Today I completed a purchase on a firearm. I had put a deposit on one about two weeks ago, and it arrived yesterday. The cashier asked me for about one hundred dollars more than I owed. I showed him the receipt from when I placed the deposit, and this caused a bit of confusion. After a few minutes, some computer work, and another employee's assistance I was told that the price went up. They honored the old price, and I payed the remainder on the previous amount. One employee remarked that I was very fortunate. The price had gone up seventy-five dollars, and, with the tax, it would have cost me about one hundred dollars more. It amazed me that in two weeks time the price sky rocketed.
It then got me thinking. About two months ago I was looking to purchase two guns for my wife. The price of one was around three hundred dollars, the other two hundred fifty dollars. Last week I asked for a price quote for the same items from the same dealer, and the cost rose significantly to four hundred and three hundred seventy-five dollars, respectively. Also, a coworker, as well as myself, noticed that our usual places to buy ammo are practically all out. One website has a large explanation on how wholesale prices and a large volume of orders has caused delays and shortages in supply.
Now some of this can be blamed on a spike in sales. Greater demand and limited supply cause prices to rise (WTHR.com). There was a huge spike in gun sales after the election (it's why I was purchasing guns too) (Houston Chronicle). But make no mistake, the reason for this increase in sales is because people know what is in store. This includes the firearm and ammunition manufacturers who want to make up for potential lost revenue as gun regulations vamp up. It's how they hope to stave off bankruptcy. You see this with health insurance companies as well, who fear ObamaCare and have raised premiums in response to it (Heritage.org).
Look for a lot of things to increase in price. A great deal will be from inflation, which is cause by the current Democrat policies, but anxiety caused by Progressive ideas is also a huge factor. They want to go after foods they feel are not "healthy" (WashingtonExaminer), so expect that to contribute to higher food prices. Just remember the Left will use monetary and fiscal policy against you. What they can't overtly do, like confiscating guns, they will do through regulation, such as forcing higher gun costs. Just remember to prepare. More on that later...
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Internet, Again
The internet is under attack, something I have warned about before. It is the last true bastion of freedom for the entire world. And the United Nations, which has become a conglomerate of countries dedicated to totalitarianism, plans on stopping the spread of information over the World Wide Web by making it more expensive for companies to provide the service (sound familiar?). According to The Weekly Standard, one proposal from the dictators in the United Nations will be to impose fines/taxes/fees on internet providers and those that host websites, like Google. Each time an international user accesses an American based website, an American company will be charged, "...hoping [overseas] citizens will be cut off from U.S. websites that decide foreign visitors are too expensive to serve." (article here).
Just like the UN's attack on firearms, and similar to what the Progressives do in the US, they hope to force action through monetary punishment. When something becomes too expensive, people will stop doing it. (However, you will still have the option to do it, so your freedom to choose still exists. Interesting how that works. It's like a parent telling a child, "Go ahead... misbehave. But you'll regret it!"). Plus it will help the UN perpetuate the evil American stereotype when those rich greedy American companies refuse to pay a little more to provide free internet access to the poor masses around the world.
Progressivism is the same, where ever it is found. It has the same goals, beliefs, and methods. Our Founding set up a system that avoided totalitarianism; it's what makes us great and unique. Unfortunately we have a government, and after this last election a majority of the population, who agree with the tyrants and reject our founding, at least for now.
Just like the UN's attack on firearms, and similar to what the Progressives do in the US, they hope to force action through monetary punishment. When something becomes too expensive, people will stop doing it. (However, you will still have the option to do it, so your freedom to choose still exists. Interesting how that works. It's like a parent telling a child, "Go ahead... misbehave. But you'll regret it!"). Plus it will help the UN perpetuate the evil American stereotype when those rich greedy American companies refuse to pay a little more to provide free internet access to the poor masses around the world.
Progressivism is the same, where ever it is found. It has the same goals, beliefs, and methods. Our Founding set up a system that avoided totalitarianism; it's what makes us great and unique. Unfortunately we have a government, and after this last election a majority of the population, who agree with the tyrants and reject our founding, at least for now.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
So Many Fooled
During the election I remember one person commenting how she could never vote for Romney. She argued that Romney was going to take away her mortgage interest deduction, and she just couldn't survive without it. Obama helped spread that myth with lying political ads that had Romney planning higher taxes for the middle class (Newsmax.com). Of course, it always amazes me that people seem to forget that Democrats never cut taxes. In fact they always raise them. Clinton did it, after promising he would cut them (NYTimes), and Obama has already raised taxes on all Americans after he promised he wouldn't. Forbes has two reports on this, one describing how ObamaCare is the largest tax increase in history (article here) and another talking about raises for people who make less than $250,000 per year ( article here).
