schlafly cites that “found that 81 percent of native-born Americans believe the schools should teach students to be proud of being American, compared to only 50 percent of immigrants who had become naturalized U.S. citizens. Only 37 percent of naturalized citizens (compared to 67 percent of native-born citizens) think our Constitution has a higher legal authority than international law.

The Pew Research Center reported in 2011 that, of all groups surveyed, Hispanics have the most negative view of capitalism in America — 55 percent. This is even higher than the supporters of Occupy Wall Street.”

What’s the bottom line in Mrs. Schafly’s article?

The data do not support the notion that immigrants are social conservatives.

As Mrs. Schlafly notes in quoting Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic Party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”

The current level of immigration, even without amnesty, will add nearly 15 million new potential voters by 2036, a large share of whom will favor the left. To allow this to happen will make Republicans a permanent minority party.

Now here’s a key point for conservatives to act upon during this week’s Big Business pro-amnesty fly-in: “The pro-amnesty New York Times gleefully reported on Oct. 26 the front-page news that big-business leaders and Republican big donors are gearing up for a “lobbying blitz,” backed up by money threats, to get Congress to pass amnesty. Big business wants amnesty in order to get more cheap labor and keep wages forever low, and that is a gross betrayal of the legal immigrants who hope to rise into the middle class and achieve the American dream.

These big donors poured $400,000,000 into the campaigns of losing establishment-backed Republican candidates in 2012. They would rather elect Democrats than conservative, social-issue Tea Party-type grassroots Republicans who don’t take orders from the establishment.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, summed it up for Mrs. Schafly when he said: “I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with (Obama) on immigration, and I’m a proponent of immigration reform. … He’s trying to destroy the Republican Party, and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policies.”

We agree with Phyllis Schlafly – If the Republican Party is to remain nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty in every form.

To read Phyllis Schlafly’s article “Amnesty Is Republican Party Suicide” in its entirety click this link.


Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

October 27,1964: Remembering Ronald Reagan’s Most Iconic Speech

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

~Ronald Wilson Reagan,
40th President of these United States [1911-2004]

By Gary P Jackson

On October 27, 1964 at the Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan gave what would become one of his greatest, most memorable speeches. A speech that would become, along with Reagan himself, an American icon!

Entitled “A Time For Choosing” it would come to be known as simply “The Speech.”

Every year, as we remember this great speech, and reflect on it’s importance, I find myself filled with a combination of joy, inspiration, and sadness.

Joy and inspiration because it’s Ronald Reagan. The Great Renaldus Magnus in all of his glory. This is Ronald Reagan at his finest. He is telling the American people like it is. No punches pulled, no sugar coating. But this isn’t an angry, fire breathing speech. This is a hopeful speech. Reagan is speaking about the greatest evil mankind has ever faced, rabid liberalism, both in America, and of course, from communist states like the Soviet Union, but he counts on the intelligence of the American people to prevail. Rather than just raising hell about the viciousness and destructiveness of the policies put forth by the democrat party, Reagan offers up common sense, and a future less dire and more Free.

I’m sad though, because today, 49 years later, Reagan could give this EXACT speech. The only changes would be to some of the names mentioned, and of course, the dollars amounts are astronomically higher, as are the dangers America faces at the hands of rabid, anti-American liberals, in BOTH political parties.

Ronald Reagan is famous for fighting and eventually defeating the Soviet Union, which he called an “evil empire” but he also warned of the evils of liberalism here at home. He warned of out of control spending, corruption, and the growing welfare state. Reagan was able to put the destruction caused by liberalism in human terms, which is what makes this speech so powerful.

Every year I tell readers that “The Speech” should be required learning in every grade school, high school, and college. In fact, one shouldn’t be able to graduate high school or college, without a working knowledge and understanding of this speech, and the concepts espoused within. This year I’d like to add that NO ELECTED OFFICIAL should be allowed to hold office, without that same knowledge and understanding! [Yes I know, I’m living in a fantasy world … but… ]

Ronald Reagan always said the answers are simple. Not easy, but simple. Reagan’s conservatism was built on common sense and pragmatic solutions, both of which are in short supply these days, and not just in politics!

I love to think how much stronger America and the American people would be, had the country listened to Reagan in 1964, and followed a true Conservative path, rather than allowing rabid liberalism to take hold and lead us to where we are today, staring into the abyss.

The best way to honor Ronald Reagan on this day, and every day, is to listen to these words, and take heed. We ALL need to be inspired, and STAY inspired. We ALL need to work TOGETHER to save this nation we love so dearly from the evil that has us by the throat.

We must ALL be inspired to send liberalism, and all of it’s evils, to the ash heap of history. We must ALL look for leaders who will go to Washington, end the corruption, end the out of control spending, and end the era of Big Government, once and for all….

….or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

And now, a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan:

A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government“—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan

Sarah Palin: Congress Has America Caught Up in ‘Endless Extortion Scheme’

Sarah Palin American Flag

By Sarah Palin

America is suffering from an epic case of Armageddon fatigue.

Budget showdown, government shutdown, debt ceiling debacle—the stakes are real but the establishment seems to feed off the chaos they create as a means to foment fear and outrage and translate it into campaign donations for themselves.

Look closely and you’ll see that something seismic is going on under the surface of the manufactured chaos in D.C.

Washington has morphed into an extortion racket, a place where members of the permanent political class threaten to inflict legislative and regulatory pain to extract campaign donations that they can then siphon into the pockets of themselves and their family members.

In a new book featured this Sunday on 60 Minutes titled Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer explains how Washington politicians use a set of mafia-style legislative tactics to extort people and industries into donating to them out of fear of political and legal reprisals.

Schweizer interviewed former Chairman of Apache Corporation Ray Plank. Plank said campaign cash and lobbying contracts now function as “protection money” to keep lawmakers and regulators from going after you.

It’s what you expect from the mafia,” said Plank. “They basically come to you and say, ‘We are going to shove this bat up your ass and give you an enema. You better play ball.We saw a great deal of it. It’s an insidious blight.”

There are left-wing progressives on Wall Street and in the high-tech world who bankrolled President Obama’s campaign because they love his radical agenda. But as Schweizer points out, many gave because they know they have to; if they don’t, Obama will come after them.

That’s a lesson the Tea Party knows all too well. After the Tea Party’s historic 2010 midterm victory, Obama unleashed Attorney General Eric Holder to go after the oil and gas sector, which had given four times as much to Republicans as to Democrats. As Obama said in October 2010, “We are going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.

