In the absence of real leadership on both sides of the political spectrum, we conservatives look to our nation’s past for inspiration. We find it. But we also find a great deal of sadness, when we realize how devoid of substance our elected leaders are today.
A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever may be its theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
Mr. Hamilton was speaking about how important it is to have a high caliber individual occupying the highest office in the land. We currently have a feeble occupant in the Oval Office, who is mocked and ridiculed at home and abroad. His “signature achievement,” if it can be called that, has been based on a series of distortions, exaggerations, and bold faced lies. The current “OCCUPIER” of the people’s house has proven Mr. Hamilton’s words correct, a feeble executive makes for bad government. Resident Obama is certainly the poster child for this quote.
Have you noticed that Resident Obama has a habit of decrying things of his own creation? For example, during his never-ending campaign he claims to feel America’s pain over low employment. He neglects to make the connection that it is his anti-growth policies that have led to such tepid hiring and has largely precipitated the slowest recovery in American history.
Mr. Obama says he’s frustrated by the technical disaster plaguing the roll-out of his signature legislative achievement, Obamacare. He pledges to bring in experts to save the day. That has prompted many to ask, “Why weren’t the experts called in when the government spent the first $634 million in tax payer money to create the online exchanges?” It’s fair to point out that Obama wouldn’t be gripping about the incompetence and ineptitude of his government if he hadn’t rammed Obamacare down our throats to begin with.
Resident Obama consistently calls for civility from his detractor. Hypocrisy doesn’t come close to describing Obama’s hollow calls for a softer tone. Obama and extreme liberals who now run his government and party have partaken in the most un-civil discourse in modern American politics. Conservatives and Tea Party members have been called, “hostage takers,” “people with bombs strapped to their chests,” “arsonists,” “terrorists,” “extremists,” “racists,” and “anarchists,” all because we disagree with liberal extremism. Obama called those who believe as I do, “enemies.” Proving he has no sense of fairness, not to mention shame, Obama insists he be treated with kid gloves after he’s drawn a response from those he just beat-up.
The extreme left, in an effort protect Obama from his own inexperience, classifies objection to Obama’s policies as racism. The sycophant media, largely led by MSNBC, can’t fathom a world where everyone doesn’t love Obama as much as they do. Therefore, they conclude, the opposition must be because he’s black. Turnabout is fair play. Mr. Obama, Harry Reid and many other left-wing extremists have hammered Senator Ted Cruz, a Latino, with all manner of names and insults. If our criticism of Obama is racist, so too is theirs.
“Justice for me and not for thee,” it’s the Obama mantra. It’s apparent to any objective watcher that the current Occupier of the Oval Office is projecting his own ideological bigotry on those he perceives as his enemies. What’s not dawned on the campaigner-in-chief is that his opposition is largely of his own making. It will not occur to a man, who largely is in it for himself and his legacy, that Washington’s dysfunction is as a result of his polices and lack of governance. Obama decries the Tea Party, a movement that would not exist if not for his extreme leftist ideological polices. If Obama seeks to lay blame, he need only look in the mirror. There would be no Batman without a Joker. There would be no Tea Party without Obama.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), 2006
It bears pointing out that our national debt was around 9 trillion dollars at the time when these comments were made. Obama voted not to raise the debt ceiling. Today, our debt now sits at $17 trillion dollars.
I agreed with everything Obama said in 2006. It was intergenerational theft for Bush to add $5.5 trillion dollars to the national debt over an eight-year period. It’s criminal that Obama has piled on $7 trillion dollars in five years — and counting.
Extremist liberal Democrats who now run the Senate and occupy the White House are trying to make the case, with a straight face, that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with our debt.
I know what you must be thinking: How can anyone think that a credit limit has no bearing on the ability to spend? We, as individuals, have the ability to live beyond our means. But common sense informs us that we can only do this for a short period of time.
If we max out our credit cards, we can’t get more money by simply stomping our feet and whining, “But I’m committed to spending this money!” People who extend credit would look at anyone making that case and laugh in their face.
That is what I suggest Americans do to extremist left-wingers and their enablers in the corporatocracy.
Thus far, Democrat budget solutions never balance the budget much less pay down the debt. Congress must stop spending more money than “we the people” give them. Our country generates over $2.5 trillion dollars a year in tax revenue. The government has been spending $3.5 to $4 trillion dollars a year since Obama took office. We should insist that Congress and Resident Obama agree to a plan that begins to pay down our national debt.
Elected politicians are like the proverbial drug addict. They snort up our money just like a junkie ingesting blow.
Part of the solution is not to raise the people’s tax burden to feed the Congressional habit of spending. The solution is to reform the bloated, incomprehensible, 70,000-page tax code that was gifted to the people from our idiotic politicians. The next step is to unleash the creative power of the American people. After all, it’s an asset that has never failed us.
An analysis in late 2012 showed that, under Resident Obama, the government was cranking out 68 new regulations every day. This positions the government to ride on our backs rather than stand by our side. It pits government against the people it allegedly serves. It’s government’s job to inspire growth, not stifle it. The people must insist that we return to a pro-growth dynamic if we are to escape our crushing debt.
It’s easy to be a dictator. It’s hard to govern. That’s why I believe Resident Obama refuses to do the job he was twice elected to do. Where did Senator Obama go? Senator Obama was right. The buck stops with the president.
Today, Obama is shifting the burden of Washington’s bad choices onto the backs of my and your kids. America does have debt problem. We have been suffering from a lack of leadership these last five years. If Senator Obama’s rhetoric matched that of President Obama’s, he would be the leader we so desperately need.
Instead, he’s proven to be just another extreme left-wing, partisan, know-nothing, who’s interested in his own comfort and image over America’s well-being.
Now that the crisis has passed, countries all over the world will try to learn lessons from the latest terrorist attack. Reports from Kenya indicate that security wasn’t allowed to carry firearms in the upscale mall where the massacre occurred. At the end of the day, this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free zone.” It would seem that someone forgot to tell the terrorists that weapons were not allowed. Knowing terrorists, I’m sure if they had known about the restriction they would have dutifully complied. Still, there is that chance that some terrorists are not the most upstanding, law-abiding folks in any given neighborhood. Perhaps the better part of valor is making sure that “the gun-free zone” goes the way of the dinosaur. We all may be a lot safer.
The liberal mind is truly a wonder. I’m not sure what sort of mental contortion a progressive must go through to reason that it’s easier to disarm the world rather than make sure the world is able to defend itself from aggression. But I am certain I can’t replicate the thought process. Maybe I’m just too simple. Or maybe they are simply nuts. The data seem to support my way of thinking. Take, for example, a Harvard study. For those keeping score, Harvard is hardly right-wing central. This study found that the liberal notion that “more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is completely wrong. One example from the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher, 39,000 per 100,000, the murder rate was nearly ZERO, at 1.98 per 100,000. But that’s Europe right? What about the United States of America, or, as liberal call it, the WILD, WILD WEST?
