Tag: Barack Obama


Why the Democratic Party Doesn’t Represent Most Democrats

The Democratic Leadership over the last several years has bailed on everything that its members supposedly hold dear, especially in terms of their distaste for corporatism, power mongering, and fear tactics.

What Democrats Believe

Based on lots of conversations with those who consider themselves “liberal,” I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who consider themselves “liberal” (or “progressive” or “Democrat”) really don’t buy into a lot of the nonsense that many on the right accuse them of: Most Democrats I know are not communists; they’re not supporters of tyrannical government; and they’re certainly not all peaceniks.

However, many of them do, like many of us, instinctively vote for assholes based on the letter beside their name. Their assumption (and ours) is that if they have that letter, then there are some basic beliefs that they hold dear and fight for, and AT LEAST they’ll do those things and we don’t have to worry about the evil schmucks from that OTHER party getting in there and screwing things up.

So, since there are a plethora of conservative Republicans out there who are probably tired of hearing from rebels that they’re fighting a losing battle trying to make the GOP the party of limited and enumerated Constitutional government, I felt it important to turn our attention to Democrats/progressives/liberals….at least for a while..

So Conservatives/Republicans/Tea partiers…you know who you are. Talk amongst yourselves.

Are they gone? Great.

OK, look, we don’t agree on a lot, but let’s just put our differences in ideology aside just for a minute and talk about what YOU believe. If I’m to understand the progressive narrative (and let me tell you…we all know it…media bias and all.)

a) Greedy corporations are a huge part of our problem, in that they don’t pay enough taxes, don’t pay their employees enough, and seek to rip off the American populace in general through their corrupt connections and raw power.

b) Meanwhile, some of the worst are the oil, development, and defense companies who seek to not only rip off the American populace like any Big Corporation bully (see above), but they also deign to use the American military as a tool to boost their stocks through military deployments and securing cheap oil by bombing brown people all over the world.

(Am I right, so far?)

c) Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress seek to distract us. They speak of “freedom” but what they really want to do is simply keep us all focused on “economic growth” (see above Corporations) while the working class suffers under their negligence in looking at the “big picture” of the economy and how it effects REAL PEOPLE.

Obviously there are fair points to counter all of this. But since we’ve put aside our disagreements, let’s just focus on what the Democratic leadership (meaning, the Obama Administration, and Democrats in Congress) are doing about these things.

What Elected Democrats Do

One could list…a very long list…all the ways in which the Democratic Party has been not only negligent, but complicit, in all of these areas. “Green Energy” corporations getting kickbacks based on political contributions. Car dealerships getting special treatment during the car bailouts based on political connections. Don’t get me started on who gets the most money from health insurance and financial firms. Financial regulatory reform? “Too Big to Fail?” It’s pretty a steep climb to wash the Democratic Party’s hands of corporatism and corruption.

But what I want to focus is on is JUST THE LAST 6 MONTHS, and only the THREE BIGGEST betrayals of the Democratic Party to the things that YOU really care about. These are what I would consider the MOST egregious, the most blatant, and the most disappointing to those who believe in and equity and good and sound government:

Sex is not Freedom

SEX…for lack of a better term…SELLS!

In the end, that’s what it comes down to, isn’t it?  Sex is not just for shampoo and cars and beer.  It sells candidates and political parties, too.  Whenever someone starts talking about “social” issues, or “cultural” issues, or “religion”, usually it boils down to what that person thinks, politically–yes, politically–about sex.  Who has it with who, when they have it, how they have it, and even why they have it.

Sex for President…

Now before everyone starts shouting and throwing things, keep these two things in mind:

1) everyone that’s ever had a conversation with me about politics knows that “social issues” and “religion”, etc, are not the things that get me out of bed politically.  I’m concerned with other things and thus, one could argue (regardless of my personal opinions) that I’m neutral on most of these issues…seriously.

