Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Are Liberals Bailing on Obama?

 

 The reaction to Obama's poor debate performance took me by surprise. Prior to the first debate, I had become convinced that the verdict by the mainstream media and liberal Hollywood was predetermined.  That is, no matter how badly Obama performed, Obama's loyal subjects would step up to proclaim him the victor. But something quite interesting happened.. I think Obama's poor performance opened the eyes of some of those in the land of the liberal.  Could it be they are finally seeing what has been obvious to conservatives all along?  ..That Obama really isn't a gifted orator, that he doesn't know how to defend his liberal policies, and that he doesn't know the answers to most of the questions that face this nation?

I've gathered together some of the more interesting negative reactions to Obama's debate performance from traditionally liberal quarters for your enjoyment.


Chris Matthew's Epic Meltdown



Al Gore blamed the thin air



Jon Stewart - Slamming Obama (and Romney)



Saturday Night Live Poked Fun at 'Distracted Obama'


Bill Maher actually Criticizes Obama - Warning: Very Salty Language


Michael Moore tweeted his disapproval

Wow, so finally, we all agree.  Obama didn't perform well in the debate.  Now if liberals will just open their eyes and see that Obama hasn't done any better in his presidency.


Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Cat's Out of the Bag ...

Well, it looks like the Democrats finally slipped up. The war against Christians and Jews waged by liberals has been denied and dismissed by those in Democratic leadership and in our mainstream media for a very long time. But apparently, someone forgot to tell the delegates at the Democratic National Convention this was supposed to be a secret, because today they actually boo'd GOD and JERUSALEM when an amendment to the party platform was introduced to reinstate the words 'God' and 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel' to the Democratic Party platform.

Guy Benson's report at Townhall.com sums up the chaotic scene...
We wrote about the extreme 2012 Democratic platform this morning, noting that it excludes God and Jerusalem, yet includes taxpayer-funded late term abortion.  Even the media found these decisions slightly unusual, leading to a noisy chorus of criticism that eventually built to a critical mass.  The decision was made to uproot the platform and undo the controversial language and omissions.  The problem?  The platform was formally adopted yesterday.  Democratic officials couldn't just quietly tweak the document behind closed doors; they had to put the modified platform up for another vote.  When they did so, chaos erupted.  In three separate voice votes, delegates were asked whether they supported the inclusion of God and the recognition of Jerusalem in their party's guiding policy document.  Three separate times, loud shouts of "no" grew in volume and intensity.  A flummoxed Chairman Villaraigosa ultimately just declared that the "ayes" had it -- even though multiple reports indicated that the consensus was nowhere hear the requisite 2/3 majority.  As God and Jerusalem were inserted back into the Democratic platform, the hall exploded in boos -- a humiliating disaster for the party.  The stunning video:

Are people of faith and Israel supporters listening?  Even some DNC delegates were astonished and disturbed by that spectacle, which is guaranteed to find its way into GOP attack ads.  Every last Democratic candidate for office -- at every level of government -- should be asked where they stand on these issues, and whether they'll repudiate the large element within their own party whose hostility toward the Almighty and our great Israeli allies was on full display at their national convention.  

This episode raises a very important question: How can a follower of Jesus support a party that is so hostile to His gospel?   Until this moment, I suppose it might have been possible to deny that many in the Democratic party held such offensive, controversial views about Christianity, Judaism and religion, but doesn't the scene in this video remove all doubt that this hostility exists?

I think it's time for those who are still hanging onto the Democratic party to wake up and realize it is no longer the party of Kennedy and Carter .. it has morphed into something far more dangerous. 

Friday, August 24, 2012

November is just the beginning ...

This weekend marks the start of the Republican National Convention in Tampa. The delegates are coming into town, bloggers and news media are setting up to broadcast the speeches and events, and the coronation of Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee will soon commence. Notably absent from speaking roles at the GOP convention are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and several other stalwart conservative warriors, much to the dismay of the tea party faithful. The absence of these voices is a lesson to all of us ... November is just the beginning.

