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.