Speaker Boehner tackled the hypocrisy of President Obama’s rhetoric versus action in energy policy saying, ”There’s a big gap between what the president promises and what he talks about, and the actions that he’s taking. And I think honest, hard-working taxpayers deserve actions that match the words.“
Today Mr. Obama is in Oklahoma attempting to drum up support for half of a pipeline – yes, half. Mr. Obama personally lobbied against and subsequently blocked approval of the Keystone pipeline that would’ve created more than 20,000 jobs (directly and indirectly) by most estimates, stimulated local economies and lowered the price of fuel. Not coincidentally, the Keystone pipeline would’ve run through all red states.
Speaker Boehner had this to say:
And finally, Mr. Obama, in his own words circa 2008 (hint: he has no desire to see gas prices decrease; comments substantiated by his backtracking Secretary of Energy, Mr. Chu.):
As of today, the average price of gas (nationally) is $4.32 per gallon.
At this point in the Republican primary, Rick Santorum is the only substantial “not Mitt” left in the running. With Gingrich falling behind Paul in the Illinois primary, it’s safe to say that Newt’s campaign has run it’s course. Delegate count being a factor, there’s no way Gingrich or Paul can feasibly win the nomination.
It’s been interesting to watch the migration of supporters from Palin (once she decided not to run), to Cain. Then from Cain to Gingrich, then from Gingrich to Santorum. Even more surprising is the Tea Party support of Santorum, particularly since Santorum, by his own admission, has qualms with the Tea Party movement as seen here (after his soliloquy on the virtues of government intervention):
We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; … but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.
And then there’s the issue of our friends, the Libertarians. Santorum said,
I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people that believes in no government.
And Santorum on smaller government? Goldwater Conservatism? Meh…
To our credit, Republicans have sort of morphed away from the Goldwater idea that government needs to be smaller, it needs to do less, it needs to be doing nothing except what it’s core functions are to a party by and large, and there are elements still left by the way, in the party like that, to a party that by and large says, look, we need to restructure the way we do programs or the way government functions to create the kind of incentives or create the kind of help and programs that give that power to folks closer to the people or to family or to the individual themselves.
And to disspel any concern that the above listed were merely isolated incidents, there’s also this - the big one, the queen mother of them all:
One of the criticisms I make to what I refer to as a more Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional Conservatives view the world. There is no society that I”m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Less government?? Individual freedom?? No government in the bedroom?? Pssh… that’s just crazy talk. Limited government, individual freedom and the ability to make choices without government intervention are the cornerstones of conservatism. Santorum, for whatever reason, chooses to characterize these “radical” ideals as libertarian, which is not inaccurate, but to act as though they are not conservative values is dishonest. Furthermore, it begs the question as to what conservatism means to Rick Santorum. If your only solution to societal ails is more government – you’re doing it wrong. And it’s precisely this notion that makes Rick Santorum, well, troubling.
The GOP presidential primary gets more ridiculous with each passing day. From N-word rock to Gloria Allred and now moon colonies, we’ve made sure to focus on issues that matter. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’d be badass to visit the moon, but with soaring unemployment, unsustainable debt, an increasingly fragile Middle East, and threat of Obamacare, whether or not we can put a Starbucks on the moon is not something I’m terribly concerned about, at least not today.
Even more outlandish than lunar living are the “True Conservative” purity tests. Regardless of a candidate’s successes, cries from “True Conservatives” bemoan them as “not conservative enough.” Such whining also suggests that there is a candidate in the race who is the shining star of conservative principles and values. I hate to break it to you, but allow me to let you in on a little secret: there are no conservatives in the race. That’s right, you heard me, no conservatives, not one.
The current GOP field has three regular ol’ Republicans and a feisty little Libertarian. Breath a sigh of relief, there’s no need to scour their records to discern who is most Conservative. You can stop yelling at everyone who disagrees with you that their preferred candidate isn’t really a “truuuuuuuueeeee Conservative.” Because you know what? You’re right. While it’s true each GOP candidate has engaged in conservative behavior from time to time, they are by every measure, simply Republican. Whether it’s refusal to recognize this obvious fact, or a frantic desire to find Reagan incarnate, I’m not sure, but the sooner the base understands this, the easier life will be and the quicker we can all be friends again.