So it was no surprise to me when the mortgage interest deduction, which was a major factor for the above mentioned Obama voter, may now be threatened (NYTimes). It always makes me wonder why so many can be fooled by Democrats so easily. Honestly, can anyone point to the last time there were meaningful across the board tax cuts from Democrats? And I don't mean deductions for doing certain things, like hiring people, installing solar panels, or buying an electric car. Those aren't cuts; they aren't even refunds. They are tiny amounts of tax money given back to someone who already paid a ton in taxes for doing something the government wants you to do. When I say tax cuts I mean your income tax rate going from fifteen percent to ten percent, a true reduction in how much the government steals from its citizens (and it is stealing. Tax payers see little to no return for the money that is confiscated from them.). The last Democrat to cuts taxes was JFK. That was a long time ago.
The sad truth is Democrats play off of the citizenry's ignorance, which was created by the progressive school system and human nature in general. Humans want things to be easier; it's why people have been successful inventing items that simplify tasks. Ergo, it's a lot nicer to have someone tell you what to believe, rather than educating yourself. Reversing this is going to take a huge effort. Americans have to relearn that when something is hard it is worth having; things that are given are worthless (how to do this is something many, including myself, are currently formulating). Till then, people will be content allowing the Democrats to sell them the false promise of progressivism.
So it was no surprise to me when the mortgage interest deduction, which was a major factor for the above mentioned Obama voter, may now be threatened (NYTimes). It always makes me wonder why so many can be fooled by Democrats so easily. Honestly, can anyone point to the last time there were meaningful across the board tax cuts from Democrats? And I don't mean deductions for doing certain things, like hiring people, installing solar panels, or buying an electric car. Those aren't cuts; they aren't even refunds. They are tiny amounts of tax money given back to someone who already paid a ton in taxes for doing something the government wants you to do. When I say tax cuts I mean your income tax rate going from fifteen percent to ten percent, a true reduction in how much the government steals from its citizens (and it is stealing. Tax payers see little to no return for the money that is confiscated from them.). The last Democrat to cuts taxes was JFK. That was a long time ago.
The sad truth is Democrats play off of the citizenry's ignorance, which was created by the progressive school system and human nature in general. Humans want things to be easier; it's why people have been successful inventing items that simplify tasks. Ergo, it's a lot nicer to have someone tell you what to believe, rather than educating yourself. Reversing this is going to take a huge effort. Americans have to relearn that when something is hard it is worth having; things that are given are worthless (how to do this is something many, including myself, are currently formulating). Till then, people will be content allowing the Democrats to sell them the false promise of progressivism.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Morality
Over the weekend I saw a very interesting interview on TheBlaze.com. Glenn Beck was interviewing Ray Kurzweil, a true genius (KurzweilAI.net). Kurzweil has been able to predict technological advancement with eighty to ninety percent accuracy since the '90s. He is also an inventor and the creative mind behind many of Google's advancements. One of the most interesting aspects of the interview though was based around morality.
At one point Kruweil begins to explain how one day computers will be able to answer questions you may have before you ask them. How so? By reading every bit of information you enter into them, including text messages, emails, internet searches, websites, phone calls, etc. One person I know already experienced this when he received unsolicited directions from his phone to an address in an email sent by a friend. This worried Beck. He pondered who may be able to get that information and how they could use it. He pointed to an enormous government database facility in Utah with the sole purpose of storing information (Wired.com). Kurzweil's response: "Technology is a double-edged sword."
The cliche was repeated several times as Beck pressed Kurzweil on other topics. Kurzweil says nanobots will be injected into our blood stream to fight disease, yet he acknowledged that bio-terrorists could use it to cause harm. He is working on decoding to the human brain to create artificial intelligence, and Beck was worried that could lead to a type of eugenics where the "perfect human" is created. Again, the previous catch phrase was used as Kurzweil answered.
Which leads me to morality. The next day on his radio program, Beck said the Kurweil's response about the "double-edged" sword was insufficient. He argued that these are real concerns that Kurweil seemed to shrug off. That's when it hit me: morality is no longer a factor in American life.
