The Deep State Swamp Must Be Held Accountable

Guest Post from John Velisek, USN (Ret.):

It is now a foregone conclusion that the liberals of the late 50’s have turned their back on America and have become progressive socialists. They have every intention of pushing their fascist tendencies in order to turn our country into a police state which is the culmination of the agenda they have formulated.

Subverting the Constitution has been a major portion of the progressive socialist agenda since the implementation of the tactics of Saul Alinsky and Coward/Piven. Well steeped in this agenda are the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the leftists that now have overtaken the party. The rhetoric they use and the actions they have taken undermine our basic values as a country. Even now, with the sponsorship of globalists like George Soros and funneled through groups like Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA), they continue to push back against the American people and the agenda of Donald Trump.
With the help of RINO Republicans and Never-Trumpers, they want Americans to follow their orders and not ask any questions. For starters, look to socialists like Kamala Harris and the rest of the happy group that are destroying California.

Using such falsehoods as people losing their healthcare insurance that her fellow radicals demanded to be paid for by those who could least afford it, she uses the straw man that only corporations have benefited from the Trump tax cuts. Never mentioned is the carve-out for unions and corporations that the leftists favor. read more

How Depressing

Another shoe falls in Europe. Note the references to similar events in early 1930’s Europe which just happen to lead to the rise of a certain German promising to lead them back to prosperity. It’s a bit of a dry and cumbersome read, but important.

The French Depression

Ambrose Evans-PritchardBy  of the UK Telegraph

His tragically-misguided budget offers no strategic plan to reverse — or even to stop — thirty years of slow national decline. He offers no worthwhile measures to slim the Leviathan state, now a Nordic-sized 55% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), without Nordic labour flexibility or Nordic free markets.

He does not tell us how he will stem the slide in France’s share of eurozone exports over the last decade, down from 17% to 13%, or what he will do about the disastrous swing in France’s trade balance from a surplus of 2.5% of GDP to a deficit of 2.4% since 1999.

He proposes nothing credible to restore France’s viability within EMU (Economic and Monetary Union), or to stop public debt spiralling beyond 90% of GDP. Instead he has served up the most drastic retrenchment in forty years, at the worst possible time, and in the worst possible way. And markets are supposed to applaud?

The budget will tighten discretionary fiscal policy by 2% of GDP next year into the teeth of deepening depression, without offsetting monetary stimulus or exchange rate relief.

Mr Hollande likes to quote Leon Blum, the Popular Front leader of the interwar years. The reality could hardly be more cruel. He is replicating the disastrous deflation policies of Labour Chancellor Philip Snowden in 1931, before the Labour Party woke up to the delicious possibility that you could lift two fingers to the forces of reaction and leave the Gold Standard.

Worse yet, he is perilously close to re-enacting the desperate deflation decrees of Pierre Laval — an ex-Socialist dreamer, pacifist, and utopian who lost his way, and ultimately cleaved too closely to foreign ideologies — and like Laval he is doing so to uphold a fixed exchange system that is slowly asphyxiating his country and no longer makes any sense.

His budget is pro-cylical error of the first order, carried out to meet an EU (European Union) deficit target of 3% of GDP that has no economic logic and is plucked out of thin air to meet bureaucratic tidiness and enshrined like so much other idiocy into EU treaty law. The certain result will be hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

“To save the dogma of single currency, they are imposing absurd hyper-austerity on France,” said Marine Le Pen from the National Front, France’s unlikely apostle of Keynesian doctrine.

France now joins Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, and parts of Eastern Europe in synchronized tightening, with the Netherlands and Belgium cutting too, all dragging each other down in a 1930s style slide into the political swamp.

Mr Hollande has not been entirely passive. He threw his weight behind the Latin revolt earlier this summer, forcing German Chancellor Angela Merkel to sanction mass bond purchases by the European Central Bank. This would not have been possible in the Merkozy era, when Nicholas Sarkozy sacrificed all else on the altar of the Franco-German unity.

But he has not followed through and there were in any case two quid pro quos to this deal with Germany. One was that Spain and Italy must submit to Troika Hell before the ECB (European Central Bank) buys a single bond. The second was that France must submit to fiscal Hell.

Mr Hollande has his own motives for bowing to austerity demands. He learned the lesson as an aide to François Mitterrand that you cannot deviate too far from Germany if you share a currency peg. There will be no repetition of 1983, the epic U-turn or `tournant de la rigueur’.