Blame “the establishment,” blame the media – it makes no difference because like it or not, we have four choices. In the Final Four we have three Republicans and Grand Pappy Libertarian. We have Romney, perhaps one of the most quintessential Republicans in existence (good hair and all) and yes, Romneycare, we heard you the first billion times you screamed it. We have Santorum, social Conservative, but Big Government Republican, supporter of Arlen Specter and believer in a restricted internet. And then there’s Newt, oh Newt. True, he led the GOP revolution in the 90′s and balanced the budget, yada yada yada, but he also supports the individual mandate and believes in global warming, or climate change, or whatever we’re calling it these days. And he’s definitely not a social conservative (unless we’ve redefined that to include up to four marriages and/or affairs). And if you’re still dissatisfied with these choices, there’s always Ron Paul.
So there you have it. You can pack away your conservative measuring stick and save it for 2016 when we will again, eviscerate any actual conservative for forgetting a talking point, being too boring, or something equally as asinine, but claim the man willing to spend a bazillion tax payer dollars to put a McDonald’s on Mars is the hope of all conservadom.
“Compromise” has turned in to a dirty word for many Republicans. Following the last debt ceiling battle and the resultant negotiations, two distinct factions emerged within the GOP: those whose mantra was “hold the line” and those who took no issue in bargaining with their Democratic counterparts. Those in camp “hold the line” tend to have an unrealistic expectation for what one half of one-third of the legislative branch can accomplish. Conversely, those who accept the negotiating skills that produced the failed Super Committee misunderstand the art of compromise.
In a recent interview Ted Cruz, Texan candidate for U.S. Senate, discussed his views on compromise:
“My view on compromise is the same as Ronald Reagan’s. Reagan used to say, “if they offer you half a loaf, what do you do?” And his answer was, “you take half a loaf and then you come back for more.” I’m interested in moving the cause of liberty forward. So if we are advancing in a positive way, if we are shrinking the size of the federal government, if we are moving towards fundamental tax reforms, simplifying the tax code, moving towards a low uniform rate towards everyone, then I’m willing to compromise and accept less than 100% if we are moving forward. Now I intend to come back and keeping getting it, but I want to affirmatively move the ball forward. The problem is some of the Republicans in Washington compromise, moving backwards.
Let me give you an example, the last fight over the debt ceiling and the next fight that’s coming, I was one of the first proponents in the country to support Cut, Cap and Balance. Now in my view, Cut, Cap and Balance is a compromise. My ideal position is not to raise a penny of the debt limit, period – the end. It is a compromise to say, we can raise it if we make the serious structural changes it will take to fix the problem. Cut the budget, real cut, not phantom cuts that Washington people like. Cap, put in serious enforceable budget cuts, and most importantly, balance. Pass, not introduce, which is the Washington wiggle worm word, but actually pass a strong BBA that requires a balanced budget, requires a super majority to raise taxes and limits federal government spending to a percentage of GDP. That’s an example of a compromise. It is less than what I think the perfect outcome would be, but it is a significant enough move in the direction of liberty that I would be willing to accept that.
Part of the problem is you have so many people in Washington that are not focused on the goal of advancing of liberty that they don’t make any distinction between moving forward and moving backwards. There is no virtue in compromise if you make things worse. An analogy I often use, if you agree that the threat to our nation, to our liberty is dire, the answer is not to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, the answer is to turn the ship around. So I’m not interested in compromise that doesn’t solve the problem, but I will accept less than 100% of everything I want if we are moving in a strong, positive direction in a way that advances liberty.”
Mr. Cruz’s stance on compromise is precisely the view that the Republican party ought to have. The GOP must continue to fight for the advancement of liberty and freedom and measures that shrink the scope of the federal government yet understand that not every battle can be won in a day.
_____
This article was first published at The Political Operative, January 23, 2012.
With the 2012 elections right around the corner, it’s essential that every able-bodied person join the fight to save our country. Aside from casting a vote on election day, most Americans have never been involved in the political process. In what I believe is the most crucial elections of our lifetime (and likely the make or break point for our country), I would encourage each and every one of you to get involved in some way. Figuring out the best way to get involved or finding out how you can make a difference may seem overwhelming and difficult. Thankfully, we’re not alone in the fight. There are several organizations devoted to providing a launching pad for regular Americans with no clue where to jump in the political process.
This weekend I attended the Saddle Up Texas Straw Poll event where I had the privilege of meeting Raz Shafer, Texas Executive Director of American Majority. Here’s what he had to say:
Following his speech, I was able to chat with Mr. Shafer about American Majority and grassroots training.
Red: What is American Majority and what do you do?
“American Majority started in January 2008 and has trained nearly 20,000 individuals and have had about 600 events across 44 states. We’re trying to build a farmteam of Conservatives, mainly at the state and local level. We help grassroots organizations, Tea Parties, non-partisan Conservative groups maximize their impact.