Of course, not everyone gets subjected to these Godfather-style shakedowns. Case in point: Obama bundler and former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine of MF Global shame. After “losing” $1.6 billion of MF Global customer money, Corzine walked away without a scratch. In Extortion, Schweizer publishes a devastating quote from Lisa Timmerman, a 17-year MF Global employee who served as the firm’s assistant comptroller for five years, saying: “Corzine is a major Obama fundraiser [which] is keeping prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against him.

But what about the rest of us? What about the average American mom and dad just trying to stay afloat in the disastrous Obama economy? We don’t have the funds to throw “protection money” at the political extortionists in Washington who are eager to foist things like Obamacare on us. Only Obama’s union cronies and members of the permanent political class are given Obamacare waivers and spared the pain of the policies D.C. inflicts on the rest of us. Big business got an Obamacare exemption that Obama refuses to give ordinary individuals who can’t even sign up for Obamacare on the broken exchange websites, but they’ll still be fined for not doing so!

And what about the GOP establishment? Why haven’t they been able to clean up the extortion racket in Washington? You have to ask yourself, has the party machine fought this corruption or does it participate in it? As a senior House Republican told Fox News on Thursday, it’s “highly unlikely” Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will be challenged because few have the muscle to match his ability to “raise money.”

In fact, the ability to raise money is apparently key to all the power in Washington. Here’s how bad it’s gotten: the Democratic and Republican Parties actually have a secret price list—officially known as “party dues”—that tells members of Congress how much money they must extract from donors in order to win a chairmanship or a top slot on a powerful Congressional committee. Schweizer somehow obtained the top-secret lists and included the never-before-published documents in Extortion.

But fundraising isn’t the only thing D.C. employs to keep people in line. Over in the Senate, Democrats like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) use thug tactics on Tea Party members and activists who stand in their way. In a devastating chapter on Harry Reid, Schweizer includes a quote from Reid’s former chief of staff Susan McCue, who in 2005 said Reid seizes on a person’s weaknesses to “disarm, to endear, to threaten, but most of all to instill fear.

The fact that these strong-arm tactics take place in Washington doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve fought this type of corruption my entire political career. And those who disagreed with me politically used thug-like tactics to try to bankrupt my family with frivolous lawsuits in Alaska, and it hasn’t stopped to this day.

It’s time for Washington to stop threatening citizens and scaring up dollars through an endless extortion scheme of manufactured crises. It’s time for leaders to lead. That means doing right by voters without requiring them to pay protection money in advance.

You have to wonder whether Constitutional rule of law even exists when separate rules apply for powerful and well-connected men like Jon Corzine. And you have to wonder whether we really have government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the only way We the People can be heard is if we grease the palms of the ruling class.

Enough is enough. If the permanent political class won’t drain the swamp, we will. We should follow the advice in the title of Schweizer’s last book and “Throw Them All Out.” 2014 is just around the corner.



Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin: D.C.’s ‘Corrupt Bastards Club’

Sarah Palin Todd Palin DC Rally

Photo credit: Shealah Craighead

The Corrupt Bastards Club. They said it. I didn’t.

By Sarah Palin:

In Alaska we had a group of politicos who chuckled as they dubbed themselves the “CBC,” which stands for “Corrupt Bastards Club.” But it was no laughing matter. I, and many others, took them on. We won. When I served as chairman of our state’s Oil and Gas Commission, I reported on the cronyism of the chair of my own Party, who had been appointed by our governor to that same energy regulating commission. (Click here to see a reporter’s reaction to a short Newt Gingrich interview on the matter.)

The whistle blowing resulted in him receiving the largest ethics fine in the state’s history. But that was just the tip of the oily iceberg. The FBI investigated Alaskan lawmakers for taking bribes from the oil industry in exchange for votes favorable to that industry, and politicos ended up in jail.*

The lawmakers actually called themselves the Corrupt Bastards Club and even emblazoned the CBC initials on baseball caps they gifted each other – that’s how untouchable they believed they were. But average, concerned citizens said, “enough is enough,” and shook things up. Though some of the CBC members ended up in horizontal pinstripes, much of the compromised party apparatus stayed in power.

I’ll never forget standing at the podium during our state GOP convention and asking delegates to stand up with me and oust the status quo because the political environment had to change for Alaska to progress toward her manifest destiny as a more productive—and ethical—state to help secure our union. Only about half stood up. The rest looked around gauging the political winds and sat on their thumbs. Our federal delegation was incensed at me. Their influence resulted in much of the party machine staying put, but I’ll never be sorry I fought it.

Today, doesn’t it seem like we have a Corrupt Bastards Club in D.C.? On steroids? It might not be as oily and obvious as its Alaska counterpart, but it’s just as compromised because its members, too, are indifferent to what their actions mean for We the People.

I’m prepared to be attacked for suggesting this comparison of the D.C. political establishment with the CBC. But I call it like I see it. And lived it. The fight over defunding socialized healthcare, aka Obamacare, should have opened everyone’s eyes to call it the same.

From the very start, we knew that any health care reform could move us in one of two directions: closer to a genuine free market and patient-centered system to allow choices, affordability, and continued economic freedom, or closer to full socialized healthcare in the form of a single-payer system. President Obama and many Democrats have always openly admitted they want socialized medicine in the form of a single-payer system.

It can be argued that Obamacare isn’t full socialized medicine… yet. Right now it is a sort of corporatism, which is the collusion of big government with big business. With Obamacare, the government has taken over an industry that comprises a sixth of our economy, radically changed the way it operates, and is mandating that we purchase the services of that industry. This is unprecedented. It’s radical.

For those Obama voters who are now flummoxed by the rise in their health care premiums, let me explain why they went up. Obamacare has changed the very nature of insurance, which is a hedge against a future possibility. A 27-year-old marathon runner is much less likely to suffer a major illness than a 57-year-old obese chain smoker with a pickled liver. But Obamacare has ruled that there be no adjusted costs for pre-existing conditions, which means we threw out the actuarial data and everyone is now required to pay more to cover those who are more likely to be sick. But now average Americans – especially those healthy 20somethings who probably don’t even want to buy insurance – can’t afford to pay for Obamacare.