I admit that what Kurzweil describes is exciting, but I can definitely see the dangers. If we create an artificial intelligence that acts just like a human mind, could that lead to more effective means of control? If technology can predict your future actions and thoughts, will it lead to a Minority Report situation as Glenn Beck fears? Can one hacker hold an entire world hostage as he threatens to turn nanobots against us? And why doesn't Kurweil take some responsibility for what he is predicting and proposing? Why not come up with ideas to counter bio-terrorism, prevent brainwashing, and guard against eugenics and improper use of technology-based information? Instead he simply passes it off and focuses on promoting his predictions.
When the Progressives began to destroy the country, the first thing they had to do was eliminate morality. That's why they went after Christianity. Much of our nation, including the Founding, is based on Judeo-Christian values and morals. The Progressives eliminated that to garner support for their ideas, such as euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, stealing from earners to give to those who refuse to earn, etc., all of which require immorality. Not to mention that morality is needed for the proper application of capitalism and government.
Unfortunately moral decay has become moral death. When a society simply forges forward without any regard for what it may mean to the individual, the only thing anyone can be sure of is loss of freedom.
At one point Kruweil begins to explain how one day computers will be able to answer questions you may have before you ask them. How so? By reading every bit of information you enter into them, including text messages, emails, internet searches, websites, phone calls, etc. One person I know already experienced this when he received unsolicited directions from his phone to an address in an email sent by a friend. This worried Beck. He pondered who may be able to get that information and how they could use it. He pointed to an enormous government database facility in Utah with the sole purpose of storing information (Wired.com). Kurzweil's response: "Technology is a double-edged sword."
The cliche was repeated several times as Beck pressed Kurzweil on other topics. Kurzweil says nanobots will be injected into our blood stream to fight disease, yet he acknowledged that bio-terrorists could use it to cause harm. He is working on decoding to the human brain to create artificial intelligence, and Beck was worried that could lead to a type of eugenics where the "perfect human" is created. Again, the previous catch phrase was used as Kurzweil answered.
Which leads me to morality. The next day on his radio program, Beck said the Kurweil's response about the "double-edged" sword was insufficient. He argued that these are real concerns that Kurweil seemed to shrug off. That's when it hit me: morality is no longer a factor in American life.
I admit that what Kurzweil describes is exciting, but I can definitely see the dangers. If we create an artificial intelligence that acts just like a human mind, could that lead to more effective means of control? If technology can predict your future actions and thoughts, will it lead to a Minority Report situation as Glenn Beck fears? Can one hacker hold an entire world hostage as he threatens to turn nanobots against us? And why doesn't Kurweil take some responsibility for what he is predicting and proposing? Why not come up with ideas to counter bio-terrorism, prevent brainwashing, and guard against eugenics and improper use of technology-based information? Instead he simply passes it off and focuses on promoting his predictions.
When the Progressives began to destroy the country, the first thing they had to do was eliminate morality. That's why they went after Christianity. Much of our nation, including the Founding, is based on Judeo-Christian values and morals. The Progressives eliminated that to garner support for their ideas, such as euthanasia, abortion, eugenics, stealing from earners to give to those who refuse to earn, etc., all of which require immorality. Not to mention that morality is needed for the proper application of capitalism and government.
Unfortunately moral decay has become moral death. When a society simply forges forward without any regard for what it may mean to the individual, the only thing anyone can be sure of is loss of freedom.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
It Continues...
As I mentioned in a previous post, the Benghazi incident may be tied to creating support for control of the internet, and a couple of interesting things have happened since...
Ron Paul retired from Congress and delivered his farewell address on November 14, 2012 (CampaignForLiberty). In it he mentioned the only thing standing between big government and totalitarianism is the internet. Therefore, he stresses, that it must not be regulated. This is exactly how I feel and the point I made in a previous blog.
Then there is Ted Koppel, who appeared in a Kalb Report Forum and spoke at length about how he missed the good ol' days when the news media was controlled by only a few organizations (RushLimbaugh.com). He goes further, claiming that more news outlets actually hurts democracy. How ridiculous is that!? So less speech makes us more free and more democratic? The truth is he laments his own power to control what people believe and what they know.
And then there is this report on how proposed legislation will give the government the right to search all kinds of activity on the internet, including emails, without a warrant (CNet.com). The important part of this story is how the bill began: it was supposed to limit police power over the internet. And that is the trick. Democrats like to start out with something that sounds good and many will support. Then, when no one is paying attention, they molest and pervert it to their true purpose. Just like "Campaign Finance Reform" which actually put more money into politics and only limited the speech of private organizations, not liberal ones, like unions.