In politics there’s a learning curve and if we want to try to save the country, we need to try to shorten that learning curve because sometimes it’s longer than we can afford. Our goal is to shorten that learning curve, to help take activitsts from the moment they decide they want to get off their couch and decide they want to do something and make it possible for them to step up as quickly as possible and make a difference.”
Red: Why is working in grassroots so important to affecting change?
“Ultimately, that’s how David beats Goliath. We’re outgunned when it comes to money, we’re outgunned when it comes to name ID and when it comes to institutional support. Every one of those we’re outgunned, in most cases 10 to 1. We want to compete with passion and compete with willing to work, because that’s something other people don’t have. You can see this when you look at big campaigns. Incumbents rely on money, name ID and advtertising, whereas the insurgent guys are out there pounding the pavement, knocking on doors and leveraging grassroots support. That’s how we beat these guys. We’re trying to train people so they can get out there and fight because we have to win and we have to win now.”
Red: Can you talk about some of the resources you have available?
“Americanmajority.org has guides, presentations, podcasts, training manuals and video tutorials covering social media and a variety of other topics and all the resources are free. We’re trying to create as many resources as we can.”
Red: What would you say to someone who feels compelled to get involved in the political process and feels compelled to help save our country but has no idea where to start or how to do that?
“First, don’t assume you have to start at a national level because it’s one of the biggest ways to get turned off. People need to focus on doing something and it may be something small. It may be going to talk to your neighbor or updating your facebook status, having conversation, reading a blog and commenting on it. Starting small is a great way to find where you’re best fitted. Each of us has to find what we’re best at. If someone has a question about what they should try, I’d be more than happy to talk to them about it. My email address is raz@americanmajority.org and I’m more than happy to answer any questions and do whatever I can to help.”
American Majority hosts training sessions nation-wide, so be sure to check out their website for upcoming events. Remember, no matter how small, every little bit counts. America needs all the help she can get.
_____
This article was first posted on The Right Scoop, January 16, 2012, but I feel so strongly about encouraging you to take part in some way, no matter how small, that I am posting it here as well.
While currently eclipsed by issues like imminent economic collapse, gay marriage is not at the top of the issues list but will be soon enough. With a large and growing faction of homosexuals who share Republican and Conservative values, at some point the Right will be required to come to some semblance of a consensus on the issue.
To that end, I bring you my first guest post. The Right tends to look at the issue of gay marriage through one of two lenses: religious (or Biblical) or Constitutional. I have found that younger Conservatives tend to view gay marriage with much less rigidity than the rest of the base – not always, we all know there are exceptions to every rule. The following was written by a dear friend who, although an ardent Conservative, is an advocate of gay marriage.
The Constitutionality of Gay Marriage
Written by Drew
We Republicans feel it is our duty to protect citizens against the never-ending governmental encroachments on individual liberties made by the government. Our weapon of choice: the Constitution. Embedded in this document are rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens that are found nowhere else in the world. It is the tool that loosed the bonds of slavery, rejected Jim Crow, and brought equality to women and men. Now, our beloved Constitution calls on us once again to defend the inalienable rights of our brothers and sisters.
I received an email today from Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He was addressing the pro-gay marriage movement’s use of Kim Kardashian’s failed marriage to prove that it’s not homosexuals, but celebrities and those who do not take marriage seriously that are ruining its sanctity. He rejected this premise by arguing that a debate over who is ruining the sanctity of marriage is irrelevant because “a relationship involving two people of the same-sex is materially different than a relationship involving people of the opposite sex.” I would like to address this not from my religious views, but from the views expressed in the document I swore to uphold – the Constitution.
Mr. Backholm’s argument is that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are “fundamentally different”, but gives no example, save an analogy of dogs and cats. He poses that dogs and cats both have fur, tails and four legs, but are fundamentally different. Though they are different, the Constitution would recognize them both (rightfully) as animals. The dog and cat analogy is tired and tried. It’s the same as a male and female, black and white, or American and Japanese analogy. These were struck down based on the eventual unconstitutionality, so why not homosexual marriage?
A universal point of agreement here is that the Bible condemns homosexuality. And I, too, feel that heterosexual marriages are the best scenario for growing a society. However, relegating homosexuals to unions rather than marriages places them in a separate-but-equal class. The Supreme Court’s Rational Basis Test asks if the discrimination is reasonable to achieve a legitimate government interest. Denying the same marriage right to homosexuals afforded to heterosexuals fails this test. The only interest the government may have is religiously based. If this is the case, then denying the rights is a violation of all homosexual’s first amendment right to not have their government respect a religion’s law over them.