Obamacare in its current corporatist form isn’t meant to last. It’s meant to push us towards full socialized medicine with a single-payer system. How do I know this? Simple. Let’s compare Obamacare with the Canadian single-payer system.

With Obamacare we have crappier health care (fewer choices, fewer doctors, and an IPAB rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats, aka the ol’ “death panel” that has been admitted to existing in Obamacare), but it is very expensive for the individual American. For instance, you’ll find that the so-called Bronze Plans are just as expensive as the Platinum Plans when you factor in the $5,000-$10,000 deductible in addition to the monthly payments you’ll shell out. And those Americans who aren’t being pushed onto the Obamacare exchanges are still seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket as the industry shifts onto consumers the cost of not factoring in various conditions.

Now let’s look at what Canadians have. I dare say our good neighbor to your north, and my east, has even worse health care coverage, but at least it’s “free” for the individual.

Americans, if you’re faced with a 300% increase (or even a 65% increase like my family) in your health care premiums for crappier coverage, doesn’t “free” socialized medicine all of a sudden sound appealing?

And that’s how Americans will be led down the primrose path to a single-payer system. People will be frustrated, worn out, and broke under this new government burden. Many will end up concluding they’ll settle for – then demand – full socialized medicine because they’ll see how the unworkable Obamacare will break our health care system (where, presently, no one is turned away from emergency rooms and we have many public and private safety nets for people in need), along with busting our personal bank accounts.

The cry will go out, “Can’t you just put us all in a sort of Medicaid-like system? It’ll be much less confusing than these awful exchange websites and a lot less expensive!” As things stand, many who are getting slammed by Obamacare will inevitably settle for less out of necessity. And that’s the left’s declared plan: a single-payer system. They said it. I didn’t.

Of course, the Canadian system isn’t really “free.” It comes with high taxes and even more rationing, which is precisely why the Obama-friendly economist Paul Krugman makes a point of reminding us that we’ll only bring health care costs “under control” by employing “death panels and sales taxes.” And, of course, our already broke country will go bankrupt even faster under the unsustainable strain of this expanding welfare state, and our economy will suffer under the stagnation of permanently higher taxes.

When Harry Reid laughs and says, “Yes, yes! Absolutely, yes!” when asked if his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system of full socialized medicine, he’s spilling the truth. The evidence is right before our eyes. Please open yours, GOP establishment.

The broken websites and botched Obamacare rollout help push things to that inevitable conclusion by causing frustration and confusion that only the government can “fix.” In fact, these unusable Obamacare websites make a reasonable person wonder how this administration could have made such a colossal bungle of the rollout when they are, after all, the same savvy experts who had the most sophisticated and precise campaign websites ever built. They could pinpoint voters down to a city block, but they messed up a website that cost the government over $200 million more than it cost Apple to develop the first iPhone. Purposeful?

The full implementation of Obamacare puts us firmly on the path to the left’s desire of a single-payer system of socialized medicine. That was the end game for Obama and the Democrats all along. The end is now in sight for them, and the media doesn’t even ask about it.

So what was the GOP establishment’s game plan to fight this march towards socialism? They’ve been busy denouncing Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and their supporters, along with the good House Members who fought for our one chance to defund Obamacare. But what were the wayward Republicans’ alternative plans? They thought we could ignore the implementation of Obamacare and simply focus on some future electoral victories in the hope that some day the stars will align and we’ll have super majorities in the House and Senate along with a Republican president who would hopefully repeal this disastrous soon-to-be set in stone new “entitlement.”

There’s a big problem with that scenario. It overlooks the everyday reality before our eyes. As Obamacare is being implemented, Americans can’t afford to pay for it. We can’t even sign up for it on the impossibly cumbersome websites, but the IRS will fine us for not doing so anyway!

Obama gave his pals, and Congress gave themselves, tickets off this train wreck via waivers. Cruz and Lee fought for us to get the same relief the big guys got. The media and disloyal politicians turned on them and, divided, we lost. Now we little guys are stuck on this train, which will soon collide with hardship and real-world economics that don’t pencil out. Friends, by the time the electoral stars align for this hoped-for GOP hat trick the country will be out billions, if not trillions, more of our tax dollars and will have already begged D.C. to relieve us of this corporatist nightmare even if it means a socialized single-payer system. And once there, do you think we’ll ever go back and strip this “entitlement”? Unarguable history proves otherwise.

The only credible plan of action was to do everything in our power to delay the implementation of Obamacare – defund it, postpone it, whatever – while at the same time work to elect a majority to repeal it. That is what Cruz and Lee and those Tea Party aligned House Members were doing. There was no other credible alternative plan to seize the constitutionally appropriate opportunity to legislatively close the purse strings to stop the juggernaut of full socialized medicine.

You have to wonder whether the permanent political class in D.C. really wants to get rid of Obamacare at all. We’re finding out it’s good business for them.

The same lobbyists who wrote Obamacare are now busy selling their wares to anyone with enough dough who wants to get around the law. Meanwhile politicians are busy collecting campaign donations and other favors while carving out the lobbyists’ requested exemptions for various cronies. Then every election cycle they get to capitalize on fundraising off Obamacare shenanigans while telling voters back home about how hard they’re fighting to stop it. Don’t be fooled. Too many of them merely took meaningless symbolic votes that could never have repealed this, and they sat on their thumbs without standing united in the fight for us.

GOP politicians claim they’re against Obamacare and promise to repeal it. But when it came time to stand up and use the Constitutional tools they have – the power of the purse strings – to finally halt the implementation, they balked, waved the white flag, and joined the lapdog media in trashing the good guys who fought for us.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, these same politicians are covertly pushing through amnesty despite evidence that the 33 million newly legalized voters will overwhelmingly lean Democrat! Obviously this makes the likelihood of a GOP hat trick electoral victory, and hence the repeal of socialized healthcare, even more improbable.

The media wants you to believe that the partial government shutdown “fractured” the Republican machine from grassroots commonsense conservatives who go by the acronym TEA Party (that stands for “Taxed Enough Already”). No, Tea Party patriots rose up because the Republican machine “fractured” itself years ago by marginalizing its conservative base. The recent “slimdown” didn’t cause the fracture. It happened because of the fracture – because wayward Republicans have refused for years to stand up and fight for economic freedom and limited government, despite campaigning on those principles every election cycle. That’s how we got into this debt-ridden mess in the first place. They campaigned one way, but governed another.