He may judge it tactically clever to get his recession out-of-the-way early in the electoral cycle. If so, it is a very risky strategy.

Professor Jacques Sapir, director of the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris, says the more likely outcome is a downward economic spiral, pushing the declared numbers of jobless from 3m towards 4m — and the real number to 6m — by the end of next year. The economy will not spring back of its own accord this time because the contractionary structure of EMU has jammed the mechanism.

Prof Sapir fears global markets will turn on France with “full fury” before long, at which point, events will slip entirely beyond political control. “François Hollande is making a dangerous bet that he can only lose,” he said.

The French economy has already been in quasi-slump for five quarters. Dominique Barbet from BNP Paribas says the latest crash in the manufacturing PMI (Purchasing Managers Index) to 42.6 — the lowest since April 2009, and lower that at any time in the dotcom bust — is “potentially alarming”.

Indeed it is. Data collected by Simon Ward at Henderson Global Investors shows that a key leading indicator of the money supply –`six-month real M1 money’ — is now contracting even faster in France than in Spain. The shock will hit over the winter. “The budget looks increasingly misguided and self-defeating,” he said.

Mr Hollande thinks his budget will safeguard jobs. The fiscal burden will fall on the rich with a top tax rate of 75%, and on industry. Barclays Capital says three-quarters of the total will come by raising revenue, with the taxes “front-loaded” while spending cuts are “back-loaded”. The ratio of taxes to gross wages will rise to an all-time high of 46.3%. (Finance ministry estimates). [ Notice that like in the U.S., tax hikes always come first with hollow promises of mythical spending cuts later, that, of course, never materialize.]

Harvard Professor Alberto Alesina says this flies in the face of all we have learned about austerity. “The accumulated evidence from over 40 years across the OECD ( Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) peaks loud and clear: spending cuts are less recessionary than tax increases,” he said.

France, above all, screams out for a blast of tax-cutting Thatcherism and pension reform. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) says the country’s “tax wedge” – or tax as a share of labour costs – is one of highest in the world at almost 50%.

Just 39.7% of those aged 55 to 64 are in work, compared with 56.7% in the UK and 57.7% in Germany. Early retirement incentives are to blame. “French workers spend the longest time in retirement among advanced countries,” says the Fund.

France coasted through the last decade, losing 20% unit labour cost competitiveness against Germany as it screwed down wages and pushed through the Hartz IV reforms. French industry has been losing 60,000 jobs a year for a decade. Manufacturing has shrunk to 12% of GDP, as bad as Britain.

Renault chief Carlos Ghosn warned last week that France’s biggest car company would “cease to exist” in its current form unless there was a radical change in the country’s work climate. “Not over three or six months perhaps, but over three years, or five years, yes, the danger is real,” he said.

The whole economic structure of France is an anachronism in a Chinese world and a German currency union. “We are consuming the leftovers of a past prosperity,” says Jean Peyrelevade, ex-head of Credit Lyonnais.

Sovereign debt strategist Nicholas Spiro says growing doubts about the “credibility of French fiscal and economic policy” may soon bring Mr Hollande’s strange honeymoon to a close. It is a widely-shared view. Danske Bank’s bond team sees a “significant risk that the market will turn on France in 2013”.

Huw Pill from Goldman Sachs said the detonator may be activation of the European Stability Mechanism to bail out Spain and then Italy.

The potential ESM demands are too large for the “vulnerable core” of France, Belgium, and Austria. Their own fiscal health would come under the microscope. The shock would push them “from one equilibrium to another.”

Mr Hollande has swallowed the argument that drastic cuts are the only way to cap debt at 90% of GDP and keep the debt trajectory under control.

Yet we already know from Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain that fiscal shock therapy makes little dent on the deficit without monetary shock absorber. It causes nominal GDP and the tax base to shrink, making debt ratios even worse.

France does not have to put up with destructive 1930s policies imposed by Germany. It is not a vassal state. It remains a great nation, the beating heart of Europe and the EU’s balancing force.

It can break out of this awful trap by leading a yet more determined Latin revolt, this time marshalling its voting majority in the Council to force an end to contractionary policies.

A French-led growth bloc can strike back by inflicting an intolerable level of inflation on Germany. It can, if necessary, cause the North Europeans to walk out of EMU altogether — the optimal solution for the North and South respectively.

