Another view: Ryan’s pick plays directly into Obama’s hand

Photo credit: Majordomo2012

Mitt Romney’s pick of a Democratic punching bag, Paul Ryan, as his vice president, enables Obama and the Democrats to shift the debate from jobs and the economy to pushing grandma off a cliff. The latter actually took the form of an anti-Republican ad on Medicare from a “progressive” group supporting Obama. It has now been resurrected for dramatic effect.

Bulletin News, a good summary of how the major media are framing the campaign, reports, “The consensus media view on both TV and print is that Ryan’s selection is likely to spark a prolonged debate on his budget plan, diverting the public’s attention away from the economy and thus boosting the President’s reelection hopes.”

In order to counter this liberal media bias, Romney and Ryan went on one of the top liberal shows, the CBS News “60 Minutes” program, to defend their proposed reform of Medicare. It was nearly the equivalent of Sarah Palin going on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric to discuss her reading habits. As Palin herself has written, that was done at the suggestion of a John McCain adviser, Nicole Wallace, who used to work for Couric and CBS News. It was a trap designed to carry on a narrative about what the liberal media wanted the public to believe about the Republican ticket. That narrative then was that Palin was not qualified to be vice-president.

The narrative has now been changed from jobs to entitlements, a shift that could cost the GOP many thousands of votes from seniors scared of losing their benefits. Liberals are gleeful. Many conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, are falling in line behind the Republican ticket.

The problem in 2008 went beyond advisers, as the HBO film “Game change” made clear. Despite elements of Palin-bashing, it accurately depicted McCain as a candidate who did not want to take the gloves off when attacking Obama. McCain was shown being offended when Republicans suggested Obama and/or his associates were anti-American or had Muslim sympathies.

Read more from this story HERE.

 

In God America Must Trust

Photo credit: kevin dooley

Once upon a time, in what now seems like a far-distant land, a young President inspired America with the words: “Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Today, despite the fact that their country is rapidly approaching $16 trillion in debt, there are millions of Americans wondering when they are going to get “their fair share” of what their country “owes them”. Thanks to continued distortion and misrepresentation of the facts by those in whom they have misplaced their trust, these Americans are clueless to the reality that the “hope and change” they were promised will never materialize, never come to fruition.

Not one single time in the history of human civilization has a nation taxed and spent its way into prosperity. That today so many Americans continue to believe they are “entitled” to “their fair share of free stuff” proves that P.T. Barnum was right many times over.

Americans have watched a “progressive” big government take over the banking industry, use taxpayer funds to purchase auto companies, seize control of the healthcare system, waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on failed “green energy” “investments” and usurp the student loan process. While this was taking place, the nation plunged deeper into debt, had its credit rating downgraded, suffered continued job losses, experienced stubbornly high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, higher food prices, rising energy costs, the abandonment of border security, a reduction in national security and growing disrespect for America on the international stage.

How did America get from where it was in 1960 to where it is now?

America’s Founding Fathers have been discredited and disrespected, its Constitution has been assaulted and ignored, and most importantly, reverence and respect for God is no longer viewed as a national necessity.

America is the land of Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust. If Americans are to continue to hold the truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, Americans must return to reliance upon their Creator. America must restore being one nation, under God.

Americans need to overcome the wrongheaded notion that “progressive” big government will endow them with anything but a future of slavery to a tyrannical State.

America’s Founding Fathers fought a war for freedom from this form of slavery. They risked everything that they had. They risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And while doing so, they established the idea that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That is not freedom from religion. That is freedom of religion. It states that America will never be a theocracy.

George Washington, historically remembered as the father of his country said: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

We know the names and faces of the famous Founders. But many anonymous Patriot souls died in that fight against tyranny so that future generations could enjoy the fruits of their struggle.

A new generation of Americans must now declare to themselves, their fellow Americans and to the world that they would rather die free than live as a slave to “progressive” big government. That they will exercise their right to worship as they see fit, and defend the right of every other American to do likewise.

