This is my list of the 25 most important blogs to follow right now, right now meaning in these times. These blogs are leading the charge against Obamacare, runaway government power grabs, entrenched politicians who care nothing about the Constitution, those who would take our guns, those who would impoverish us all in the name of fighting climate change, radical race baiters, and radical Feminists, and yes, the Islamization movement that would have us bow to Sharia Law. In short these are the 25 best blogs to read if you love America, our Constitution, and liberty!
No, I did not include this blog, although I think it is right up there with those I did list.
As an aside, ALL the blogs on my blogroll rock, and deserve special mention for fighting for our founding principles, so no offense at all is intended to those not listed here. WE appreciate all they do
Click the links to check out what these blogs are covering
On Sunday night, I wrote a short post soliciting stories from my readers about how Obamacare has already immediately impacted their lives. I asked that all of these emails be directed to ObamacareMakesMeSick@Yahoo.com. I expected a response; I didn’t expect it to be quite so overwhelming.
Over the last 24 hours, my inbox has been flooded with hundreds of emails. What you’ll read in this post represents a portion of them. I’m only one guy (with a fulltime job and twins) — I wasn’t able to go through every single message just yet. Some, I left out because the information was too specific and personal, to the extent that it would reveal the identity of the person who sent it. Some, I couldn’t include because they are simply (well written and accurate) editorials about Obamacare, but they don’t speak to the personal, physical impact of Obamacare on American families. Others, I just haven’t had a chance to read. I expect there will be a sequel to this post coming very soon. Thank you for your stories.
In the meantime, here are the tales of many, many, many real Americans. Share this with your friends. Every time some Statist nincompoop extols the virtues of Obamacare; every time they insist that the “Affordable Care Act” has done nothing but “help” low and middle income families; every time they babble incoherently about how Obamacare isn’t “perfect” but it’s still “better” than what we had before — show them this. Challenge them to read what is happening out there. This isn’t abstract. It isn’t academic. It isn’t a matter of ideology. It isn’t even an issue of constitutionality (although it’s that, also). This is about people. People with kids, and bills, and health problems. This is about people who can no longer afford their health coverage, their mortgages, their lifesaving medication. This is about doctors and nurses leaving medicine behind, driven away by destructive bureaucratic interference. This is about moms and dads losing their jobs so that their employers can compensate for the financial burden of Obamacare. This is about people without insurance because of Obamacare, now being fined for not having insurance because of Obamacare. This is about business owners driven to the edge of bankruptcy. This is real. We heard a lot of fantasies about what Obamacare was “supposed” to accomplish, now it’s time to talk about what it’s actually doing.
So when they say you are “heartless” for opposing Obamacare, show them why it’s heartless to support it.
Sure, the President, the media, Hollywood and the DC elite have touted some “success stories.” But they are few and far between — and they come at a cost. This is that cost. For every person thanking his lucky stars for this new healthcare entitlement, thousands of low and middle income families are suffering.
Is that fair? Is that compassionate? Is that moral?
Notice a few things about the stories that follow: Many of the families facing financial ruin because of the ACA are young. Many are single mothers. Moreover, the vast majority of these emails are from women. I thought Obamacare was supposed to especially help women? Well, I guess for every Sandra Fluke, there’s a million Annes from Nebraska. The former, deeply concerned about getting cheap birth control on the tax payer’s dime. The latter, more worried about having access to affordable lifesaving medication for their children. With Obamacare, the former takes precedent over the latter.
This is insanity.
I’ll be printing this compilation out and sending it to the White House. Then I’ll send a copy to some of our legislators. These people can’t be allowed to hide from what they’ve done.
This is Obamacare:
I’m a 12-hr night shift nurse in a hospital (the irony). I work part time so that my husband and I can trade off caring for our one-year-old (he’s a firefighter who works 24 hrs on- 48 off on a rotation). My manager called me and stated I would have to, because of Obamacare- related insurance cost restraints , etc (her words), either go up on the number of hours I work each week or become a per diem employee. Did I mention I’m 6 months pregnant? So, I had to decide whether to go up to working more hours than our family can handle or go “per diem” in which case I’d immediately lose all the paid sick leave I’ve been earning, hoping to use for maternity leave, as well as lose a short term disability policy I’ve been paying for which would also help with maternity leave. Guess which we chose? How on earth do you plan for the future with the future shape-shifting constantly on the whims of egomaniacal and out-of-touch politicians? Thank goodness for a supportive and geographically close extended family.
I am a small business owner and have a family of 4. My health insurance costs are fixing to double and my deductible going up from 3000 to 10,000. Obamacare makes me SICK!
I have four children. My husband works for a small business that has never been able to offer a health plan. We treat most sickness using natural medicine, by choice. Since health plans never cover nutrition counseling, chiropractic, supplements, or anything else that could possibly keep us from getting sick in the first place, it has never made sense to take hundreds of dollars from our one household income to pay for coverage.
We are some of those poor souls without healthcare.
Under the new laws, we get to either pay for “coverage” that I guarantee we would only use in a catastrophic situation (we haven’t been on antibiotics in 7 years), OR pay a fine.
Neat. Thanks. Just what we needed in this economy. I would like for them to keep their “free” healthcare. I’ll keep using my essential oils and herbs and keeping my kids healthy and strong on my own, by the grace of God.
We received a notice from my husband’s health plan that the insurance we have now isn’t economical enough according to the Obamacare regs, We don’t know what will happen next. We have a low premium and a moderately-high deductible (which we meet very late in the year). I’m guessing higher premiums and deductibles are in our future.
We are losing our current health insurance at the end of this year. My husband’s employer is getting rid of it due to Obamacare. Our insurance currently covers my husband, myself, and our two daughters. My husband’s employer is having to replace our current insurance with a policy that is $400 more a month and an added $3000 deductible. The worst of it is that it will now cost him $100 more a month to cover me, his WIFE! Disgusting.
My current health insurance policy for my family of four is $375/month. The cheapest I can find for relatively similar coverage is $784/month. I can “save” money by going with a high deductible plan and pay $630/month. How is that saving? I can’t afford health insurance at these prices, and my employer doesn’t provide insurance to employees.
Two of our doctors that we have been using for years made the decision to simply retire early and wash their hands of the whole system. One is nearing 70, but he had planned to practice for at least 5 more years, health permitting. Once he saw what was happening to the medical industry, he threw in the towel and will take a well-earned retirement. The other is younger, but he has invested well and was part of a group that has to turn away patients. He is, he told me, contemplating moving out of the country. He may practice again once he is free of the onerous burden of ACA. Another female doctor, in her 40′s, confided to me that she would retire if she could. She is trying to figure out a way. THAT is an effect that will ripple down to all of us, as we lose the priceless treasure of experience and caring. There will not be enough doctors to handle the caseload, so we will be shunted to PA’s. The wait time for an office visit will increase. We will ALL experience a drop in the quality of care, and that is a terrible price to pay when there were other solutions far less damaging to provide for lower income Americans.
The company I work for has capped all 250+ part time employees to 25 hours a week so that even if they go over a little, they still won’t top the 30 hour “full time” designation. Employees who were struggling to pay bills while working 35 hours a week now get written up if they go over 25 hours a week. Thank you, Obamacare.
We were able to afford insurance for our family of six for our entire marriage (12 years) until the “Affordable” Care Act forced our insurance company to jack rates over a year in advance because they were already suffering added expenses from Obamacare. We had to cancel our insurance and have now been uninsured for over a year. We will not be enrolling in Obamacare, which means we are uninsured AND looking at a huge financial penalty, and we are just praying our four sons don’t do anything boyish and need to visit the ER.
Michelle, no state given:
So not only are we losing are affordable health care plan and are insurance premiums going up my pay will be cut because even though I am covered for insurance through my husband if I work to many hours my they have to provide me with health cage so the cut my hours or force me to go full time and cut my pay. Which if I have to go full time I might as well quit my job because why work full time if it’s just going to pay for daycare. Either way I’m screwed.
Insurance through my husband’s job will be 1/3 of his paycheck before taxes. We still have to eat and pay a mortgage on top of that. No money for anything else.
Amber, South Carolina:
Obamacare has already had a negative impact on our family and we don’t even know our rate increases for 2014 yet!
We are a one-income family since I choose to stay at home and raise our three children. My husband has a well paying job at an engineering firm where he manages their computers and servers. We used to have great health insurance with low co-pays and premiums. Our rates increased by 50% from 2012 to 2013. Our co-pays also went up while our coverage levels decreased. I’m scared to think how much they’ll go up come January.
Our doctors offices instituted new policies and it’s harder to get appointments, harder to get medication refills, harder to communicate with the doctors at all! Appointments are shorter, the doctors attention is distracted, it’s more red tape and less patient care.
Exactly what part of the “Affordable Care Act” is affordable? It’s not affordable for us at all!