In Brown v. Board of Education the Court decided “separate but equal” was not equal. The decision was based on intangibles rather than tangibles. The Negro students (as they were referred to in Brown v. Board of Education) in Kansas were given equality facilities, equality in curricula, and equality in faculty. These were tangible equalities that were easy to recognize. But the intangible factor of being separated from the white students still made them inferior; even deprived them of equal opportunity. The Court said: “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Now, if the issue of intangible inequalities affecting Negro students was important enough to warrant protection from the Supreme Court, why not homosexuals in their pursuit of marriage? If separate-but-equal is a practice no longer deemed constitutional in any case, why is it still practiced with homosexuals?
The Court’s rationale for its ruling in Brown was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I cannot in good conscience extend this protection to all classes of citizens but one. I am fully aware of condemnation of sin in the Bible, but I am also aware of the numerous other sins in the Bible, which do not get relegated to second-class citizenship. Making homosexuals second-class citizens based on biblical teachings not only violates homosexual’s protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes humans the decider of which sin is greater. This is something I’m not willing to do neither biblically, nor constitutionally.
While on one hand the concept of homosexual marriage is irrefutably Biblical unacceptable, I have yet to find any argument that allows for its valid Constitutional prohibition. Ann Coulter, speaker for one of the largest gay, Republican groups – GOProud, has this to say:
Last week Congress voted to reaffirm our national motto, “in God we trust.” Not surprisingly, President Obama took it upon himself to speak for God when he mocked the measure as “unimportant:”
The false narrative that indicts the GOP for the Obama job wrecking ball, whilst twenty-two jobs bills have been passed by the House (the only GOP controlled arm of the federal government) is getting rather old, or colloquially, “weak sauce.” But back to our national motto.
Liberals love to run their mouths about “separation of church and state” as though it’s the fulcrum that keeps the Republic in balance and have declared civil (litigation) war on any and every Christian reference they can find. The average liberal will also tell you that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution (it’s not, by the way). So of course it’s not surprising that President Obama, in lock-step with the rest of his liberty-loathing lefties, made a point to mock the measure affirming America, at least officially, as a nation who recognizes from whence our liberty is derived – from God, not from government.
Since liberals have done a fantastic job of perverting the “original intent” of our founding fathers, let’s let their words speak for themselves, shall we? What would, oh, say, George Washington have to say on the origins of our liberties and our freedoms? His first inaugural address, as the first president of these great United States is a humbling reminder of the Republic entrusted to us and the legacy of liberty that made America the hope of mankind:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity:Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuousin the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
That we are a nation of providence and intentional design must not be forgotten. It is as much a part of our heritage and legacy as the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the undeniable virtues of liberty and freedom that are the pulse of this great nation. It is for the truth of this legacy that we must continue to fight. It is for freedom, for liberty, for justice, that we must remain a nation who’s trust is not in government, but in God.
Just when I thought the left couldn’t possibly get more ridiculous, along came “Occupy Wall Street.” It was only a matter of time before the lovechild of anti-Americanism and liberalism came of age and as gave us a nonsensical “movement.” Of no surprise to anyone with a brain, the entire spectacle was carefully organized by the far, far left, courtesy of the SEIU, Van Jones and cohorts, as a lame lefty knock-off of an actual spontaneous political movement – the Tea Party.
Despite Occupy Wall Street’s ridiculous demands, incoherent message and purpose, disruptiveness and destructiveness, the media, and a host of the left’s best and brightest quickly gave their blessings and dubbed the movement “understandable.” To overcome the sheer idiocy of the movement and in an attempt to make it more palatable for the viewer at home, the media began comparing the Occupiers with the Tea Party.
Just how dissimilar are these movements? Well, see for yourself:
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Aside from the obvious differences of cohesion, cleanliness, lawlessness, defecating on cop cars, etc. the biggest and most disturbing difference is the issue of patriotism. Occupy Wall Street may be disoriented and silly, but the underlying message is consistently anti-American, anti-freedom, entitlement-minded and pro-socialistic. And because it’s being egged on by every left-wing fanatic with a microphone, and has the backing of every thug-ridden union within strong-arms reach, the Occupy Wall Street movement won’t be dispersing any time soon. I think it’s about time to dust off our Gadsden flags, wear our red, white and blue and remind this country why constitutional America is the innate hope of mankind, don’t you?
While perusing some of my normal news sites, I came across a link to an Obama 2012 campaign site, complete with Dear Leader’s logo. You can check out the link here.