The primary battle for the GOP presidential nomination was brutal. It does appear that the fight was never particularly fair as conservative media outlets and party elites jumped into the Romney corner early on, which was just what the party bosses ordered. But, no matter, that is water under the bridge at this point. As much as many of the Newt Nation faithful and Ron Paul Revolutionaries are still holding out hope for some sort of miracle in Tampa, it's become pretty clear that the stage is already set for November. We're going to be seeing a battle between establishment candidates for the presidency. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has been blacklisted by conservative media and ignored by the liberal mainstream media, so it is looking less likely that he will emerge as any real game-changer in November. But, I am still in Gary's corner at this point, and will remain there. My mission goes well beyond this election season, and that is because my mission is to shine light on the two-party system that is controlled by elites and has distanced our government from the voice and will of the people. I will continue to educate and sound the alarm. Casting my vote for either major party-establishment-player, in this case, is just contributing to the status-quo.. so, for the first time in my life, I'm going rogue.


As grassroots conservatives, we have a huge battle ahead of us, and it isn't just happening at the top of the ballot on November 6th. Regardless of who occupies the White House, we will have to work like never before to demand that our elected officials listen to us and not to their political advisers and party bosses. As our debt clock is now approaching $16 trillion for the first time in history, we are seriously looking at what could be the beginning of the end of life as we know it here in this country. A credit downgrade from one or more credit rating agencies is not only possible, unless something very substantial and dramatic changes in the way that our government spends our money within the next few years, it is inevitable that a downgrade will occur. We have sequestration, the end of the Bush-era tax cuts, the insolvency of Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security, sustained high unemployment, and we have a growing number of states facing financial collapse (California being an obvious example). We don't have time to ignore the failings of those who are 'in our party'.. we have to call out big-government progressives in both parties from day one of the new congress. 


The number of Americans who have become dependent on government is at an all-time-high. According to the 2010 Census data, 48.6% of Americans lived in a household receiving some sort of government benefit. Logically, when that number exceeds half the population of this country, we could begin to see people revolt against the government. Clearly those receiving these benefits are increasingly likely to vote for candidates who promise to keep those benefits in place. As the takers outnumber the makers, deficits will spiral, debt will grow, and the entire system will break down as the dollars needed to foot-the-bill for these ever-increasing government outlays are stretched thinner and thinner. Civil unrest will increase, people will begin to hide/hoard their money. Our already weak economy will grind to a halt. Simply put, the status-quo is unsustainable.


The Tea Party is the last best hope for this nation. There is much that conservative warriors can do to stem the tide of fiscal disaster in this country. We must wrestle control of our government away from the party elites and put it back into the hands of common-sense, patriotic, educated, grassroots conservatives. Here are some things we can do:
  • Seek out and support candidates down ballot in November who support fiscally conservative policies, and who are not puppets of the party establishment
  • Vote in November. But, first be sure to educate yourself on every single race on the ballot and choose candidates who support Constitutionally conservative principles, are laser focused on our fiscal situation, and are least likely to be controlled by the party elites. 
  • Contact your elected officials routinely with calls, emails, letters and even personal visits to their offices in Washington, D.C. Demand a hearing, and make your voice heard.
  • Stay connected to the army of grassroots conservatives who are fighting day and night to stop our out-of-control government. Join in the conversation on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and other social networking sites. Read the conservative blogs, and even start your own.
  • Learn all that you can about our situation, and educate everyone you know about what is going on inside our government. 
  • Above all, never, ever, give up. This country is far too precious to give up without a fight.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Chick-Fil-A is not a 'distraction from real issues'

This week I had an interesting exchange with a follower on Google+ about the recent Chick-Fil-A news story. I am sure you've heard about the Chick-Fil-A saga ad nauseum, so I'll not repeat it all here. What this Google+ follower intimated was that the Chick-Fil-A story was a distraction from the 'real issues' we should be talking about. That got me to thinking .. is it really? Aren't the core issues surrounding this Chick-Fil-A story some of the most fundamental principles of our Republic?

America has undergone a rather dramatic shift in thinking about religious liberty since the time of our founding. A good friend I follow on Twitter, Terry Sigmon shared this video with me yesterday. What an eye-opener...