2) I don’t want anyone to get the impression from any of the following that I believe the Government should have anything to say about how anyone conducts their personal lives.  My overarching point is that they shouldn’t.  Period.

All that being said, let me make a few comments about the two most recent dustups over…well…sex.

One was the Sandra Fluke nonsense where little miss (30 year old) law student at Georgetown raised all kinds of holy hell about not having access to free birth control provided by her university.  Of course, everyone by now knows that she KNEW this going in, and, having been a “women’s rights” activist already, decided to attend Georgetown BECAUSE of this policy so she would have a chance to fight the good fight against it.  No, that doesn’t make her a slut, but it makes her excessively disingenuous.

The premise here, regardless of how inappropriate Rush’s description of her intentions, is that we have a State that is mandating that employers/insurers grant FREE access to birth control so that women have the ability to have as much sex as they want without the consequences (well at least one particular one).  Despite the fact that there were ZERO Social Conservatives out there clamoring to ban birth control, apparently not getting it for free is the equivalent of the Scarlet Letter.

A few Libertarians (Reason.com and the Humble Libertarian and I’m sure there were more) were smart enough to point out that “Reproductive Freedom” does not mean “Reproductive Justice,” meaning having the ability to use something does not mean that is has to be provided to you for free.  (Otherwise, as I’ve said before, the Second Amendment would mean that every American must be provided with a gun and a lifetime supply of bullets…at birth).

But this still begs the question: Why is it so critical that the State protect a woman’s “right to choose” to have sex without risk of pregnancy? Well one argument on the “equality” front is that men don’t have to deal with the consequences like women do, so they can have as many sex partners as they want and, unless they’re Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of the worst movies ever, they’ll never get pregnant.

So what? So where is it written in the annals of Liberty, Freedom, and Equality, that women are the same as men sexually, and should by some right ordained by God have equal access to sex? Apparently, so “pursuit of happiness” translates as “as much sex as one wants without having to be burdened with the consequences of sex.” Therefore: free birth control.  Dismissing the fact that there are TONS of other barriers other than simply gender that keep many Americans from having free and fair access to sex…For instance, should bald, fat, ugly guys form a PAC and demand equal access to sex?

The truth is that women statistically don’t WANT as many sex partners as men do.  For more on this topic, I’d direct you to a documentary (part of a series of documentaries) on the “Nature vs. Nurture” question.  A documentarian in Norway illustrates the innate insanity of the notion that there is no difference between men and women and it’s all about our evil, capitalist, paternalistic, male-driven culture that is just holding women back from their rights as horny humans. A few warnings: 1) there is a little nudity in the beginning (it’s a European documentary, what do you want me to do?, 2) it is mostly subtitled, and 3) it’s 40 minutes long (which one of those bothers you most says a LOT about you. ;) ):

The documentarian doesn’t go into any of the more American themes of teenage pregnancy and number of kids born out of wedlock, etc, and the economic ramifications of such, and I won’t go into them here either. But it boggles my mind how much concern the “Social Far Left” (and that includes a LOT of Libertarians, albeit certainly not all) can put so much emphasis on “sexual freedom” as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL MEASURE of liberty and choice, when every single version of Civilization in recorded history acknowledges that restraint and some level of sanctity regarding sex makes for a freer and more independent populace.

I can forgive the Liberal left, because they have no other mantle to put the refrain “freedom” than on the sexual one. Obviously they’re not concerned with freedom, especially freedom regarding healthcare, if they are dead set on FORCING employers and insurers to act as a go-between on birth control with policy holders. Removing middle men would make more sense.