Another inspiring President once said: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

************************

Michael Fell is a former MCA recording artist from the seminal punk rock era who toured America from coast to coast. Today, he’s a leading voice in the L.A. Tea Party movement, active since the February 2009 inception. Mr. Fell currently chairs the Westwood Tea Party, is a founding member of the L.A. Metro Tea Party Coalition, serves as the Vice Chairman of the Westside Republicans Club in L.A. CA, and is an elected Republican delegate to the L.A. 47th AD Central Committee. He’s been Campaign Manager for a primary winning Congressional candidate, as well as Santa Monica and L.A. City Council candidates. Mr. Fell is a contributing writer for https://conservativedailynews.com/, https://rightwingnews.com/, https://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/, https://beforeitsnews.com, https://www.redcounty.com/, https://www.uspatriotpac.com and, https://westsiderepublicans.com/. His opinions on today’s news events and political climate can be found on his blog: https://mjfellright.wordpress.com/

Orwell: Why Politicians Make Bad Farmers

Photo credit: Karen Horton

Is political self-interest truly nobler than economic self-interest? That’s the question famous Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman put to liberal television talk show host Phil Donahue in 1980 at another economically perilous time for the United States. If we, as a nation, have learned nothing else these last four years, hopefully we have learned the answer is an unequivocal “no.” A trip to George Orwell’s Animal Farm will make the point.

As you may recall (Is Animal Farm still required high school reading?), the story begins on Manor Farm, which is owned and operated by a man named Mr. Jones. Like all businessmen, Jones’ goal is to maximize profits. Life goes along fairly well until Jones loses a lot of money in a lawsuit. He becomes disheartened, taking to drink, and fails to care for his farm as he once did. The animals grow increasingly discontent with Jones’ management of the farm.

The prize boar Old Major (a Frank Marshall Davis-like thinker) seizes upon the opportunity to call all the animals together and voice his long-standing dream of the animals taking over the farm from Jones. Major expounds that they would run it as one for the benefit of all, not to make profit for Jones or any other man. His eloquence sets his audience on fire with the possibility of fundamentally transforming farm life.

Major dies before his vision can be realized. However, younger boars take up the mantle and begin to teach and to organize others on the farm so when the opportunity comes, they will be ready. Finally, after a particularly bad day when Jones becomes so drunk he fails to feed the animals, they rebel and force the farmer from his land.

At first, there is exhilaration in the air. The animals adopt commandments based on Major’s vision, which first and foremost guarantees that all animals should receive equal amounts of resources. However, slowly, almost imperceptibly, things begin to change. One boar, Napoleon, consolidates power on to himself. He institutes rules based on his political self-interest. He ends up living high on the hog, so to speak, with a much more privileged life than Jones ever had.

One of Napoleon’s ill-conceived, pork-spending initiatives, supported by increased taxes and deficit spending, is building a windmill (green energy). The windmill is supposedly intended to help better the lives of everyone. But when it’s finally completed, it’s used to line the pockets of those who support the regime (i.e., Solyndra-style crony capitalism).

A ruling class, which lives off the fruits of others’ labor, arises to support Napoleon’s reign. The overall wealth of the farm declines as taxes rise and worker productivity decreases. However, whenever anyone questions the wisdom of the decisions being made, Squealer, Napoleon’s spin-doctor, is always ready to cite some statistic “proving” how things are much better than they were under the greedy Jones. “You don’t want to go back to those days, do you?” he asks.

Milton Friedman could have easily predicted this outcome: He had witnessed it first-hand when he worked as an economist for President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Friedman watched the federal government expand greatly in order to use political power to control the economy and spread the wealth around. FDR increased taxes on the “rich” to a top marginal rate of 79% and on corporations (even their supposed “undistributed profits”) to try to pay for all the new agencies. He also instituted our largest entitlement program, Social Security. His actions were guided by the belief that political self-interest is nobler than economic self-interest.

The results were disappointing.

Read more from this story HERE.

Where do Ron and Rand Paul fit in at the GOP convention?

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has announced an initial list of seven prominent Republicans who will speak at the party’s national convention in Tampa later this month.