For that, Mr Hollande must be willing to abandon the Franco-German condominium, the central tenet of French foreign policy for almost sixty years. The cautious, plodding Enarque from the Limousin is not the type for fireworks, but give him time.

The Devil Went Down To Washington

An Interview with Country Legend Charlie Daniels

by:  Drew Zahn at WND

“There’s a move afoot to change life in America into totally European – I’ve heard that so much I’m getting sick of it: ‘European’ – socialist thing,” says country-music legend Charlie Daniels, “but it’s the dag-blamed truth [sic], and it don’t work, it never has worked, and if America goes that way, America will never be America again.”

Daniels told WND in an exclusive interview that he expects 2012, with the nation’s very identity on the line, will be “the biggest election we have ever had.”

“In my 75 years on Earth, it’s never been as clear-cut as it is now,” Daniels said. “We’re either going to go into socialism, where part of the people work and the rest of them don’t, and the ones that do will be taxed to death, or – I got the point where I don’t trust politicians anymore, but hopefully – the other side represents, ‘Let’s put America back to work; let’s re-instill the work ethic back in people.’”

Since the 1950s Daniels has been a country singer and famed fiddler, perhaps best known for his hit song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry in 2008.

But he also writes frequently on culture and politics, no stranger to bold statements in defense of God and country, and maintains a “soapbox” blog on his website, CharlieDaniels.com.

For Daniels, the word “socialism” – synonymous in his mind with the big-spending, tax-the-rich, government-welfare, spread-the-wealth policies of President Obama and his fellow “progressives” – is a system not only destined for failure, but also inherently tyrannical.

“You cannot enforce socialism without some force,” Daniels told WND. “It’s a very top-heavy society, and every society that’s ever tried it has fallen, because you finally get to where there’s so many people, you cut out the work ethic, you make people think they have to be dependent on government for everything. It’s a mindset.”

Daniels brought up the recent controversy about Chick-fil-A restaurants – in which the Democrat mayors of Chicago and Boston threatened to ban the chicken sandwich makers from their respective cities because the owner is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage – as an example.

“To me that tips off where these guys are coming from: ‘If you don’t agree with us, we don’t want you in our town, we don’t want you in our country, we don’t want you in our political system,’” Daniels said. “Is it not downright un-American for an elected official to stand up and try to destroy a business? As bad as we need jobs in this country?

“This is not about ‘gay’ marriage; this is about America being America, about people being able to stick by their deeply held religious beliefs and not to have these people trying to put them out of business,” Daniels said. “That’s what this boils down to: Are these people going to try to shut up everybody who doesn’t agree with them?”

Daniels told WND there have been a few people who have tried to silence him, too, to tell him to stick to his music and leave politics alone.

“People say, ‘Shut up and sing.’ Somebody said that,” Daniels said. “But shut up for what? Why don’t you shut up? What do you do? You do something else. You’re a private citizen. Do you think you should shut up? I’m speaking as a private citizen, so I think I have a perfect right to do that.”

And what about the owner of Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy and other Christians like him who are told to leave their religious beliefs out of the public and political sphere?

“That’s a bunch of junk,” Daniels said. “They need to stand up for what they believe in.”

Daniels’ fierce defense of free speech goes hand in hand with what he sees as the solution to America’s economic woes: not some new “socialist” program from Congress that leaves people looking to Washington, D.C. for answers, but a grassroots solution of small businesses, work ethic and a capitalist revival of the American dream.

“You’re talking to a guy who travels coast to coast and border to border every year,” Daniels told WND. “There are bad things going on in this country. Too many empty storefronts, too many closed down businesses – the ‘economic recovery’ Obama has been spinning is not happening. The only answer [socialists] seem to have for it is to try over and over again. Look at the results. Look at the results of throwing money down a black hole in Washington.

“We change the nation by putting people back to work again,” Daniels proffered. “I’m a Christian; I believe in helping people who can’t help themselves. I do not believe in helping people who can help themselves. Instead of putting them on the dole, put them on the payroll.

“I heard a while ago that more people file for disability than file to get a job. Where in the heck is that at?” Daniels asked. “Is that America? Is that what made America great?

“We need to get people back, to employ them,” Daniels concluded, “and it’s never going to be done in Washington. It’s going to have to be done in the private sector.”