However, I’m less forgiving of those who consider themselves freedom fighters constantly singing the same song of “reproductive freedom,” which actually means “freedom to have sex and NOT reproduce”. There is ZERO evidence that an increased “low risk” sex life leads to more happiness and independence (in women or men), and suffice it to say that promoting promiscuity is indeed THE LEAST productive activity in the battle to preserve our freedoms (unless, of course, you’re promoting promiscuity WITHOUT birth control…more freedom-loving Americans having babies wouldn’t be so bad ;) ), and I wish that more Libertarians would stop to think how lucky they are to live in a society that has social norms which stigmatize promiscuity, because there are few successful civilizations that do not, and usually the removal of those norms results in downward slide of that civilization.

To illustrate this a bit, let’s take a look at the newly nominated Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson’s site BEFORE he decided to run as a Libertarian:


And then take a look at it now:


His stances haven’t changed really at all, but he now has “Coalitions” on Poker, Marijuana, “Choice”, and “Marriage”…the positions he takes are fair positions, but there is little mystery that he’s positioned himself, and the Libertarian Party as a result, as the “cool” president who says, “Hey Dude, live and let live, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else!”

And let me preempt something here: The position that “He’s not PROMOTING these things, he’s just saying that Government shouldn’t prohibit it,” is a fair position, but it’s one that ignores human nature. If you looked at a candidate’s website that encouraged going to church every Sunday and “Family Values,” you wouldn’t say, “Well, they’re not really Christians, they’re just encouraging others to do that.” You would assume that they are representing themselves as a Christian family man. (Put another way: politically, there is a reason people cite their gun ownership and hunting prowess when bragging about their Second Amendment bonafides.)

And this brings us to the most current “Social” issue, and that’s Obama’s endorsement, non-endorsement, support of gay marriage. The funny thing is, on the substance of what he says, I agree with him: two people who love each other should be able to call themselves married, and whatever church wants to bless that union should be allowed to do it, other than that, the legal implications should be handled by the States? What does the left conclude from that?

“Thanks, Joe…Thanks a Bunch…”

First Gay President….really?  Wait a minute.  Hang on.  Because Obama believes that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to legally tie themselves to each other financially and adopt and/or raise children together (he didn’t say that, explicitly , but that’s the implication, if we’re talking about rights….right?).  So…how does that make him gay?  Now, I know that Newsweek, the creator of this ridiculous cover and article don’t actually believe that he is or has become gay because of his support for gay marriage, any more than someone believed that Clinton’s “First Black President” title really make him black…but it begs the question: what is it about his support of gay marriage “equality” makes him supportive of gayness?  Supporting legal equality doesn’t equal supporting the act of gay sex, does it? Well…YES…as we’ve already covered.  It does.  His stance, from those inside the gay community, is a blessing of gay sex.  Look at the way Joe Biden (“boldly” mind you) expressed his support, “I am absolutely COMFORTABLE with men marrying men and women marrying women”  He touched on the legal rights, but he began, with emphasis, on his all-important COMFORT level.

The dirty little secret here is that the “gay rights” movement is not looking for legal equality, they are looking for acceptance…and now they have it from the VP and from POTUS.  It doesn’t matter that the President hasn’t moved the ball forward one iota on the issue, legally…what matters is he and the VP are COMFORTABLE, personally, with gay sex, and gay couples.  By the same token, the Social Conservative right is NOT comfortable, therefore this stance of comfort is an abomination, despite the fact that he has an explicitly Tenth Amendment view of it legally, because he’s comfortable, he might as well be…the First Gay President.

And the media has spent COUNTLESS hours, days, weeks, and months on the issue of contraception, gay marriage, etc, while brushing through discussions of a $16Trillion deficit as just another day in Washington.  The President is “making history” for expressing…comfort…with a certain sexual lifestyle which many are…let’s face it…not comfortable with.