Would Dan Cathy have received public ridicule if he had made those 'controversial' statements about traditional marriage during the founding of this country?  Of course not. Only a few years ago, our own president indicated his religious faith was the foundation of his own position on traditional marriage:


Mayors in several cities are threatening Mr. Cathy.. insinuating his business is not welcome in their communities and that building permits would be denied. The blasting of Christians and conservatives in our mainstream media is relentless. Christians are being called haters, intolerant, and worse. Liberals who disagree with the Christian stance on traditional marriage are boycotting any business that does not openly embrace the same-sex marriage ideology.  So what happened over the past few years to cause large numbers of our citizens to rise up to criticize long-held believes on traditional marriage and religious liberty? Could it be that we are relinquishing our religious liberties in America to try to 'fit in' with popular political culture? Isn't that the very purpose behind our first amendment, to protect the freedom to worship as we choose and express our faith openly?


Another peculiar twist to this story is how the same people who are blasting Christians for their stance on traditional marriage have openly supported building a mosque at a site that is only a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center disaster. Their argument? .. that we should be tolerant of different religious faiths. I don't suppose they realize the hypocrisy in this position, considering that Muslims reject same-same marriage, too. Muslims not only condemn the practice of homosexuality, the punishment for this 'crime' is death. Why the double-standard? Is Christianity the only faith that is no longer accepted in our political culture?

The Chick-Fil-A saga should be a warning signal to every American. We are entering unprecedented waters in our battle to retain our liberties. Our founders were wise in giving us the First Amendment to our Constitution to protect individuals who hold different views from the majority. If our political leaders ignore the Constitution and allow business owners to be targeted by the government simply because they openly express their religious beliefs, we are headed down the path to religious intolerance and tyranny.  Freedom of speech is not just the freedom to agree with the majority.


Saturday, August 4, 2012

Grow the economy .. by soaking the rich?


This attack on the rich and business by President Obama and other liberals is the cause of this economic malaise we find ourselves in. There is zero data to support the types of policies that Obama espouses, and plenty of data that show raising taxes on the top earners in America results in reduced hiring, reduced tax revenue for the government, and a reduction in overall economic activity.

Here are four case studies you can research:

John F. Kennedy


John F. Kennedy dropped the tax rate on top earners 15% and reduced corporate taxes 5%.  The result was an increase in the amount of money flowing into the federal treasury. Economic activity boomed after the tax cuts went into effect.
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
The State of California

California was facing a budget deficit in the early 90s and Gov. Pete Wilson raised taxes in 1991 to cover it. But, this increase in taxes did not result in a corresponding increase in revenue to the state treasury; the result was a decrease in revenue in 1992-93 (down 2.1%) and again in 1993-94 (down 2.1%). Only after the tax hikes expired in 1994-95 did the state see an increase in revenue to the state treasury. California provides a rich history of bad tax policy that has resulted in years of budget deficits. Ironically, in spite of this history, Governor Jerry Brown is once again proposing a tax hike on the rich to cover his states deficit woes. We now see some of the fallout in California for decades of punitive tax policies. California is swimming in red ink, and the wealthy (along with their businesses) are moving out of that state in record number.

President Jimmy Carter


Our economy during the Carter administration was a mess. Marginal income tax rates on the wealthy were at 70%. Although Carter had campaigned for office on a platform of cleaning up our tax system, he never suggested that the tax rate of 70% on the wealthy was one source of our economic woes. Carter also increased the capital gains tax rate 10%. This along with an energy policy that rationed the sale of gasoline and other ill conceived policies led us into a deep recession.

President Ronald Reagan


Ronald Reagan dropped the tax rates on the wealthy from 70% to 28%. Not only did Reagan lower taxes on the wealthy, he simplified the tax code in general and reduced taxes on businesses. During Reagan's presidency the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 4%. The dramatic changes in tax policy under Reagan ushered in the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Interestingly, revenue into the U.S. treasury increased; the revenue continued to increased until George H.W. Bush increased tax rates in 1990.

It may make liberals feel good to soak the rich, but all the data we have and the historic precedent indicate that tax hikes on anyone, particularly the wealthy and business, only hurt Americans of all income levels by slowing down our economy, increasing unemployment and making it more expensive to live and do business here.

This video shows that soaking the rich to bail us out of our economic problems and our budget woes is more than not effective, it isn't even possible...


Saturday, July 28, 2012

Rome is Burning

Edmund Burke once said, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” We find ourselves at a crossroads in America. Is this the beginning of the end of the government set up by our Founders?