But the list, which includes five current and former governors, a U.S. senator, and a former secretary of state does not include either Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) or his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The list will be built out in the coming weeks, but it’s still worth exploring where the Pauls – two figures with intense national followings – fit in at Mitt Romney’s nominating convention. They can’t be ignored entirely, but featuring them too prominently is also a risky proposition for the GOP.

For Republicans, there are both benefits and drawbacks to including either of the Pauls on the list of convention speakers. Generating enthusiasm among a vocal base of activists is an argument in favor of promoting them. Ron Paul attracted strong support at numerous GOP presidential straw polls in 2011 and his loyal legion of fans often travel across the country to back him. Before Romney won the straw poll at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Paul was the victor there two years in a row.

One could also make a compelling argument to include the younger Paul as a speaker. Rand Paul’s unlikely 2010 Senate campaign victory, which the opthamologist won in the face of establishment opposition, has made him a popular figure in the tea party — and one who is well-positioned to inherit the mantle of his father, who is retiring at the end of the current Congress.

Ron Paul’s supporters, meanwhile, are eager for him to have a visible presence at the convention. Throughout the 2012 primary campaign, the former presidential candidate continued push for delegate support in individual states brought the Texas congressman within range of securing a speaking slot at the convention on his own. He ultimately fell short in Nebraska, where he failed to get the number delegates he needed to guarantee a spot.

Read more from this story HERE.

We must fight the emerging drone culture

Photo credit: An Honorable German

As instruments of war, pilotless aircraft have already become essential. The Washington Post reported last year that more than 50 countries had developed or purchased drones to use in surveillance — and that many of those nations were working to weaponize the aircraft. Deadly missiles fired from drones are among the most effective U.S. weapons against the Taliban and al Qaida.

There has been far too little discussion of the moral calculus involved in using flying robots as tools of assassination. At the very least, the whole thing should leave us uneasy. Collateral damage — the killing of innocents — can be minimized but not eliminated. And even if only “bad” people are killed, this isn’t war as we’ve traditionally understood it. Drone attacks are more like state-sponsored homicide.

But similar complaints were raised when tanks replaced horses on the battlefield, and nothing stopped the mechanization of war. Drones allow governments to achieve military objectives without putting the lives of soldiers, sailors and pilots at risk. Robots do not bleed and do not vote, so they will do much of the fighting for us.

The thing about drones, though, is that the technology required to deploy them is nowhere near as daunting as is needed, say, to develop nuclear weapons. As they become more commonplace in the arsenals of the world, we will surely begin seeing them used by “rogue” nations — or even by nonstate actors such as terrorists and drug smugglers.

If Colombian cartels are able to build dope-smuggling submarines, when will Mexican crime lords begin sending up surveillance drones to identify unpatrolled sectors of the U.S. border? Soon, I reckon, if it’s not already happening.

Read more from this story HERE.

DeMint and Inhofe: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty, Liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism

For years, liberals and misguided State Department officials have pushed for the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty would convey ownership of the oceans to a United Nations agency and give international bureaucrats veto authority over U.S. naval operations and could force the United States to comply with international carbon emissions caps.

Last week, we defeated LOST by securing commitments to ensure it cannot gain the 67 votes needed for ratification.

However, no sooner had the 34th Republican senator signed a letter opposing LOST than the surrender of American sovereignty was put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government.

With LOST dead, the new treaties being promoted to take its place include the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion. Also, the Obama administration has begun negotiations on a new U.N. treaty to create international gun control rules that could slowly erode our Second Amendment.

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Read more from this story HERE.

 

Amoral Quest for Power Where Truth is Irrelevant

In the first Harry Potter adventure, a pithy statement is attributed to the villain, Lord Voldemort. He described his own worldview thusly: “There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it.”

Now, that serves as a fairly reasonable motto for the political Left in our day. It is the functional ethic of all liberalism. Oh, to be sure, they’ll prattle on like tonsured prelates about what everyone else should do to live in a manner that is good and right. Also, they’ll preach for days in breathless indignation over the evils they see in their opponents.

But behind the curtain, good and evil are nothing more than useful labels to them. They can’t be more than that, and the reason is that liberalism is the politicized denial of God and His laws. Deny that God’s commandments are, in fact, binding on people, and you’ve effectively done away with the concepts of good and evil.