In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama commissioned the government to study the impact of guns on America. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence. What they found was a nearly complete repudiation of left-wing talking points on guns. Among the findings were these little gems. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker. How many times has some extremist progressive tried to convince us that we’re better off not having a gun when confronted by someone else with a gun? Liberals have claimed that it’s more likely that victim would do more damage because of their assumed lack of experience and ability to wield a firearm. The CDC also found that defensive uses of guns are common. Willfully ill-informed left-wingers consistently whine, “What does anyone need with a gun America anyway?” According to the survey, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” They don’t know their facts. So isn’t it time to stop listening to liberals on this topic?
The facts are there a for all to see. Progressives just ignore them. I don’t think left-wingers are stupid or unable to read. In fact I think liberals intentionally ignore the facts about firearms to achieve a broader goal. That goal is simple: make sure only government has guns to ensure a compliant populace. The Kenyan massacre and the recent shooting rampage in Washington, D.C., are prime examples of what is wrong with the American left and their anti-gun advocacy. Reasonable people, with safety in mind, realize that soft targets, where innocent people try to peacefully go about their daily lives, make too tempting a target for those who wish to do harm. Experience has shown that if one is a terrorist, insane or just plain evil, one tends to attack the defenseless in an effort to remain unopposed for the greatest length of time so as to inflict the most damage. I long for the day when the headlines read, “CITIZENS FIGHT BACK, OVERWHELMING TERRORISTS IN SHOW OF DEFIANCE.” To hasten the reality of that day might I suggest that the people, the world over, not allow governments to keep them defenseless any longer? Resist liberals’ attempts to disarm law-abiding citizens. And by God get rid of “gun-free zones.”
Upon winning election to the highest office in the land, Mr. Barack Obama declared that he intended to fundamentally transform America. Mission accomplished. America is no longer a model for prosperity as unemployment has only dropped one-tenth of one percent every year Obama has occupied the Oval office. Individual freedoms are no longer more guaranteed here than in any other nation in the world as demonstrated by the draconian law, Obamacare. It’s a law from which elites have sought and received exemptions. It’s also a law that a vast majority of Americans has never wanted. And America is no longer that beacon of freedom, shinning to the world’s oppressed and down-trodden. Just ask the families of those slaughtered in Iran’s Green Revolution, the people of Libya and Egypt and the real rebels in Syria, if Obama has lived up to the freedom-promoting standards set by previous American presidents. If only Obama’s transgressions stopped there. But he has not only transformed America, but he’s tried to redefine the office that he holds.
Let’s just set aside the copious rounds of golf while Americans suffer. Let’s ignore the numerous opulent vacations taken by the Obamas. Let’s forget the party atmosphere at the “People’s House” these last five years with a steady stream of singers, violence-promoting rap artists and Hollywood heavyweights. Let’s focus on how Mr. Obama has approached his job. Ecclesiastes says, “To everything there is a season,” but not for Mr. Obama. In fact, even after winning election twice, Obama has consistently stuck to what he does best, campaigning. This tactic has enabled president Obama to push for, impose and sign into law destructive policies that nobody seems to associate with him. He’s also been the most partisan president in memory as he never misses an opportunity to belittle, misrepresent and condescend to the GOP, even in situations where past presidents would have been more statesman-like. Imagine being Paul Ryan or a Supreme Court Justice and having the occupier of the Oval Office single you out rather than looking for common ground or remembering the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. In his latest address on the economy, dubbed a five year anniversary speech on the economic crisis, Obama just bashed Republicans again. We were treated to another repackaged speech that has been delivered, in one form or another, throughout Obama’s entire failed term in office. Obama blamed the results from his policies on Republicans. A day before Mr. Obama stomped his feet, refusing to address America’s debt crisis saying, “What I haven’t been willing to negotiate, and I will not negotiate, is on the debt ceiling.” While he bashes Republicans for not seeing things his way, he simultaneously insists he won’t give an inch to Republicans. Many Obama supporters will gripe that Obama’s detractors have few nice things to say of him. That may be true. But those people were not elected president. Even Bush, after enduring vile and unfair slurs from the left, knew when it was time to govern. Mr. Obama hasn’t received the memo.
Obama is under the mistaken impression that it is his job that gives him credibility. It’s not occurred to him that credibility was an attribute he needed to bring to the job. No greater example exists of Obama’s attempted reformation of the office of President than an American foreign policy in shambles. We’ve watched the “lead from behind” approach taken by Obama yield expected results. For the first time in history we have a person elected to the highest office in the land who doesn’t believe in America’s foundational values. For the first time we have an alleged leader who views America as a force of “bad” in the world not a force for “good”. Obama withdrew American troops without a status of forces agreement in Iraq to guard the peace won through President Bush’s surge. That country has descended into chaos, death and Iranian influence. Libya is a country in turmoil, a breeding ground and safe-haven for the terrorists who murdered four Americans in Benghazi Libya on September 11th, 2012. And Obama’s dithering in Syria has robbed the American people the opportunity to influence a hotbed of terror. Obama missed a shot at dealing a huge blow to Iran and Russia. His inaction has ensured that the only boots on the ground in opposition to the dictator Bashar Al Assad belong to Al Qaeda. Obama is so weak that he drew a “red line” for the use of chemical weapons in Syria during campaign 2012. When weapons were used, his only recourse was to try and convince Americans that he never drew the “red line” to in the first place.
Mr. Obama is too cool. He’s too cool to be bothered with the traditions and conventions that have governed past presidents. He has set out to transform America and in turn has attempted to lower expectations for the office of President. There is nothing special about Barack Obama. He’s a committed extremist liberal. He is a simple politician, a rank partisan and an unserious man who seems content to host parties at the White House and watch America and the world burn. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the Presidency is not his to change. In fact, the office of President belongs to “We the People.” It is we who set the standards and expectations for our presidents. Those expectations extend beyond two election days. Since Mr. Obama refuses to behave in the manner commensurate with the office of President of the United States, I think we are under no obligation to bestow that honor upon him. He does deserve some title. He has three more years to unleash his destructive policies on us. We can’t very well call him “Obama” the entire time. I toiled, looking for an appropriate title, for the occupier of the Oval Office. I thought of “used-car-salesmen.” It’s been done. I thought of “Amway salesmen.” Amway is a successful enterprise, not worthy of Obama. I credit the audience of the Jay Severin Show for the winning term. Obama is simply taking up space and being a general nuisance, like the Occupy Wall Street crowd with whom he share much affection and much in common. Hence forth, Obama will be known as “Resident Obama, Occupier of the People’s House,” or “Resident Obama” for short. If you think about, it fits.
