Conservatives Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory
When I was a kid, there was a very simply rule of conduct, people in polite society did NOT talk about politics, religion, sex, or money in public.
In fact, unless you lived in the proverbial “one horse town,” your neighbors probably wouldn’t have any idea what church you attended.
A man’s vote or support for a candidate was a private matter and people who wore support pins did so only at political rallies.
That old saying, “No one knows what goes on behind closed doors,” was both a warning to mind your own business about my private life and a pledge that I won’t get involved in your private life.
Your salary, how much money you had in the bank (or under your mattress), and how much you spent or saved was simply private and personal information and most people had no idea how a person lived their financial life until the reading of the will.
Today, Republicans claim to adhere to the values that made America great. Yet, second only to blaming liberals and Obama for the destruction of America, conservatives do their darnedest to play the self defeating game of exclusionist politics all based on rejecting those basic rules of polite society Read more
Michele Bachmann Channels Her Inner Pelosi: We have to extend the Patriot Act to Find Out What’s In It.
Michele Bachmann had quite a gig going for a while. Attractive, well spoken, sharp witted with a friendly delivery, Bachmann had been a Tea Party darling from the beginning of the movement. Less polarizing than Palin, many considered Bachmann to be the best chance for a conservative Presidential contender.
The first Republican woman elected to the US House of Representatives from Minnesota, Bachmann has spent the past decade propelling herself as a smiling, non-threatening, conservative, constitutionally based politician.
But as is so often the case in politics, especially in the age of instant messages and Face book profile updates, Bachmann let the “small government” mask drop for a second, revealing the establishment Republican juggernaut beneath.
One of the issues near and dear to the hearts of Tea Party patriots nationwide is the repelation of any act whose existence is not sanctioned by the Constitution. Top on the list after ObamaCare is the rejection of the Patriot Act.
The controversial act was rushed into existence under the threat that without it, the country would be over run with terrorist. It represented the largest rights grab in American history. An understandable knee jerk reaction to 9-11, the powers that were extended to the government seemed like Read more
The Bogus Blame Game
Shortly after a crazed gunman opened fire on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and almost two dozen others in the immediate area, the mainstream media and the professional Left began to blame conservatives for creating a climate of anger and hatred. We did not even know the gunman’s name or even if there were co-conspirators, but the Left went into full spin mode to blame, not the gunman, but conservatives. Politico reported that a “veteran Democratic operative” advised President Obama “to deftly pin this on the tea partiers.” This blame game is stunningly dishonest and shockingly opportunistic and cynical. Read more
Statist or Constitutionalist
Which type of government do you want? That is the question that confronts American politics today. Do we want Statist or a Constitutionalist government? What is the difference between them? A Constitutionalist wants the limited government that lives by the checks and balances in our Constitution. A Statist believes that our Constitution is a “living document” and it can be used to justify the creation of any government program imaginable. Here is an explanation of how we now have a Statist government and how we can bring back the Constitutional government we once had.
A Statist’s hero is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A Constitutionalist’s hero is James Madison. Both men were Presidents of the United States. Madison wrote most of our Constitution. FDR threw it away. How did FDR throw away our Constitution? He did so when he changed the meaning, the understanding of an important phrase in our Constitution. This phrase can be found twice in our Constitution. The first time is in the preamble but the most important time is in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution. It is in Article I Section 8 that the enumerated powers of our government are found. What are those two words?… Read more
The 2010 Election What it was, what it is & what it will be
What the election of 2010 was, was the people of this country telling our elected officials two things about their “solutions” to our problems 1) they don’t work and 2) they actually make our problems worse! Government programs in the long run do not work. They are at best a temporary fix to our problems. The primary purpose of the temporary fix is to get the politicians who created them reelected. The essence of the Tea Party Movement is the knowledge that it is not the job of Congress to solve our country’s problems!
Our Constitution was not written for our government to solve our problems!
What the election of 2010 is, is the election of those who do represent how the average American feels about our government. A feeling of being tired of high taxes, of being regulated in everything we do, and of being lied to. We are tired of the lies that a new government program, which is often the creation of another program Read more
What is government’s role in social programs?
A former Bush administration official, Michael Gerson, threw that idea out in the November issue of Christianity Today in support of the welfare state. That might explain why Gerson’s great, great grandchildren will not be U.S. citizens. Following this strategy, there will not be a United States.
“The mainstream Christian reflection has concluded that government has an important role in pursuing the common good,” he says. “It plays an important role in defending the weak and the vulnerable.”
I guess the decision makers forgot to ask me before they came to this decision. Had they, I might have suggested this country adopted a separation of church and state principle long ago. Perhaps we should stick to it.
To an assumption that welfare programs are illegal because they are not in the Constitution Gerson says, cutting the programs “would be an act of great cruelty.” He is right, unless the programs are replaced by something better.
When Franklin Roosevelt brought us socialism through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid he mortgaged our future. When Lyndon Johnson multiplied these programs with his Great Society in the 1960s, he destroyed families. Now it is pay day.
America is better than the two-party government that has created this mess. We…
It Seems Obama had a REASON for omitting Creator
In only 34 days, Obama has managed to eliminate any reference to “Creator” from any recitation made of the Declaration of Independence. America’s framers designed a concept, that all men have been “endowed by their Creator” with “certain unalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But in 3 separate occasions in that period, Obama eliminated any reference to a “Creator”.
The real answer may be a little difficult to determine. Odds are that using a teleprompter, which Obama uses very frequently during speeches, may give a hint. He reads over them carefully before each speech. The same kind of omission of the key statement of the Declaration is just not done. It was willful, and it was deliberate.
Even the American Thinker believes it probably was that Obama intentionally ignored his teleprompter, which he was told to do several times. His speech—issued in both Spanish and English—had neither version mentioning the Creator.
Obama wants to make his speeches as secular as possible. He doesn’t want any mention of a god, a Creator, or any Higher Power. Government is solely responsible.
Bryan Fisher (American Family Association) admits it was clearly not a mistake: “I think the left hates the Declaration of Independence because…
Supremes reinforce secularization in government school programs
The U.S. Supreme Court banned the first amendment from government schools Oct. 4. In its refusal to hear an appeal of Stratechuk v. Board of Education, South Orange-Maplewood School District, the high court upheld a ruling that religious songs have no place in public school holiday performances.
School programs may include non-holiday religious music, and holiday religious music may be taught in classrooms.
Michael Stratechuk, the father of two in the school district, claimed the district’s action deprived his children of their rights under the Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The test used by the District Court in analyzing the Establishment Clause was the Lemon test. This test has its origins in the Supreme Court 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman. The three prongs of the test address whether the government’s action lacks a secular purpose, whether the government action has the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and whether the government action involves an excessive entanglement with religion. If any of these prongs are satisfied, the government action violates the Establishment Clause.
Stratechuk’s attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, claimed the school district was “disapproving…