By asserting that point, I am only repeating what the foremost atheistic philosophers have always acknowledged and taught. In atheism, there is no reason for maintaining categories like good and evil, since there is no transcendent law-giver or judge.

I bring all this up because it is this quote from Voldemort that has bounced around in my head since ABC news famously jumped the gun last weekend in announcing that the Aurora/Batman shooter may have had Tea Party ties.

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: kevin dooley

Blaming the Tea Party for Mayhem: “Journalistic Malpractice”

ABC News’ Brian Ross speculated this morning that the alleged shooter who attacked a Batman premier in Colorado might be a member of the Tea Party. His suggestion — since retracted by ABC — continues a trend of media figures wrongly tying such tragedies to the Tea Party since 2010.

In February 2010, Joseph Stack became a Tea Partier for purposes of the media after he committed suicide by flying his small airplane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. New York Magazine, after reading his online suicide note/manifesto that day, immediately declared that “a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally.” The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart added that “his alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.”

Neither Capehart or NYMAG mentioned that Stack quoted the Communist Manifesto approvingly and denounced capitalism as a system that teaches, “From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” That would seem to put him at odds with the Tea Partiers, who often attacked Obamacare as a socialist government program.

A few months later, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the failed attempt to bomb Times Square was carried out by someone “with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” The would-be bomber, a Pakistani immigrant, said in court “If I’m given 1,000 lives I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah.”Most famously, politicians and media figures attacked Sarah Palin and the Tea Party after the Tucson shooting that wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, R-Ariz., and killed six others. Palin was faulted for having put “crosshairs” over Giffords’ district when she was targeting Democratic seats that might be vulnerable to Republican takeover. Even a year after the shooting, Democratic National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., was willing to cite the shooting as proof that politicians need to “tone things down, particularly in light of” the Tucson shooting. “I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement,” she said.

Read more from this story HERE.

Publisher’s Note:  Please also read the Wall Street Journal’s excellent article, Extreme Prejudice.  It gives a brief background on the innocent Jim Holmes (he “is a 52-year-old Hispanic conservative who joined the Tea Party after becoming disillusioned with the Republican party. . . . He disconnected his telephone and says that he is worried about members of his family who might be contacted by the media”) and notes that

There was one other factor, and this is what makes the ABC error not just amateurish but sinister: the innocent Jim Holmes’s involvement with the Tea Party. For more than three years liberal journalists have falsely portrayed the Tea Party as racist and potentially violent. After the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., speculation immediately began that the suspect was a Tea Partier. Even after it was proved that he was not, the New York Times published a despicable editorial blaming conservatives anyway.

 

The Media’s double standard: Fort Hood vs. Aurora, Colorado

National Review columnist Mark Steyn on Friday criticized attempts to psychoanalyze accused Aurora, Colo., “Batman” shooter James Holmes and any ties he may have to political organizations, as ABC’s Brian Ross attempted earlier in the day.

Guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Steyn contrasted media coverage of the Colorado shooting to the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, committed by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

“Nobody ever says, ‘Where did Maj. Hasan get the ideas that made him want to stand on a table shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and gun down a bunch of people?’” Steyn said. “That is an isolated one-off. It doesn’t have anything to do with any books he might have read or any spiritual advisers he might have listened to. That’s an entirely insulated one-off.”

The incident in Aurora, Colo., evoked a more immediate reaction, with several Twitter users suggesting that Rush Limbaugh’s commentary on “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises” may have motivated the shooting.

“But when it comes to some guy of no known political affiliation, who may have no political affiliations whatsoever, but when he decides to walk into a motion picture theater and kill a bunch of people, then the first thing that has to happen is that has to be pinned on right-wing talk radio and Fox News and all kinds of other stuff,” said Steyn. “This is pathetic. It’s abysmal. It’s not worth talking about.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: HonestReporting.com

Media bias on steroids: Hiding utter GM Volt failure, channeling for Obama

The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama – allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election.

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every turn covering up – rather than covering – the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the charging cable? All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out.

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: visnup