President Obama should have acted in Syria 20 months ago when Al Qaeda had not infiltrated the rebels. Mr. Obama should have acted before over 100,000 people lay dead. But just like the Green revolution in Iran, Obama dithered. Al Qaeda didn’t. The terrorists recognized the opportunity in Syria. The sad thing is it appears that Al Qaeda showed more leadership than the US president? Now, chemical weapons have been used. Assad should not have been allowed to remain in power and able to pull that deadly trigger. It’s been almost 2 years since Mr. Obama called for Assad to step down. The dictator was so intimidated by America’s president, that he stayed in power, killed 100,000 people and then gassed and killed over a thousand more. Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy is a travesty and shows the intelligence of a five year old. I am disgusted that this president has backed our nation into a corner where we NOW have no good options. Many are rightly asking, “What is the point of drawing red lines, calling for Assad to be gone and then do nothing for 20 months watching the situation deteriorate?” I take no pleasure in saying that it’s a reflection of Obama’s “governing” style. He thinks all he has to do is give a speech, and the sheer magnificence of his presence will solve the world’s and the country’s problems. He’s learning that foreign policy takes more than pretty speeches and talking down his own country abroad.
Executive Director, CHS
Recently, our president said that Republican and conservative opposition to his health insurance law is based on our desire to deny healthcare to 30-million low-income Americans. Aside from being devoid of any truth, this statement demonstrates our young and inexperienced president’s gift for demagoguery and campaigning, and his lack of ability to lead and govern.
We are confident that Mr. Obama recognizes the pain his law will impose on the country by virtue of the fact that his administration has granted countless waivers to his well-connected political cronies. He’s delayed several parts of the law. And he’s shielded Washington’s elites on Capitol Hill, by providing them with TAX PAYER FUNDED subsidies so they don’t have to feel the pain that the rest of us will feel from Obamacare.
The president is fond of pointing to the miniscule benefits of Obamacare as justification for the avalanche of negatives that, “We the People” will endure. Mr. Obama likes to point to the fact that under his devastating law, Americans will be able to stay on their parent’s insurance policies until the age of 26. He also points out that insurers will be unable to deny people coverage even with pre-existing conditions. He neglects to point out the aforementioned carve outs, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare insurance, the fact that keeping your plan and doctor is no longer a guarantee, the increased number of Americans bumped down to part-time employment and that the bill he promised would cost 900-billion dollars now carries a price tag of 2.7 trillion dollars and growing.
The president’s approach can be best described as “whipped crème on a crap sandwich”. He’s hoping that Americans will choke down his insufferable law because he added a little sweetener to it. He’s mistaken. Obamacare is turning the national stomach as this law, that never enjoyed majority support, is seeing exponential growth in opposition the closer we get to full implementation. Americans must now hold Mr. Obama and his Democrats to account for attempting to force this monstrosity onto us and our children. Compliant Republicans must be made to pay in the primaries. America must remind Washington that we are a people with a government, not the other way around.
The blame for the myriad problems resulting from the failure to enforce immigration laws rests at the feet of the federal government.
Congress has now embarked upon a long-overdue effort to fix our nation’s legal and illegal immigration policies. While I applaud the sentiment which recognizes our immigration system isn’t up to the task, is utterly dysfunctional, and is unfair to both Americans and immigrants alike, we are in this situation because of the failure of our elected leaders to follow the very laws they expect us to obey.
For decades, both parties looked the other way; their neglect ravaged citizens and immigrants alike. Did they think nearly half a century’s worth of dereliction of duty wouldn’t have dire consequences? Families are now split — some are citizens, some are not. Children brought here as infants identify as Americans but lack the status to back that up. And as always is the case with government, Washington lays the consequence of their failures on the American taxpayer.
When either party has held a majority in Congress while controlling the White House, neither made an honest effort to bring the southern border under operational control. The current effort to right the ship is happening in an open manner, with the Judiciary Committee accepting debate and considering all amendments. That being said, I’m troubled that Senator Rubio has chosen to not hear the concerns and suggestions of conservative Latino groups, despite striking me as the only player who truly wants to find a workable solution.
The legislative deck is stacked against security-minded Americans. If the Senate produces a proposal which ignores security, it will be up to the House to rectify this deficiency. That’s when we will learn whether or not President Obama and his party are truly interested in a compromise: judging by their actions and rhetoric thus far, I’ll wager Mr. Obama will work to pay off labor and torpedo reform. This will also have the added bonus, for Obama, of creating a political issue to tar Republicans with in the 2014 midterms.
Throughout the coming debate, every citizen should hold their politicians’ feet to the fire regarding U.S. citizenship and its value. In the push “to get something done,” our elected leaders conspire to cheapen what it means to be an American. As we have seen with other government programs, the tendency is to lower standards to achieve a desired result on paper — this cannot be allowed to happen to the criteria for U.S. citizenship.
I hope our leaders choose to hold American citizenship in the highest regard by making immigrants who seek to be Americans work for it. Who knows — the newly minted Americans, many of whom come from oppressed left-wing nations, may set examples for their new countrymen and remind us how precious our liberty and freedoms are.
Perhaps you’ve heard about the new thing in D.C. It’s all the rage on Capitol Hill. It’s called comprehensive immigration reform. Doesn’t that sound impressive? But I must confess I’m not at all impressed. Why on Earth would any patriotic American, much less an educated Latino, be impressed by another Obamacare-like bill making its way through our irresponsible government? I’m skeptical of CIR because it seems designed to obfuscate, confuse and deflect blame for the immigration mess from resting where it belongs, on the lawmakers of America. Real reform must address the areas in which our current system has abused the American tax payer. It must recognize how the current system has ravaged both the legal and illegal community. And any solution must restore American’s faith in our government, which has so completely failed in the realm of immigration.
The common refrain from both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill is that, “Our immigration system is broken.” It bears pointing out that it was our elected leaders who broke it. As usual, our leaders place the responsibility for their failures on the backs of the American tax payer. Even our esteemed leaders must be familiar with the axiom that speaks of an “ounce of prevention.” If they had followed the law, the way they expect us to, there would be no need for a bloated, costly, and confusing CIR. The anti-immigration group FAIR says that illegal immigration cost the tax payers $113 billion dollars a year. Many left-wing groups dispute the finding. But aside from FAIR, plenty of services go unmonitored and utilized by the illegal immigrant community. Even Obamacare is extended, with a wink and a nod, to illegals. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced in 2010, the awarding of 28.8 million dollars to access point health services from Obamacare. The clinics are not allowed to ask for proof of citizenship. So illegals can, and often do, partake in these and emergency room services for their medical care. Guess who foots the bill? It’s just one example of how America’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” immigration policy continues to screw American citizens. Did the “geniuses,” who fancy themselves leaders, actually think they could ignore our laws for over four decades without consequences?
Our politician’s dereliction of duty has hurt both the legal and illegal Hispanic populations. Look that the destruction wrought by our leaders’ refusal to follow our immigration laws:
- Some families have legal and illegal members. This casts a shadow over the entire family unit. They fear, one day, a key member of the family may just be uprooted and forced to leave.
- Some children, who were brought here at a young age, believe they are citizens but have no legal standing. The tax payers funded their education and for all intents and purposes they are Americans. But they have no legal status.
There are people here who have no desire to be Americans. They come here to work. In turn they send the money back to their country of origin to feed their families. This is a huge detriment to America, but a big benefit to the country of origin. Before the latest financial crash, remittances sent by illegals back to Mexico accounted for that country’s fourth largest industry. That’s right, Mexico directly profits off of illegal immigration to America.