And don't forget that Obama signed an executive order giving the government great power over the internet after Congress failed to pass a similar bill (CNet.com).
Keep an eye on this, and again, look at Benghazi, which is still blamed on an internet video. The Democrats will stop at nothing to control the internet. They want to suppress opposition and make sure people hear, see, and understand only what they allow.
Ron Paul retired from Congress and delivered his farewell address on November 14, 2012 (CampaignForLiberty). In it he mentioned the only thing standing between big government and totalitarianism is the internet. Therefore, he stresses, that it must not be regulated. This is exactly how I feel and the point I made in a previous blog.
Then there is Ted Koppel, who appeared in a Kalb Report Forum and spoke at length about how he missed the good ol' days when the news media was controlled by only a few organizations (RushLimbaugh.com). He goes further, claiming that more news outlets actually hurts democracy. How ridiculous is that!? So less speech makes us more free and more democratic? The truth is he laments his own power to control what people believe and what they know.
And then there is this report on how proposed legislation will give the government the right to search all kinds of activity on the internet, including emails, without a warrant (CNet.com). The important part of this story is how the bill began: it was supposed to limit police power over the internet. And that is the trick. Democrats like to start out with something that sounds good and many will support. Then, when no one is paying attention, they molest and pervert it to their true purpose. Just like "Campaign Finance Reform" which actually put more money into politics and only limited the speech of private organizations, not liberal ones, like unions.
And don't forget that Obama signed an executive order giving the government great power over the internet after Congress failed to pass a similar bill (CNet.com).
Keep an eye on this, and again, look at Benghazi, which is still blamed on an internet video. The Democrats will stop at nothing to control the internet. They want to suppress opposition and make sure people hear, see, and understand only what they allow.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Silent Majority?
The recent election and a personal discussion altered a view that I, and many conservatives, possess about the country. For many years conservatives have talked about something called the "silent majority." This population of quiet conservatives vastly outnumber those in the country who want the big government, totalitarian Democrat agenda. Every so often, when needed the most, they come out to vote Republican and save the country. Nixon was the first to speak of it in America, and Regan may have been elected by it (Wikipedia). In the 80's, when Reagan won by two landslides, this may have existed. But the country has had a vast shift in the past twenty to thirty years, and that "silent majority" may no longer be there.
One conversation I had with an Obama voter blossomed this idea growing in my head. The person seemed to agree with me about the moral decay of the country, especially when referring to young people. It centered around the lack of respect children tend to have for themselves and others throughout the world, leading to increased violent crimes (Canada.com, UKGuardian) and teen pregnancies (Guttmacher.org). So why pay lip service to the awful changes in the world, and then vote for someone who is part of the problem? How can anyone support a party that exacerbates the issues he or she advocates against? Because, although people will recognize the death of a great country, the "comfort" of a "benevolent" government that takes responsibility for you is easier. The values that make us a civilized nation are eroding, but the false promise of a government that will "promote" them takes the blame off of you. For example, the schools take most of the pressure of parenting off of parents, including when it comes to basic needs (NPR.org). How great! Right?
Whether conservatives like it or not, people take government help when they can get it, and almost everyone receives aid and/or subsidies without being aware of it (NYTimes). A portion of the "silent majority" has become part of the welfare state, willingly or unwillingly. So what does that mean for conservatives?
One of the biggest mistakes made in the last election was thinking the conservative "silent majority" still existed and was going to come out in droves to vote Republican. Obviously this didn't happen. Conservatives have to understand the reality that we are a nation of takers. This can be frustrating, and Ron Paul expresses that well (WashingtonPost.com). Frustration aside, the next step requires a change in tactics. The time has come to convince, not just inform.
Rush Limbaugh often says that experience is the best teacher and converter for conservatism, and he is correct. I have convinced people to switch over to the truth by pointing out what will happen. Inevitably a, "See, I told you so," comes.
Which brings me to my final point: be patient. It took over one hundred years for the liberals to kill America, and it will take just as long, if not longer, for its rebirth. Don't get caught up in the pop culture instant gratification trap. What conservatives must do is be forceful, use liberal institutions against them, and don't be afraid to speak out (more on this as I formulate my thoughts). The liberals use our strengths, kindness, beliefs, and morality, against us. It's time for us to use their flaws, selfishness, immorality, and hatred, against them.