Let me ask this, and think about this carefully:

If the President expressed support for adultery, open marriages and “swinging” without anything other than supporting it, and saying something along the lines of, “The States should work out all the legal details, but I think in General, it’s a travesty that fathers are often denied access to their children simply because they sought alternative physical attention outside the home.  And further I think the American people should keep an open mind as to what constitutes a family.  After all, my daughter seems to be OK with the idea”  Would the left conclude that he was shedding archaic and stodgy paleoconservative norms and thus applaud his enlightened view of sexuality?  Would the right conclude that he probably sleeps around?  Maybe…maybe not, but my guess is the reaction would be different.  Even though these types of activities are MORE common, and MORE a part of modern American life than homosexuality ever will be, it would be frowned upon.  Otherwise, I suppose we’d see a cover on Time or Newsweek with Obama with a hot chick on each arm saying, “The First Philandering President.” (Sorry, Bill…you didn’t express “comfort” with it.) Then, Hugh Heffner would host a fundraiser and pull $30 million dollars from the “sex” industry.  No? There is no philandering father lobby…so probably not.

“But hey, that’s different,” you say, “this a choice, homosexuals can’t choose who they are!” OK, what about a brother and sister…they didn’t choose their family…if they decide they want to be wed in holy matrimony, maybe after a couple failed marriages outside the family, should they be able to?

“NO! That’s CRAZY! You’re gross!” Why? So who is the high priest that’s making this decision of what social mores are expendable and which are not?  (Again…no real “Incest Lobby” that I know of, and the odds of a “First Incestuous President” cover is pretty low. And yes, you’re right…pretty gross)

But what does sex have to do with legal rights?  Who is fighting for the right to have sex?  Are there sodomy laws being thrown at gay americans, and evil Christian judges sentencing them to life in prison for “deviant” behavior? No? So what does sex have to do with it?  (Come to think it, even adultery is not a crime…it’ll cost you in a divorce settlement, though, so there are legal consequences).

Another one:  If a future President Romney were to express that the FLDS (those Fundamental Mormons that live in a polygamist combine) in Texas is being unduly discriminated against and that if a community wants to live in these United States with multiple wives and the children raised to believe this is good, then does that pass the same test of defending “reproductive freedom” and “civil rights”?  Would there be a “First Polygamist President” even though he’s not a polygamist, but is just looking out for the rights of people to live exactly as they please as long as they’re not hurting others? You betcha! Slightly different, mind you, because although it would still be on the cover of Time and Newsweek, the supporting article would be decidedly less glowing and supportive.  The defenders of “sexual freedom” would clamp down like the Spanish Inquisition on steroids judging the familial and sexual deviance of such an abomination.

Why? Well…Romney is a Republican…that’s the main reason.  OK…what if Obama supported Polygamy? It’s consistent…he’s neither gay nor is he polygamist, so the stance is basically the same. Neither of these scenarios is plausible is going to happen, though. NOONE is going to endorse polygamy on ANY grounds of sexual, personal, or intellectual freedom, because the FAMILY UNIT is still important…at least if you listen to politicians across the political spectrum it is.

So why is the entire political system wrapped up sex?

The truth is, the family unit IS STILL important.  A civil society requires this institution more than it requires almost anything else to survive.  But this institution HAS to survive on its own…Government, being limited in its ability to do anything without devolving into tyranny, CANNOT define, limit, or altar our sex lives.  It will not, and should not.  There is a reason why a monstrous percentage of elected officials are heterosexuals married with children.  Anything else is the exception, not the rule.  Even Obama, the Progressive that defines all modern Progressiveness CONSTANTLY touts his family accolades, and boy do they look lovely on camera.

So what does this mean? “Family” is about raising kids…and raising kids requires someone to have sex (my God, I hope THAT doesn’t change anytime really soon), and that requires the action of one man and one woman.  That is the biological reality.

Rights? That is something else entirely.  There is no right to get married, but given that there are barriers that gay couples have that heterosexual couples do not, I say, eliminate the barriers, but keep one thing in mind: siblings have the same barriers, a mother and daughter with stupid ex husbands or crackhead daughters-in-law have similar challenges of both inheritance and child-rearing.  Widows who have moved in with a college roommate…fathers and godmothers…you name it.