My husband works for my fathers small business, I got let go on maternity leave, we have a 17 month old son. There’s the background.
My father can’t afford to offer health insurance to insure us on the cheapest plan would cost around $15,000 a year. I make nothing, my husband makes around $42,000 a year, we don’t qualify for state insurance because my husband makes too much so we pay the state $182.50 a month for our baby to have insurance. Mind you we have a mortgage, a car, and all the bills and taxes associated with it, oh yea and we have to eat every now and then.
This “affordable” care comes out and they want $488 a month for just my husband and I. That’s insane how is that affordable.
Before I get the go get a job, or something about not working I have applied for hundreds of jobs . Everything from a greeter at Walmart to management positions, I was working for a management firm before I gave birth. I applied for a job that would pay slightly above minimum wage, would have to pay $300 a week in day care which would leave me $14.54 after daycare, with no medical benefits. Guess what I didn’t even get that!!! But the government feels that $488 on top of my sons $182.50 is affordable! How, how is that affordable?! My family’s business can’t afford to hire me because he can’t afford to keep his staff now with all that this Obamacare has stirred up!!!!
Kristin, no state given:
My husband works for a wonderful small engineering company. We no longer have prescription coverage and after our deductible still have to pay 80/20 instead of being covered 100% like before Obamacare.
My husband and I are twenty-somethings with student debt up to our eyeballs, full time jobs and a toddler. We hover right above the ‘poverty line’, and we work our butts off to pay bills and provide for our child. We’re your typical middle class family.
My company provided insurance for us for an extremely good price of $95 a month. Since the ACA was signed in, it has gone up to $350 a month to be up to ACA ‘guidelines’. You might be thinking ‘just $350?’, and while it’s true that this seems like pocket change to you, for a young mom who clips coupons and works on a strict budget to put food on the table, it is devastating.
The saddest part is this: If I quit my job, I could get free insurance through Medicaid, food stamps and WIC. And you wonder why there is an epidemic of laziness and entitlement in this country?
So it is short and sweet. In order for my employment to become ACA compliant, they have taken away our cafeteria discount, our shift and weekend differential pay and our holiday pay. This is only for all hourly employees. Oh yeah, and I work in an ER in a HOSPITAL!
My dad is 73. He lives on Social Security (that’s his only “income”) and his monthly Medicare premium is deducted from his check. Several years ago, he also purchased a Medicare Advantage Plan thru BCBS which he also pays a monthly premium. All his medical claims are now filed directly thru BCBS – that’s how an Advantage plan works – it takes the place of Medicare, and it gives you additional coverage (for medication, extended long term care, etc). Even though he gets extra coverage, he pays two premiums 1) standard monthly Medicare premium deducted from SS check and 2) monthly premium paid directly to BCBS.
In 2013, he pays $104.90 for Medicare and $95 to BCBS.
…BCBS sent him a letter telling him that his current plan is now going to cost $121 a month ($26 more a month). That increase itself is bad because it may mean he will have to drop the Advantage plan altogether.
What is worse is that Medicare has not announced what their 2014 premiums will be. Remember, it is open enrollment time. How can my 73 year old dad compare plans and their costs without knowing whether his Medicare premium is going to increase or not.
…The government/Medicare/HHS knows it is open enrollment time. How can they not publish the Medicare premium amount for 2014?
Only one scenario seems obvious to me. The 2014 Medicare premium is increasing and the gov’t wants to wait until the last minute to tell Seniors. I could be wrong, but something stinks here.
I didn’t think Seniors were going to have to bear the cost burden of Obamacare too, but I’m not surprised.
My name is April and I am a 25 year old stay at home mom of two boys from Alabama. My husband busts his back working two jobs and we barely, make ends meet. Two weeks ago we received our letter from BCBS regarding our 2014 premiums. Right now our premium for our family of four is $352 a month. As of January 1st, it will jump to $686. Our mortgage is $714. I could have another house for what we will have to pay for insurance. That is if we can pay it at all!
Angie, North Carolina:
We priced healthcare thru the new system and because we’re not on welfare, it would cost us a whopping $1800 a month for coverage. It sucks because our current coverage thru work doesn’t even cover well child visits or immunizations for our kids.
On top of it all, Obama and his lackeys worked into their Healthcare Reform Bill additional taxes for “landlords”. We had to move due to a job change and the market was so horrible in North Carolina we would have had to take a loss on our home. Instead we rented it out and thanks to Obama, now have to pay TAX on the rental money paid to us….not rental PROFIT, ALL RENT paid. Never mind that we are not making a cent on the deal – in fact when property taxes and homeowners insurance are factored in, we are losing $700 a month. The additional tax ON TOP of the rental “income” and personal loss just feels like he’s pouring salt in the wound.
We are going to have to pay the fine because there is absolutely no way we can afford insurance for our whole family here. It is an extra $600 a month here. And who knows if what I have is even Obamacare compliant.
My name is Sherry and I am a 27 year old Wife and Homeschooling mom of 2 from Michigan. Our family is at the peak of health, I work out, eat healthy and the last time I was hospitalized was in the 1st grade from an injury. My husband and children are both very healthy and at the peak of health as well.Because of the New Obamacare law, my husbands company will only be covering employees but not their children or spouses. That leaves myself and my two daughters to find care on our own. I went onto the Marketplace website and I was quoted 525 dollars with a 3,000 dollar deductiable to cover me and my girls. My husband through his work will be paying 240 dollars a month just for him with a 1500 dollar deductiable. We make a little less then 60K a year. Paying over 700 bucks a month to be covered is outrageous. Our Premiums from last year to this year have more then doubled! What makes me upset is My parents are both in their early 60s and both has battled cancer these past few years, have health problems up the wazoo are paying very close to what our family is paying. This is ridiclous and I hope people realize what a mistake Obamacare really it.
Keeping this short and sweet. I’m Jan, a female from Idaho. I live on my pension plus Social Security, which I started drawing this year at age 62. Been treated twice for cancer in the last five years. My current Blue Cross policy is not great, but it’s what I could afford. It is not acceptable under the ACA, however and I’ll be losing it just after the first of the year. Preliminary inquiries into another policy point toward a doubling of my annual deductible (from $5,000.00 a year to $10,000.00) and a more than $200.00 increase in my already-substantial monthly premium payments.
This increase is not something that I can afford. After my current coverage is deactivated in the next couple of months, I will be uninsured, for the first time in my life. I have accepted that fact, and come to terms with it. The ACA? I will not comply. I will pay the fine, instead.
Obamacare will be the death of me.
We have been self employed since 2002 and have bought health insurance for us since then. Received notice from our insurance in Sept. that our policy does not meet the new ACA requirements and they have chosen another plan for us starting Jan. 1, 2014. Currently we pay for the both of us $539, with a $10,000 deductible. Our ‘new’ plan will have only a $5000 deductible but the monthly payment
for the both of us goes to $1095.12! We can not afford that. $500 is the max in our budget now. From what I have been able to see from the horrible website, we will probably have to go on Medicaid.
We own a small business. Actually, my husband runs an internet sales business. He used to own a small janitorial cleaning service. The economy of 2008 (and forward) kind of wiped that out…..after almost 20 good years. We purchase our health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama. We have to buy from them individually. Our premiums right now are $420/month. We just got our notice that we can’t keep our plan, and if we want to get the plan that is closest to our old plan, it will cost us $1005/month. That is about the same as our mortgage. We need a new van for our growing family of 8. We would like to redo our kitchen. Neither of these are now an option. We will also have to dial back our spending every month. Imagine those decisions on a massive scale across America…… I can hear the crash already.
My family’s health insurance skyrocketed. Our health insurance is now $300 more than my mortgage! We are hanging on to our insurance. We will not support a socialist nation!
I got our new rates in the mail a few weeks ago, we pay for it ourselves, and found out that our monthly rates are going from $700 a month to $1000 a month for a family of 5. “Ok, that’s not too bad, I guess. It sucks, but we will make it.” Then I look closer at our coverage and start crying. I haven’t cried for 7 years before this day. We have a $5000 deductible that we have to pay before the insurance will cover anything!!!!! This includes doctor visits and prescriptions! What is the monthly premium for if we still have to shell out all the money every time our kid gets pink eye? Maybe we should cancel our insurance and save our $1000 a month and pay the fine for not having insurance. Then at least we would be able to afford going to the doctor if we needed to, since we will pay for it either way. But wait, I have surgery scheduled in January. We are screwed, there is no way out. I hope the end of the world happens soon. I really do. Thanks for the opportunity to vent and express my sadness at what has happened to our once great country.
Tom, no state given:
I am a 58YO self employed person with a pre existing condition. Diabetic since age 14. Presently I am covered by a Wisconsin high risk pool (HIRSP) at a rate of $427.00 per month with a fairly decent prescription plan and a $5000.00 year deductible. This ceases to exist on 12/31/2913. Under Obama care a similar plan with a $4500.00 deductible and higher co pays on everything. I cannot afford it.
