IRAQ WAR TODAY
Keep Your Helmet On!




Be A Part of a Tribute to Fallen Heroes - Help Build the Fallen Soldiers' Bike
Help support the families of our deployed Heroes - Visit Soldiers' Angels' Operation Outreach
Help Our Heroes Help Others - Click Here to visit SOS: KIDS
Nominate your Hero for IWT's "Hero of the Month" - click here for details!
Search Iraq War Today only

Monday, March 23, 2009

Look, Ma - I'm in the Militia

Vote for a third party candidate this past election? Ever criticize the IRS? Have a problem with the way the government does things? You're not just exercising your Constitutional rights - you could be a domestic terrorist:

If you're an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

According to the report, here are some of the scarier things they say to look for:

- strong Christian identity
- being opposed to illegal immigration
- displaying the "Don't Tread on Me" flag
- criticism of the IRS

Think I'm kidding? I wish.

More here.

If you haven't figured it out yet, we are headed into some very scary waters. Follow where this report eventually leads, and it ain't pretty. But then again, that's just the sort of thing you'd expect a potential right-wing wacko militia member to say, isn't it?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

ACORN and the Census

Call me a cynic, but could this just maybe be related to our current President's push to move the Census under the direction of the White House?

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers."

The bureau is currently employing help from more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring effort.

But ACORN's partnership with the 2010 Census is worrisome to lawmakers who say past allegations of fraud should raise concerns about the organization...


Naaaaah...just coincidence, I'm sure.

Full article here.

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 02, 2009

Same Old, Same Old

More proof that the only "change" we can "hope" for with this Administration is some in our pocket once the goverment is done taxing us into oblivion:

Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.

Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."

The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.

Either way, it is far more than Obama promised as a candidate. He refused "earmarks" for the economic stimulus package he championed and a children's health bill.
Now we'll see if his fan club is willing to hold him accountable.

Full story is here.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Tasteless, Yes - Illegal, No

OK, let's start with the fact that I find this little bit of free expression to be completely tasteless. What concerns me is the reaction of law enforcement.

The Oklahoma City Police Department admits one of its officers made a mistake in pulling over a man last week for carrying an anti-President Obama sign in his car.

According to The Oklahoman newspaper, an officer pulled over Chip Harrison last week because he had in his car a sign that said, "Abort Obama, not the unborn."
Call me a cynic, but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't have been handled the same way if it read "Abort Bush...."

Maybe the police officer reacted that way because the Left tried to drill it into our heads that if you dare to be underwhelmed by the Obamessiah, you're a racist. Maybe he was young. Maybe he was being overly careful in no-doubt-sensitive Oklahoma City, in a post-9/11 environment.

Whatever the reason, the fact that the current Administration seems to think it can dictate what you can and can't say about our new President makes this particular incident a little creepy. Even though the Secret Service investigated the incident, ruled him not a threat, and presumably he can go about his business, incidents like this have some potential to create a chilling effect on those who would criticize The One.

I've got no argument with taking the security of our President seriously. But when we start having people face law enforcement over distasteful speech, we should all keep a very close eye on the situation. It's a very steep, and very slippery slope from here, and the landing is extremely unpleasant.

(For the full article, go here)

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Giving Credit Where Credit Is (maybe) Due

If this is true, it's one of the only bright spots I've seen in the new Administration:

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.


The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

More here

Let's just hope the reason for his opposition isn't a belief that it doesn't go far enough...

I don't think I trust any of the useless lumps in Washington.

UPDATE: Looks like my inclination not to trust this was well founded; the White House is now apparently indicating that a new Fairness Doctrine is up for discussion. Disappointing, but certainly not a surprise.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 16, 2009

Porkulus

At his recent press conference, there were a couple of 'yelling at the t.v.' moments. These were a couple of the choice ones:

"...what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth..."
"when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package — something again that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people."
No pork? No earmarks? Really? Common understanding of the political term 'pork' is that it has to do with unnecessary items. And 'earmarks' in common thought refer to pet projects that get funded off of the Federal dime. But just to be sure, because I tend to think of $3 billion for ACORN and similar groups, and $200 million for a coal-fired power plant in Illinois as a little bit of pet project / pork funding.