I've been reading a book called Preserving Democracy by Elgin L. Hushbeck, Jr., and it's been quite educational.  The chapter about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic describes events that are alarmingly similar to those we see in our country today.

The Romans were pretty wise people. They set up a form of representative government with similarities to our own American republic. In the Roman Republic, citizens were governed by two consuls (which were elected annually by the people) and a senate. They developed a complex constitution that focused on separation of powers and checks and balances.  Theoretically, since each elected consul could only hold office for one year, this would preclude any one individual from having too much power over their fellow citizens.  There were ongoing struggles inside the Roman Republic between the patricians (aristocracy) and plebs (ordinary citizens) that resulted in an erosion of the power held by the aristocracy and an erosion of the checks and balances within the government that held the Roman Republic intact.  Over time, the system could not be maintained as the rule of law was replaced by the rule of man, and the Republic crumbled as Julius Caesar assumed power. The intricacies of the government of the Roman Republic are too complex to fully describe here, so I would recommend doing some research online or reading Hushbeck's book to learn more.

So what happened in the Roman Republic that caused its collapse?  What can we learn from their mistakes? Here are a few of the key factors that led to the demise of their form of representative government. We would be wise to learn the lessons of Roman Republic and return to the government laid out by our Founders in our Constitution.


The Ruling Elite and Birth of Populism

The aristocracy in Rome held most of the highest offices in the land. The senate was comprised of elites exclusively, and although the plebs had a voice in government, their power had been quite limited in reality. For the most part, order and peace were maintained for a long while in Rome, but slave labor used by the elites was driving plebs off the land and into the cities because they could not compete with the wealthy land owners for jobs. Unfortunately, even in the cities much of the work was being done by slaves leaving plebs with few jobs. In order to deal with the lack of jobs held by the plebs the rulers in the Roman Republic set about attempting to solve the problem by making numerous promises to them. The focus on the law was replaced by a focus on individual politicians. Populism was born as those voting began choosing leaders who would promise solutions to problems, even if those promises were not in accordance with tradition or law, and even if those promises would never be realized.

Moral Decline

As the politicians worked to curry favor with those voting, the immorality among the citizens and government was on the rise. The sexual immorality that existed inside the Roman Empire is legendary, but it got its start during the Roman Republic. The slaughter of slaves for entertainment was common as the leaders entertained the masses to appease a growing number of citizens who were out of work and out of hope. Children were not valued in the culture of Rome and reports of abuse were common. Some Romans believed themselves divine while others worshiped Greek gods, but their forms of religion did not translate into personal morality or responsibility. Marriage was on the decline and cruel treatment of slaves was pervasive in Rome.


Rapid Expansion and Mob Rule

Military conquest was a hallmark of Roman society. As wars were waged, the Republic expanded in size and the defeated enemies were turned into slaves. As the Republic grew in size and population... the infighting within the government grew. Senators used partisan politics to keep power within the elite class, while the populists looked to the lower classes for support. This divided the people and classes into warring factions. For nearly 100 years, the climate was anything but civil. As time went on, the Roman citizens began to elect leaders who would put an end to many laws and traditions, in spite of the fact that this erosion would inevitably lead to the loss of their voice in government entirely in the Roman Empire. The politicians would not be truthful with the people because doing so would lead to certain defeat (sometimes death!). The mob was in control, if you could call it that.

What are the parallels?

The elite run this country. The number of people in power that are wealthy and very well educated far out-number ordinary citizens.

Immorality is on the rise. Over 54 million babies have been aborted in America since 1973.  Marriage is on the decline as couples choose to cohabitate or post-pone marriage.  Homosexuality is becoming more accepted and Biblical principles are rarely a guiding force in crafting public policy or in the personal behaviors of our citizens today.

Mob rule is showing up at Occupy Wall Street events as police are faced with an ever increasing number of violent protesters who destroy public and private property. Politicians promise voters the moon to get elected and then fail to deliver on those promises. Those casting the votes are kept in the dark about how the government is really operating, and more voters now support policies and programs that rob them of their tax dollars and their liberty.  Additionally, the very programs that are intended to help the poor are creating an ever increasing underclass of people who are dependent on these government programs.