Here is my sad story. :( I have had Blue Shield for the last 3 years. Never missed a payment, only go to the doctor once maybe twice a year. Never have prescriptions. Perfectly happy with my insurance life. Then ObamaCare came into effect…Now my insurance company has dumped me as of January 2014. The only other insurance that is offered to me is Covered California. So I called them and for WORSE insurance coverage, my monthly payment is going to go from $149 to $283!!! For just me!! A healthy 31 year old!!!! So forget it, I am going to go on Medi-Share.
I am a stay at home Mommy of 3 babies. My Husband’s insurance that he has through his job covers our whole family, and it USED to be affordable. A couple weeks ago, they called a meeting at his job to let them know that we “will not be affected by Obamacare” and “will get to keep your existing insurance plan”. Yet our deductibles went from $700 to $2,500… “In order to meet the new federal regulations”, essentially making every doctor’s visit or medical issue an out-of-pocket expense. So we have affordable Healthcare coverage, it just doesn’t cover us.
We’ve had benefits through my husband’s employer (Wells Fargo) for the eight years we’ve been married. We’ve had two kids during that time, one under Bush’s presidency, one under Obama’s (this last April). The first baby cost us $200 in medical bills. The second baby cost us $8,000. Yep. Eight thousand dollars. In the last three years we have seen our deductible raise significantly (it’s now at $6,000) and our premiums raise just as much. About $400 is taken out of my husband’s check every two weeks, and we have to have six thousand dollars in medical bills before they pay for anything. It never used to be that way. When we got married, our deductible was $300 per person.
As a 40 year old diabetic, I’ve already been given my death panel details. After I spend $2500 on diabetic supplies, which usually occurs in the 1st quarter of the year, the death panel gets to decide whether I continue to live or whether I die a slow agonizing death.
I’ve lived in Australia under their socialist healthcare and while paying a huge tax (a 12 pack of coke is $35), this doesn’t include the income tax they pay. Then they pay $120 for a doc visit, and then they are reimbursed by the govt about 1/2.
I’d still rather deal with an insurance company than have to deal with the govt!
Katie, no state given:
Our insurance premiums more than doubled and we could no longer afford to have me on it. I found out I ws pregnant shortly after we had to drop my coverage, leaving me uninsured.
Click HERE to read the many dozens more emails that Mr. Walsh received.
TWEET YOUR CONGRESSPERSON!
DEMAND THEY SUPPORT A SELECT COMMITTEE FOR BENGHAZI!
By Jeff Rainforth aka iResistAll on Twitter
In an effort to get more GOP House members to support H.Res.36, the Select Committee for the Benghazi scandal, activists who are involved in keeping this story in the news are urging a “shame campaign.”
What this entails is contacting GOP House members on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. These are social networking sites that are fully visible to the public. We want GOP representatives in the House to be ashamed for not supporting a full investigation into the unnecessary deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and two former Navy SEALs who fought to the death trying to fend off the terrorist attackers. Currently, 160 GOP House members out of 234 have pledged support for the committee. We need more of them to pledge support to overcome the objections of House leader Boehner.
A select committee strengthens subpoena powers so that people with knowledge of the attacks, and the subsequent cover-up by the Obama administration will have to come in and testify. Without the subpoena powers, those involved can choose to testify or not, and it’s most likely they won’t as they fear a backlash from the administration.
Below is a list of links to all GOP House members who have NOT pledged support for a Benghazi Select Committee. Phone numbers to their offices are also listed. Please Tweet them, and engage them on Facebook. We will publicly shame them into supporting the committee which will investigate why help wasn’t sent when it could have been to save the four Americans who died brutal, incomprehensible deaths protecting their own. Justice for the Benghazi four.
GOP House members are listed in alphabetical order. If there is no link to a congressperson’s Twitter or Facebook accounts, then they do not have one.
If you don’t know who your congressperson is, use this tool to find them.
Now, Tweet/Facebook your congressperson and tell them to support Hres36, the Select Committee for Benghazi!
John Duncan Tn-02 202 225 5435
Mike Kelly Pa-03 202 225 5406
John Kline Mn-02 202 225 2271
Candice Miller Mi-10 202 225 2106
Jeff Miller Fl-01 202-225 4136
Lynn Westmoreland Ga-03 202 225 5901
Rob Woodall Ga-07 202 225 4272
It is very difficult to ignore accusations of phoniness from the master of all things phony who has dedicated his entire life to one phony scam after another. But when this unprecedented level of criminal abuse of power is so flagrantly dictated from the most powerful man in the world, good Americans should be quivering in our boots.
No, Mr. President, those are not phony tears from Brian Terry’s mother. Those are real tears, unlike your constant phony blather about caring about the middle class as you continue your well-orchestrated kamikaze economic swan dive for the average American family.
And, be assured, you old Chicago ACORN scammaster you, that those were not phony body bags that arrived home from Benghazi. As the greatest phony America has ever known, like your phoniest phony “job” as community organizer, your phony claims to get to the bottom of that horrific dereliction of duty by your phony secretary of state was just another scam of phony smoke and mirrors to placate your phony sheep-like constituency.
Phony is as phony does, Mr. President, but none of the tea party or conservative Republicans’ claims of illegal targeting by your phony IRS jackboots is phony by any stretch of the imagination.
We believe your earlier claims that such accusations were serious was just more of your phony baloney.
You want phony, Mr. President? I give you your top cop of the United States, your own phony attorney general who refuses to charge your Black Panther buddies with any crimes even though you both saw the same footage of your phony buddies committing numerous federal and state felonies when they threatened and intimidated voters in Philadelphia.
Nothing phony about those criminal gangsters.
And with all due respect, your holy phoniness, who can’t see the terminal phoniness of wasting more tax dollars with more phony charges against George Zimmerman in defiance of your own FBI investigation and the same exhaustive evidence that proved his obvious innocence to the jury of his peers and everyone paying attention who was not blinded by your phony racism?
And we mustn’t forget your phony Nobel Peace Prize, or your phony real estate scammaster ripoff artist Tony Rezko, or your phony claims that your phony “Affordable Healthcare” scam will make our healthcare system cheaper and better when just the opposite is guaranteed.
And let’s all be honest here; more of us believe in the American hero Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s thorough investigation into your phony birth certificate and phony history than the phony media’s smoke and mirrors.
We all know that Van Jones is a phony and all your green scams are as phony as phony can be.
We know that your Mao-loving communications czar Anita Dunn is as phony as they come.
Everyone knows your phony claims to “all of the above” for America’s energy independence is dangerously phony.
We know your so-called Department of Justice is as phony as the insane phony claim that your Allah Ahkbar buddy Maj. Hasan is about as guilty of “workplace” violence as I am the tooth fairy.
I could go on and on and on, but in order to avoid the inevitable violent vomiting impetus from more of your nasty phony baloney than America can possibly handle, I would just like to say: “How dare you, Mr. President, claim the nonstop ugly scandals during your Saul Alinsky inspired attack on America are phony, when everyone with a brain, a heart and a soul knows damn well what you are up to and how you are intentionally implementing the ‘Rules for Radicals’ agenda so appropriately dedicated to Satan.”
We know your hope-and-change lie is as phony as it comes. We know the rotten America-hating preacher that married you and baptized your children is a phony man of the cloth, a soiled cloth as it were.
It brings me no pleasure at all to have to admit all this ugliness. But as a participating “We the People” American in this sacred experiment in self-government, it is clearly my duty, a moral obligation that I owe to the hero warriors of the U.S. military and their families for sacrificing so dearly for our God-given individual rights, as guaranteed by the sacred U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They, and I as a law enforcement officer, took a sacred oath of honor, to defend, protect and enforce the U.S. Constitution. But unlike the president of the United States, we weren’t being phony when we raised our hand and placed our hands on the Holy Bible, and gave our solemn pledge as Americans.
We meant it.
No, these are not phony scandals, but we are heartbroken that we have a phony president.
We here at the Daley Gator would like to take this moment to thank our many loyal readers for helping to make this humble blog a success.
With so many White House scandals – and new ones popping up every day – how are average citizens supposed to keep track? Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama went on ESPN and mapped them all on a bracket?
Why wait for next year’s March Madness when you can start May Madness today? Introducing the Obama Scandal Bracket! Click here for a full-size version and vote for the scandal you think will bring down the president.
Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren’t evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,
“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.”
Liberals view themselves as good people because they’re liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don’t have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?
1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.
2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.
3) Whether you’re talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, “I hate America,” and liberals start to sympathize with you.
4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.
5) The same people who voted Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama into office think they’re smarter than tradition, the Founding Fathers and God Himself.