Pork barrel projects, or earmarks, are defined as those that primarily benefit constituents.

OK, so how, exactly, is a $200 million coal plant NOT pork?

And while we're on the subject of coal plants, I thought that our President said something about that before....ah, yes, I believe it was this:

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Well, I guess it won't bankrupt them if it gets funded out of our wallets.

Looking at this bill, I wonder if there's actually anything in there that's not pork! What sorts of beauties are we getting out of the bill that is actually going to cost far more than the oh-so-lean $789 billion? Well, if it gets its way, $615 million will go to Stamford, CT so it can convert sports fields to turf, build a waste-to-energy plant ('cause they're working to get America off oil), replace windows in a school, etc., etc. They are, according to their mayor, working to "rebuild America." Mayor Dannel "Turfbuilder" Malloy claims that the school field project will create 100 jobs. One of the things you don't hear, though, is how long these jobs are going to last. It might create 100 jobs - at least until the turf is put down. How many do we lose 'cause the grass isn't being maintained? And I'm betting it'll be a grand total of one sports season before we start hearing the complaints about turf-related injuries in the schools. Glad to hear my home state wants to do its part in wasting taxpayer funds.

According to Newsmax, here are some of the other gems:

  • $3 billion plus in “neighborhood stabilization” and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which may go to ACORN. Not really a surprise they're getting funding, but disgusting nonetheless.

  • $1.3 billion to bailout AMTRAK.

  • $1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases.

  • $30 million for restoration of wetlands in Nancy Pelosi's district (because the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse is the no doubt key to American economic recovery).

  • $45 million for ATV four-wheeler trails, and government office renovations.

  • $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.

  • More than $650 million for digital TV converter-box coupons - even though this whole thing has been put off until June.

  • A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars (including golf carts for federal workers). No word on whether those golf carts are going to come with country club memberships - or whether they're going to be able to convince the American people to actually buy these cars. This is supposed to help prop up the failing auto industry, but does nothing to address the oppressive union environment - one of the prime things that's killing it.
Add it all together, and the cost of all this crap is actually going to be more than $3 trillion. It's incomprehensible, and that may be why no one's cracked out the tar and feathers yet. The number is so large that it's almost inconceivable. This is why you hear all sorts of imagery to try to explain just how much money that is.

Here is one way to look at it. There are approximately 306 million people in America. At a cost of $3 trillion, Congress could give $10,000 to every single American. Hmmm...that would very likely do a little economic stimulating, now wouldn't it.

Here's another way to think of it. According to the National Compensation Survey, the average American civilian earned approximately $19.29 an hour as of June, 2006. At the current population, and that average wage, it would take every single American working approximately 500 hours to pay their share of this pork roast. With the number of Americans that are actually employed (150 million or so) , it would take double that. So this year, you're working through April to pay your taxes, and through October to pay for the stimulus bill. Enjoy the two months' pay this year that you actually get to keep.

No pork? There's so much pork in this bill, I'm surprised the U.N. hasn't demanded that we tank the stimulus bill because it's offensive to Muslims.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, February 06, 2009

Uh Oh...the Moonbats Won't Like This

Looks like the Obamessiah is backing off of that "bring the troops home now" thing:

White House Weighing 23-Month Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Friday, February 06, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing three different military options for withdrawing troops from Iraq -- including the possibility of breaking Obama's campaign pledge of a pullout within 16 months -- a senior U.S. official confirmed to FOX News.

One of the options is along the lines of Obama's campaign pledge of 16 months, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have drawn up what that would entail.

The second option envisions about 23 months for combat forces to leave, an option that many of the military leaders favor because it would not require leaving so much equipment behind. It also could be done in a more orderly manner, and bases could be cleaned up and closed properly, the U.S. official told FOX News.

An earlier report by the Associated Press, citing two officials, said a third, in-between option of 19 months is also being weighed. One of the officials told the Associated Press that the main focus appears to be on the 16-month and 23-month options; 23 months would run to the end of 2010
.
OK, kudos to the President if he's looked at things and said, "You know, my initial idea just isn't going to work, let's look at something else."

But I won't hold my breath waiting for him to admit that maybe some folks on the other side got it right, and his party has it wrong.

The full story is here.

Labels: , , ,

So Why Not Close Gitmo?