It’s the establishment’s choice whether this fracture remains unfixed because the conservative grassroots will never give up the fight for freedom. Never. Never. Generations of our sons and daughters sent off to war to protect our freedom have paid too high a price for us to ever give up the fight.

The conservative grassroots is rising up just like some did all those years ago at the GOP convention in Alaska. We’re rising up and calling on the rest of the Party to stand up with us against corruption and indifference – the twin causes of failure. Stand up, America! A great awakening is needed now more than ever. And it can happen in this most exceptional nation. By the grace of God it will happen!

President Reagan warned about socialized medicine, and ironically I quoted his warning in my closing remarks during the 2008 Vice Presidential debate: “If you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

You deserve the best, America. And the best is God-given freedom.

*I encourage readers to see Stephen K. Bannon’s documentary “The Undefeated” for a full explanation of the Corrupt Bastards Club and how we took them on in Alaska.

Updated by Gary:

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

It’s Over.

GOP surrender

Please allow me to use this venue to share with you my personal opinion on what happened today, based on previous experiences from my country. Then let me know what you think. There is no right or wrong. We are discussing and needing to air our thoughts and concerns about a grave situation we find ourselves in.

I hate to be negative, and I’m doing this to vent mostly, not to make predictions, but our fight just got more difficult to say the least. Thanks to not just progressive views, but the defeatism and downright arrogant attitudes of the GOP and Democrat Senators, which Ted Cruz rightly describes as a group who does not listen to the people. We are being taunted and provoked into a fight.

The overall atmosphere in Washington, D.C., is one where politicians have not only become more corrupt and wrong in their thought process, but more emboldened against the people. It is war. And it was declared against us first. We’ve just been pushing back. I’ve been saying it from the first day I posted here.

Something terribly wrong is about to happen in this country and it will not be fixed by those who will have contributed to making it happen. So just like the past two elections which the GOP lost, I don’t want to hear from the failures who have no business going around telling people how things should be run. Their track record speaks for itself. But for the Tea Party it would have self-destructed.

This is not to call for a blame game. We should not lower ourselves to the level of representatives like Peter King and others who should govern themselves accordingly, as statesmen, not jealous brats. By contrast, Ted Cruz, who I stand by, does not honor unworthy comments with a reply but continues to fight for us and against ObamaCare despite “Washington apathy”. We should never give up.

But this is soul-searching time for those of us who have been working on behalf of a party by way of supporting it against our will and better judgement, by trying to reform it, or by supporting Conservatives to freshen the page on the Republican message. We have a party, however, who is heck bent on leaving us with no choice but to abandon it or to fiercely rebel against it from within.

It is a time to seriously consider bringing about the death of the GOP as we know it. They have not done their job. They have been derelict in their duty to protect us, which is their first responsibility. They’ve sought nothing but self-enrichment and self-advancement at the expense of our country’s future, which our children and grandchildren will pay the consequences for. They are not even done yet.

This is not about being mad. We’ve been called Tea Party anarchists, hobbits and radical extremists. The term has lost its meaning anyway. It has been a co-opted message used by the GOP for functions like the RNC convention. In many cases we know it has been misused to deceive voters by RINO candidates in disguise. (“Tea Party” or “conservative” helps them win elections.) We know the game.

The Tea Party, who the GOP despises, is simply everyday Americans who are concerned about the future of their country.  There is no better description:

The TeaParty is only AMERICANS fighting for our country in protest to our political system. We are not political. Most of us have never been involved in politics in our lives. We just love God, family, our military and our country.

We are all AMERICANS who all are concerned for AMERICA. We are just labeled TeaParty because we are fighting for our country just like the Sons of Liberty when they made a statement in Boston when they threw the tea in Boston Harbor against taxation from the British and, which led to the ultimate writing of the Declaration of Independence.  We’re not all Republicans. We’re not all Democrats. We’re not all Libertarians. We’re not all Independents, we’re not all conservatives nor any other political group that’s out there. We’re not all from one race. We’re not even all from the same religious persuasions, nationalities or ethnic backgrounds.

We are AMERICANS who care about our country and want it back. I’m proud to be part of it and I make no excuses for the same.          ~ Mary Hunter ~

This is about who we are and what we stand for as patriots. I consider myself a freedom fighter, as freedom is in every soul’s heart. I’m just fighting (this time) for America to be the beacon of Freedom for the world it has always been.

Now, thanks to greedy politicians, it may never be the same. I have considered but not rooted for a Third Party in the past because of the logistics involved, including time it would take away from backing conservatives in national and local elections, and the huge financial setbacks. A newly created party would not be able to match the funds or compete with the resources or apparatus that the other two parties with their hundreds of millions can afford. It’s not doable.

So. We are being backed into a corner because the GOP needs to R.I.P. as we know it. It is not working. No matter what we do, now matter how many candidates we elect for them to beat the Democrats, they are stuck on Surrender. And they hate us, too. The GOP should not be rewarded with any more forgiveness for their continued mistakes, but pay the consequences for failing and leave the governing to us instead. It’s that simple. But that complicated.

The Debt Ceiling vote sealed the deal for me today with the GOP.

We face three big challenges because Republicans will have caved on both ObamaCare and the debt ceiling. The momentum which was against Immigration Reform in the Sumer because of the pressure from the grassroots conservatives and the leaders who represented them (Cruz and Lee) can now go the Democrats’s way, with the help of GOP quislings who would make it as easy for them as going out one’s front door – a door the GOP would be proud doormats of! one Democrats could walk all over..

To think GOP Senators are patting themselves on the back because they raised the debt ceiling is a spectacle in itself. They act like they won. (Idiots!) Of course Obama is going after Amnesty next. Who wouldn’t be emboldened by the weakness from our own? Boehner will of course accommodate him as he usually does.

So. It’s over. Freedom as we knew it is over. I don’t know how else to put it. Republicans have squandered precious opportunities we have served on silver platters for them. This latest, the shutdown, Cruz had positioned us to make Reid and Obama look bad. We were winning! I hate to politicize the veterans rally, but the whole scenario was a negative for the White House and Reid. And yet.. the GOP (with the cooperation of elitist pundits and writers) has been fixated on punishing Cruz by making him look like his strategy lost, instead of focusing on doing what is right. They cannot forgive him for going past them and directly to the American people.  That is our party for ya. Not Grand. Just Old.