In Islam, it’s called Takia (it’s okay to lie)

Never Call Socialism by Its Right Name

By Mary Nicholas

Allen West was the latest to get his knuckles rapped for saying there were “about 78 to 81” members of the Democratic Party who are members of the Communist Party(I) . His crime, like McCarthy’s, was in raising an uncomfortable subject. We may never know who is or isn’t a communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or Leninist in Congress, since all socialists work by deception, define words with obscurities, and refuse to identify themselves, with exceptions like Dohrn and Van Jones. Even in the heyday of communism, the most influential of its comrades were never “card carrying members” and lying was a way of life, which included obligatory perjury. But regardless of their nuances, deception is an integral part of their political ideology.

We have the guidance of an expert — George Bernard Shaw of the Fabian Society who called Lenin, the “greatest Fabian of them all.” He formulated and described the Fabian methodology: it used “methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name.”(II) What we have unearthed from West’s exchange, Moyers’ ghost story, historical incidents, the Venona documents, and the House Committee on Un-American Hearings is something more important than who is or who isn’t, and more important than differing definitions — it is rule number one of the broad left: deception. Case in point: Shaw would not say that Lenin was the greatest Marxist or communist of them all — but the greatest Fabian of them all. Not so shrill on the ears. All they cared about was perception.(III)

Deception is starkly illustrated by the Fabian Society’s famed stained glass window revealed by Tony Blair in 2006 at the London School of Economics. Designed by Shaw, it shows Fabians “Sidney Webb and ER Pease… helping to build ‘the new world’.” The most stunning thing to note is the Fabian Society’s coat of arms seen below: a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Davidson, an American, and his friend E.R. met in London in 1883 to discuss politics and others later joined them. Within a year British intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb also joined. They named it the Fabian Society after Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman general whose strategies of wearing down opponents by delays led to the Roman victory over Hannibal.

Shaw distinguished “the highly respectable Fabian Society” from other radical groups (like today’s ACORN, OWS and communists). “The Fabian Society got rid of its Anarchists and Borrovians, and presented Socialism in the form of a series of parliamentary measures, thus making it possible for an ordinary respectable religious citizen to profess socialism and belong to a Socialist Society without any suspicion of lawlessness, exactly as he might profess himself a Conservative….” (eg: Van Jones, ” Drop the radical pose for the radical end.”)

Yet the Fabians’ creed remained radical: Its goal was the “reorganization of society” with the extinction of private property and industrial capital from individual and class ownership, redistributing them to the “community for the general benefit.” But the Fabians carefully hid their socialist philosophy saying “it was not desirable to make any change in the name by adding the word ‘Socialist’ to ‘Fabian.'”(IV) Beneath their respectable sheepskin, however, the Fabians were host to Lenin and his Bolshevik followers holding a revolutionary conference in London before the revolution in Russia, and Bolsheviks were considered “comrades.” Shaw, a highly respectable Fabian, called himself a “communist.”

Let’s shear off some of the wool and take a closer look at some of the radical Fabian policies. Shaw said that Socialism meant the “equality of income or nothing.” You would be fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed — “whether you liked it or not.” If the state discovered that you were not worth this trouble, “you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.” To understand the depth of Shaw’s commitment to socialism, watch a clip of him in the movie The Soviet Story, a film by Edvins Snore. Visiting Russia in 1931, Shaw said that he was able to step into his grave comforted “with the knowledge that the civilization of the world will be saved and …the new communist system is capable of leading mankind out of its present crisis….” Were the Fabians radical? Stuart Chase, an American Fabian, said that socialism could be enforced by firing squads if necessary. Chase wrote A New Deal, which Roosevelt used as a slogan(IV). Though the Fabians believed in the same radical goals as the Socialists and Communists, there was a difference in methods.

Make no mistake they wanted world revolution also, but, unlike their comrades who believed in attaining power quickly by violence, they worked through patient changes in law, government, morality, economics, culture and education. They worked to spread Socialism through newspapers, Parliament, school boards and by backing candidates of either party in elections — penetration and infiltration. For example with newspapers, Shaw said their “policy has been to try to induce some of these regular papers to give a column or two to Socialism, calling it by whatever name they please.” Their chief tool, however, was through the indoctrination of young scholars — intellectuals referred to as “parlor Bolsheviki.”