Turns out the website is an attempt to accrue negative feedback on Governor Perry and encourages respondents to submit an email indicating, “which part of Rick Perry’s record you’d most like to see him held accountable for.” So of course I had to respond:
Dear Anti-Perry Propaganda machine,
If your failed candidate of choice had actually taken care of our country, and done even one thing remotely presidential (other than over-utilizing teleprompters to give speeches to first graders) in these passed 2.5 years, there would be no need to spend so much time, resources, and no doubt, taxpayer money or at the very least illegally obtained campaign contributions trying to denigrate an incredibly successful Governor. Had Mr. Obama been the savior you swore he would be, then he would be running on his record of goodness, charity, hope, change and success. But since he hasn’t had any successes to date (based solely on his poor choices), and has left a wake of poverty, joblessness and destruction at every turn, you must now result to attacking everyone else.
Since at this point, ANYONE would be better than Nobel Prize Laureate, Dictator Deposer, Illegal War Intervener, oh, excuse me — Illegal “Kinetic Military Action” Intervener, Globalized Unconstitutional Healthcare, Project Gunrunner Funding, President Downgrade, your feeble attempts to discredit someone with an actual record of success (unlike our incumbent, Dear Leader) are just that — feeble.
While you will continue to do your damnest to smear Governor Perry, or any other GOP frontrunner, there are millions of us who will be there to counter your every lie.
Most sincerely,
Red Head
Is it surprising that President Obama’s re-election campaign is actively seeking out information (from the public) that could damage or defame the current GOP frontrunner? Of course not. It’s par for the course (and he spends enough time on the back nine for us to know). However, the sheer fact that this administration is so brazen in their efforts to squash any competition is in a word: pathetic. Regardless of your candidate of choice, this type of “strategy” is unacceptable and we are sure to see much more of it in the days to come. Because unlike his mentor, Slick Willy, Mr. Obama lacks finesse and political savvy. He’s just too narcissistic for such things.
With 14 months left before the big election day, and arguably the most crucial election in recent American history, we cannot relent. We must continue to fight the good fight and deflect the lies being hurled at those of us who still love America. Oh and feel free to send this campaign atrocity your thoughts. Link’s right here.
No doubt you’ve heard more lectures, I mean speeches, from President Obama (henceforth dubbed “President Downgrade”) than you ever wanted. His non-solutions on the debt, inability to negotiate, lead or even act presidential become more obvious with each passing day. We’ve seen him blame George W. Bush, the Tea Party, Republicans, Conservatives those evil millionaires, billionaires, execrable private jet owners, Big Oil and Big Business (aka corporations). Then, when those excuses became tired and worn (and polls found them ineffective) he moved on to even more juvenile blame-shifting. Of course it wasn’t his ineptitude, foolish policies or spend-thriftiness on crack to blame for our economic weakness, unprecedented credit downgrade, ridiculously high unemployment rate or general state of misery, no, no, it was the Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring and now the newest culprit — bad luck. Really, everyone and everything that did not include B-A-R-A-C-K-O-B-A-M-A was tossed under Greyhound One.
Meanwhile, across the pond…
London was burning, literally. Seems as though the love child of Socialism and Nanny-statism produced a nasty little offspring. One content to destroy an entire city (or two or three) over a slight decrease in welfare benefits. Because after all, their parents (Socialism and Nanny-statism) ensured them they were entitled to everything their little hearts desired and they’d never have to lift a figer. Who can forget this lovely little BBC interview?
When asked why they were looting, destroying and stealing, their response sounded oddly familiar:
Rich people Conservatives Government People who own businesses
Hmm, I wondered, where had I heard this before? Then it hit me. President Downgrade. President Downgrade, just like the London rioters, blames the wealthy, Conservatives, the Government and business owners (a.k.a. people believing in the American Dream, success, freedom, capitalism and individual responsibility) for the ails of America. Of course I’m not surprised. But it certainly paints a bleak picture for these great United States if we do not shift gears and make a hard right turn. We’re already seeing the fruits of years of liberal toil that created an entire generation and society within the U.S. who genuinely believe the government will satisfy their every need, even birth control. Conveniently, of course, they forget that those evil businesses and wealthy people are the very ones that pay into a system that supports their lackadaisicalness. But that’s just an inconvenient little fact to them.
Our time is short and the 2012 elections will literally make or break our beloved America. Now is the time to stand up, stand firm and hold the line for freedom, liberty and individualism. Every single value that has made America truly exceptional is under attack from the likes of Socialist ideology and Nanny-statism. We must stand and fight, or watch our country slowly go the way of President Downgrade, and his merry little party of London rioters.