When I say we must continue fighting, I mean for whatever remaining freedoms there are left. We ,ay have to settle for or adjust to fighting battles of lesser importance as we lost the bigger ones to the government. Even if they fail we will never get them back. . I  feel like I’m stating the obvious, but we are where Reagan warned us we’d be when he spoke of freedom being just one generation away.

So what do we do?

Whether we want to admit it or not, the GOP is now part of the government with the Democrats. That is unacceptable. Something has to be done. I thought of a summit two months ago when Amnesty was being discussed: GOP vs. Grassroots, but things have escalated and we’re having fewer options to deal with.  We cannot wait until the next election. We are running out of time.

There are more of us. Yes. But even if we formed a Third Party we would still be marginalized from power. I can think of one example (there are many): Venezuela. The people were unified. They had a popular leader. They demonstrated in the streets in record numbers. They had the truth on their side and were fighting with hope because their message was right, but the powerful who were wrong, even ill with cancer and dying shortly after being elected, won.

How many people who have lived in communist countries and come to live here have you seen take up this cause? Not many. Why? Because it has no end. When those familiar with the beast see it rear its ugly head, they know in their hearts, the fix is in. Luckily, this is America and who knows? We may defy the odds. (The movie isn’t over yet.)

But I’m beyond angry. Those who allowed the powered grabs today are guilty of leaving open the possibility of that power never being relinquished to the people again. If you want to know what it’s like to be powerless here’s another example from a communist country, it’s a daily struggle to survive. You are treated worse than an animal, unless you are part of the poltical elite. It’s having to figure out how to work around what the government has rationed for you. You can dream but you can’t conquer. If you dare to, or go against the whimsical rules the state imposes, you are punished, beaten, arrested or separated from your family. Nothing has to make sense and you cannot question why.  That is not American.

It is extreme. But it’s hard to forget it and maybe it will make you feel better by having perspective on what is going on now. If any of the GOP Senators really felt THEY were losing THEIR freedoms they would be voting differently. They are not hungry for justice, truth or liberty at all. They’re just living like political beasts for and among themselves and their next feed ($). They have lost touch.

There is one way to avoid a dictatorship from happening for now: through impeachment. I learned through an article by a friend that there are supposedly 200 billion in revenue coming in every month, so there is plenty of money to pay down the debt. Obama is responsible for paying only 20 billion, like a minimum credit card payment.  If he chooses not to by stopping payment on it through the treasury secretary, he commits treason because it is a deliberate act of economic terrorism against our country. If he commits treason, Congress needs to write up articles of impeachment. The catch is we would have to convince Congress to do it.  (How likely is it they’re going to listen to us?) We would have to insist. If Congress does write them, the Senate would then have to set up treason charges against Obama and he would be ousted. (How likely would that happen  when the Democratic Senate just gained more power than ever?) Still, we have to try.

If the GOP had any courage to do what it takes, Obama would be impeached and we would avoid a Third Party altogether. But based on what we’ve seen, there is no will to make it happen, so.. Today the RHINOS with an H (the D’s and the R’s) will have all been instrumental in possibly making Obama president for life.

I’m sad. I felt like I lost a loved one today. Nothing will replace the America from before. We’re more than a generation away from restoration. I don’t want a Third Party, but the GOP “as is” has to be dissolved. They have betrayed us, the constitution and those who have shed their blood, toiled and sacrificed for the freedoms we barely have today.  It’s time to end the Party of Surrender.



Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Out of Control Debt Flashback: Forbes: President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

Obama Laughing

By Gary P Jackson

As the Establishment Republicans™ prepare to surrender Congress and their responsibility to the American people to President Obama, I thought it might be a good time to take another look at an editorial from last year that appeared in Forbes, written by economist Peter Ferrara.

In the lengthy Forbes piece, Ferrara contends that President Obama is the biggest spender in the entire recorded history of the world, and backs it up with plenty of facts.

Here’s a taste:

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.

Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away by the still holding majority of Americans living in the real world

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. It became apparent some weeks ago when the President talked on the stump – where else? – about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth [under Obama] is actually lower than that of previous Presidents.

This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama’s Presidency. People sneered: The President was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. T

hat’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

What this shows most importantly is that the recognition is starting to break through to the general public regarding the President’s rhetorical strategy that I’ve have been calling Calculated Deception. The latter is deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture. That has been a central Obama practice not only throughout his entire presidency, but also as the foundation of his 2008 campaign strategy, and actually throughout his whole career.

Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself. That is why he is at minimum a Swedish socialist, if not worse. Notice, though, how far behind the times he and his weak minded supporters are, as even the Swedes have abandoned Swedish socialism as a failure.

Sadly, as we are learning more and more by the day, a significant number of Americans are ignorant. And even sadder, these ignorant people VOTE. Combine a populace that doesn’t have a clue about what is going on around them [who will believe anything they are told without question] and a corrupt media that will outright lie to help President Obama and his democrats push their anti-American agenda, and you end up where we are right now: In the middle of a complete disaster, and the pending collapse of our nation.

Ferrara continues:

The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting on which Obama based his claim begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.” Not exactly.

The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.

As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton. But for fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and the restless Senator Obama already running for President, just four years removed from his glorious career as a state Senator in the Illinois legislature. As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9 percent increase in spending for fiscal 2009!

Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.” So Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion.

Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget. Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time.

Reagan then ramped up the spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democratic Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history.

President Obama’s own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

But this 2012 election is defined for the voters by the future, not the past. And that future is fully revealed by the stark contrast between President Obama’s spending, deficits and debt projected under his proposed 2013 budget, and the projections under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget, adopted by the Republican House, and endorsed by presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Despite all the controversy in Washington and in the media over Ryan’s budget, what it all adds up to is just to restore federal spending to its long term, postwar, historical average of 20% of GDP. That stable level of federal spending, with some modest variance, prevailed for over 60 years after the end of World War II, until 2009. Ryan’s budget reduces federal spending from an average of 24.4% of GDP during the Obama years to 20.1% after just 3 years, by 2015.

By contrast, under the budget policies supported by President Obama and Congressional Democrats, federal spending soars to 30% of GDP by 2027, 40% by 2040, 50% by 2060, and 80% by 2080. Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline. Ryan’s budget proposes to cut that by $6.8 trillion. By 2022, Ryan’s budget would be spending nearly a trillion dollars less per year than President Obama’s budget.