One conversation I had with an Obama voter blossomed this idea growing in my head. The person seemed to agree with me about the moral decay of the country, especially when referring to young people. It centered around the lack of respect children tend to have for themselves and others throughout the world, leading to increased violent crimes (Canada.com, UKGuardian) and teen pregnancies (Guttmacher.org). So why pay lip service to the awful changes in the world, and then vote for someone who is part of the problem? How can anyone support a party that exacerbates the issues he or she advocates against? Because, although people will recognize the death of a great country, the "comfort" of a "benevolent" government that takes responsibility for you is easier. The values that make us a civilized nation are eroding, but the false promise of a government that will "promote" them takes the blame off of you. For example, the schools take most of the pressure of parenting off of parents, including when it comes to basic needs (NPR.org). How great! Right?
Whether conservatives like it or not, people take government help when they can get it, and almost everyone receives aid and/or subsidies without being aware of it (NYTimes). A portion of the "silent majority" has become part of the welfare state, willingly or unwillingly. So what does that mean for conservatives?
One of the biggest mistakes made in the last election was thinking the conservative "silent majority" still existed and was going to come out in droves to vote Republican. Obviously this didn't happen. Conservatives have to understand the reality that we are a nation of takers. This can be frustrating, and Ron Paul expresses that well (WashingtonPost.com). Frustration aside, the next step requires a change in tactics. The time has come to convince, not just inform.
Rush Limbaugh often says that experience is the best teacher and converter for conservatism, and he is correct. I have convinced people to switch over to the truth by pointing out what will happen. Inevitably a, "See, I told you so," comes.
Which brings me to my final point: be patient. It took over one hundred years for the liberals to kill America, and it will take just as long, if not longer, for its rebirth. Don't get caught up in the pop culture instant gratification trap. What conservatives must do is be forceful, use liberal institutions against them, and don't be afraid to speak out (more on this as I formulate my thoughts). The liberals use our strengths, kindness, beliefs, and morality, against us. It's time for us to use their flaws, selfishness, immorality, and hatred, against them.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Benghazi
Distractions have been put out by the press to hide the administration's response to Benghazi. One possible reason for the Benghazi cover up is the ultimate goal behind why Benghazi was allowed to burn. I believe the administration's reaction to the Benghazi attacks was planned to support federal control of the internet.
The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate. The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews). This seems highly unlikely. The biggest problem is the timeline.
The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN). It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over. What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com). Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started? It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.
In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate. Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews). In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com). It also soon became clear that the militants planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish. Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org). So why was this situation allowed to occur? Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict? Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?
To me, the answer is easy. The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.
The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance. Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech? The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org). Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls. They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again. Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview). If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com). But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals. By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.
Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go. The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.
The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate. The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews). This seems highly unlikely. The biggest problem is the timeline.
The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN). It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over. What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com). Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started? It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.
In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate. Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews). In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com). It also soon became clear that the militants planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish. Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org). So why was this situation allowed to occur? Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict? Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?
To me, the answer is easy. The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.
The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance. Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech? The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org). Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls. They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again. Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview). If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com). But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals. By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.
Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go. The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Petraeus
By now many know of the Petraeus sex scandal (which is preposterous after what Bill Clinton did). And several people have a sense that it is not the real story behind what is going on. Simply put, distraction is.
When I heard that Petraeus was part of the Obama administration, it confused me quite a bit. After all, Petraeus was hated by the left, calling him "General Betray-Us" for lies the left concocted (Sweetness&Light.com). So now that Petraeus is being hammered in the traditional media, his reputation destroyed, it is no surprise that he was initially embraced by the administration. But that is still not the point.
Almost a month later the country is still not told what occurred while the administration allowed four Americans to die. Who made the call that permitted the murders of Americans? Why did they do nothing while literately watching them die? Why the cover up and blaming on an internet video that had nothing to do with the attack? The answers must be bad. Several cabinet officials have positioned themselves to escape before anyone finds out. Hillary Clinton, who has set herself up to leave at the signs of any trouble for a while (Wonkette.com), refuses to testify on the Benghazi debacle in front of Congress (WashingtonExaminer). Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner are also making noise about quitting an Obama second term (Examiner.com, WashingtonPost.com). So, after such a supposed great election for Obama, why are many hinting at leaving? How many will be hurt greatly from the truth? Yet, this is still not the point. There is more.