6) Liberals might not want to admit it, but the world would have been a better place if Mary Jo Kopechne had crawled up out of that car instead of Ted Kennedy.
7) Only an ass could like Bill Maher, Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee.
8) Liberals believe in taking money from people who earn it, handing it out as bribes in order to get more power and then using that power to hurt the people that are giving them money.
9) The same liberal who’ll laugh at a rape joke about Sarah Palin and then attack Michele Bachmann’s family will then turn around and accuse someone else of being sexist for respectfully noting that a woman is attractive.
10) Liberals view hooking people on welfare and food stamps as a core part of their election strategy, which is terrible for the country, shows they have no character and requires more than a little hatred for poor people.
11) The dumbest, most close-minded and mean spirited people in all of politics are inevitably liberals who are convinced they’re brilliant, open-minded and compassionate because they call themselves liberals.
12) A policy that makes liberals feel superior and caring that doesn’t work and wastes billions is considered a smashing success because they genuinely DON’T CARE WHETHER THEIR POLICIES ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE OR NOT.
13) The same liberal who pretends to be angry about Susan Smith or Casey Anthony will then turn around and give the thumbs up to women who do the same thing to their children via abortion.
14) There’s a reason why the average homeschooled kid gets a better education than he would in a public school run by liberals. It’s because the kid’s parents are interested in educating him while his liberal teachers view public schools as just another way to indoctrinate children.
15) Noam Chomsky is an America-hating creep and to think of him as some kind of genius, you have to both despise our country enough to suspend your disbelief and be largely ignorant of world history.
16) Anyone whose first reaction after a terrorist attack is, “Why do they hate us?” is just an intolerable douche.
17) Liberals talk up Hillary Clinton as the most prominent and important female politician in America; yet her entire political career is based on the fact that she married Bill Clinton. That’s actually kind of pathetic.
18) Liberals have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, eugenics, fascism, communism and Jim Crow laws. Then, down the road, after liberals finally join everyone else, they try to claim that conservatives still support all the practices that we fought liberals on from the beginning.
19) Liberals think black Americans are inferior to whites, which is why the worst, most crime-ridden places to live in America are inevitably run by liberals. That’s acceptable to liberals because they don’t think black Americans deserve any better.
20) A liberal is more likely to support a man who murders a cop like Mumia Abu Jamal than cops who want to regularly patrol a bad neighborhood in force to keep the criminals from terrorizing the innocent people who live there.
21) The average middle aged Tea Partier who’s going to rallies, talking about the Constitution and calling for reduced spending cares more about “the children” than 99% of the liberals out there who demand that we support one stupid program after the other “for the children.”
22) You have to be a horrible human being to be okay with terrorists like Bill Ayers teaching kids at a college.
23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they’re wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.
24) Detroit – and, yes, liberals did that.
25) Even “liberal Christians” are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why “liberal Christians” is in quotes.
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.” – Madeleine Albright, secretary of state (1997–2001), Clinton administration
It is a judgment on Barack Obama’s timorous, apologetic, and irresponsible conduct of foreign affairs that Madeleine Albright’s words, spoken little more than 15 years ago, now sound as antique as a pronouncement by Harry Truman at the onset of the Cold War, the great challenge America confronted bravely and without equivocation generations ago. Obama has set in motion policies meant to make America far from indispensable – a diminished nation that “leads from behind,” if at all; a nation with a downsized military, chronically uncertain about its meaning and its mission as it skulks in the wings of the world stage.
Albright made her statement about Iraq when Democrats were still supporting their country’s confrontation with the sadistic dictator Saddam Hussein, and before they defected from the war, shortly after its battles were under way. Obama opposed America’s war with Iraq and then opposed the military surge that finally brought victory. As president, Obama presided over the withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, against the wishes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted a continuing military presence – withdrawal paid for in the blood of thousands of American men and women in arms. Obama thus turned that benighted nation over to the malign influences of America’s chief enemy in the Middle East, Iran.
Far from shouldering his responsibility as the commander-in-chief of America’s global War on Terror and embracing it as this generation’s equivalent of the Cold War, Obama showed his distaste for the entire enterprise by dropping the term “War on Terror” and replacing it with an Orwellian phrase – “overseas contingency operations.” Minimizing the Islamist threat to the United States is not an oversight of the Obama administration; that is its policy.
It should not have been difficult for Obama to make the nation’s defense a priority when he became America’s commander-in-chief in January 2009. The American homeland had already experienced a devastating attack, which terrorists have been constantly trying to repeat. The number of foreign states openly supporting terror has steadily risen during Obama’s tenure. The most dangerous Islamist regime, Iran, is building nuclear weapons, while Washington dithers over pointless negotiations. As secular governments give way to Islamist regimes in Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq, and with the Taliban on the rise in Afghanistan and an American withdrawal imminent, the parallels to the early Cold War are eerie, the implications equally dire. Yet instead of policies that put U.S. national security first and are pursued without hesitation or apology, Obama’s time in office has been marked by retreat and accommodation and even support of Islamist foes – most ominously of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which swept aside an American ally with Obama’s help and is busily creating a totalitarian state.
Obama’s Foreign-Policy Disasters
In the four years since Obama’s first inauguration, almost three times as many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan as in the eight years of the Bush administration. Withdrawal, not victory, has been Obama’s goal from the outset, and now it is the only outcome possible. During the Obama years, there have been more than 8,000 Islamic terrorist attacks on “infidels” across the globe, a 25 percent increase over the number when the fighting in Iraq was at its height. In the face of this bloody and intensifying Islamist offensive, Obama has tried to convince the American people that the war against al-Qaeda has been essentially “won” – by him – and that the terrorist threat is subsiding. Denial of the war that Islamists have declared on us, and of the threat it represents, is the heart of the Obama doctrine and has guided this nation’s policies for more than four years.
Obama’s desire for rapprochement with the Islamist regime in Iran has prompted the administration to drag its feet on the sanctions designed to halt Tehran’s nuclear program. For the same reason, the president and his administration were silent when hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets of Tehran to call for an end to the dictatorship and were met by an orgy of violence from the mullahs’ thugs. Because of the White House’s moral and political timidity, its denial of the Islamist threat, and its conviction that America (presumably an even greater predator) has no right to condemn another nation, Iran reached its tipping point and went the wrong way.
The administration’s denial was glaring also in its response to the massacre of 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood by an Islamic fanatic and terrorist, Nidal Malik Hasan, who three and a half years later still has not been brought to trial. Hasan infiltrated the American military and, despite open expressions of hatred for the West, was promoted to the rank of U.S. Army major. The Obama administration’s Kafkaesque response to an obvious case of Islamist violence against the U.S. was to classify the terrorist attack as an incident of “workplace violence,” and thus to hide the fact that Hasan was a Muslim soldier in a war against the infidels of the West.
This inability to name our enemies was on display again on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, as jihadists staged demonstrations and launched attacks against American embassies in Egypt and other Islamic countries. In Libya, al-Qaeda terrorists overran an American consular compound and murdered the U.S. ambassador and three brave staffers. The attack took place in a country that had recently been destabilized by Obama’s own intervention to oust its dictator. Again, Obama had denounced a military intervention in Iraq as senator; that intervention, unlike his Libyan adventure, had been authorized by both houses of Congress and a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution. As president, Obama had invoked the principle of non-intervention to justify his passivity in the face of atrocities in Syria and Iran. But in Libya he conducted an unauthorized invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States and was not, as Syria is, in alliance with the mullahs of Iran and the terrorists of Hezbollah. The chaos that followed Obama’s Libyan intervention led directly to the rise of the local al-Qaeda, which planted its flag atop the same American outpost in Benghazi it later destroyed.
The events in Benghazi were a stark revelation of the consequences of a foreign policy without a moral compass. The battle over the embassy lasted seven hours. Although the Obama learned about the attack shortly after it began, and although the embattled Americans inside the compound begged the White House for help, and although U.S. fighter jets were stationed in Italy only an hour away, the president, in one of the most shameful acts in the history of that office, denied help by leaving his post, so that only silence answered their desperate calls. The president and his administration then went into cover-up mode, lying to Congress and the American people, pretending for weeks afterward that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Mohammed video, whose director they then threw in jail.