There are a variety of situations which a “Civil Union” can help remedy, but do they have to act like they love each other as a “married” couple?  Or put another way, do they HAVE to be having sex?  Why is the State concerned with who loves each other and who is having sex?  And why are we, the voters, concerned with it, and further why are we concerned with what our elected officials are “comfortable” with?  Any solution should be a solution that takes sex off the table…otherwise, someone is acting as high priest of sexual properness.

So family values is really more about valuing family…valuing the ability of individuals to tie themselves into a community in whatever way they see fit and raise their children to be responsible and productive citizens.   “Marriage” as a legal matter is simply a short cut…it is the norm, and it will remain the norm.  Biology doesn’t lie. It is the default model of the family unit and it has been that way for countless hundreds  and thousands of generations in a variety of civilizations all over this group.  It is the human reality that cannot be dismissed as simply “cultural” without making some MONSTROUS sacrificing in civilizational security.  That doesn’t mean that people should be denied equal “rights” to arrange their affairs differently based on their “preference” or simply circumstances, but it also doesn’t mean that we should just pretend that “marriage” is anything different than it ever has been.

We do not have to promote “reproductive freedom” nor do we have to promote “gay rights.”  We certainly do not want to legislate it, and as a result of that we should refrain from making SUCH a big deal about it.  The point that I’m trying to get across here is this: There is a distinct difference between telling the Government to stay out of our sex lives, and PROMOTING sex without consequences…we do not need to do the latter to accomplish the former.

And there is a big difference between having a belief that marriage is a sacred institution that Government can acknowledge as a legal shortcut to inheritance and child-rearing, and taking the stance that ANY accommodation to someone with a different preference or situation is somehow destroying the institution of marriage.

Those of us who consider ourselves fighters for freedom and limited government–and that includes those who think that saving the world from internet pornography is an important liberty issue, AND those that seem to think that touting the virtues of legalized prostitution is a critical liberty issue–need to step back and think about what our priorities are.  We need to stop obsessing about sex all the time.  It sells, but what are we selling?  We’re not selling liberty and independence by selling sex. We’re selling our future down the road because someone has the same views about us on sex.  We’re missing the chance to focus like a laser on the role of government, national debt, enumerated powers, free markets. These are the things that will save us from oblivion.  No amount of “sexual freedom” “reproductive freedom”–or lack thereof–is going to get our country back to where it once was.  The culture issues–and they are real–have to be solved by the culture, not the Government.

And for those of you who call yourselves “Progressive” or “Liberal” who have little or no interest in individual liberty, stop pretending that “reproductive justice” and “gay rights” is going to save you from the jackboots that you’re creating. It’s not hypocritical, really.  It’s just childish. Either you care about individual liberty or you don’t (you don’t), so stop pretending like you do while sacrificing our freedom on the altar of “free love.”  It just makes you look stupid.   Your children (if you still believe in those…lest we overpopulate and lay waste to Mother Gaia) will not care that you stood for “sexual freedom” when the thought police comes and takes them away for not eating enough vegetables, or whatever shameless bit of eco-fascism you dream up to take the place of the religion you so despise.

All of you stop it…just stop it.  There is just entirely too much at stake, and our freedoms are too important to make it all about sex.

Better Question: “Are these guys really serious?”


Republican...Leadership? (Photo: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

Pat Caddell asked a rather interesting question on Fox News the other day: “Does this guy have any idea what he is doing?” Referring to the President, of course, he expresses frustration (much as he did with Jimmy Carter) with wondering why “his guy” was not willing to take a leadership role and get something accomplished. Watch the entire video.

Pat Caddell On Obama: “Does This Guy Have Any Idea What He Is Doing?”.