Legal immigrants, who waded through the costly mire to come here legally, are forced to watch as illegals get to skip those trials and live blissfully in the shadows. All the while these legal immigrants ask why they even bothered to follow laws that politicians don’t feel compelled to follow. It’s a sentiment that legal, illegal and citizens share. We’ve all lost faith in the American government.
Three to 1 tax cuts to tax increases, that was a joke. Oh, the tax increases came right away. But the elected folks, who apparently lack the simple ability to balance a check book, promptly ignored the spending cuts Reagan trusted them to make. So too was it with the 1986 amnesty. The 40th president trusted that the promised border enforcement would happen in exchange for a “one-time” amnesty. The American people watched as the legalization came, but no border security. Illegal immigration sky-rocketed and the problems I’ve already outlined took their toll on America with ever increasing severity. But government is up to the same old tricks today. The sequestration “cuts” were nothing of the kind, merely reductions in the rates of increased spending. And now the “Gang of Eight” Senate immigration bill is poised to pull the same bait and switch Americans witnessed in 1986. I get the sense that Americans are tired of being played. Any reform that deals with legal and illegal immigration must include easy following steps. Each step of reform must activate the next step in a methodical, well-though-out manner. Not only will this approach increase the likelihood of solving the problem, but it will also restore confidence in a government that has shown evidence of turning on its citizens. The Obamacare legislation has shown why Americans can’t “wait to pass a bill to find out what’s in it.”
It defies logic and common sense to think that our government can solve a problem, over four decades in the making, in one huge bill. But that’s been the hallmark of Congress and the White House lately hasn’t it? They seem devoid of logic and common sense. Immigration reform must not only fix the problems our elected leaders created. It must also restore American’s confidence in government, while making sure we never have to deal with this problem again. One huge comprehensive immigration reform bill will not accomplish these goals. In fact, it seems our government is taking a page from Obamacare in making a bill so vast that Americans won’t know what they’re in for until it’s already law. This approach appears designed to obfuscate truth from the people and is wholly unacceptable. Real reform will require a well-articulated, easy to understand series of bills that will trigger in a sequential order. One would think that would be an easy lift for an administration that promised to be the most, “open and transparent,” in American history.
In negotiating nuclear arms reductions with the Soviets, Ronald Reagan insisted that America “TRUST BUT VERIFY.” In an era where government is watching every citizen, where the IRS is targeting the president’s political opponents, where our government lies about four dead Americans killed in a terrorist attack to protect a president’s reelection, Americans must, in self-defense, insist on a “trust and verify” system with our own government. Let’s start with immigration reform.
Chris Salcedo, executive director of the Conservative Hispanic Society, has noticed that the mainstream media has finally remembered that they have a job to do. And they may actually do it.
I had mixed feelings about the Benghazi hearings on Capitol Hill yesterday. I felt relief. Finally the truth was coming out. I then felt anger and betrayal. The American press should have been on this story before the election. Lastly, I felt sadness. I listened as emotions poured from whistleblower’s mouths, about how the truth DOES matter. I had it confirmed about how petty, ruthless and calculating team Obama truly is. And I came to the realization that America has elected a man who lied to cover up his ineptitude before the election. We elected a man who has the blood of Americans on his hands, men who died because reality didn’t fit into Barack Obama’s fantasy about the demise of radical jihadist terrorism.
Emotions were raw as the people who have been allegedly suppressed by the Obama administration finally got to tell their story about the events on September the 11th, 2012. They, of course, had to get by Democrats on the committee. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) uttered the most callous and ridiculous phrase, “Death is a part of life,” in his idiotic preamble. I’d like to remind the good congressman, and any other Democrats stupid enough to hop on board this outrageous defense of the Obama administration’s folly, that senseless death, needless death certainly is not an acceptable part of life. And I don’t think Mr. Cummings would have the stones to utter those words to the Sandy Hook families. Why is he so bold to do it to the families of those Americans killed in the terrorist attack in Benghazi? I guess in the case of Sandy Hook, Cummings wouldn’t be attempting to cover for an incompetent president whose foreign policy is resulting in chaos and the deaths of Americans and countless others around the globe. But I digress. Finally Americans heard what really happened at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. We had it put into the record that there was never a demonstration over a YouTube video. We had it confirmed that our government knew, that very night, that this was a planned and calculated act of terrorism. And we now know that the administration demoted career public servants in an effort to intimidate them into silence. Upon learning that, my emotion changed.
I was angry, damn angry. I knew the Chicago thugs who now roam the halls of the people’s house were ruthless. I knew that they worshiped Obama, ready willing and able to protect their deity if called upon. I knew that they fabricated narratives out of thin air and convinced themselves and a supportive press corps that it was gospel, the gospel according to Obama. But I never thought that the alleged, “most transparent administration in history” would stoop so low as to resort to base threats and the ruining of a public servant’s professional life, to protect their guy. But they did. Gregory Hicks, a veteran diplomat, told law makers yesterday that he was demoted for daring to speak out about the completely inaccurate talking points that Ambassador Susan Rice put before America on her now infamous Sunday show appearances. After hearing that, it hit me. We elected a man based on a lie. We elected the architect of the “light footprint” foreign policy, a foreign policy that was crumbing around us before election 2012. The facts were hidden from us by a sycophantic press and a calculating White House. We can now safely conclude that the Obama political machine has infiltrated levels of our government that, under more scrupulous administrations, had been off limits to political operatives. Once I realized the damage inflicted by the American press and this White House on our beloved country, my emotions switched again.
Living through the Carter administration, I was convinced that I had seen “as bad as America could get” in the modern age. I was wrong. After watching the Benghazi hearings I realized that we have three more years, absent impeachment, of this reckless, feckless president and his dangerous left-wing world view. That fact saddened me beyond words or measure. Iraqis have died by the hundreds since our irresponsible pull-out without a status of forces agreement. Estimates say over 70,000 people have died at the hands of the dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria since President Obama declared that the despot’s days were numbered. Now, Americans are dying on American soil both at home and abroad because of our President’s inability or refusal to acknowledge a terrorist threat that never ceased being real, not even for his re-election. How much steeper a price will we Americans have to pay for re-electing Barack Obama? How many more Americans will die needless deaths? How many more lies will the Obama administration tell with a realistic expectation that most of the nation’s newsrooms have forgotten what the term journalism means? I’m convinced, now more than ever, that Americans of good conscience must rise up to do whatever they can to provide a counterbalance to this extremist liberal government.
It takes more than just demonizing the productive in America, taxing the rich and creating massive unplayable entitlements and debt to be president. It takes a moral compass, preferably a compass that isn’t pointing sharply to the left. Founding Father John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This may explain why our land is in such tumult and chaos during the Obama years. The only evident principle held by the extremist liberals in the White House and their allies is the preservation of their power and ability to suckle at the public tit. That explains why the day after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, our president hopped a plane to Vegas to do a fundraiser. There are still questions left unanswered about the second successful terrorist attack on American soil in the era of Obama (Ft. Hood was the first, though the administration calls it “workplace violence”). What is the name of the person who changed the talking points on Benghazi, removing all mention of a terrorist attack? Who gave the order to “stand down” to rescue teams poised to render assistance to Americans who were under attack? And lastly but certainly not least, when Americans were dying because of his, “light footprint” policy, where was Obama?