Before his overthrow, the dictator Moammar Qaddafi warned that his demise would unleash the forces of the Islamic jihad not only in his own country but throughout North Africa. This was a prophecy quickly realized. In the aftermath of Obama’s intervention, al-Qaeda in Mali took control of an area twice the size of Germany. In Tunisia and Egypt, jihadists emerged as the ruling parties, with the acquiescence and even assistance of the Obama administration. In Syria, a savage civil war metastasized unimpeded, killing tens of thousands and eventually pitting a fascist regime allied with Iran against rebel forces largely aligned with al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
As these disasters unfolded, the White House not only did not oppose the Islamists but armed and enabled them. Obama had previously intervened in Egypt, the largest and most important country in the Middle East, to force the removal of its pro-American leader, Hosni Mubarak. He then promoted the Brotherhood’s ascension to power by portraying it as a “moderate” actor in the democratic process. As the Middle East situation deteriorated, the Muslim Brotherhood became the chief beneficiary of America’s financial, diplomatic, and military support. This same Brotherhood was the driving force behind the Islamist surge, the mentor of Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda, and the creator of Hamas. Rather than being quarantined, the Brotherhood-dominated government in Cairo has received hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and F-16 bomber jets from the Obama administration that had facilitated its rise to power.
Appeasement of Islamist Enemies
To allay concerns about the emergence of the Brotherhood, Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, uttered this justification for its acceptance by the White House: “We believe… that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to non-violence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency.” In these words, Clinton was referring to an organization whose spiritual leader, Yusef al-Qaradawi, had recently called for a second Holocaust of the Jews, “Allah willing, at the hands of the believers,” and to a party that was calling for the establishment of a Muslim caliphate in Jerusalem and for the destruction of the Jewish state. Soon after Clinton’s endorsement, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate, Mohamed Morsi, was elected Egypt’s new leader and was referring to Jews as apes and pigs. Secure in the support of the American administration, he wasted no time in abolishing the constitution and instituting a dictatorship with no serious protest from the United States. Senator John Kerry, shortly to be Hillary Clinton’s successor as secretary of state, had visited the new dictator only months before this destruction of Egypt’s civic space. Kerry assured the world that the new Muslim Brotherhood regime was “committed to protecting fundamental freedoms.”
As in Egypt, so in Syria. Both Clinton and Kerry promoted the ruthless dictator Assad as a political reformer and friend of democracy just as he was preparing to launch a war against his own people. (Meeting with Assad, Kerry called Syria “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”) Shortly thereafter, the dictator began a series of massacres of his own population. Obama ignored the resulting tens of thousands of fatalities and the international calls for a humanitarian intervention – just as he had ignored the desperate struggle of the Green Revolution in the streets of Tehran three years earlier. The chaos in Syria has now led to the emergence of al-Qaeda as a leading actor among the rebel forces, under the revealing name “the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.” The very name indicates the potential scope of the disaster that the Obama administration is presiding over in the Middle East.
Republican Retreat On National Security
Until the “new politics” presidency of Jimmy Carter, the Democratic party during the Cold War would never have tolerated such abject capitulations to totalitarian forces. And when Carter showed such doubt and denial, the Republican party could be counted on to defend the morality of American power and carry the fight to the enemy. The Republicans did so with the conviction that they were expressing the deepest convictions of the American people.
In domestic politics, the American people preferred Democratic promoters of the welfare state to Republican proponents of fiscal restraint. The same electorate switched its vote, however, when the issue was protecting the American homeland. While voters made Democrats the majority party in the people’s House for 38 of the 42 years of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union, in 28 of those years they elected a Republican to be their commander-in-chief. Moreover, three of the four Democrats who did make it to the White House – Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson – were militant anti-Communists and military hawks who on national-security issues held views indistinguishable from those of Republicans.
Given that the most durable lesson of postwar electoral history was that Democrats win national elections on domestic policy and that Republicans win on national security, it seems incomprehensible that the Obama administration has been able to degrade American power virtually without Republican opposition. At the Republican party’s 2012 convention in Tampa, its nominee, Mitt Romney, failed to mention the Islamic jihad and devoted only one sentence to the fact that, in order to appease America’s enemies, Obama had thrown Israel, America’s only dependable ally in the region, “under the bus.” Romney did not mention Obama’s role as enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood or the millions of dollars his administration had given to the Palestinian jihadists on the West Bank and in Gaza, whose official goal was the destruction of Israel and its Jews. He did not mention the calls by the Islamist leaders of Egypt and Iran for the destruction of the Jewish state and the completion of the job that Hitler started.
Romney devoted exactly two sentences to Obama’s appeasement of the Russians and his abandonment of America’s Eastern European allies, which were harmed by the president’s reneging on America’s commitments to their missile defense. About the Korean peninsula, a flashpoint in national security and a theater for the current administration’s diplomatic dithering, Romney said nothing.
While Romney failed to confront a vulnerable Obama on national-security issues and gave Obama a pass on his shameful betrayal of his embassy in Benghazi, no other Republican campaign was likely to make the holy war that Islamists are waging against us, and Obama’s feckless national-security policies, a focal point of their attack. At one time or another, there were ten Republican candidates for the nomination that Romney won. Each of them participated in at least three of 20 public debates; two of the candidates participated in all of them. There were candidates for social conservatism, candidates for fiscal responsibility and job creation, candidates for libertarian principles and moderate values. But there was not one Republican candidate whose campaign was an aggressive assault on Obama’s disastrous national-security decisions and how they had imperiled America’s interests and its basic safety.
The extent of the Republican retreat on national security was dramatized by an incident that took place a few months before the election. In a letter to the Justice Department’s inspector general, Representative Michele Bachmann and four other Republican House members asked him to look into the possibility of Islamist influence in the Obama administration. The letter expressed concern about State Department policies that “appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” The letter then listed five specific ways in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had actively assisted the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power in Egypt, producing in the Middle East a decisive shift toward the jihadist enemies of the United States.
The letter specifically asked for an inquiry into the activities of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and principal adviser on Muslim affairs. It was a reasonable, indeed a necessary, request. Members of Abedin’s family – her late father, her mother, and her brother – were all identifiable leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. For twelve years prior to being hired by Hillary Clinton, Abedin herself had worked for an organization founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef – a major Brotherhood figure, a close associate of Abedin’s mother – one of the three principal financiers of Osama bin Laden, and a man dedicated to promoting Islamic-supremacist doctrines. A second figure with Muslim Brotherhood ties occupying a high place in the Obama administration was Rashad Hussain, deputy associate White House counsel, who had responsibilities in the areas of national security and Muslim affairs. And there were others.
In other words, people with high-level Muslim Brotherhood connections occupy positions of influence in the Obama administration on matters related to national security and Muslim affairs – at the same time Obama’s policies have encouraged the dramatic rise of the previously outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East. Yet when the congressional letter surfaced, Bachmann and her colleagues came under savage attack as McCarthyites and “Islamophobes,” whose request for an inquiry was itself deemed un-American. These attacks came not only from the Washington Post, leading Democrats, and such well-known apologists for Islamists as Georgetown’s John Esposito, but also from Republicans John McCain and John Boehner. Without bothering to address the facts the Bachmann letter presented, McCain said, “When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches vicious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are, in ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poor because of it.” In other words, Bachmann and her colleagues were bigots. Said Boehner: “I don’t know Huma, but from everything that I do know of her she has a sterling character. Accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.” In other words, asking reasonable questions about a woman with undeniable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who stands at the center of American policy was more dangerous than allowing those ties to remain unexamined.
In the hands of today’s leftists, the terms “McCarthyite,” “Islamophobe,” and their equivalents are not descriptions of a political pathology but rather bludgeons wielded to shut down inquiry into behavior that may be harmful to the United States. Instead of rejecting these slurs as they are used to invoke a brutal cloture on a matter of national security, Republican leaders participated in the successful effort to suppress the debate.
The Betrayal of Iraq
Why this lack of conviction on a matter combining internal security and foreign policy, traditional pillars of Republican strength? The answer can be found in the way the Republicans allowed themselves to be intimidated and then silenced as the Left put forth its version of “the lessons of Iraq.” The moment when Republicans lost the national-security narrative – and abandoned their role as defenders of the homeland – came in June 2003, just six weeks after the Saddam regime fell. That month, the Democratic party launched a national television campaign claiming that Bush lied to the American people to lure them into a war that was “unnecessary,” “immoral,” and “illegal.”
Until that moment, the war in Iraq had been supported by both parties and was regarded by both as a strategic necessity in the larger War on Terror. Removing Saddam’s regime by force, moreover, had been a specific goal of U.S. policy since October 1998, when Bill Clinton, a Democratic president, signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.
In his time on center stage, Saddam launched two aggressive wars, murdered 300,000 Iraqis, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, and put in place an active nuclear-weapons program. He was thwarted only by his defeat in the first Gulf War. As of 2002, his regime had defied 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to enforce the Gulf War truce and stop Iraq from pursuing its ambition to possess weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002, the U.N. Security Council added a new resolution, which gave the regime until December 17 to comply with its terms or face consequences. When Iraq failed to comply, Bush made the only decision compatible with the preservation of international law and the security of the United States: He prepared an invasion to remove the regime and the weapons of mass destruction it was reasonably presumed to possess. The Iraqi dictator was provided the option of leaving the country and averting war. He rejected the offer and the U.S.-led coalition entered the country on March 19, 2003. (I recounted the story in Unholy Alliance.)