Ryan proposes tax reform to consolidate the current 6 individual income tax rates, ranging up to 35%, to just two rates of 10% and 25%. His budget would otherwise retain the Bush tax rates of 15% for capital gains and 15% for corporate dividends, and repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. Ryan also proposes corporate tax reform, closing loopholes and reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, which is roughly the international average. CBO scores these reforms, even with the rate cuts, as again restoring federal revenues to their long term, postwar, historical average of 18.3% of GDP by 2015.

Obama’s budget, in sharp contrast, proposes to increase federal taxes by nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years above the CBO baseline. The budget projects that under Obama’s tax policies federal income tax revenues will double by 2020, federal corporate tax revenues will double by 2017, and federal payroll taxes will double by 2022

Next year, under President Obama’s policies, the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax are already scheduled to increase under current law. That is because the Obamacare tax increases are scheduled to go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which President Obama proposes refuses to renew for singles making over $200,000 a year, and couples making over $250,000. President Obama is now proposing on top of that the Buffett Rule, which would increase tax rates on capital gains and dividends even further. Counting that, next year the top tax rate for capital gains would increase by 100%, the top tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by 100%, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, and the Medicare payroll tax again for singles making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 would increase by 62% (under Obamacare).

This is all on top of the corporate income tax rate, which counting state corporate rates is nearly 40%, the highest in the world now, except for the socialist one party state of Cameroon. Under the Buffett Rule, America’s capital gains tax rate would be the fourth highest in the industrialized world. Based on historical precedent, these tax rate increases are unlikely to raise anywhere near the revenue projected by CBO, meaning even higher future deficits and debt.

Under Ryan’s budget, even with CBO’s static scoring, the federal deficit in actual nominal dollars would be reduced to $182 billion by 2017, the fifth year of the budget. That compares to $1,327 billion, or $1.327 trillion, today. So in just 5 years, the deficit would be reduced by at least 86%. The deficit under Ryan’s budget would be less than 1% of GDP by 2017, at 0.9%, where it stabilizes for 6 years to the end of the 10 year budget window. Most importantly, given the sharp tax rate cuts in Ryan’s budget, with dynamic scoring the budget would probably be balanced by 2017. That is because in the real world the rate cuts will not lose nearly as much revenue as CBO scores.

Under President Obama’s budget, his own projections show the deficit never gets anywhere near balance. Indeed, the deficit never gets below or anywhere near the former all time record in 2008. By 2022, his own budget projects the deficit rising over the previous 5 years to $704 billion. But if Obama’s comprehensive tax rate increases throw the country back into recession next year, the deficits will soar much higher for several years, to new all time records.

Even under CBO’s horse and buggy static scoring, Ryan’s budget does serve to get federal debt under control and avoid any debt crisis, putting federal debt held by the public on a declining path from 77% of GDP in 2013 to 62% by 2022. That debt continues on a sharp decline from there, as the long term effects of Ryan’s structural entitlement reforms phase in. Debt held by the public is reduced to 53% of GDP by 2030, 38% by 2040, and 10% by 2050. That means the national debt is all but paid off by 2050, and would be soon thereafter. In fact, under dynamic scoring it probably would be paid off by then.

In stark contrast, on our current course, under President Obama’s budget policies, federal debt held by the public rockets to 140% of GDP by 2030, 220%by 2040, and 320% by 2050, on its way to over 700% by 2080. That would undoubtedly create a Grecian style sovereign debt crisis for America before that point.

I’m not a fan of Paul Ryan’s plan, but in the context of a presidential election, I understand why Ferrara used it to contrast Obama’s radical, out of control spending.

Ryan’s plan simply isn’t bold enough. It doesn’t cut spending anywhere near it needs to be, and doesn’t do it quick enough.

We keep forgetting that while our $17 TRILLION debt, which will be well over $20 TRILLION before we are finally rid of Obama in 2017, we also have over $90 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, which include Social Security and other entitlements promised. It’s 100% unsustainable. Obama and his democrat party doesn’t care. Sadly the Republican party “leadership” doesn’t care enough to fight.

Dedicated to Obama:

Feel free to add your own “tribute” to Mr Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Video: Senator Ted Cruz SLAMS Senate Deal to End Shutdown Raise Debt Ceiling

Ted Cruz Surrounded by Media

Washington has caused the problems, but has no intention of fixing them

By Gary P Jackson

Senator Ted Cruz rips the Washington establishment and really tears into the Senate. Though he has praise for the GOP controlled House, he is clearly upset with the entire “ruling class” in our nation’s capitol.

Senator Cruz specifically talks about all pain the American people are suffering, and will suffer under the already failed ObamaCare scheme.

As you know, the Senate Republicans collapsed and surrendered to Barack Obama and Harry Reid, basically kicking the entire debt/budget issue down the road until after the first of next year. It’s disgraceful and despicable.

Video courtesy of Wayne Dupree – @NewsNinja2012


Filed under In The News, Politics

Governor Sarah Palin Reminds New Jersey Steve Lonegan is the Right Choice

SarahPac Steve Lonegan

By Gary P Jackson

Governor Sarah Palin talks to Sean Hannity about Steve Lonegan’s incredible life story, as well as his outstanding record as a public servant.

They also talk about America’s rich energy resources that are going untapped … AND the need for a third party.

Audio courtesy SarahNET.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Governor Sarah Palin headed to Iowa


By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin is headed to Iowa in November, along with Senator Mike Lee and Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.

From David Brody:

Well, try this one on for size. Sarah Palin is heading to Iowa next month. Iowa has great people and loads of corn but it is also full of presidential politics. Hmmm…

Palin will be the featured speaker at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition Banquet. Read more from their release below:

The Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition (IA FFC) is pleased to announce that Gov. Sarah Palin will be a featured speaker at their 13th Annual Family Banquet on November 9, 2013 in Des Moines, IA. Steve Scheffler, President of IA FFC stated, “We are thrilled and honored that Gov. Palin has confirmed to address Iowa’s top conservative activists, as we kick off the 2014 election cycle. Without a doubt, her appearance will motivate activists to be involved in grassroots politics here in Iowa that will help turn the tide here in Iowa, by electing more family-friendly public officials at all levels.

Palin will join Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, at the event.

The mainstream media keeps trying to make Sarah Palin irrelevant, and within the NYC-Washington Corridor she is exactly that. But the highbrow mainstream media might want to put down their lattes and New York Times and embrace the concept that Palin is still relevant.