I can think of close to three hundred reasons. Three hundred reasons just like this:

At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners
If the Guantanamo prison base is shut down, critics say, some military combatants currently held there will be sent back to their home countries — where they will rejoin terrorist groups and ultimately kill Americans.

It's already happened.

A New York woman was killed in a terrorist attack at the U.S. Embassy in Sana, Yemen, in September. And U.S. counterterrorism officials have now confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri, 35, who was released from the Guantanamo Bay prison center in 2007, is the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in that Mideast country and is a suspect in the attack.

State Department officials have identified Susan Elbaneh, 18, of Lackawanna, N.Y., as one of at least 16 people — including her Yemeni husband — who died in the coordinated strike.

Elbaneh was initially thought to be the first American victim of a freed enemy combatant, but a Defense Department source told FOXNews.com Friday that she was not the first American "possibly" killed by a former Guantanamo detainee.

"Due to classification, I cannot get into who or when other than to say it was before the Embassy attack," the source wrote....
Read the rest here.

We're not keeping truants at Gitmo, folks. We're keeping murdering terrorist dirtbags down there. Release them, and we send them right back into the fight. How does that make any sort of sense? They want to kill us. Why the hell can't we even lock them up?

The new Administration wants them in your backyard - or worse, released to roam the streets. John Murtha says it's just fine with him if they're in his backyard (of course, knowing full well that his district doesn't have the maximum security prisons necessary to house them). How about you?

The countries these pieces of filth came from are refusing to take them back. Doesn't that tell you something?

I'm fine with closing Gitmo - once the terrorists safely kept there are permanently prevented from ever being an issue again.

Labels: , , , ,

Beyond the Pale

There just aren't words for how angry this one makes me:



Charges Dropped Against USS Cole Bombing Suspect

The senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay has dropped charges against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing.

The legal move by the Hon. Susan J. Crawford upholds President Obama's Guantanamo order to halt court proceedings at the Navy detention center in Cuba.
The military charges against suspected Al Qaeda bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said Thursday night.

The full, disgusting story is here.

I guess it's OK to allow the murderers of our military Heroes to go unpunished - just so long as we don't make the terrorists feel bad.

Welcome to "Hope and Change," folks.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 02, 2009

Okay, NOW I've Heard Everything...

Tough economic times are forcing businesses to compete harder than ever for consumer dollars. People are buying less, spending less, and curtailing extravagant vacations.

So if you're a corrupt, bloated, scandal-ridden bureaucracy that caters to violent left-wing nations and socialist agendas, you've got to dig even deeper to ensure that those billions of dollars of mismanageable funds keep rolling in.

And what better way to do that than capitalizing on the human tragedies of the world that you whine about other people (read, the United States) solving, but do absolutely nothing to solve?

Enter the new vacation spot for the rich and completely disconnected - the U.N.'s new Refugee Run!

That's right, if you're a wealthy European with a hankering to live like the unwashed (but only until you get a craving for escargots and Pernod...) this is the place for you.

Where else can you spend your day in the squalor of a refugee tent from Darfur, Afghanistan, or Iran, and your nights relaxing in the jacuzzi of your luxurious hotel in the Swiss mountains?

Think I'm kidding? Not a chance.

I'm waiting for the U.N. to take some other opportunities it's got out there. I mean, if you're going to cross a line, cross it, dammit! Think about the possibilities. How about:

The African Famine Cafe
Where your lunch is hand-delivered to your table by a starving child. Remember, don't feed the natives!

The Tsunami Water Park
Featuring a wave pool filled with real tsunami debris and replica bloated bodies

The Holocaust House of Horrors
Wander through a terrifying journey filled with moving floors, rooms filled with mirrors, and twisted Nazi scientists as you try to avoid being one of 6 million Jews who may or may not have been murdered by a psychopathic dictator (depending on who you ask). Children under 12 get their own replica yellow star to take home...

Stalin Village
Visit the guest center, where you can play "Raze the village." Challenge other families to see who can wipe out thousands of innocent people first. Are you paranoid enough to beat Stalin's score? And when you're done playing, you can take your picnic lunch out to the perfectly flat, barren wasteland to eat, and enjoy your lunch on what was once a vibrant, thriving village before Stalin ordered everyone killed and the village buried. Visit on his birthday for special discounts!

