The Trouble With Santorum

Image from newsophile.com

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.

 

 

Occupy Unmasked

 

The crew at Citizens United created another awesome documentary exposing the left. This time they’ve tackled the Occupy movement.  Take a look:

Contrary to public opinion, Occupy is not just a bunch of hippies and out of work college grads with nothing better to do than camp in public parks. Occupy is a concerted, well organized movement from the bowels of the radical left.

With the help of high power players (including an endorsement from President Obama) and the lap dog media, Occupy gained national and even global prominence.  The “movement” received overwhelming support from the left.  Occupy atrocities (rape, death, antisemitism, destruction, disease, etc.) were hidden and ignored by the media — the same media that worked diligently to smear the Tea Party as an unruly band of racist insurgents.

Add this film to the “must watch” list, not only to see the truth behind the Occupy movement but to gain a better understanding of how the left operates, their current social agenda and the measures they are willing to take (and are taking) to destroy the fundamental principles of this country.

Occupy Unmasked is set to release this spring.

Yes, there is a war on women…

…and it’s been waged by the left. 

The latest liberal meme suggests the GOP is up to its usual antics – repressing women and trying to steal their hard earned rights.  Listening to left, you’d think the GOP was trying to abolish the 19th amendment.  But this whole “war on women” revolves around one thing – what the government will subsidize.

Rather than focus on actual women’s issues, the left single-handedly put the feminist movement in reverse, and floored it. Somehow women’s issues no longer include income equality, equality of opportunity, intellectual respect etc. etc. etc. No, no. Now every woman (we’re told) should be in a tizzy about the government’s opinion of their uterus.

MoveOn.org compiled a list of the 10 most “shocking attacks from the GOP” in this fictitious War on Women. Six of the ten deal specifically with “reproductive rights“ while the remaining four deal with government assistance.  Even Stopthewaronwomen.com addresses one issue – abortion, and invites site visitors to assist in stopping the attacks on Planned Parenthood. Yes.  That’s the war, government funding of “women’s health.”  And take a look at Move On‘s latest attempt to frame The War:

When did feminism morph into a government subsidy free for all? I’m sure the women who chained themselves to street lamps and suffered through hunger strikes for women’s suffrage would be thrilled to know the idyllic modern feminists is one who begs Congress for “free” birth control.

Of course the self-professed feminists of today will tell you feminism is in decline thanks to the GOP’s efforts to squash reproductive rights, then run off to join their gal pals in a Slutwalk. No longer is feminism (at least the left’s perverted version of it) about independent and intellectually liberated women, it’s about government subsidized sex.

While the conservative movement looks at strong, trailblazing women as role models and inspiration of what women can accomplish, to the left we’re nothing more than a uterus. A uterus with a vote.

There Are No Conservatives in the Race, So Stop Looking

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.

________

This post originally appeared on The Political Operative, January 27, 2012.

In Which We Mull the Constitutionality of Gay Marriage

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:

 

What do you think?

In God we trust

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.

This Whole ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Thing is Not So Cute Anymore

CAM CARDOW Copyright 2011 Cagle Cartoons

Arrest? Eh, Who Cares? It’s Not Like I Was Really Wanting a Job Anyway…

Remember when getting arrested was a bad thing?  Hellbent on ensuring they have the most idiotic “movement” in recent history, the “Occupy Wall Street” geniuses have taken to taunting police and refusing to leave their little camping trip in order to receive their protest badge of courage – hand cuffs (or zip ties for large events like this).

As if they haven’t done enough damage to the parks, small businesses and other public property in lower Manhattan (and nation-wide), the Occupiers, still obstinate, prepared to sacrifice their legal records for the cause – whatever that is.  To prepare their fellow dimwits for impending arrest, the OccupyWallStNYC Twitter group tweeted the following:

#GeneralAssembly at #OccupyWashingtonSquare giving legal number 212-679-6018 in case of arrest. #ows

I personally enjoy the irony of legal assistance, en masse, ready and waiting for a group that is purportedly anti “the man.” In any case…the number tweeted to the loyal Occupiers is the number to Democratic Underground (a liberal, progressive message board of sorts).