Another issue he mentions is that the two parties–as a whole–are showing how little they really know what they are doing. Now other than the fact that this a subject that is popular with your humble author, it bears exploration. In what way are the Democrats…AND the Republicans illustrating exactly how little they know about what they’re doing when it comes to budget?  I’ll offer ten points on why I don’t believe that either Party, nor any of its leaders, are taking budget talks seriously:

  1. They are talking about reforming the tax code as a part of a comprehensive debt reduction plan.–moronic. Unnecessary. Cut spending.
  2. They are not serious about finding efficiencies and cuts in military spending–they are there. Everyone knows they are there. Republicans should put them on the table.
  3. They are talking too much about entitlements, and not enough about current spending.–long term deficits: entitlements. Short-term deficits: other stuff. It’s pretty simple. Cut spending.
  4. Republicans brought abortion into the mix (not the current talks, but the previous ones on the 2011 budget).–not a fan of abortion…certainly not a fan of Planned Parenthood…but when you’re talking budget issues, you should focus on the things that can actually affect the budget.
  5. No serious talk of cost of Federal Employees. Salaries, benefits, pensions, etc.–NEVER discussed as an important point in budget discussions. Local Governments, State Governments, and school systems across the country HAVE to look at their employees pay and total compensation packages, and when they do, they receive a huge amount of hell from both sides of the budget issue…but if they have to make cuts they have to make cuts. Our Federal Government has to do the same. That goes for employees and contractors.
  6. The President hasn’t even mentioned or alluded to his debt commission–why bother with the debt commission if you’re going to ignore all of it?
  7. And lastly, why not bring up the fact that the United States Federal Government is involved in things domestically that it shouldn’t be involved with…like entire Departments of the Federal Government that shouldn’t exist as Departments at all because they are not core functions of the Federal Government (Education, Energy, Labor, etc), and the States can handle them.
  8. And speaking of, why not bring up the approximately $550B dollars in State aid…that’s right…$550B dollars in transfer payments to states…EVERY YEAR.
  9. And while we’re speaking of Federal Aid, what about the $45 Billion in Foreign Military and Economic assistance that we give away every year.  That should at least warrant a glance, shouldn’t it?
  10. Yachts and corporate jets? REALLY?  That’s your position.  That the evil rich folk aren’t paying enough.


I’ve said it before: AUSTERITY. It’s required. These are times that require a serious look at the budget, and NONE of these guys are taking it seriously.  Contrast this with British cuts last year:


The New York Times asked whether Armageddon would ensue if similar cuts were enacted here:


In case you missed it:

The British plan includes a few increases, notably for the government-run health care system. Almost all other departments would face a freeze or cuts, resulting in an average reduction of 19 percent; 490,000 public jobs would be eliminated. Even the military and support for the royal family would face reductions. The austerity program is the most drastic in Britain in 60 years, and it is difficult to envision something at the same scale in the United States. Some economists say it would also be ill-advised, because such a quick contraction of government spending by the United States would reverberate forcefully across the world economy and risk another recession.

Average deduction of 19%.  490,000 jobs.  And this 19% is WITH INCREASES to their health care system. Personally, I’m not a fan of a NHS (or tax hikes), but I’m not British, so I don’t get to call that shot. They prioritized and they cut DRASTICALLY, because they looked at what was happening in Greece and other parts of Europe.

The difference between the British approach to the budget (similar-sized deficit from a percentage of GDP standpoint, and over a similar amount of time)?

They took this stuff seriously.  They cut support for the ROYAL FAMILY.  Wonder if Congress is entertaining cuts to itself? They seem to THINK they’re royalty; maybe they’d take Her Majesty’s example to heart.

All that to say: these guys (the U.S. Congress and White House) are NOT really serious about cutting the budget.  EVERYTHING they do is politics now.  The only reason that Republicans in Congress are holding the lines on taxes is because they believe that their political futures depend on it.  And it does.  And, for the same reason, Obama is picking on yacht owners and corporate jet users, because he’s pandering to the “working class” (because as everyone knows, people who fly corporate jets don’t really WORK).