The 9/11 Fair
What better way to commemorate the deaths of 3,000 innocent people at the hands of Islamic terrorists than a rousing game of Blame America! At the 9/11 Fair, you can learn how to divert aid funds to radical groups, and how to make bland statements denouncing terrorism, all the while condoning nations supporting terrorist groups. It's non-stop hypocritical fun for the entire family. The fair runs the month of September. Negotiations are underway to purchase the soon-to-be-closed Gitmo detention facility for terrorists, in order to allow the fair to be run year round!


Ah, the possibilities are endless.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Nutjob Rides Again...

Obama's lovely remarks to Al Arabiya, whereby he echoed the Leftist refrain of "It's all America's fault," have prompted a new round of lunacy from our favorite wacko:

Ahmadinejad Demands Apology for U.S. 'Crimes'
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for "profound changes" in U.S. foreign policy on Wednesday, including giving up support for Israel, during an address to thousands of people in the western city of Kermanshah.

President Obama on Tuesday, in an interview with Arabic television, called for more dialogue with Iran to express difference and see "where there are potential avenues for progress."

Without mentioning President Barack Obama by name, Ahmadinejad Wednesday repeatedly referred to those who want to bring "change," a word used often in Obama's election campaign, and indicated that Iran would be looking to see if there would be substantive differences in U.S. policy.

"We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track," Ahmadinejad said. "When they say 'we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad also demanded the U.S. apologize for 'crimes' committed against Iran; specifically, criticizing and trying to block their nuclear program.
Funny, but I don't hear any calls for Iran to apologize for its crimes. And there are still those who insist that Mahmoud has some apologizing of his own to do.

Sadly, with the new administration, Mad Mahmoud might just get what he wants.

The full story is here.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

And So it Begins...

Well, one thing's for sure - he's not wasting time.

Obama Administration Moves to Halt Guantanamo Trials

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- Military judges on Wednesday will consider motions by the Obama administration to suspend the Guantanamo war crimes trials for 120 days during a review of the system for prosecuting suspected terrorists.

The motions, filed late Tuesday at the direction of President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will be heard in the cases of five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks and of Canadian Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing an American soldier with a grenade in Afghanistan in 2002.

Read the Rest
PHOTOS

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Monday, January 19, 2009

Hail to the (Outgoing) Chief

Bravo:

Bush Commutes Sentences for Two Former Border Patrol Agents
President Bush commutes the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in 2005.


On his last full day in office, President Bush commuted the sentences of two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in 2005.

The imprisonment of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean had sparked outcry from critics who said the two were just doing their jobs. They had been sentenced to 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively.

Their prison sentences will now expire on March 20 of this year.

The two were sentenced in connection with the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who was shot in the buttocks while trying to flee along the Texas border. He admitted smuggling several hundred pounds of marijuana on the day he was shot and pleaded guilty last year to drug charges related to two other smuggling attempts.

Bush has been cautious in his use of pardon powers, and particularly careful when it comes to commutations of prison terms. Where a pardon is an official forgiveness of a crime (typically requested at least five years after the completion of a prison term), a commutation is a reduction of sentence.

Before Monday, the outgoing president had granted 171 pardons and nine commutations. By comparison, President Clinton granted 396 pardons and 61 commutations, many on his last day in office. President Reagan granted 393 pardons and 13 commutations.
More at Fox News

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 18, 2009

How's This for Change?

Wish I could say I was surprised:

Feds Say Obama Prayer Leader Is From Group Linked to Hamas

Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.

A Muslim scholar chosen to speak at President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural prayer service Wednesday is the leader of a group that federal prosecutors say has ties to terrorists.

Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, is one of many religious leaders scheduled to speak at the prayer service at Washington's National Cathedral.

Mattson has been the guest of honor at State Department dinners and has met with senior Pentagon officials during the Bush administration. She also spoke at a prayer service at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Mattson, who was elected president of the society in 2006, is a professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn.

But in 2007 and as recently as last July, federal prosecutors in Dallas filed court documents linking the Plainfield, Ind.-based Islamic society to the group Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.