The country is about the change, big time. There is the Fiscal Cliff looming (CNNMoney), Obamacare about to hit (Heritage.org), thousands of regulations passed within a few months (Breitbart.com), and God knows what else. The nation's economy and status in the world is in shambles. A second recession may hit (BusinessInsider, as if the first one ever ended!), and our embassies are attacked with no fear of repercussions(CNN, NYTimes). The military is about to be gutted (HuffingtonPost), and our schools are fully fledged brainwashing centers with songs dedicated to Obama, our new lord and master (CBSNews.com). Therefore the president and his protective media is happy to change the subject and promote a story that will trick the American people into ignoring not only Benghazi, but everything else that is about to ruin this country. Furthermore, I believe all this was planned, whether the president was reelected or not. If the Republicans won, it would have been just as much of distraction as it is now.
The left will stop at nothing to hide what they are and what they do. It is up to us to give their true nature light.
When I heard that Petraeus was part of the Obama administration, it confused me quite a bit. After all, Petraeus was hated by the left, calling him "General Betray-Us" for lies the left concocted (Sweetness&Light.com). So now that Petraeus is being hammered in the traditional media, his reputation destroyed, it is no surprise that he was initially embraced by the administration. But that is still not the point.
Almost a month later the country is still not told what occurred while the administration allowed four Americans to die. Who made the call that permitted the murders of Americans? Why did they do nothing while literately watching them die? Why the cover up and blaming on an internet video that had nothing to do with the attack? The answers must be bad. Several cabinet officials have positioned themselves to escape before anyone finds out. Hillary Clinton, who has set herself up to leave at the signs of any trouble for a while (Wonkette.com), refuses to testify on the Benghazi debacle in front of Congress (WashingtonExaminer). Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner are also making noise about quitting an Obama second term (Examiner.com, WashingtonPost.com). So, after such a supposed great election for Obama, why are many hinting at leaving? How many will be hurt greatly from the truth? Yet, this is still not the point. There is more.
The country is about the change, big time. There is the Fiscal Cliff looming (CNNMoney), Obamacare about to hit (Heritage.org), thousands of regulations passed within a few months (Breitbart.com), and God knows what else. The nation's economy and status in the world is in shambles. A second recession may hit (BusinessInsider, as if the first one ever ended!), and our embassies are attacked with no fear of repercussions(CNN, NYTimes). The military is about to be gutted (HuffingtonPost), and our schools are fully fledged brainwashing centers with songs dedicated to Obama, our new lord and master (CBSNews.com). Therefore the president and his protective media is happy to change the subject and promote a story that will trick the American people into ignoring not only Benghazi, but everything else that is about to ruin this country. Furthermore, I believe all this was planned, whether the president was reelected or not. If the Republicans won, it would have been just as much of distraction as it is now.
The left will stop at nothing to hide what they are and what they do. It is up to us to give their true nature light.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Tuesday's Election
This past election has many on the conservative side questioning how the election was lost to a president who seemed easy to defeat. With the economy in shambles and the Libyan consulate scandal so close to the election, many wonder if we have become a nation of takers who are content with the federal government caring for its citizens. Do the number of Americans receiving government aid outnumber those who are producing wealth, and are those on the government dole concerned about anything other than continuing the enrichment of themselves through federal and state programs? (WND). Bottom line, have we become a socialist nation? (And by the way, both CNN and the Huffington Post break down possibilities for the Romney loss, but conveniently leave out the above mentioned reasoning, in typical left-wing media fashion (CNN, HuffingtonPost.com).)
Some conservatives, including myself (initially) felt this was true. When Barack Obama won, it felt as if the electorate was lost. After all, Romney received nearly two to three million fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago (BCNN1), and McCain was not nearly as popular. But upon closer inspection, my views have changed a little.
According the above article in BCCN1, Barack Obama also received fewer votes, nine to ten million less than in 2008. Due to the Republican loss and media malpractice, this has gone nearly unnoticed. In fact, I cannot seem to find any major news outlet that even mentions this, because it is extremely devastating for the administration. Granted this does not change the fact that Republicans lost, and there is no suggestion that Obama's victory should be down played. The election does clearly show that a majority of Americans, however small, cared more about themselves than the country in this election cycle. However it also shows that Obama's supposed huge mandate and popularity does not exist. In fact, he just hit above fifty percent approval (BusinessInsider.com) after approval ratings in the forties for months.
So when combined, around twelve million people did not vote in this election. How would they have voted? No one may be able to say for sure, but clearly they would have voted against Barack Obama. The unfortunate part is that they also refused to vote for Romney. My take on this is more aligned with Liz Marlantes of the CSMonitor who says Romney just wasn't a good candidate (article here). I differ with her reasoning, but her premise is correct. I feel Romney wasn't conservative enough.
But how can one say that after a majority voted for socialism? Well a few points.