Chris Salcedo, executive director of the Conservative Hispanic Society, examines what may be behind the Obama White House’s resistance to come clean on the 2012 terrorist attack that left four Americans dead.
I have to do it in short spurts, I’m only human after all, but I monitor some of the left-wing extremist web sites. You may have seen some of your liberal friends buying into a serious revision of history in the wake of the death of the great Margaret Thatcher. Many from the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd are pointing to a quote, allegedly from Thatcher, insulting former President Ronald Reagan.
The “alleged” quote comes from the “alleged” journalist Peter Jenkins, who quoted Thatcher as saying of Reagan, ”Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.” My first reaction was to demand context. The left wing sites don’t offer that. My second thought was, “That’s all the extreme left wing has, a 2nd hand alleged quote?” So instead of relying on hearsay, I thought I’d quote the late Prime Minister directly to gauge her feelings for our 40th president. In a 1997 speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Thatcher said, “As soon as I met Governor Reagan, I knew that we were of like mind, and manifestly so did he. We shared a rather unusual philosophy and we shared something else rather unusual as well: We were in politics because we wanted to put our philosophy into practice.” At Reagan’s funeral in 2004 Thatcher said, “We have lost a great president, a great American and a great man. And I have lost a dear friend.” And as if predicting the left wing extremists attempt to revise history upon her death, Thatcher said, “After all, so many people have been proved wrong by Ronald Reagan that they simply daren’t acknowledge his achievement. Forests have already been pulped to print the revisionist analyses of the ’80s.” Committed left-wingers are funny when they try to re-write history. They are funny because their assertions demonstrate they in fact have “nothing between the ears.” Feel free to share this with the liberals on your Facebook page.
After Google’s decision to honor the leftist labor leader Cesar Chavez on Easter Sunday instead of Jesus Christ, I began to draw parallels from Chavez’s time to the present. I was talking with Rusty Humphries on his radio program when it hit me. With President Obama’s help, big labor is once again trying to stick it to the America and the immigrant community.
In my last article I set the record straight on Cesar Chavez. I reminded people that he did help improve working conditions on America’s farms for legal and illegal folks. In that regard, he was a decent labor leader. But the white-washers of history have forgotten that Chavez was severely anti-illegal immigrant. He helped end a guest worker program called the Bracero Program. He led a march to the Mexican border, with a Democrat U.S. Senator in tow, calling it the “wet line”. He inspired hit squads to kick the crap out of illegals crossing the border to work. And Chavez dehumanized the illegals by referring to them as “human contraband” in Congressional testimony. Cesar Chavez did all of this because those illegals threatened the power of his union. In the current debate over illegal immigration, big labor is once again plotting to scuttle reform, and this time they have help at the top.
In a recent interview with Univision, President Obama introduced a so-called poisoned pill into the illegal immigration debate. He told Univision that he didn’t want to tie a pathway to citizenship for illegals to border security because the border, “is never going to be 110% perfect.” It’s not the first time he’s done this. Obama was blasted by the GOP and some Democrats for “leaking” his illegal and legal immigration plan, a plan devoid of border security, to the press. It was a move that was seen as unproductive from all concerned. Still, the White House talking points on sabotaging reform are already out. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is resisting any meaningful border security measures by refusing to come up with a metric to measure border security. But anyone who’s at all familiar with the reform debate knows that border security is the number one priority of well-meaning conservatives. Most sane Americans are willing to back a path to legalization and perhaps citizenship, once they are assured that we won’t be back in this same spot twenty years from now. Once Americans are assured that illegal immigration is slowed to a trickle, and not the raging river it has been in the past, they’ll buy in. Obama and his allies in Big Labor know this. So, in an effort to protect a key constituency of his base, Obama is willing to torpedo the reform effort by introducing measure he knows will be unacceptable by the GOP and conservatives. This way, he can blame Republicans, knowing the compliant press would be all-to-willing to help. Just one problem with that plan Mr. Obama: Many of us don’t get our news from NBC, and we’re all paying attention.
Just like back in the 60s and 70s, big labor is attacking the immigrant community in an effort to protect its power. The AFL-CIO is solidly against a guest worker program in any reform deal. The unions, in particular public employee unions, get their economic strength from exorbitant wages, gold-plated benefits packages and the dues they rake in from their members. In turn those dues, some of them tax payer funded, go to Democrat candidates. Once again President Obama and his party are solidly in Big Labor’s camp. And once again they’re willing to throw America under the bus by not allowing a fix to the nation’s broken illegal and legal immigration systems. But, I offer a word of caution to our esteemed president and Democrats. The Latino demographic is the fastest growing in the U.S. Thankfully, union influence is at historic lows and continuing to fall. Liberals might want to choose sides carefully. I can assure you, we’re watching.
Be careful Google, your bias to the extreme left is showing. In case you missed it, this last Sunday, on the Holiest day in the Christian calendar, the leftists at Google decided to honor the Socialist leader César Chávez. Instead of honoring the Easter holiday, in the banner atop their search engine page, Google decided to pay homage at the liberal altar, using Chávez as the day’s savior.
I’ll give the man his due. Chávez did improve working conditions on the nation’s farms. But instead of being the Latino Martin Luther King, as many liberals have tried to portray him, this man was a precursor to the “Occupy Wall Street” wing of the Democrat party. He proved this in his actions and in Congressional testimony when he actually dehumanized illegals. Contrast Chávez’s message to that of Jesus Christ, a message of salvation, peace and compassion. After Easter weekend, 2013, we all know where Google’s priorities rest. But it gives me a great opportunity to remind the public about some facts concerning Chávez , facts that liberal leaders have decided to try and erase from history.
Chávez was a great labor leader. The reforms he championed did improve the working conditions at the nation’s farms. However, Chávez was no civil rights leader. During his tenure as head of the United Farm Workers, the union was committed to restricting illegal and legal immigration. César Chávez and Dolores Huerta fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. The Bracero Program was an early attempt, by our government, to bring in guest workers to the U.S. Chávez opposed the program because it undercut his efforts to extort exorbitant pay and wages from the nation’s farm owners. Unions rely on high wages for their membership so they can assess dues use and use that money to pay-off politicians and shape public policy. Chávez and Huerta were determined to not allow undocumented migrant labor to undermine UFW strike campaigns. In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of undocumented immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were both Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale, a Democrat and future presidential candidate. Chávez and the UFW went so far as to report illegals, who refused to unionize, to the Immigration and Naturalization. A Republican congressman just got into a heap of trouble for referring to illegals as “wet backs”. But the extreme left wasn’t persecuted by liberals in 1973, when the United Farm Workers set up a “wet line” along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW’s unionization efforts. Under the guidance of Chávez’s cousin Manuel, physical attacks were launched against illegal immigrants. But Chávez’s most egregious and revealing act would occur year later.