Neither Mattson nor her organization have been charged. But prosecutors wrote in July that they had "a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking" the group to Hamas and other radical groups.

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, would not discuss the case or say whether the committee knew about it.

"She has a stellar reputation in the faith community," Douglass said Saturday night.

The existence of the court documents was first reported by
Politico.

Read the Rest

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Dear B-HO: Where's the Proof?

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

There are numerous questions as to Obama's citizen status raising suspicion and doubt about Obama constitutional qualification to be president. To settle these questions Mr. Obama must produce proof of citizenship!

Documents that must be produced include;
(a) a certified copy of "vault" (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing his name from Barry Soetoro.

It is reasonable that these documents should be produced considering that his father is Kenyan, his adoptive father is Indonesian, and his grandmother claims to have been present at his birth in Kenya. If he is a natural born citizen then producing these documents should not be any problem.

These allegations will not go away until Mr. Obama produces proof to federal authorities and the public. If he will not do so voluntarily he must be compelled by every means available. You, as an employee of The People, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We The People are demanding you to make every effort, both public and private, to resolve this fundamental Constitutional question before 20 January.



Sign the Petition

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 06, 2008

For What Doth it Profit a Political Party...

...that it shall lose an election, and learn nothing?

The GOP is falling all over itself to pick up the pieces after Tuesday's election, and hasn't wasted any time in throwing Sarah Palin under the bus. Reportedly, she was denied the opportunity to speak the night of the election, and then denied the opportunity to even appear on stage! (McCain himself reportedly interceded on her behalf to ensure that she was on stage). And it's getting uglier by the day. Apparently, the defeat at the polls demands a sacrificial lamb, and the blame sure as hell isn't going to rest where it belongs - with the Republican party.

The party hasn't actually managed to learn anything, either - the same non-achievement they accomplished after the 2006 trouncing.

According to Karl Rove on FOX News yesterday, the GOP shouldn't do anything to address the issues in the party at present. Instead, they should wait to see what Barack Obama does as President, and then use that as a basis for repositioning the party. Lovely. Reminds me of John Kerry taking a break from campaigning in order to "reinvent" himself.

So the GOP managed to get the message somehow that a loss in the election means that they should, basically, figure out what it takes to get elected and say whatever that is. Where we're at now is that the GOP is turning into the Democrats, the Democrats are Socialists, and they're all a bunch of unprincipled stooges.

Sadly, the GOP has had the answer for thirty plus years, and has not used it. In 1975, the GOP had been defeated repeatedly, had 'repositioned' and 'repackaged' itself to no avail, and had abandoned its principles. It sought to take the reins of a deeply divided country trying to recover from the social turmoil of an unpopular war.

Addressing CPAC on March 1, 1975, California Governor Ronald Reagan clearly articulated the solution. The situation then was almost identical to the situation now, and the GOP was about to make the same mistake it's debating now. There was only one answer then, and there is only one now:

Let Them Go Their Way

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
That's the answer. It always has been. The GOP needs to get back to its principles - starting NOW, not two or four years from now. Republican voters need to resoundingly reject any Republican who plays the political expediency game, who puts politics above principles. If that means another defeat, so be it. The GOP needs to stand for the right things, and they need to do it clearly, consistently, and resolutely. Any time they have chosen the prevailing winds, they have lost.

I've no doubt that the incoming administration will prove to be as bad, or worse, than Carter's. If we still have a country at the end of their term, the GOP will once again have an opportunity. They have one now - an opportunity to remove those who would shift as it suits them, and to lift those who choose principles over political expediency. It has an opportunity to get rid of the petty (like those rushing to toss Sarah under the bus), and recognize the capable.

What remains to be seen is whether the GOP even knows who it is anymore - and whether or not the voters will hold them accountable.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide
which particular representatives of the oppressing class
are to represent and repress them."-- Karl Marx


Well, it's over. The people have spoken, and they've chosen Socialism. The country we had is not the country we have. I know that some may accuse me of being melodramatic, but the election of Barack Obama represents a fundamental, critical, potentially fatal shift in our government. Both the winner and the loser talked of bringing the country together. However, the manners in which those opposing philosophies would seek to do so couldn't be more different.