First, many in the Republican party feel cheated by the Republicans, and if your base does not turn out, you lose. There is a history of bad blood between Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives say Republicans are too moderate and therefore refuse to vote Republican (BeforeItsNews.com). Republicans often attack conservatives as being too "purist" on several issues, sometimes resorting to name calling (Politico, TheHill.com). Then there is the Republican leadership, who gives into the administration's demands and consorts with Obama too often (Reuters). Also, Romney viciously went after fellow Republicans during the primary, angering many supporters of other candidates. I believe a significant number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-leaning Independents stayed home on election day.
Second, the actual election results kept the power structure about the same. The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, the Democrats the Senate and the Presidency. If there had truly been a huge push for socialism and the Democrats, they would have won super majorities in both Houses, and along with the Presidency. This happened in 2008 because Barack Obama was an unknown and historic figure, not due to the promotion of socialism.
Third, Romney, being moderate, did not distinguish himself enough from Obama. For example, he would talk in terms of rich and poor and passed Romneycare in Massachusetts, the precursor to Obamacare. He also let Obama and the traditional media hammer him on several issues with little response or counter punch from Romney. During the third debate, which centered around foreign policy, Romney did not go after Obama at all on Benghazi, an obvious soft spot in the Obama presidency. It has always been my belief that if you give someone a choice between a "full-on" vision and "light" version of that vision, people will choose the former. Plus, if you don't fight back, but instead claim your attacker is nice guy, as Romney often did, you look weak and give your opponent the opportunity to define you. That is a definite problem Romney had.
So what does this all mean? We must keep fighting and keep the conversation going. There were twelve million people who did not vote in the last election and need to be convinced that conservatism is what they should support next time. If the Republican party cannot realize that, if they continue to push for moderates and moderate ideas that cannot win, then maybe it's time to put our enthusiasm and strength behind something else.
Some conservatives, including myself (initially) felt this was true. When Barack Obama won, it felt as if the electorate was lost. After all, Romney received nearly two to three million fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago (BCNN1), and McCain was not nearly as popular. But upon closer inspection, my views have changed a little.
According the above article in BCCN1, Barack Obama also received fewer votes, nine to ten million less than in 2008. Due to the Republican loss and media malpractice, this has gone nearly unnoticed. In fact, I cannot seem to find any major news outlet that even mentions this, because it is extremely devastating for the administration. Granted this does not change the fact that Republicans lost, and there is no suggestion that Obama's victory should be down played. The election does clearly show that a majority of Americans, however small, cared more about themselves than the country in this election cycle. However it also shows that Obama's supposed huge mandate and popularity does not exist. In fact, he just hit above fifty percent approval (BusinessInsider.com) after approval ratings in the forties for months.
So when combined, around twelve million people did not vote in this election. How would they have voted? No one may be able to say for sure, but clearly they would have voted against Barack Obama. The unfortunate part is that they also refused to vote for Romney. My take on this is more aligned with Liz Marlantes of the CSMonitor who says Romney just wasn't a good candidate (article here). I differ with her reasoning, but her premise is correct. I feel Romney wasn't conservative enough.
But how can one say that after a majority voted for socialism? Well a few points.
First, many in the Republican party feel cheated by the Republicans, and if your base does not turn out, you lose. There is a history of bad blood between Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives say Republicans are too moderate and therefore refuse to vote Republican (BeforeItsNews.com). Republicans often attack conservatives as being too "purist" on several issues, sometimes resorting to name calling (Politico, TheHill.com). Then there is the Republican leadership, who gives into the administration's demands and consorts with Obama too often (Reuters). Also, Romney viciously went after fellow Republicans during the primary, angering many supporters of other candidates. I believe a significant number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-leaning Independents stayed home on election day.
Second, the actual election results kept the power structure about the same. The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, the Democrats the Senate and the Presidency. If there had truly been a huge push for socialism and the Democrats, they would have won super majorities in both Houses, and along with the Presidency. This happened in 2008 because Barack Obama was an unknown and historic figure, not due to the promotion of socialism.
Third, Romney, being moderate, did not distinguish himself enough from Obama. For example, he would talk in terms of rich and poor and passed Romneycare in Massachusetts, the precursor to Obamacare. He also let Obama and the traditional media hammer him on several issues with little response or counter punch from Romney. During the third debate, which centered around foreign policy, Romney did not go after Obama at all on Benghazi, an obvious soft spot in the Obama presidency. It has always been my belief that if you give someone a choice between a "full-on" vision and "light" version of that vision, people will choose the former. Plus, if you don't fight back, but instead claim your attacker is nice guy, as Romney often did, you look weak and give your opponent the opportunity to define you. That is a definite problem Romney had.