Before a congressional labor subcommittee in 1979 Caesar Chávez said the following: “. . . when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration Service has removed strikebreakers. . . .The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking . . .” Most conservatives would simply prefer that illegal immigrants not enter the country without permission. But Chávez, an early champion of the extreme, “Occupy Wall Street” left, dehumanized illegals because they undercut his precious union and his political power. That’s the man that Google chose to honor. Goggle opted to forego Christ’s message on Easter and opted for an extreme leftist’s gospel. Google, one of President Obama’s biggest boosters, chose to deify Chávez on the holiest day of the Christian calendar. There are 1.2 billion Catholics around the world. There are billions more Christians around the globe too, who may now be reevaluating their use of Google products and their search engine as a result.
César Chávez was a labor leader. He was no civil rights leader. As demonstrated through the man’s action, he was a left-wing thug who inspired violence against human beings. He added insult to injury by testifying before Congress, his contempt for those who would dare to undermine his political power. Then there’s Jesus Christ who said, “How happy are the poor in spirit: theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Happy the gentle: they shall have the earth for their heritage. Happy the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them. Happy the pure in heart: they shall see God. Happy the peacemakers: they shall be called children of God. Happy those who are persecuted in the cause of right: theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Happy are you when people abuse you and persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.” Google made their choice on Easter Sunday 2013. Perhaps Christians the world over can make better choices from this day on. Can you say Bing?
Senator Ted Cruz believes that attacks on Marco Rubio are because he’s a conservative Latino.
“I think Democrats and the media are afraid of Marco Rubio because he is a smart, intelligent, conservative Hispanic. And they are looking for any excuse they can to attack him, because that threatens them,” Cruz told reporters during a tour of a Texas gun manufacturing plant north of Austin. “Look, he took a drink of water in a speech. And it dominated the news for days with one network saying it was a career ender.”
He’s right. Cruz should know, has been the victim of this racism in recent days as well. The New York Times fired the first major volley at freshman Texas Senator Cruz. MSNBC’s Chris Mathews followed suit. The liberal “pile-on” has begun. It’s their effort to marginalize a smart, conservative Latino who didn’t need them to succeed in life. It’s what we can expect from the left-wing biased hacks that dominate alleged news sources these days. Cruz represents a spoiling of their narrative that Latinos are a bunch of extreme, left-wing, statists, who want, deserve and need government to take care of them from cradle to grave. One has to excuse these extreme left-wing forces. Throughout history, they’ve done this sort of thing to minorities who dare to shatter the ideas of dependency they’ve crafted for us.
Chris Matthews followed the New York Times hit piece on Senator Ted Cruz with some analysis of Cruz’s performance at the confirmation hearing for the unqualified candidate President Obama has chosen to be the next Secretary of Defense of the United States. Matthews was indignant that Ted Cruz was asking for financial statements that might show that Chuck Hagel received money from foreign governments or extremist groups. Cruz told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “We do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups.” Matthews immediately cried “McCarthyism.” Matthews ignored the fact that Hagel has been less than forthcoming on his financial dealings with the committee. Mathews also ignored the other Senators who expressed grave concern over Hagel’s evasions, not to mention his competence to hold down the “Sec-Def” post. But Matthews and the New York Times weren’t invoking McCarthy when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, declared on the Senator floor that 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney had paid no income taxes for ten years. Reid made the claim right in the middle of the campaign with no substantiation, or proof of any kind. Even after documents emerged proving Reid lied through his slimy teeth, no apology, no retraction, just liberal business as usual. The white, extreme, “Occupy Wall Street” Reid, gets a pass. The conservative Latino gets tarred and feathered. That’s your modern day press. They’ve grown quite adept at overlooking questionable practices perpetrated by liberals.
Who can forget left-wing icons Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy actively seeking to thwart the advancement of a Latino because he didn’t know his place? Miguel Estrada was on a fast track to be the first Latino nominated to the Supreme Court. That’s before liberals derailed his prospects. A memo from Senator Dick Durbin’s office back in 2001 showed why liberals fear Men like Cruz and Estrada.
“[The groups] They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.” But Democrat’s pure racism doesn’t stop there.
Here’s a gem from Senator Ted Kennedy’s office.
“The D.C. Circuit is far too important to appoint about whom we have so many questions. Key labor, civil rights, environmental, and administrative law cases are decided there, and we know it is a ‘feeder’ circuit for the Supreme Court. The White House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can’t repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.”
That was a twofer in the racism department, hitting both Hispanics and African-Americans. Liberals and democrats will stop at nothing to keep minorities on the liberal plantation, even destroy the lives of the people who don’t fall in line.
America is in trouble. The caliber of politician we have in Washington D.C. constitutes a national emergency. In President Obama’s first State of the Union Address in his second term, we heard the same old retread of extreme left-wing liberalism that has made up the bulk of the last four years. But Republican proposals, counterarguments or solutions were drowned out by a response that lived up to the stereotype that the GOP is old, stodgy and incapable of beating the statist who is Barack Obama.
President Obama said, “Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.” Apparently Mr. Obama only believes in government keeping promises on the goodies it dishes out through entitlement programs. The president is less concerned about keeping promises to those who actually pay for entitlements. Take one example, Social Security. The brochure that announced this new government redistribution scheme back in 1936 was entitled “Security in your old age.” The first sentence sounds innocent enough. “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you, if you are eligible,” it reads. But here’s where Americans of today will throw their hands up in exasperation when they realize this program sounds nothing like the entitlement program we have today. The brochure outlines the following:
For the first three years, starting in 1937, both employer and employee will pay 1 cent for every dollar the employee earns, up to $3,000 a year.
The next 3 years, starting in 1940, employer and employee will pay 1.5 cents for each dollar the employee earns, up to $3,000 a year.
The next 3 years, beginning in 1943, both will pay 2 cents for every dollar earned, up to $3,000.
After that each pays 2.5 cents for three years up to $3k. And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from the start of the program, both employee and employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar earned, up to $3,000 a year.
The section ends with this PROMISE: “That is the most you will ever pay.” The pamphlet concludes saying that the taxpayers´ money will go into a fund where it will earn 3% interest. And, “What you get from the Government plan will ALWAYS be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.”
News flash Mr. President Obama, none of these promises, to the ones paying the freight, were ever kept. If only there was a competent opposing party that could articulate this.
Marco Rubio had a lot of good things to say. He was articulate, well-paced, and nobody can remember anything about his speech other than his nervousness, and the “gulp heard ‘round the world”. The GOP put Rubio in an impossible situation. Those chosen to give the response to a presidential State of the Union address are at a deficit to begin with as they’re competing with the pomp and pageantry that comes with the presidency. The GOP, in their infinite wisdom, decided they’d play right into the president’s hands and accept their fate. They put Rubio in a small room, with hot lights, sweating, tightly framed and didn’t even have the forethought to make water available within reach of the senator. The planning undertaken in the GOP response doesn’t necessarily inspire confidence that Republicans can be trusted to come up with solutions for our nation’s problems. Back in 2010, Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia came close to some “out-of-the-box” thinking. McDonnell delivered the response in front of GOP lawmakers and invited friends in the chamber of the Virginia House of Delegates. Why wouldn’t the GOP put Rubio in a large room at the Heritage Foundation in the presence of raucous supporters? Because, that would take imagination, something in short supply in Republican-land these days.