Harry Reid referred to last night's vote as "a mandate for change." Given the numbers, the vote was far from a mandate - many states were quite close. Frighteningly, those margins were well within the danger area of the numbers of fraudulent voters reported in some areas. And the election was far from smooth - from Black Panthers with nightsticks, to broken machines (one of them in my town), to wet ballots causing a problem, there were a significant number of issues. And forget the military vote - many of those won't count. John McCain had talked of suing to try and make sure those were counted, but that seems unlikely.

There is some theoretically good news - it appears that the Democrats will be short of the 60 seats they needed to have complete power, but then again, that only means that every failure will be blamed on the Republicans. And as of right now, it looks like Al Franken lost. The race has been called, but the margin is extremely thin, so who knows.

The most nauseating story is that John Murtha keeps his seat. A man who called our Marines cold-blooded murderers, who called Pennsylvanians racists, remains in Congress. The one Republican Senator in New England - Chris Shays from my state of CT - was not so lucky.

If you take away the close margins, and you accept the vote as legitimate, the victory is pretty numerically significant. Voter turnout was extremely high, and the electoral margin was large. As far as making history goes, though, I don't see it the same way as most of the media does. They call it a great victory because he's an African American. I don't see progress in that. Many people voted for him because of his race; some undoubtedly voted against him because of his race. How is that progress? How is that success? Far better would it have been to have seen the vote completely ignore his race. Far more indicative of progress would it have been to see this campaign be absent of any factors other than the content of character, and the values of the platform. This has not been the case.

At any rate, this country has chosen the most liberal Senator we have as President, and number three as Vice President. So liberal, in fact, that voters have happily, knowingly, chosen Socialism. At best, we'll have a President who talks a good game, has high approval ratings, but accomplishes little while blaming it on the party in the minority. At best, we'll have a Congress that talks and talks of fixing problems, but enacts only window-dressing legislation, and takes no risks in a desire to protect its butt at all costs. At best, we'll be looking at a controlled withdrawal from Iraq before things are completed, but without tragic consequences. At worst, we could be looking at the Fairness Doctrine, Universal Healthcare, historic tax increases, and another generation of Heroes who are treated as if they lost a war despite the military realities.

The Progressives rule now - White House, Congress, and in all likelihood, they'll soon rule the Supreme Court, too. Let's face facts - Progressive is the name the Socialists chose for themselves when they realized years ago that no one would vote for someone who called themselves a Socialist (not sure that's the case now). So we have now become a Socialist country - the United Socialist States of America. Welcome to it. And so you're not surprised when you see what we're in for, here's what Socialists believe: (opens in new window)


"In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx

True socialists advocate a complete lack of societal class. Everyone is equal, and the government controls all production and distribution - in order, of course, to eliminate the evil of competition, and to ensure that no one is any more successful than anyone else. Everyone is equal - except, of course, for those in power.

But they go further than everyone within a country being equal. True Socialists seek to make everyone equal, and see this as transcending race, religion, gender, nation, or any other differentiating factor. Socialism, in essence, seeks to eliminate individuality in favor of communal thinking. It is not 'my' - it is 'our.' It is not 'I' - it is 'we.' No individual's success is celebrated - any achievement is everyone's achievement.


"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." -- Karl Marx

Socialism, very closely tied to Communism (and having that as its goal, according to Lenin), seeks the elimination of the concept of private property. Private property means that some have what others do not. That sort of thing makes people see some things as "theirs." Not what you want if you want people to be happy while the fruits of their labors are taken and "redistributed" to others. Socialism advocates 'work for use, not for profit.'


"Without doubt, machinery has greatly increased the number of well-to-do idlers." - Karl Marx

Socialism seeks to employ everyone - for the good of 'society.' People do not work for their own success. They do not keep their own profits. The government knows best how to distribute the goods and funds achieved.


"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand." "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people [masses]." - Karl Marx

Socialism has a deep and abiding contempt for religion. Functionally, this makes sense. Socialism, like Communism, requires an individual to see nothing as higher than 'society' or 'the state.' Religion teaches a higher value, and a specific set of morals. When religion conflicts with the state, religion views itself as higher. After all, you're talking about eternity versus a fleeting time on Earth. Where religion flourishes, Socialism and Communism historically have not.