The Webbs and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics in 1895. Faculty and students have included Bertrand Russell, John F Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, George Soros, Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin, Harold Laski (a later head of the British Fabian Society), George Papandreou, David Rockefeller and John Maynard Keynes. The Webbs visited the U.S. in 1888, and in 1889 Webbs’ Socialism in England was circulated at Harvard and other schools in the U.S. In 1905 they incorporated the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and by 1908 there were Fabian chapters at Harvard, Princeton, NYU, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania. But Harvard was considered the “transmission belt” for socialism — and specifically its Department of Economics. The most influential theory within the Department of Economics was that of Keynes. Keynes’ socialism advocates strict control of the means of production through the supply of credit and money rather than ownership advocated by Marx. This way the Fabian goal could change everything while maintaining the outward appearance of the sheepskin.

I’m Smarter than You!

From these Ivy League campuses the seeds of socialism were planted in Washington during the early 1900’s at the multiplying bureaucracies staffed by Fabian-indoctrinated theorists and professors. Norman Thomas, a Socialist, explained the utility of Keynes: “Keynes has had a great influence …. He represents a decisive break with laissez-faire capitalism.” John Strachey, a communist who entered the British Fabian Society in 1943, explained that Keynes’ influence resulted in capitalism being “regulated and controlled by a central authority….The principal instruments of its policy should be variations in interest, budgetary deficits, and surpluses, public works, and a redistribution of personal incomes in equalitarian direction.”(V)

The key Fabians who introduced Keynes’ theories on the U.S. were Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippman, one of the founders of The New Republic. During World War I they both became friendly with Franklin D Roosevelt. Later in Roosevelt’s new deal they both secured positions and Frankfurter was appointed to the Supreme Court. Over 300 of Frankfurter’s students worked in strategic government posts. One of these was Alger Hiss, a student of Frankfurter’s at Harvard Law School who later clerked for him at the Supreme Court. He also worked at the State Department and played a key role in the New Deal, at Yalta and in the formation of the United Nations. Contrary to the left’s continued denials, the evidence against Hiss is overwhelming, as described by Shelton in Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, –he was a communist and an asset to Soviet military intelligence. Thus we have the perfect elite wolf dressed like a lamb.

(I)Accusations that Obama is a socialist have met with immediate denials and have called them “dumb,” or “name-calling” and “witch-hunting” while MSNBC falls back on “racist.” The left uniformly call in a socialist to deny it such as Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA.
(II) Stormer, John, None Dare Call It Treason, (New York: Buccaneer Books, 1964), 26, emphasis added.
(III)This tactic of deception was copied by socialists in the U.S. In a classic, Roger Baldwin of the ACLU told an agitator: “Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want to look patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”
(IV)Stormer, ibid. The influence of British Socialists didn’t end with the New Deal but was evident during the Johnson administration: The Great Society” was a book written by Graham Wallas, an English socialist in 1914. The term was also used by the English socialist Harold Laski in his 1931 book Introduction to Politics.
(V)Ibid., 183-4.

Promises, Promises

From Joe ‘Pags’ Pagliarulo & The Blaze:

Most of us outside of Illinois became aware of Barack Obama in 2004.  He was a candidate for senator and asked to give a speech at the Democratic convention that year in Boston.  He was interesting.  A fresh face — in stark contrast to old Washington embodied by the Democrat nominee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.  He had a certain confidence, youth and ability to grab your attention with how he delivered the speech.  It would be a few years before we really started understanding who this man was politically.

In 2007 — when some of the candidates running for the 2008 nominations on both sides of the aisle became apparent — I was brought into New York to do a show for CNN.  On the show were: Roland Martin (liberal currently with CNN), Rachel Maddow (liberal currently with MSNBC), and one other man — another liberal whose name escapes me, and me – the lone conservative on the panel.  It was assumed I’d be pulling for Rudy Giuliani the former mayor of New York, I guess, because we were both white and Italian.  It was odd that the assumption was made.  I made it clear, however, that I was not a Giuliani guy because of his stance on abortion.  I mentioned I was looking into McCain but was also looking into Obama.  Why?  Because he was young, energetic and gave one heck off a speech.  I still didn’t know much about him other than what I saw and heard — like most Americans.

  The examination didn’t take long before I found out he was the most vehement supporter of abortion I’d ever heard speak and he was, at his very core, a socialist.  He was and is a guy that believes the ruling class gets all the spoils and the rest of us idiots get what the bloated government decides we should get and we should thank said government for the table scraps.