Mr. Obama brought liberals to their feet, clapping loudly for efforts to limit the 2nd amendment rights in the U.S. His retreaded extreme left-wing polices, an affliction on America these last four years, were easily predictable. What’s worse, the man who occupies the White House can spread his destructive agenda with little or no cohesive opposition, as the GOP seems content with surrender. The GOP will lose the argument on illegal and legal immigration because they won’t allow conservative Latinos to carry the ball. They won’t win the battle on taxes and jobs because they refuse to acknowledge that Obama is unlike any previous president we’ve ever had. This president isn’t concerned with the best interest of the country or his legacy. He’s an ideologue in the purest sense. Republicans, after getting plastered by Obama twice, continue to use the same playbook, which should have been thrown out back in 2008. It’s a sad day in these United States. “We the People” have a front row seat of the victory of flash over substance.
Our elected leaders had to raise taxes. That was what we were told by the leftist-in-chief Barack Obama and Democrats in the fiscal cliff negotiations. President Obama said the hikes were needed to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their “fair share.” Obama’s tax increases amount to about 60 billion dollars a year. So what are we to do about the remaining annual trillion dollar deficit left from Washington’s unprecedented spending? Mr. Obama and his Democrats don’t have as much clarity on spending cuts as they did on raising taxes. But isn’t that the knock on the extreme left-wing? They are all-too-willing to talk sacrifice, as long as it isn’t they who are doing the sacrificing.
According to reporting from the fiscal cliff negotiations, president Obama grew irritated at Speaker John Boehner for pointing out the government’s spending problem. Mr. Obama even insisted that there is no spending problem in Washington. The anti-Obama president, Ronald Reagan, said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches that self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” I can think of no better word that describes the Obama presidency than, “folly.” The unpleasant facts our man-child president is choosing to ignore are these: If we excuse 2009, a year that both Bush and Obama shouldered debt responsibility, every fiscal year of the Obama presidency has seen our government spending one-trillion dollars more than is brought in through taxes. America had never run a trillion dollar annual deficit in our history. Now, courtesy of Obamanomics, every year of the Obama presidency has been marred by that shameful stat. In fact, the era of Obama has seen the addition of around 6-trillion dollars in additional debt piled onto the backs of future generations, and counting. No other president has heaped on more indebtedness to our children than Barack Hussein Obama. Now that taxes have been raised on the productive, Americans should ask, “When will Obama’s government contribute?”
It’s time the liberals’ lord and savior heard from the people on his unprecedented spending binge. Because of GOP spinelessness, Obama won, and the county lost the battle on the fiscal cliff. Taxes were increased. Mr. Obama, as is typical of leftists, again pointed the finger at others. Obama urged Americans to light up the phones of members of congress in the fiscal cliff deal, as if he had no responsibility for the sorry state of our country. Republicans, if they had any stones, should urge voters to now do the same to the White House switchboard on the debt ceiling. John Boehner should call on all Americans to tell president Obama to stop spending more money than the people give him in taxes. It’s time, “We the People”, pointed the finger right back at Obama and his enablers in the Democrat party. Now that the wealthy are sacrificing and paying their “fair share”, it’s Obama’s turn? Obama must ensure that our government spends less money next year, than it did this year? And that trend must continue for decades. It’s Obama’s turn to cut the fat from his bloated government. It’s time that President Obama sacrifices like the rest of us. It’s time for Obama to make sure government contributes its “fair share” to reducing the national debt?
The reelection of Barack Obama rocked me to the core. As a conservative Latino I’ve always been of the opinion that if I worked hard in America, I could accomplish anything. That was B.O., before Obama. For the first time in American history, I see a president who isn’t encouraging Americans to reach for the stars, but rather coaching us to be satisfied with what we have, or more accurately, what he’ll allow us to keep. Mr. Obama openly advocates limits on success saying, “We’re not, trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” He’s a president who has elevated class warfare to an art form. In so doing, he’s created the greatest divisions in our land in my lifetime. In the last election I was sure that America would see this leftist for who he is, a man hell-bent on punishing America for our success. They didn’t. It wasn’t the fact that Mr. Obama beat Romney that drove me nearly into a depression. It was the fact that so many low-information voters, as Rush Limbaugh refers to them, reelected a man who so perfectly personifies the term “anti-American”. It was the realization that we get four more years of class warfare and Obama’s crap sandwich he calls an economic recovery. I was overcome by a feeling of loss. I feared we’d go the way of Europe. I feared that my fellow citizens had taken a cue from our president and abandoned the idea of American exceptionalism. I feared that my children would only have massive unplayable debt and a lower standard of living in their future. In short, I gave up on the American dream, that is until I realized that’s just what Obama and his lackeys want me to do.
Mr. Obama is a terrible president. He’s out of his depth in foreign policy. He has the aptitude of a 3rd grader as far as the economy goes, and his massive ego is on display for all to see. As a Hispanic, raised in a tradition that promotes a strong work ethic, I find President Obama lazy. He seeks leisure and is genuinely uninterested in anything that doesn’t promote his personal brand or agenda. It seems Obama’s impediment is contagious. Democrats, like Senator Harry Reid, have adopted Obama’s work ethic. Reid has ignored the law by neglecting to pass a budget, going on four years now. As for Obama, he does have one superior ability. He’s an accomplished politician. The GOP leadership, was outclassed by this politician who, by every other measure, is the worst to ever hold high office in America. With no credible opposition after reelection, Obama decided he’d spend his political capital by going for the jugular on the Republicans. With instincts characteristic of any left-wing dictator Mr. Obama appears determined to castrate those who oppose him. Examining the recent conduct of GOP leadership, he’s succeeded. Obama’s fiscal cliff deal didn’t solve our economic problems. It wasn’t intended to do that. It was designed to obliterate the GOP, which has since abandoned its conservative roots and decided to be Democrat-light. The one-two punch of the election and fiscal cliff deal both had the desired effect, throwing the GOP into disarray and dispiriting the rank-in-file across the country. Obama’s victory is almost complete. But he made a crucial mistake. He’s underestimated the American spirit in the 61-million who didn’t vote for him.