New versions of Socialism, or "Democratic Socialism," add in the responsibility to love the Earth, to protect the environment, etc. (Can you say, Kyoto?)

There are other basic tenets, each of them scary. Socialism espouses a hatred of violence and war. Nothing is worth fighting for, because everyone is exactly the same, and has exactly the same things. Individual freedom is nonexistent; it is replaced by communal achievement. And how could a truly Socialist society allow private gun ownership? That would make some citizens capable of enforcing their will - or defending themselves from others seeing to do so.

Socialism, as Ayn Rand describes it, "is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." In other words, Socialism is the antithesis of the principles this country was founded on.

Of utmost importance to our founding fathers was the right to own property. Also highly prized were freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Under Socialism and Communism, those are smothered - they have to be.

This is the government we as a country have now chosen. It is not a mandate; it was not a landslide. But it was a choice for change, all right, and a scary one for people who believe as I do:

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

Hang on to your Bibles (or whatever else represents your religious beliefs), your guns, and your wallets, folks - this could be a wild ride.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, October 31, 2008

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

My Two Cents: The End is Nigh?

So here we are, less than a week from an election that could quite literally mean the end of the United States of America as we know her. Paranoia? Perhaps. I never would have believed that my nation could truly be on the verge of voting itself out of existence. But here we are.

The golden child of this presidential election has deep, obvious cracks in his hallowed facade. There are signs that few could miss if they actually look - signs that indicate severe issues. Besides his associations with radicals and terrorists, there are scores of trouble markers.

He appears not to care who supports him. His website does not utilize credit card matching for donations; a test using the names Osama bin Laden, John Galt, and Saddam Hussein to make donations with the same credit card revealed that all the donations went through. In fact, a lot of interesting people have been donating to Obama; and foreign credit are also being accepted. Donations have come from Palestine. Good Will, Loving, and Dela Ware have also made donations. Obama also accepts donations from largely untraceable pre-paid credit cards. His campaign’s response to questions was that “no campaign can fully insulate itself” from these types of issues. John McCain and Hillary Clinton used computer matching (ABS) and citizenship checks for their donations. Obama checks neither.

Barack Obama reflects the far Left in this country - a political sect that wants to cut the military 25% during a time of war. He advocates negotiating with dictators who vow to see Israel and the United States eradicated. He goes to a country where we are fighting a war, and urges them to delay a deal on withdrawal of American troops - so that he can be sure to get the credit for that withdrawal.

Barack Obama doesn’t want you to use his middle name. He doesn’t want you to ask questions about his Marxist leanings, or his radical ties. Yes, he advocates redistribution of wealth, and thinks it’s too bad that the essential restraints of the Constitution limit the ability to act at will. Yes, he intentionally (and “carefully”) chose Marxist professors and friends. But don’t call him a Marxist. Don’t call him a Socialist - or you will be banned from any contact. Yes, he has ties to terrorists. But don’t talk about it. Don’t dare ask about it.

If you do, like "Joe the Plumber," you may find your DMV and other government files illegally accessed, and your life open to investigation. You may, like Sarah Palin, find your private email hacked and published. You may, like reporter Barbara West, be denied any further access to the campaign. Don’t cross the line, or you will see the consequences. And the Left doesn’t just want to restrict certain speech - it wants to go much further. The Left seeks to mandate speech (the Fairness Doctrine). The Left seeks to ensure that you hear what it wants you to hear - and only what it wants you to hear. If the Fairness Doctrine passes, blogs like mine may be required to publish “both sides” of the story. Even if “both sides” means the truth, and the lie from the Left. I have already decided that I will not comply. If I maintained a bigger blog, with a larger audience and a voice that might make a difference, I might openly defy the order. Realistically, though, I’m not that big. I will simply cease to blog. Much bigger voices may be silenced - the prime target of the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio. Barack Obama may not be a leading voice for the Fairness Doctrine, but if the Left has the House, the Senate, and the White House, do you really think that it won’t get passed? Can you see him using a presidential veto to prevent it?