Obama ran on feel good messages like, “Yes We Can!” and “Change You Can Believe In.” He was going to cut the deficit and fix everything George W. Bush did wrong. As soon as he got into office, of course, he raised taxes on regular Americans ($.62 per pack on cigarettes) and pushed through the stimulus package which cost the American taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars after which we saw the economy get exponentially worse, not better as promised.  How did he get these things done?  There is a formula.  Say whatever it takes to get a law passed, smile a lot and do whatever you want in the end.  Remember how he would never raise any tax of any kind for individuals making less than $200k per year or families making less than  $250k?

 ”I can make a firm pledge under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”  Barack Obama – September 12, 2008.

He clearly didn’t mean it, but it was a talking point he repeated knowing full-well it would resonate with voters.  He pledged over and over again to put every bill online for us to see for five days before they were brought to a vote.  He would stop “corporate welfare.”  He promised transparency, and more.  Matter of fact, he listed seven things he’d stop or change:  

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (Republican Senators didn’t know)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online 

This has become a predictable pattern for this president.  He’ll say anything and whether he plans to follow through has never mattered. He’ll say anything no matter its validity, and not think twice about it. He’ll repeat it until the words saturate the American psyche and many blind followers will fall in line and continue the repetition for him. He must have gotten bored of the same ol’ same ol’ because now he’s added the non sequitur to his repertoire and he’s brought back a favorite from the middle of last year. It’s really a variation on a theme: The rich have what they have and that’s not fair. The regular/average American deserves it all too and we can get it for them by taking it from those evil rich people and corporations. 

Last June, the president put his new-found fondness for things that just don’t have anything to do with one another to good use. He started saying things like:

“If we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, corporate jet owners, hedge fund managers, oil & gas companies that are making 100′s of Billions of dollars, then that means we have to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means we have to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make.

Before we ask our seniors to pay for more healthcare, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or corporate jet owner that has done so well, to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.” – President Barack Obama News Conference 06/29/11

It, on its face, was ridiculous. Do you really think that because rich people have earned a lot of money through hard work or entrepreneurial spirit or invention and have been able to buy nice things that people can’t go to college? Or that the elderly can’t get care? Or that food won’t be safe? Really? It was crazy and without merit but, he must have liked how it sounded because repeated it whenever he saw a camera or a microphone or newspaper writer. The message didn’t work, and taxes weren’t raised on the “evil rich,” but, he must have felt the strategy still had legs because it’s back.

The latest incarnation of the Obama non sequitur reared it’s ugly head on March 29th. This time, the president once again, went after big oil. Much like he did last year, the president said, “Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make. They can stand with big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.” Huh? Are oil companies somehow not American? The reason for the Rose Garden speech was to pit big oil against the American people and playing the two sides against the middle — that middle being Congress. The only problem: there is no back and forth between the American people and the oil companies. The American people lay the blame for the highest gas prices we’ve ever seen this time of the year squarely on the shoulders of the Obama administration.

The suggestion through the rhetoric was that if Congress stopped the tax deductions for the big oil companies, the burden on taxpayers (and gasoline users) would be lessened. He wants us to believe that he’ll either send the money to us (yeah right) or the price at the pump will go down if the deductions were ended. Think about it. Do you really think the price per gallon will go down should Congress decide to increase the tax burden on these companies? The plan, of course, is to divert attention from him and his administration to Congress to cast the blame there. He knows going in that Congress will not stop the tax deductions — but that’s not the real goal. He cannot run on his record. He cannot point to how he’s held to his campaign promises, or fixed the economy, or not raised taxes on regular folks, or held unemployment to under 8 percent. So, the only real campaign plan is to find a boogie-man (or men and women).

If the gasoline prices happen to fall between now and the election, you won’t hear anything else about it. If they stay high or go higher, the president will remind us all how he tried to get Congress to go after the oil companies and how the REPUBLICANS refused. Smart. Underhanded. Disingenuous. Politics.

Maxed out on Maxine

It’s not often that I am truly speechless, but this one left me very close.

After watching this, if you have a brain in your head, you too will be awestruck by the colossal demonstration of idiocy that I just witnessed.

You may want to wrap you head with Duct tape prior to viewing, for your head may explode.

It may be painful, but pay strict attention to her sloganeering. Listen for words like equality & justice; right out of the socialist playbook.

We are truly doomed if we allow Marxists like Maxine Waters back into a Chairmanship.

A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.