President Obama and his left-wing cronies drew first blood. Now, I’m resolved more than ever. It appears I’m not the only one snapping out of the post-election daze. I’m hearing renewed vigor among my conservative friends and compatriots across media and news. Obama’s unabashed attempt to annihilate his political opposition, at the expense of the wellbeing of the country, reveals the caliber of man he really is. Obama’s actions, and those of his extreme left-wing allies in Congress, have turned us mere political opponents into dedicated fighters. We, unlike the GOP, see Obama for what he is. He’s no better than some two-bit thug from Chicago, Damascus or Caracas. I’ll be damned if I’m going to let the likes him easily destroy the country I love and mortgage my children’s future for his own personal comfort and legacy. I choose to fight. I will fight him with every measure of my being. I will bring to bear, as much opposition as one man can. I will visit upon Obama every misery and headache that he has sought to inflict on our people. I will rally against those who support him. I will raise money for credible conservatives who oppose Obama’s extreme “Occupy Wall Street” agenda. And I will not stop until he leaves office. Obama may win the day in the end. America may end up diminished and emulating Europe, or worse. But he and his ilk won’t take America without a fight. He may have knocked the GOP for a loop. But we conservatives are made of sterner stuff. We had some good mentors who were practiced in standing up to left-wing extremists. Compared to those leftists, there’s nothing I see that is all that special about President Barack Obama. Note to Republicans, you’re either with us or against us. If you’re not up for the fight, get the hell out of the way.
I just about spit out my coffer listening to Art Laffer the other day. He forecast a big GOP win in the 2014 midterms. He cited past elections as his metric. What a buffoon. How can someone with such intelligence on economics read politics and the reality on the ground so wrong? Obama was just re-elected with the worst economy since the Great Depression, a world in chaos, and debt and deficits as far as the eye can see. The fact is, Obama is different. He’s Teflon. Nothing sticks to him. Granted he has a corrupt press to carry his water. But still this cat is different. Mr. Obama isn’t interested in doing work for a living. His previous experience was as a community organizer. Hell, we don’t even know what kind of student he was because the most transparent president in our history won’t tell us. He’s a 100% partisan, who is happy partying with America-hating Psy, Jay-Z and Beyoncé, discussing policy with Leno and campaigning instead of working. Example? He’s conducting campaign-style rallies instead of negotiating with Republicans on the fiscal cliff. Why? Because he’s not interested in compromise. America saw our first Hollywood president, who’s wrecked the U.S. economy and re-elected him. It should be glowingly apparent, to anyone paying attention, that the old rules don’t apply here. Someone really should tell the Republicans. Because they’re just sitting in Washington, “waiting” for Obama to grow up. Newsflash, Republicans will be waiting awhile.
John Boehner, Mitch McConnell or any other high profile Republican should get booked on some TV shows. They ought to sit down with Leno, Letterman, the ladies of The View, or Ellen. They should bypass the press that, ignorantly or intentionally, focuses on raising taxes instead of tackling the real causes of America’s problems. I can see it now. John Boehner sitting across the desk from Leno, “I’m glad to be here Jay. Look, I wanted to get the message out to the people about what we’re proposing. I’d like to sit and talk with President Obama. But you, Jay, have had more face time with the president than I have lately. So maybe you can get him a message.” Then Boehner would inform Jay that he brought some clips to share. These clips would be of our esteemed president echoing Republicans sentiments that it’s possible to raise revenue without raising taxes. Another clip would show President Obama blasting president Bush as being “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible” for massive deficit spending. And lastly, a clip that shows Obama proclaiming that raising taxes in a poor economy is a bad idea. But this fantasy of mine would need a creative, dynamic, and energized Republican party. That party doesn’t exist anymore.
President Obama has been referred to as “The Amateur.” Well, Republicans just got their clocks cleaned by this amateur, un-serious, destructive, extreme left-wing president. What does that say about the current crop of Republicans in leadership? When will Republicans give up this fantasy that Obama is at all interested in what’s good for America? When will Republicans realize that Obama is more interested in righting some perceived past injustice that America has committed? The Republican leadership delude themselves in regarding Obama as a traditional Democrat president. They assign traditional norms and axioms to Obama that applied to past presidents who actually did have, in varying measures, America’s best interests at heart. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama is labored under those restrictions. His speeches, mentors and polices indicate a man who finds America, as founded, offensive. He has a loyal circle of people bound and determined to make sure America pays in one manner or another. The problem is shell-shocked Republicans still think he’s a “good man” who gives a damn about his legacy. Obama knows his legacy, if he succeeds in his mission, will not be written by America. America’s adversaries will write Obama’s legacy. He’s counting on it. They will praise him. He loves that you know? They will praise him as the man who brought down our once great nation from within. That’s the plan our aimless Republican friends refuse to acknowledge, and are apparently incapable of stopping. Is it any wonder conservatives fear for America’s future.
The war against morality is in full swing in America. It appears the extreme left-wing is winning. It’s not just fake Catholics like the Democrats’ leader in the House Nancy Pelosi or her equally spiritually vapid counterpart in the Senate John Kerry. They are just inspiration for the small, and I want to stress small, but incredibly determined army of the morally bankrupt in America. The last election had no room for so-called social issues. In fact, both political parties agreed to marginalize and ignore the fabric of who we are. This abandonment of principle led to the defeat of two Senatorial candidates. Well, it was that and their ham-handed defense of the nation’s morality. The economy and jobs were issues one, two and three. But I contend it’s the lack of a robust defense of the nation’s morality that has led us to this sorry state to begin with. And it’s all part of the left’s plan.
“Don’t judge me man,” is a statement that only partially describes the extreme left-wing’s visceral aversion to faith. The success of the liberal agenda is only possible is Americans are divorced from any sense of morality. Admittedly the actions of a select few have made this task easier. Pedophile priests, conservatives who decide to have extra-marital affairs or politicians who abandon defense of a morality in America, are used to great effect by plotting leftists. But these human failings notwithstanding, it’s instructive for Americans to look at how the left uses these cases as billy clubs to indict faith in general. Does human failure reflect negatively on the message of religion? Americans must ask, because our complicit media won’t, what does the left find so objectionable about the world’s major religions? Is it the respect for life? Is it the idea of peace on Earth and good will toward men? Is it the clear understanding of right and wrong? Humans fail. That’s part of our nature. But that doesn’t or shouldn’t open the door to bash faith in general.
How else could the most extreme left-wing president ever to occupy the White House possibly win re-election? The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is sky high, yet Americans re-elected a man who promised to raise taxes on a certain group so as to redistribute their wealth to others who’ve suffered under his polices. A few short years ago our petulant, novice president would have been laughed out of Washington along with his band of acolytes. But that didn’t happen. The reason it didn’t happen is perhaps the left’s greatest victory over America to date. A moral people would dismiss President Obama’s redistributionist polices as immoral. They’d reject the idea of passing unplayable debt onto generations to come. Even children know it’s wrong to take, by force, what is earned by one and give it away to others. But liberals, through the press and popular culture, have been successful in convincing Americans that their tax money is better used in the hands of some wasteful and inefficient programs in Washington. They’ve forgotten that the money would be better used by private charities that make sure the truly needy would get help. But suffering and fear can be powerful tools to force men and women, worried about providing the basics for their family, to compromise their most deeply held beliefs. Excessive government created our nation’s ills. And the left is ready with more government as the only cure for those ills. Many Americans find themselves asking, “How did we get here?” The answer rests in us. We failed to push back against the left-wing’s attacks on the nation’s morality.