Barack Obama wants you to stay away from examining his wife’s anti-American statements, associations, or political leanings. He says that family is off limits. Unless, of course, you’re talking about his opponent’s family. How has this campaign been to Sarah Palin’s family? To John McCain’s wife? The press is almost universally in the tank for Obama. CNN distorts quotes to portray Sarah Palin as negatively as possible. Other outlets refuse to cover stories that are negative to Obama - even to the point of refusing to release a tape where his own words might harm his campaign. Those who expose him are detained by countries where he has ties. How do you think people who oppose him will be treated once he is in power?

Barack Obama promises that the poor downtrodden masses will be lifted up, and that the evil rich will be taken off their pedestals. So did Lenin. Barack Obama promises that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But only about half of those he’s promising tax cuts to actually pay taxes. Barack Obama will take your money and decide that someone else who has less deserves it - though you’re the one who worked for it. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need - not his worth, but his need.

Barack Obama promises to restore our standing in the world. We will be liked by a world filled with terrorists, socialists, communists, sellouts, and radicals. What will we have to sell to earn their praise? What is the value of our soul?

Well, it’ll only be four years, you might say. Eight, at most. And then the Left will have screwed things up so badly that they’ll be out of power for a long time. Maybe. But maybe not. During beloved Bill Clinton’s presidency, there was a movement to lift presidential term limits. It died then, but now there’s precedent. In New York, a lifting of term limits is allowing Bloomberg to run again (despite two referendums enforcing a two-term limit). After four years of nothing but positive press, nothing but the pap of propaganda, who will there be to oppose lifting presidential term limits?

If elected, Barack Obama has the potential to make us long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. A Barack Obama presidency will be far, far worse. For the first time, we will have a socialist president, presiding over a legislature where the Democrats - a party with a significant number of like-minded socialists - rule.

The Republicans, with few exceptions, don’t have the guts to stand up to him. Even if they did, it would likely not do much good - they will not even be able to count on the filibuster. We are headed for a period of time where the checks and balances that form the basis of this government may mean nothing. Elect him, and we will likely have a Socialist president, a rubber-stamping Socialist legislature, and eventually, a rubber-stamping Socialist Supreme Court. We also have a fawning, socialist media - the type that refuses to air a tape in which Barack Obama praises PLO-linked Rashid Khalidi as having views that “the whole world“ should hear (for example, that Israel should be obliterated).

How much damage do you think all of that can do in four years? Eight years? Longer?

Recently, a growing chorus of voices are priming the pump. How bad is socialism, really? Would it be so bad to be liked by other nations? Would it be so bad to have those less fortunate lifted up? Would it be so bad if we tried something different? But the beautiful picture they paint of socialism is, and has always been, a lie. And make no mistake - Barack Obama is a liar. He is, like many charismatic leaders before him, one person on the surface, and another when you look any further. Barack Obama is a socialist. He is a radical. He is dangerous. And if he is elected, it could very well mark the beginning of the end for this country as she was meant to be. He says that his opposition is trying to scare you. It doesn’t take that much effort. He’s a pretty scary person.

Some elements of the Left will tell you that to not vote for him means that you’re a racist. But just because they say something, it doesn’t make it true - the Truth and the Left aren’t close friends anyway. I am not voting for him because I am an anti-socialist. I view redistribution of wealth as an evil. I view unbridled altruism as evil. I view restriction of free speech as a violation of the principles on which this country was founded - principles which formed the basis of the greatest form of government to ever exist on Earth. I define social justice as ensuring that everyone gets a fair shake - that they rise or fail based solely on their own merits - and not because someone propped them up or ensured that they would have what someone else earned. I am not voting for him because I believe him to be a radical, diametrically opposed to what this country stands for - or used to, anyway. I view him as someone who will sell our country out to whomever he sees fit. I am not voting for him because anyone who would enter into a dialogue with Iran deserves contempt, not a seat in the highest office in the land. I am not voting for him because he lacks the character and qualifications to be president.

Maybe the country that I believe in is already gone. Maybe political correctness, socialism, and self-loathing are the values of the new America. I hope not. I hope that this country takes a long look at Barack Obama before next Tuesday, and realizes the threat that he poses to its survival.

We will know shortly. We have already started down the slope, but our fingers are still desperately clinging on the edge. Take a moment to fix in your mind the country you have on Monday. You may never see it again.

Paranoia, maybe. But then again, maybe not.

Labels: , , , ,

nocashfortrash.org