Her words and endorsements will matter in the 2014 Midterms. And beyond? Who knows.

I wouldn’t read more intro this than Governor Palin going to speak and an event with fellow Conservatives, but we all know she is well liked in Iowa, and certainly would have a strong showing there, should she run.

Our buddy Tony Lee over at Breitbart put together a lengthy article that includes a bunch of videos of Governor Palin, her speech, and events from Iowa in 2011.

Worth a trip over there to check it out!


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Politico’s Roger Simon [Democrat] Calls For The Death of John Boehner and Ted Cruz


Question: If Ted Cruz and John Boehner were both on a sinking ship, who would be saved?

Answer: America.

~ Politico’s Roger Simon [Democrat]

By Gary P Jackson

Politico has always been a far left website that stoked hate through it’s dishonest reporting, but now they are dropping all pretense of being a legit website and are just becoming another hate spewing arm of the democrat party.

You know, I understand passionate debate, even strong, spirited disagreements, along with the harshest of words, but when you start wishing your fellow Americans dead and start spewing hate like Simon, it’s all over.

In his racist, hate filled rant, Simon latches on to the one SOB that showed up in Washington, at the WWII Memorial, carrying the Stars and Bars, the Confederate Flag. He uses this to attack Senator Ted Cruz and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the American people who are well past fed up with our out of control corrupt government.

Of course, the Tea Party is attacked, even though this wasn’t a Tea Party event. [Though it’s been reported members of the Tea Party showed up to pick up trash around the site]

Being a Texan, I have mixed feelings about the Confederate Flag. I understand it’s history, and the fact it’s a source of pride, in the South. To Southerners the Confederate flag likely stirs the kind of emotions Texans feels when they see the Battle of Gonzales Flag. The flag from the first battle of the Revolution. But Texans have never considered themselves part of the South. We’re Texans.

It should also be noted, that when secession was put to the vote, MOST Texas counties voted AGAINST secession. As it is today, all the democrats were crowded into the major towns, and a few democrat controlled counties had the votes to give Texas to the Confederacy. And Texas was punished severely for it.

The fact is though, symbols be damned, the democrat party has always been the party of racism and hate. Nothing has changed except members of the party have become more hateful and more unhinged.

If some guy shows up in D.C. with a Confederate flag, maybe we should take it for what it is, a man with a flag, and leave it at that.

When they start showing up in white hoods with burning crosses ….. oh wait, they’d be democrats!

Let’s look at some of the hate spewed by Simon:

Harsh? Look around you at what is happening to America and you will see harsh. I am not talking about closed parks and monuments. I am talking about the funds cut to nearly 9 million mothers and young children for food, breastfeeding support and infant formula.

That is harsh. Making a war against babies is harsh. And for what? Because Cruz, Republican senator from Texas, has grown so drunk on the sound of his own voice and so besotted with illusions of his own grandeur that he believes halting government today will propel him into the White House tomorrow?

First off, some 80 some-odd percent of the government is up and running fine. The only people actually being hurt are those Obama and his thugs have chosen to hurt. Food stamps, Medicare, Medicare, Social Security, disability payments, and so on, are still coming as promised.

The fact is, all of this “shut down” madness, engineered by Obama and his people, is dinner theater. Bread and Circuses. Entertainment for the ignorant ones among us.

I have no idea if Senator Cruz is even considering a run for another office, but I suspect if he did, he’d have a whole lot of support. That scares the hell out of liberal swine in BOTH political parties!

I DO know one thing, Ted Cruz is doing EXACTLY what myself, and my fellow Texans sent him to do! Imagine that, a politician actually fulfilling his campaign promises!

For what it’s worth, my dream ticket for 2016 is Sarah Palin with Ted Cruz as her Vice President. That would upset the right people in Washington, for sure!

Simon and his fellow hate filled democrats are angry because our government is set up with a system of checks and balances designed to keep Americans from turning into a dictatorship. A source of angst among democrats who long for one.

As The New York Times ably pointed out, this shutdown did not just happen. It was plotted for months by a coalition of more than three dozen conservative groups led by Edwin Meese III. The groups were funded in part by the billionaire right-wing Koch brothers, who wanted to cripple Obamacare. (Koch Companies denies it has supported using the shutdown as a tactic.)

You remember Meese. He was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, who was forced to resign in the Wedtech scandal while under investigation by a special prosecutor. Today, Meese sees himself not as a sleazy hustler but America’s savior. And he wants to save us from health care.

Shortly after Obama began his second term, Meese went to work gathering conservative influence-peddlers and members of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress to repeal Obamacare. Cruz was happy to act as Obamacare’s willing executioner in the Senate, and pushing a shutdown of government to do so.

House Speaker Boehner eventually went along. It was a blackmail on a massive order: Stop Obamacare or we will never reopen the government.

It is now evident that both houses of Congress have the votes to end the shutdown. But, so far, Boehner will not let that come to a vote. If he does, he is afraid the tea party conservatives will strip him of his job.

The democrats give the GOP too much credit. If there is anything in life that resembles herding cats, it’s trying to get the Republican Establishment™ to listen to it’s base of supporters, and actually grow a pair and fight back!

I always laugh when democrats get all bent out of shape over those “evil” Koch Brothers. I doubt most Conservatives could pick them out of a line up! I know they contribute to some Conservatives causes, which is their right, as citizens, but they also contribute to causes that Conservatives strongly oppose, like amnesty for illegal aliens Fact is, the Koch Brothers self identify as “libertarians.”

The democrats never seem to care where their money comes from though, and while there are a large number of millionaires and billionaires who support the democrat party, the one man who comes to mind, is Nazi collaborator George Soros, the self-declared “owner of the democrat party” Soros, a socialist, doesn’t just give money, he and his people have created hundreds of groups, all that work daily to subvert the Constitution, and destroy the American way of life.

Soros is a genuine Nazi war criminal and one of the democrat party’s big leaders.

Back to the WWII veterans and this shutdown. Those WWII vets fought AGAINST Soros and company, BTW. What does it say about an America where those who merely want the Constitution and the Rule of Law followed, are called “terrorists?” What does it say about an America where those who understand we [as a nation] have already borrowed more money than we can ever hope to pay back, and want some common sense to reign supreme, are called “extremists?”