The use of force in Iraq had been authorized by both houses of Congress, including a majority of Democrats in the Senate. It was supported in eloquent speeches by John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders. But just three months into the war, Democrats turned against an action that they had authorized and began a five-year campaign to delegitimize it, casting America as its villain. It was a fundamental break with the post–World War II bipartisan foreign policy that had survived even Vietnam.
With the support and protection of Democratic legislators, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major TV networks now undertook a relentless five-year propaganda campaign against the war, taking relatively minor incidents like the misbehavior of guards at the Abu Ghraib prison and blowing them up into international scandals, damaging their country’s prestige and weakening its morale. Left-leaning news media leaked classified national-security secrets, destroying three major national-security programs designed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. (For more on this, see my work with Ben Johnson, Party of Defeat, and Douglas Feith’s War and Decision.) Every day, the New York Times and other left-leaning media provided front-page coverage of America’s body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan and helped to fuel a massive “anti-war” movement, which attacked America’s fundamental purposes along with its conduct of the war. The goal of these campaigns was to indict America and its leaders as war criminals who posed a threat to the world.
The principal justification offered by the Democrats for their campaign against the Iraq War was that “Bush lied” in order to persuade them to support an invasion that was unnecessary, illegal, and immoral. This claim was the only way Democrats could explain the otherwise inexplicable and unconscionable fact that, for domestic political reasons, they turned against a war they had supported, following the lead of an anti-war primary candidate, Howard Dean, who appeared to be on his way to winning their presidential nomination. It was only then that Kerry and Edwards, the eventual nominees, reversed themselves on the war; they were followed by the entire party, which saw a partisan advantage in attacking Bush over an increasingly difficult situation on the battlefield.
The claim that Bush lied was false. Bush could not have lied to Kerry or the congressional Democrats about WMDs in Iraq, because Kerry and other Democrats sat on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and had access to the same intelligence data that Bush relied on to make his case for the war. When the Democrats authorized and supported the war, they knew everything that Bush knew. The claim that he lied to get their support was itself the biggest lie of the war. Its only purpose was to hide the Democrats’ own perfidy in abandoning the nation’s mission for partisan gain, and to discredit the president and turn the country against him, at whatever cost, in the hope of winning the 2004 election.
Republicans didn’t lose control of the national-security narrative simply because Democrats betrayed a war they had authorized, however. Republicans had the option of standing fast, as they had done since the attack on Pearl Harbor. They lost control of the narrative because they never held the Democrats accountable for their betrayal. They never suggested that the Democrats’ attacks on the war were deceitful and unpatriotic, aiding our enemies and risking the lives of our troops in the field. The Bush White House failed to defend itself from the attacks, and the Republicans as a whole failed to expose the Democrats’ lie and to describe their reckless accusations as the disloyal propaganda it clearly was. “Betrayal” and “sabotage” – the appropriate terms for Democratic attacks on the motives of the war – were never employed. Republicans did not accuse Democrats of conducting a campaign to demoralize America’s troops in the field, even when Kerry during a presidential debate called it “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.” (How did that sound to a 19-year-old Marine facing down Islamic terrorists in Fallujah?)
The Republican Failure and the American Future
The Republicans’ failure to defend their president and the war turned a good war into a bad one. It turned a disloyal opposition into a patriotic movement. It crippled America’s ability to protect other people’s freedom and defend its own. If the war against a dictator like Saddam Hussein was illegitimate and immoral, then American resistance to any outlaw states could be portrayed – and opposed – as reckless and unjustifiable aggression.
In failing to fight the political war over Iraq, Republicans lost their legitimacy as the party that had always taken the hard, sometimes unpopular steps to protect national security, as they did in the mid 1980s when they held the line against Soviet efforts to support Sandinista subversion and subject El Salvador to a bloody Marxist guerilla war. Losing – and to some degree failing to fight – the war over the war in Iraq is why Republicans are mute today in matters of foreign policy and why they have not challenged Barack Obama’s dangerous course of appeasement and drift, particularly in the Middle East.
The Joint Chiefs had suggested that a military presence of 20,000 troops in Iraq was necessary to keep it free of Iran’s control, but the demand for such a presence became problematic when the Republicans allowed the Democrats’ narrative of “Bush lied, people died” to succeed. When 2008 presidential candidate John McCain suggested that maintaining troops in a postwar Iraq was a prudent measure, candidate Obama attacked him as a warmonger. “You know,” Obama said, “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.” This refrain became a constant theme of the winning Obama campaign – Republicans are warmongers, and dangerous.
That is why three years later, when Obama withdrew from Iraq, no Republican dared accuse him of betraying the Americans who gave their lives to make Iraq independent, even though Iraq as a consequence fell under the sway of Iran and was providing air space for Iranian weapons headed for Syria..
How far America has fallen since Madeleine Albright called us the indispensable nation that stands taller and sees farther becomes ever more apparent with each new international crisis. We are not only losing the war with enemies whose stated goal is our destruction, we are led by a political party that constantly finds excuses not to take these enemies seriously, and never has to account for its disgraceful conduct because its potential opposition is mute. The only way to reverse this trend is to mount a campaign to put Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood at the forefront of the political debate, and to educate Americans about the real dangers we face. Americans need to become aware of the Islamic-supremacist threat, of the malignant designs of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of the disasters that may lie ahead because of the Obama administration’s policies of appeasing and enabling our enemies’ evil ambitions.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.
The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.
The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.
Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. – Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation
Click on the images below to enlarge them.
But that’s only because I, Edward L. Daley, don’t have a digital camera with which to capture and share with you what I saw when I went down stairs today to begin shoveling out my driveway.
The above picture, however, is illustrative of my situation, with one small difference… which is that neither my front door nor my back door opens in. Imagine having six-foot-plus drifts at least seven feet thick pressing up against a door that opens out.
Fun, fun, fun!
So what did I do, climb out a window?
No, I decided to remove the glass panels from one of my outer storm doors and shovel my way out from the inside, which is not nearly as fun as it sounds.
Anyway, after burrowing my way to the middle of my driveway, I had to go back inside and shovel out the pile of snow in my back entryway, because when you’re shoveling from the inside out, there’s no place to put the initial mounds of snow but INSIDE you’re house.
Yet, the real work had only just begun.
You see, I park my pickup near the end of the driveway – a good 50 feet from my back door – so I don’t have as much snow to shovel between it and the street if I need to get out fairly quickly after a storm. The thing is, drifting snow that reaches six feet in height on its own gets to be almost mountainous when added to those five-foot plowbergs left by the town’s road clearing equipment. And if your vehicle is parked right at the edge of such a blowberg, it becomes completely engulfed.
Suffice it to say that I WISH my truck had only been as buried as the one in the following picture.
So, after more than an hour of digging out my frozen Ford, dislodging it from DRIFTZILLA and finally breaking through to the street, I then set about clearing the space between there and my back door, which took another 45 minutes or so.
In total, I’d say I spent a good two and a half- to three hours shoveling this morning, and I still haven’t gotten around to clearing the front entrance to my house. Only the top two and a half feet of my front door are visible from the outside right now, which means the drift in front of it is around seven feet high, due to the fact that the bottom of the door is nearly three feet off the ground at the top of my front steps.
The drift is also a good eight feet thick, which means I’ll be shoveling for another 45 minutes this afternoon before the more essential snow removal is done, and I still won’t be able to see out my living room window anytime soon without standing on my tippy-toes and craning my neck.
Oh well, at least I didn’t lose power over the weekend like some folks did.
I mean, THAT would have truly sucked.
1.) The Daley Gator is run by two genuinely conservative (aka God-fearing, gun-owning, anti-abortion, leftist-hating, oil-loving, RINO-bashing, Tea Party-supporting, Obama-mocking, Constitution-respecting, America-defending, law-abiding, border-securing, fiscally responsible) men… of mostly Irish heritage.
2.) The Daley Gator is way cool! Doug and I post the most interesting news and opinion articles, videos, and hot chick pictorials that you’re likely to find anywhere on the net, and the only times we find ourselves lacking in these respects is when we’re either too drunk, hungover, crestfallen or pissed off to bother… and that’s not very often.
3.) We’re classy sons o’ bitches! Hell, we OOZE class. In fact, The Daley Gator is so chock full o’ class that once you’ve left this site, the class that’s rubbed off on you’re clothes will linger long after you’ve washed them… and in rare cases, our classiness has been known to clean a viewer’s apparel all by itself. True story.
4.) The Daley Gator exists for the sole purpose of helping conservative Americans (see definition above) take back their country from the vile, pernicious, immoral, military-hating, putrid, tax-and-spend, treasonous, violent, corrupt, gun-grabbing, parasitic, baby-killing, self-loathing, hypocritical, racist, moronic, evil leftists among us. If that’s not a noble endeavor, then I don’t know what the word noble means.