So, I called.  I mean, it’s always good to know who to call in case I decide to go and get myself arrested in New York City, right?  On the other end of the line, was a very friendly, very chatty man, who answered the phone as “Legal.”  I asked what I should do in the event of arrest and was advised to remember the phone number (either memorize it or write it on my arm), plead the fifth – even if I wasn’t properly mirandized, if I was grabbed or pepper sprayed - well, he couldn’t help me there since he’d never encountered that, and that if I didn’t have any quarters I could call collect because they would pay the costs of collect calls.  I was also told to be prepared to spend 24 – 36 hours in detainment since final arraignments were not until 1:00 PM tomorrow.  Good to know.

Lastly, I asked who I had called since I had only seen the number on twitter.  He said they were a volunteer group with the People’s Legal Collective who worked to put “legal observers on the street.”  He also indicated they worked with the National Lawyers Guild.

So, what are these organizations?

The People’s Legal Collective

Left-wing of course. They describe themselves as follows:

Since the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, there has been a small movement of activist law collectives. These groups are usually non-lawyer centered and work as part of the movement for social justice.  Law collectives are made up mostly or entirely of non-lawyers.

Essentially, they’re a conglomerate that puts you in touch with the ‘right’ progressive legal activist group depending on your cause. Among their affiliates are Malcom X Grassroots and The New York Civil Liberties Union. They reiterate they do not provide legal advice, but they do offer training on subjects like knowing your rights on the street, immigrant rights on the street and during protests, video taping on the street and navigating the legal system.  Interestingly enough, they also providing trainings ahead of the DNC and RNC conventions, it’s almost as if they expected some type of “spontaneous” ruckus…

National Lawyers Guild

Even more left-wing.  Their history (in their words):

The NLG-NYC has a proud history. For over 65 years, the NLG has provided support for the struggles for racial justice, civil rights and workers’ rights. The NLG was the first organization to send lawyers to the South to support the fight for desegregation and voting rights; the NLG was the first national bar organization to oppose the Vietnam War.

In recent years the NLG-NYC has led the effort to provide legal support for the major anti-war and anti-globalization demonstrations; following the tragic events of September 11th, NLG members in NYC and across the country have joined the fight to stop abuses of governmental power such as those contained in the Patriot Act; and the fight to protect immigrants and racial minorities from scapegoating and racial profiling.

Remember the screaming mimi, I mean, the protester who’s foot was allegedly run over by an NYPD motorcycle?

Well, turns out he’s a ‘legal observer’ for the National Lawyers Guild.  Legal Observers are deployed by left-wing organization to keep an eye on law enforcement officials and their treatment of those engaging in ‘civil disobedience.’ They must be legally blind since they never seem to notice how their beloved freedom fighters taunt police, security or anyone opposing their cause, but I digress.

Why Any of This Matters

Of course it’s no surprise that this “movement” has the support of every left-wing group currently in existence, nor is it a surprise that it has received the backing of unions, the media and the Democrats.  What’s surprising is the meticulous organization behind these ‘Occupy’ shenanigans (as illustrated above).

The first Occupy protest started off as a silly, and utterly ridiculous protest consisting of a few smelly, nonsensical hippies, but is obviously something much, much more.  Of course I don’t mean to imply that the protesters as a whole understand what it is they’re protesting or what exactly they’re a part of – we’ve seen enough interviews to know that’s not the case. But they are being used by the left as a tool for destabilization.

In a recent interview, Andrew Breitbart confirmed this to be true:

The longer the Bloomberg’s of this country allow this ‘movement’ to continue, the worse it gets and the more empowered they become.  When they have the endorsement of the President, how much more legitimacy (at least in their warped minds) can they get? These are not just lazy, recent college grads getting together to start trouble in the absence of employment, this is the awakening of the sleeping leftist giant.  No longer is it hiding its nasty face behind platitudes and pundits, it’s out in full force, mask-off, ready to fight and ready to ‘transform’ America in to the dystopian disaster it’s always dreamed of.  The left has been plotting and positioning for an opportunity like this, and now they have it.  Make no mistake – this is intentional, every single bit of it.

While I’m always a skeptic and never an alarmist (unless there’s a cockroach involved), and as much as it pains me to say…we must take this ‘movement’ seriously and we must do everything we can to fight this ideological nightmare. I shudder to think what could happen if we don’t.  We’ve been successful in thwarting other liberal attacks, and we can win this battle too.  We are the only barrier between the maniacal liberal monster and the America we cherish. If not us, who?

Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party, the Illustrated Edition

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?

President Downgrade’s “Texans Against Perry” Campaign

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.

President Downgrade, the London Rioter

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.