Pushing his agenda for higher taxes on “the rich,” President Obama kicked off his December 6 speech in Kansas by saying his Kansas grandparents “shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression.”
In fact, the 1929 stock market crash turned into the long-running Great Depression because the counterproductive soak-the-rich policies of the federal government hadn’t “triumphed” in reversing the downturn.
The December 10 Yahoo/ABC News presidential debate in Iowa revealed a strong swing of candidates over to the issues and leadership of Representative Ron Paul. "I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition," Paul told moderators George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer. "Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul sparred over the issue of Gingrich's $1.6 million in consulting fees for mortgage giant Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2007 in an ABC News Iowa debate December 10.
Asked why his campaign released an advertisement accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy," Rep. Paul stressed that Gingrich "received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. Now, Freddie Mac is essentially a government organization. While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac gets bailed out by the taxpayer, so in a way, Newt, I think you probably got some of our taxpayers' money." He added, "I think this is something that people ought to know about."
Paul, whose advertisement stressed that Gingrich had switched positions on many issues, suggested that he alone had been consistent in defending the U.S. Constitution over many years in Congress: "If we're looking for a consistent position, I think there'd be a little bit of trouble of anybody competing with me for consistency."
Senator Rand Paul, a self-described representative of the Tea Party, worries that the small progress toward the restoration of limited government may be "set back" by the upcoming Republican presidential nomination.
In a letter to the Des Moines Register, the son of GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul set forth his two goals for striving to protect the "conservative movement" from being hampered by the nomination of a candidate with "a different set of ideas and values."
The first of Senator Paul's two goals is to "prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next." Although certainly a priority for the Senator, the rest of the letter is devoted to details of his second goal: electing a "constitutional[ly] conservative president in 2012."
An urgent issue for the Republican Party and the United States is the election of a president who will remain faithful to his Oath of Office from the moment his hand is placed on the Bible on Inauguration Day.
While Senator Paul admits that anyone on the current roster of Republican candidates would be an improvement over Barack Obama, he calls out the two men leading in the polls — Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — for not representing "the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs...."
Nothing like politics more readily reveals man’s intellectual and moral vices. If ever we were in need of proof of the truth of this proposition, the Republican Party’s presidential primary race supplies it in spades.
The Democratic Party’s penchant for duplicity has long been noted by most readers of this column. That it seeks “the fundamental transformation” of our country into something bordering on a socialist utopia will be denied only by those who choose to characterize its prime objective in other terms. The ugly truth is that the Democratic Party of which President Barack H. Obama is the titular head abhors the America conceived by our Founders, an America within which liberty is the cardinal value. The United States Constitution — the secret to this liberty — is a burden from which Democrats seek relief, for as long as it remains, it stands as a monumental impediment to their agenda, a systematic program that involves nothing more or less than the repeal of the Revolution of 1776.
A liberal Congressman who barely managed to get reelected last time around still pursues an agenda displeasing to his district, so Republicans are already getting ready to get him thrown out next time.
In 2010, the torrent of anger against statist intrusion into areas Americans still consider sacrosanct swept away scores of Democratic incumbents. So strong was the enthusiasm of the Tea Party, so energized was the Republican electorate, that even deeply entrenched House Democrats were dislodged. Long time leftist titan James Oberstar of Minnesota, Ike Skelton of Missouri, and John Spratt of South Carolina were but a few who fell. In all, Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, 6 in the Senate, a majority of governorships, and 680 additional seats in state legislatures.
Despite historic success nationwide, Republicans would come up short against Congressman Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.), a liberal politician in a not-so-liberal district. His margin of victory was razor thin, though — a mere 592 votes out of almost 200,000 cast. Bishop’s Houdini-esque escape act underscores the significance of a single voter’s participation.
With the 2012 race on the horizon, Bishop will once again face Randy Altschuler, a successful businessman whose message of fiscal restraint, reform, and job creation should resonate with voters who’ve been straight-jacketed by the economy. The Democratic political machine in Suffolk County, as one should expect, takes a different view, dismissing Altschuler’s appeal to NY-1 voters.
I was out grocery shopping when the news on the giant store monitor hit: Once again, there had been shootings at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Virginia, 40 miles southwest of Roanoke. The last bloodbath there was in 2007, involving some 30 students at the hands of Seung Hui Cho, who apparently fell through the cracks of an, as-usual, clueless mental health system.
This time only two had been shot (as of 5 p.m., Thursday, December 8), including a campus security cop. The shooter is either dead or at large — law-enforcement officers are unsure at this time whether the second body found is the shooter’s.
But as everyone knows, ever since Columbine in Littleton, Colorado, school shootings and other violent acts, such as rapes on school property, seemed to spur a rash of similar crimes, despite draconian security measures: pro forma backpack checks; random locker searches; lockdowns (reminiscent of a prison setting) at the merest suggestion of mayhem; police roaming rooftops; bans on any depiction that might resemble a gun, insignia, or even a patriotic hat; mandatory cellphones, distributed to students to alert them to the latest mayhem; and more. All for naught.
Since the early days of this Republic, various of our Founding Fathers were accused of being irreligious, impious, and even atheist. Those accusations are unsupportable lies told by those whose own “tolerance” of the faithful informs not only their personal agendas, but taints and twists their biographical descriptions of the Founders, as well.
Often, for example, most of the most renowned and revered of the men of the founding generation are labeled “deists.” Deism was a theological philosophy popular in the 18th century, especially among the stratum of men associated with the Enlightenment. Stated simply, a deist believes in God, but considers Him an absent master, unconcerned with the quotidian comings and goings of His earthly creations.
Every one of the Founders listed in the following survey (with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin) would reject such an appellation and in fact never referred to themselves as deists (again, with a passing reference to himself made by Franklin).
While the men mentioned herein held different interpretations of the characteristics of God, of His Son, Jesus Christ, and of the most correct way to worship them, they unanimously and sincerely believed that God was an all-powerful Creator and providentially interceded for mankind, particularly in the quest for liberty and the freedom of conscience that permitted diversity of worship
Barack Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, has certainly made waves. Well-received by the mainstream media, The Baltimore Sun wrote that the President has finally found “his voice” while the ever-dour Bill Press said that Obama was “channeling Teddy Roosevelt.” Yet if talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is correct, the President was channeling someone also long-dead but a lot more red. The radio giant asserts that Obama has “outed” himself, in that he has “announced to the world in no uncertain terms that he is a socialist, if not a Marxist.”
What did Obama say that brought cheers from the Left and jeers from the Right? Among other things, he stated that our relatively free enterprise system not only “doesn’t work” — “it has never worked.”
You are a Republican. You consider yourself a “conservative,” maybe even a “Tea Partier.” But whatever you prefer to call yourself, the truth of the matter is that there are some basic facts of contemporary American political life that you detest.
First, the federal government has grown well beyond anything that our Founding Fathers could have envisioned. Today, it has come to assume authority over virtually every aspect of your life.
Inseparable from this first fact is another: You have far less liberty as an American than you should have under the U.S. Constitution. The exponential expansion of the federal government over the decades has been inevitably attended by an equally exponential diminution of liberty.
Third, both major national parties, Republicans and Democrats, “conservatives” and “liberals” alike, in spite of their assurances to the contrary, have continued to feed the Leviathan that is our federal government.
You want change. You want real change.