Talk about hate, the democrat party is spewing it 24/7.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” the New Testament asks.

Kinda rich, considering the members of the democrat party [at their 2012 convention] BOOED the very mention of God’s name when the Convention Chairman tried to put God BACK in the democrat party platform, and democrat loons screamed “Hail Satan!” recently in Austin, Texas in support of abortion extremist Wendy Davis.

Not sure Simon and pigs like him have the moral authority to quote the Scripture.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen Boehner’s suite of offices in the Capitol? It would make Midas blush.

Boehner uses the same offices Nancy Pelosi used, when she was Speaker of the House. Speaking of Pelosi and making Midas blush, let’s not forget Pelosi has made tens of millions of dollars while engaged in insider trading! Pelosi and her ilk fought any and all attempts to make insider trading illegal for members of Congress, like it is for everyone else. [just ask Martha Stewart]

Boehner does not bend to the will of his Kamikaze Caucus because he is an evil man. He does so because he is a weak man. To borrow a line from Theodore Roosevelt, I could carve a better man out of a banana.

Here Simon says something that is almost true. Speaker Boehner IS a weak man. He’s also a liberal. The two go hand in hand. Boehner’s real problem isn’t weakness though. It’s understanding Conservative principles, and being willing to actually stand up and fight.

That said, I’ve actually been impressed with Boehner, at least a little bit, for finally growing a spine. He’s only four years too late!

<blockquote?There is a price to be paid for all this. Even if the immediate problems are somehow solved and a government default avoided — for now — the scab has been torn off our political wounds.

This weekend, racism came out of the closet. (Which assumes it has ever been in the closet.)


Oh noes, a scary man with a Confederate flag! He’s also holding a Marine Corps flag. We have no way of knowing if this man is a veteran, but if he IS a Marine Corps veteran, he’s EARNED the right to carry those flags!

You can always tell when democrats are losing the argument, out comes the race card!

Democrats stand up and cry crocodile tears every January for Dr Martin Luther King [a Conservative Republican] and have hijacked his iconic speech, claiming it as their own.

The difference between the racist democrats, and Conservatives is Conservatives actually LISTENED to Dr King and have the same dream.

You see, like Dr King, Conservatives judge Obama, not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character. Democrats don’t want ANY of their people, black, white, or green, judged by the content of their character!

Protesters marched through the streets of Washington on Sunday with a Confederate flag and then a protester lounged against the White House fence with one. Displaying the Confederate flag in front of a home occupied by a black family was meant to send a particular, and particularly repellent, message.

One guy with a Confederate flag, who could have been a plant for all we know, or a sincere veteran who is angry that the democrats closed down his memorial, makes the entire nation racist?

How miserable must it be to be that stupid and that hateful!

There were other signs of our descent. Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.

Joe the Plumber? Is he still even a thing?

Sarah Palin is very much alive and kicking the democrat’s asses! She was in New Jersey on Saturday helping get Steve Lonegan elected to the United States Senate [VOTE WEDNESDAY] and told the Garden State crowd she thought she and Todd would go stand with the veterans. As you know, Governor Palin’s son, Track, has served multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the front lines. If any mother has a right to be with those veterans, it’s Sarah Palin.

As for McCain’s “care” in choosing the Governor as his running mate, all of the petitions from Americans and inside pressure to choose her aside, she was well vetted by A. B. Culvahouse. Culvahouse, a former Reagan adviser, has vetted numerous potential VP candidates as well as sitting Supreme Court justices [before they were confirmed] Culvahouse is a man of unquestionable character and judgement.

These people are like the man in the cartoon: He has climbed out on a tree limb and is sawing off the limb behind him, imagining that the tree will fall and not him.

They are wrong about that. America will not fall. It will withstand this moment and these people.

He’s right, America WILL NOT fall, but not from a lack of trying by the democrats! The American people are mad as hell. The democrat party may be run by far left, anti-American Marxists, hellbent on destroying the American way of life, but many people who have been reliable democrat voters in the past, are waking up and seeing who these democrats really are.

We may sound sensitive to Roger Simon’s vicious hate speech, but when you see it from democrats on a daily basis, you come to understand this isn’t one loon, or a few isolated cases.

If you are a regular Twitchy reader, you know Michelle Malkin and her team do a really good job of keeping track of all the hate spewed by democrats on Twitter. Not just by a few hate filled loons with 20 followers and half as many tweets, but by democrat party leaders, elected officials, and so on. One of the reasons we don’t write about every hate filled democrat, besides the fact it would take up ALL of our time, is the fact Twitchy does suck an amazing job.

Sarah Palin gets death threats daily, and just a few weeks ago, Ted Cruz’s aide, Amanda Carpenter, was attacked by the democrat party chairman out of Sacramento, California, who said he hoped her children died of a horrible disease!

What kind of animal wishes death on the children of their political opponents?

The other day Cher, who has completely gone off the rails, and regularly spews vile nastiness, wished death on the entire Tea Party. It was this kind of hate that, no doubt, caused democrat Jarred Lee Loughner to stalk and shoot Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords [from 2007 until he finally went on his shooting spree] after Giffords was attacked in print by Daily Kos publisher Marcos Moulitsas, who called her a traitor and placed a bull’s-eye on her. Congresswoman Giffords was one of the last “blue dog” democrats in office. Compared to the radicals in office now, she was almost reasonable on some issues.

If democrats viciously attack members of their OWN party, who dare wander off the plantation, how safe are Americans who want to save our great nation from certain destruction at the hands of these radicals?

One of the reasons I chose to highlight Simon and talk more about him and his vicious hate and outrageous lies, is the fact he doesn’t write for a hate site like the Daily Kos or even the Huffington Post. Conservatives understand that Politico is not a legitimate website. No chance of any of their people being confused for actual journalists, but unlike most democrat hate sites, Poltico is often quoted by networks, cable news outlets, even FOX, and linked to regularly by websites like Hot Air.

Roger Simon is just another in a long line of Politico writers who is mainstreaming hate as a substitute for political discourse, but coming from Politico there an air of legitimacy for some.

America is broken.

We’ve not been this divided in more than a century. The lines are drawn, and contrasts couldn’t be more stark.

On one side, you have a group of radicals who want to push their agenda of tax and spend, and grow an already bloated and out of control government, to unprecedented new heights.

On the other side, you have the American people.

My money is on the American people.


Filed under In The News, Politics