5.) Doug and I are too damned old to give half a shit about offending people anymore… and to tell you the truth, I don’t think either one of us ever worried much about being offensive to society at large when we were young. For the most part, society can bend over and kiss my royal, Irish ass! I, like my good friend Doug, am all about individuality, and if you’ve got a problem with that concept, I suggest you turn your sorry self around and get the fuck outa here!
In conclusion, The Daley Gator is a really good news-and-information blog, and it was one before I – Edward L. Daley – came on board more than two years ago. It’s a good blog because the folks behind it are good Americans who know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, and who possess more than their fair share of intelligence, education, morality and wisdom.
Join us in this new year as we strive to reclaim our common birthright for ourselves and our progeny.
And may God bless us, everyone.
We here at the Daley Gator would like to thank all of our loyal readers for helping to make September, 2012 the most successful month in the history of this humble blog.
And now, this…
And finally, this…
Yes, our fabulously middle-aged chum over at the ‘I’m A Man, I’m 41‘ blog has determined that someone out there in the right-wing blogosphere is deserving of being labeled the COOLEST S.O.B. of 2013 by a jury of his/her peers.
NOTE: From what I understand, the individual chosen to receive this honor will inevitably be rewarded with summary execution… although that could just be a vicious rumor.
By any means, simply click on the image above to visit ‘I’m A Man, I’m 41‘ and nominate your favorite Reaganesque blogmeister for this prestigious award.
OR click on the image below to visit a site devoted to the History Of Hygiene: Bathing, Teeth Cleaning, Toileting, & Deodorizing.
But WAIT, just what IS this ‘I’m A Man, I’m 41‘ blog all about anyway – you ask with your head cocked slightly to on side – and what has it done to help provide affordable health care for all Americans, balance the federal budget, or halt the scourge of Twilight movies currently infesting our otherwise wholesome culture?
Well, I believe the following video presentation should help to answer all of these weighty questions.
Okay, so maybe it doesn’t answer ALL of them… or even one of them, for that matter… STILL, you have to admits it’s a pretty cool promo.
William Jacobson has launched College Insurrection, and it looks to be a fine venture. Colleges ought to be bastions of liberty, this new blog is dedicated to reclaiming liberty from the Leftist slant on too many campuses. Go check it out! Here is a sample post about Chick-fil-A boycotts on campuses
Would love to get reports from college students at to whether kicking Chick-fil-A off campus (like happened at Davidson) is gaining traction, or just another waste of hot air.
College students around the country do not want their waffle fries served on campus from a company they perceive as being against LGBT rights.
At least 30 colleges and universities have had students start petitions to remove the fast food chain Chick-fil-A from their campus, and many of the protests are popping up in states considered to be relatively conservative.
There are more than 500 signatures on a petition to close the Chick-fil-A at Appalachian State University, in Boone, N.C. — a state which recently voted to amend its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. Students and faculty members at the University of Southern Mississippi are collecting signatures to have the Chick-fil-A on their campus removed….
Only 28 percent of college students consider themselves “liberal,” but more than 70 percent say they support same-sex marriage rights, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
In 1980, when President Reagan asked Americans, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” it was still possible to campaign on a theme as simple as the job performance of the other guy. But now, 32 years later, the campaign hinges on a much more fundamental split among the voting population.
Romney appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with the last four years. Obama appeals to voters who are dissatisfied with America.
This basic gap was obscured in the 2008 campaign by the window trappings of inspiration. Among all the plastic pillars and stolen quotes from poets who stole them from sermons, it was harder to see that the underlying theme of the campaign was dissatisfaction with America. But in 2012, Obama can no longer run as a reformer or an optimist.
The coalition that he committed to last year is a coalition of those who are unhappy with America, not in the last four years, but in the last two-hundred years. Its core is composed of groups that fear democracy and distrust the will of the people. There is no optimism here, but a deeply rooted pessimism about human nature and the country as a whole. It is the Democratic Party’s coalition against democracy.
After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.
There isn’t any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other’s throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.
From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare.
Obama can’t win on the economy. He can’t win on foreign policy. He can’t win on any aspect of his administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to heal the country in his second term while winking to all the representatives of the grievance groups. It’s not a new game, but the Democratic Party has never played it quite this baldly in a national election. And if it succeeds, then national politics will have finally been reduced to the level of a Chicago election.
We were expected to believe that the typical Obama voter in 2008 was hoping for a better country, but in 2012 there is no more hope, only hate and fear. The typical Obama voter is not acting as an American, but as a representative of an entitled group looking to secure and expand those entitlements at the expense and the detriment of the country at large.
To vote for Obama after years of grotesque economic mismanagement that has no precedent in history, that exceeds the worst actions of Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant, is not the instinct of an American, but a selfish greedy looter scrambling to grab a few dinner rolls off the tray while the ship is going down. There is no policy justification for voting for a man with the worst economic and foreign policy record in the country’s history. There is no American justification for voting for him. Only the UnAmerican motivation of carving up a dying country into group fiefdoms privileging identity politics over the common good.
This is an UnAmerican campaign. It is an Anti-American campaign. It is a campaign by those who hate and fear what America was and who resent having to care about anyone outside their own group. Its group jingoism, its dog whistles and special privileges are repulsive and cynical, treating the people of a great nation like a warren of rats eager to sell each other out for a prize from the Cracker Jack box of identity politics entitlements.
There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.
In his DNC keynote address in 2004, Obama said, “There is no Black America or White America or Latino America or Asian America, there is just the United States of America.” And now he has completely disavowed it. He isn’t campaigning to lead the United States of America, instead he is running for the presidency of a dozen little Americas, Trayvon Martin America, Abortion America, Illegal Alien America, Sharia America, Gay Marriage America, Starbucks America and any others you can think of. And if he can collect enough of these little Americas together, then he may get the privilege of running the United States of America into the ground for another four years.
Obama has never been the President of the United States of America. He has been the president of Washington, D.C., of Wall Street and of Solyndra. He has been the President of Green America and of Chicago. He has been the President of Warren Buffett, George Soros, Bill Gates, Penny Pritzker and James Crown. He is the President of George Clooney, Harvey Weinstein and Anne Hathaway. And now, facing disaster, he still isn’t running to be President of a country, but of a dozen little countries with money from freshly bailed out Green America and Wall Street, not to mention Hollywood.
The Obama campaign is not accidentally divisive. It did not stumble into divisiveness. It is not even divisive as a byproduct of its real aims. Divisiveness is its aim. Divisiveness is the only way that a divisive administration can hold on to power. The anger and the violence are not an accident, they are the whole point. Set one group against another, feed the hate, massage the grievances and very soon there is no longer a nation but a handful of quarreling groups being roped into a mutual alliance to reelect their lord protector whose appeal is that of the outsider becoming the insider.
Bain is a metaphor whose details don’t truly matter. The target audience for that swill doesn’t really care where Romney was when a steel plant was shut down. It doesn’t care that like so many private equity bigwigs, the man who actually was in charge is one of Obama’s bundlers. This isn’t about truth, it’s about menace. The Bain message is that Romney is a man who takes things away. That is the image that the UnAmerican alliance is meant to take away. The ominous sense that Obama’s era of giving them things is about to come to a close and Romney’s era of taking away things will begin.
It doesn’t take much prompting for the UnAmericans to come to this conclusion. Thieves are always looking over their shoulders. They always expect to have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them. And that is Obama’s true achievement. Like Tammany Hall, he has corrupted a massive section of the population and made it complicit in his criminality. What the old political machines did to cities or small groups of vested interests, the Zero has done to tens of millions, if not a hundred million people, who want him in power not because they think he’s the best man for the job, but because he’s their crook. The middle man for a crime ring that begins with him and ends with them.
The true insidious evil of the man is that he is the face of a machine of power and privilege that turns Americans into UnAmericans, that corrupts and degrades every ideal and principle, suborns every office and picks every pocket, while wrapping that thievery in the flag and every bit of history that it can filch. The Hussein Way is the clearest expression of the rot at the heart of the Democratic Party, the marriage of leftist agitation and powermongering with the old urban political machines for a level of abuse usually seen only in banana republics.
The abomination in Washington is a welfare-state technocracy that mixes crony capitalism with radical social policy. It steals from everyone and gives back to some. It plays the game of divide and conquer with the panache of marketing executives knowing that the worse the economy is, the more likely everyone is to look in everyone else’s mouth. Its worst aspect is its insistence on cloaking its cynicism as righteousness, wrapping every ugly means in the glorious flag of the ends when the truth is that its means are its ends.
Divide and conquer isn’t just a means to the greater end of giving Zero Hussein another four years. And perhaps another four years after that. It’s also the end. Every tyrant from Joseph Stalin to Saddam Hussein knew that a divided people are easier to rule. The more you divide them, the less likely they are to give you any trouble when you’re raiding their last pennies to pay for the latest Green gimmick that your billionaire backers have thrown up all over Wall Street.