It’s all pandering.  They’re not even close to serious…none of them are. It’s a joke, and everyone knows it.

Well, we’re done joking.  Both parties and their leaderships have already been deemed useless by me, and many like me.  As Caddell says, that sentiment is going to continue to grow, and grow, and grow, if they don’t look around and take their jobs seriously.

It’s not worth it…

I recently had a discussion with a fellow traveler in the “limited government” movement on Facebook about a particular aspect of the upcoming battle for the White House in 2012.President Obama boarding Air Force One

We should face this topic head on, because I think it strikes at the core, the heart, the essence, the raison d’etre of the Conservative movement and why we should think about things critically, not just politically, but philosophically and indeed pragmatically.

The particular aspect that I’m referring to is the concept of: “Anyone but Obama”

First, let me say that, as everyone knows, I’m not a fan of Obama.  I feel that in his policies, his stances, his beliefs, and his actions he represents everything in the area of public administration and Government that I stand against, and the mere fact that he’s in the White House believing what he believes should leave all of us with restless nights.

Second, since I haven’t posted on it explicitly it may or may not be surprising that I am very underwhelmed (not overwhelmed, and not even…whelmed) by the current field of candidates rounding out the GOP field of 2012 contenders.  My hope was that Daniels would get into the race so at least we’d see the POSSIBILITY of the right kind of candidate (and no, the fact that Bush likes him does not automatically cause me to dislike him), even though I was not thoroughly convinced that when it came platform plank and debate time that he would have fulfilled all of my dreamy expectations…the potential was there.

Nevertheless, the conversation with my friend started with this basic premise put forth by her:

“I don’t care who the GOP puts forth; as long as they can beat Obama.”

To cut to the chase, when we got more specific, Newt Gingrich was brought up as a shining example (by me) of THE most Progressive Republican in the field, and she would STILL support him.

My question…why?

Because he wouldn’t put Communists in the administration.

OK…so what? So that he could put people who AREN’T communists but still push big government policies in the administration.

Well it’ll give us some time to regroup and at least “live”?

Live? So the communists are going to kill us if we have Obama for four more years? Live for what? Live with the knowledge that a) half the limited government movement is going to go back to sleep, and b) the other half is going to have to fight people who AREN’T obvious communists when they continue to overreach their Constitutional boundaries?

And what are we fighting for anyway? Are we fighting for a “kinder gentler” Toquevillian type of tyranny, or are we fighting to finally rid ourselves of tyranny.  All you have to do is ask yourself this:

If you look forward 20 years from now, which situation would have been worse: Barack Obama being president for 8 years, or Newt Gingrich being President for 8 years, followed by some other nimby pamby Progressive (from either party) being President for another 8.

Because let me tell you…if Barack Obama is President for 8 years, this country will be BEGGING for some SERIOUS damn “change”.

This is not a battle that will be won in November of 2012; it will be won EVERY DAY for the next 20 years.  That battle will be EVEN HARDER with a Progressive Republican in the White House than it is with Obama in the White House.  It will be much easier to fight it with an administration that continues to overstep and misstep and is being fought tooth and nail by States that are turning increasingly against him.  Half those battle will STOP with a Republican in the White House (for a variety of very obvious reasons), so we BETTER make sure if we’re going to put an “R” in there, it’s the right guy.

Now all that being said, I DO believe we can replace Obama with someone who will fight for limited Government.  I DO believe it would be PREFERABLE for Obama to be defeated after his first term so that stories cannot be invented about his legacy (Noone pretends that Jimmy Carter was some great savior, but they can pretend that Clinton was…why? Because he won his second term. People like winners.)  So make no mistake, I want Obama defeated. But he HAS to be defeated by limited government ideas, not “compassionate conservatism”…or our Republic may be lost forever.

Don’t give up.

Recession, Depression, Recovery

A succinct definition.recession-depression-recovery