The rule of law is being replaced by rule of man as our president issues executive orders and unilaterally decides which laws will be enforced.  Our Department of Justice is suing a record number of states because they are passing laws that do not conform to the ideology of the ruling party. This usurpation of power conflicts with the sovereignty of the states as laid out in our Constitution.

The Solution

The Tea Party rose up in America in reaction to Obama's Affordable Care Act. The size, scope, and expense of this new government program (dubbed Obamacare) is unprecedented in American history. These grassroots conservatives began to realize the tyranny of the elite was robbing us of our most basic rights. Tea Party conservatives have begun educating themselves and teaching others about the workings within our government; they have begun the work to restore our nation to the principles laid out by our Founders in the Constitution.

The fact that these ordinary citizens are not rising up to request benefits from the government is unprecedented as well. Unlike the mob rule in Rome, these citizens are wanting less government assistance and more personal responsibility. Most of those involved in the Tea Party movement are common citizens without wealth or power.  They realize that if we don't stem the tide of government spending, we may not have an America left for our children. The only solution to our problems in America is for the citizens of this country to turn back to God who gave us life and liberty ... and to do the job entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers. We must assume personal responsibility for our actions and for our nations problems. We must choose leaders and support policies that hold to Constitutional principles. We must insist our leaders value the sovereignty and liberty of the individual, even if that means losing some of the comforts of government assistance that have been put in place over the years.

The solution is not easy. Convincing people to give up benefits they enjoy will be a long struggle, but it is a battle we must win if we want to avoid the same fate as the Roman Republic.


Sunday, July 22, 2012

News you can trust?

The last few days I have been analyzing the news coverage of the massacre at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight at a theater in Aurora, Colorado and it has occurred to me, conservatives are under assault by the mainstream media like never before. We have been and will probably continue to be the target of malicious lies and rumors by those who have a liberal ideology. The bias by the mainstream media against conservatives is not a new phenomenon, but I would offer that the wholesale attacks that are now taking place are much more widespread and have risen to a whole new level. Quite frankly, it is frightening.

On Thursday, July 19, 2012, in Aurora, CO James Eagan Holmes walked into a movie theater dressed in protective clothing, set off smoke or gas canisters and shot into the audience with multiple firearms, killing 12 people and injuring 58. Hundreds of reports of this incident are circulating on the internet, so I will not go into more detail here. 

What concerns me about this incident (besides the despicable nature of the crime itself) is the shockingly bad judgement of those in the media reporting on the event, who in their zeal to target conservatives and promote their liberal agendas began putting out the following 'reports'...

Brian Ross of ABC News wins the prize for worst offender.


On the Saturday version of the NBC Today show Michael Isikoff filed a report: "the powerful National Rifle Association has blocked any move for stricter gun laws," and that people will have to settle for "beefed-up security and greater vigilance," as if the NRA were preventing people from being safer.


The Associated Press, once thought of as a bastion for unvarnished truth, puts out this piece filled with language that clearly illuminates a liberal mindset:

Calls for gun control stir little support
By By DAVID ESPO and NANCY BENAC
WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama's White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.
Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.
Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that's grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.
"We don't want sympathy. We want action," Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday.
CNN's Piers Morgan dedicated a good portion of his Friday program to promoting his gun-control ideology:


And this is what constitutes journalism today? I am not so bothered by the fact that these individuals and organizations have a particular point of view that differs from my own, but it is alarming that they are planting seeds in the mind of the public suggesting this is the only viewpoint that is viable. Most concerning is that these news outlets allow a story that the killer in Aurora was a crazy right-wing tea party member, a story that was put out there to disparage conservatives. How many individuals saw the subsequent retraction and apology by ABC? I doubt most viewers ever saw that .. and the idea remains that conservatives, particularly tea-party conservatives, are deranged killers. We saw a similar rush to judgement in the Gabby Giffords shooting by liberal media outlets.

The lesson from this story is .. you can't trust the mainstream media. We must be on our guard and diligent in sharing the conservative viewpoint to the public, because we now know we can not trust the mainstream media to hold to any reasonable standard of journalistic integrity. As Sean Hannity has been saying for quite some time now: "Journalism, as we once knew it, is dead"