Obama is the ultimate Post-American figure passing himself off as the embodiment of all that is truly American. But the UnAmericans got the real message in 2008 and in 2012 there is no other message. There is no more hope and faith, and the ones who have been waiting for are the UnAmericans who think that they are about to come into their own, when they are little more than pawns being used to rob and destroy a great nation.
This is the Post-American, Anti-American and UnAmerican campaign to divide up, carve up and toss aside the laws and traditions of the United States and replace them with the power of arrogance. It is the last stand of a beleaguered nation facing barbarians inside its gate. Every previous election was a contest between two American candidates who wanted to preside over the United States.
This is an election contest between the United States and an emerging Post-American order. That entity will be an American EU run by unelected bureaucrats, governed by politically correct technocrats and upheld by corrupt financial pirates disguising the collective bankruptcy with numbers games so elaborate that they make every billion-dollar con game and pyramid scheme that has come before seem as simple as child’s play.
The entity is already here. Its czars are running things in D.C., and its judges are dismantling both constitutional government and democratic elections. It creates a crisis and then makes sure that it doesn’t go to waste. It has excellent design skills and terrible planning skills. It has all the money in the world and none at all. It is the Post-American America, and 2012 is its big referendum. The one that will decide whether this Post-American America, this horrid graft of E.U. governance and Mussolini economics, Soviet propaganda and FDR volunteerism, Tammany populist criminality and U.N. foreign policy will be permitted to devour the United States of America.
Obama cannot win an American election. But he isn’t running in an American election. He’s running in a Post-American election.
The Looking Spoon, which is home to hilarious political lampooning like Liberal Supervillians
By Edward L. Daley
When you figure in the $85 million million (aka trillion) worth of unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, the total debt amassed by the federal government of the United States comes to about $100 million million, give or take a few million million. That number is equate to roughly seven times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of our country. In fact, if we were to liquidate all of America’s assets today for cold, hard cash – in an effort to meet the obligations of just those two programs – Social Security and Medicare would still be about $10 million million in the red.
Think about that for a minute. If our federal government seized everything of monetary value in our country, and used those assets to make good on the promises its made to America’s elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken citizens, it would still find itself in greater debt than most nations on Earth.
Now consider this: Social Security and Medicare spending currently accounts for nearly half of all federal spending, yet even though we devote more money to these programs than most of our other budget items combined, we still find ourselves facing a real debt number (not that puny $15 million million the mainstream media keeps babbling about) so massive that the combined GDPs of every other country in the world – roughly $55 million million dollars – equal only a little over half of it.
Let me put that another way. If every nation on this planet pooled together all the wealth they produced in a year’s time and gave every penny of it to the United States, we’d still end up roughly $45 million million in the hole. To give you an idea of how much money that is, here’s a little visualization exercise for you. Imagine you were to stand forty-five million million dollar bills end to end. If it were possible to do so, they would stretch from the Earth to the moon and back approximately nine thousand times.
Now that you’ve got that image in your head – a wall of greenbacks eighteen thousand bills wide, stretching into space to a point so distant that you can’t see the end of it – go ahead and double that amount, and then add another four thousand dollar-wide section to that imaginary money wall for good measure. THAT is our national debt; a wall of singles well over a mile and a half wide, and nearly 239.000 miles high.
If that mental image doesn’t convince you that the people currently in charge of our federal government are so monstrously inept that they shouldn’t be allowed to manage an ‘Orange Julius’ stand – let alone the budget of the United States – then I’m afraid nothing else you’ll read in this article will be of any use to you. I suggest you move on immediately to more pressing endeavors, like… say… staring at small, shiny objects, but whatever you decide to do, please accept my humble apologies for interrupting medication time at the home.
Okay, so now that I’ve whittled down my readership to only those individuals with a firm grasp on reality, let me see if I can adequately summarize my previous assertions in a single sentence.
Our federal debt is really, REALLY big, and our representatives in Washington DC are really, REALLY incompetent.
Glenn Beck, the prominent radio (and former TV) talk show host, has stated on numerous occasions that the only difference between the DNC and RNC is that the latter party is taking our country down the road to statism and, ultimately, economic collapse at a slower pace than the former. And in a way he’s right. The leaders of these two political groups are fairly similar in that few if any of them seem to give a rat’s pucker about future generations of Americans, and the socio-economic hell they face as a result of this generation’s utter lack of fiscal responsibility.
That having been said, Mr. Beck – if, indeed, that is his real name – has failed time and time again to point out that the overwhelming majority of conservatives who constitute the foundation of the Republican party, strenuously oppose the out-of-control spending practices of our elected representatives. He also doesn’t bother to mention that the vast majority of leftists who comprise the Democrat party’s base, exhibit exactly ZERO interest in restraining the growth and irresponsible budgetary habits of our federal government.
As a matter of fact, today’s leftists wholeheartedly support the insane (yes, I said INSANE) increases in spending that the current administration has already inflicted upon our nation, and apparently wishes to double as soon as possible. What’s their primary justification for this endorsement? Well, the Republicans increased spending over the past eight years by more than $4 million million, so now that the Democrat party is in charge, it gets to spend at least double what George W. Bush did on thousands of fatuous, government programs, idiotic make-work schemes and more freedom-smothering, federal bureaucracies than ever before. NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!
Tell me, is any part of what I just wrote inaccurate?
Okay, so maybe that “NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!” thing was a little over the top, but still…
Is there any doubt that the notion of expanding the scope and authority of the federal government originated with the left in this country, or that its subsequent growth momentum has been fueled by the “progressive” movement ever since?
Wacky, yet impassioned Glenn – the self-proclaimed “rodeo clown” and outspoken critic of government waste, fraud and abuse – seems to believe that we can just ignore the two main political parties in this country on election day and come together as a nation of independent voters to solve the myriad problems we face. Talk about naiveté! Regardless of how independent-minded one may be, if disseminating throughout the federal establishment the conservative ideals of limited government, personal accountability and fiscal restraint is one’s aim, there’s no viable delivery vehicle available other than the Republican party. After all, that’s where the overwhelming number of politically active right-wingers reside today, and to abandon it at this point in history is akin to calling for the forces of conservatism to further fragment in the face of an aggressive and unified leftist front.
If he were a soldier in General George S. Patton’s army, Private Beck would likely be relegated to the position of chief latrine scrubber for merely suggesting so foolish a strategic battle plan. Suffice it to say that no political ideology can be advanced in the United States without the assistance of an organized party of substantial wealth and influence. Independent political candidates don’t win federal elections very often, and the few who do, usually find themselves alone in the wilderness when it comes to garnering support among their peers for their policy initiatives.
Like it or not, changing the culture of irresponsibility and corruption that defines our national government these days, means changing the culture of at least one of the two major parties currently running it, and to accomplish that, one needs to confront the problem from within. It simply cannot be done by standing outside the gates of power, shaking one’s fists and wailing at the gathering storm.
Sure, there are times when large demonstrations by rag-tag coalitions of citizens can make a difference in the way our public officials behave at any given time, and you’ll find no stronger proponent of such peaceful revolts than I. That having been said, truly influential mass protests are rare and their impact fleeting. Lasting change only comes about as the result of a concerted effort among people of like-mind to repeatedly vote into public office, honorable candidates from a common political party who are capable of persuading others within their ranks to do the right thing.
There will always be a certain amount of corruption in any group, however, which is why it’s important to expose and punish as swiftly as possible the bad eggs in one’s own party. For all their flaws, the leaders of the GOP do have some integrity in this regard, whereas Democrat bigwigs are utterly shameless in their repeated defense of demonstrably corrupt leftists.
It’s going to take a lot of hard work to get the Republican party back on its conservative feet again, no question about that, and the transition from a party of wishy-washy RINOs to one controlled by genuine right-wingers, won’t happen overnight. But think about the ramifications if we don’t even try to salvage it. We’ll be stuck with essentially two versions of the same party controlling the political direction of our country for at least a generation to come; one which continues to slide seemingly irrevocably into the cesspool of Marxism, while the other dances precariously on a sheet of thin ice above that same, putrid sewer.
That doesn’t have to happen, Mr. Beck, but if you insist upon preaching the gospel of “to hell with both major parties” to a sizable audience of disenfranchised former GOPers, Libertarians and right-leaning independents, it probably will. If such a tragedy should come to pass, national bankruptcy and severe economic depression is not only probable, but a near certainty.
Indeed, if our nation is to survive the hopey-changey era of President Obama and his left-wing lackeys in Congress, electing vast numbers of true conservative REPUBLICANS to their respective high government offices is the only rational course of action available to us, and it is a course we must embark on sooner rather than later.