So what does this all mean? We must keep fighting and keep the conversation going. There were twelve million people who did not vote in the last election and need to be convinced that conservatism is what they should support next time. If the Republican party cannot realize that, if they continue to push for moderates and moderate ideas that cannot win, then maybe it's time to put our enthusiasm and strength behind something else.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Here We Go...
The political signs haven't all been taken down, the pundits talk of the election is still fresh, and the hit to many conservatives still hurts, yet the Obama administration forges ahead with their anti-gun agenda.
Many know of Obama's hatred of the Second Amendment. He attacked some as "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" (Radio Active Liberty) and said he favored a new assault weapons ban (ABCNews). So it's no shock that the day after his administration voted to begin final talks on a United Nations bill that would regulate, through international law, gun sales (Reuters).
A liberal might question, "So does the treaty ban guns in the U.S.?" Well not exactly. "Does it infringe on our Second Amendments rights?" Not yet. "So then whats the problem?" a liberal would shout.
The issue with liberalism is not what they prevent you from doing, but how hard it becomes to do it. In many Northeastern states, buying a gun is an arduous and frustrating process. Often permits are required, and you end up spending more time and money filling out paper work and acquiring licenses than you do actually picking out a firearm. This prevents many from practicing their Second Amendment rights and allows liberals to claim they are allowing the possession of firearms through what they call "common sense" and "appropriate regulation." Throw in further increased costs due to the United Nations Treaty, and even less will purchase firearms.
When it came to coal, Obama said he would allow coal plants to be built, but it would bankrupt those building them (Examiner). He has the same idea when it comes to guns. The United Nations treaty would increase the price of guns by limiting international sales, which is dominated by U.S. gun makers. The loss in revenue due to decreased overseas sales would force gun makers to increase prices. That in turn would make it more difficult for citizens to buy guns, and that would lead to even fewer gun sales. In the end, guns would be extremely expensive, and many gun makers would have to close up shop. So sure, anyone would be able to own or make a firearm, it would just bankrupt them to do it.
Many know of Obama's hatred of the Second Amendment. He attacked some as "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" (Radio Active Liberty) and said he favored a new assault weapons ban (ABCNews). So it's no shock that the day after his administration voted to begin final talks on a United Nations bill that would regulate, through international law, gun sales (Reuters).
A liberal might question, "So does the treaty ban guns in the U.S.?" Well not exactly. "Does it infringe on our Second Amendments rights?" Not yet. "So then whats the problem?" a liberal would shout.
The issue with liberalism is not what they prevent you from doing, but how hard it becomes to do it. In many Northeastern states, buying a gun is an arduous and frustrating process. Often permits are required, and you end up spending more time and money filling out paper work and acquiring licenses than you do actually picking out a firearm. This prevents many from practicing their Second Amendment rights and allows liberals to claim they are allowing the possession of firearms through what they call "common sense" and "appropriate regulation." Throw in further increased costs due to the United Nations Treaty, and even less will purchase firearms.
When it came to coal, Obama said he would allow coal plants to be built, but it would bankrupt those building them (Examiner). He has the same idea when it comes to guns. The United Nations treaty would increase the price of guns by limiting international sales, which is dominated by U.S. gun makers. The loss in revenue due to decreased overseas sales would force gun makers to increase prices. That in turn would make it more difficult for citizens to buy guns, and that would lead to even fewer gun sales. In the end, guns would be extremely expensive, and many gun makers would have to close up shop. So sure, anyone would be able to own or make a firearm, it would just bankrupt them to do it.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Don't Lose Heart!
It has been a while since I've posted, but I feel now that I have no choice. We are in extraordinary times, and we need to remain resolute. The nation had a major set back. It is apparent now that a majority of Americans are OK with an all powerful government that appears to provide all that everyone needs. People have traded the uncertain greatness of capitalism for the certain mediocrity of socialism. I believe we now face an inevitable economic collapse, which is why we need to remain strong, so on that terrible day we are able to turn and say, "See, I told you so. Now, here is how we fix it." In the coming months I will be putting together a new website, different of this one, that will work to not only talk about the events of the day but provide the background, including the history of our nation, that shows how conservatism is right, not just an idea. So please keep posted, and let others know as well. God has put this fire in me to do this, and God knows I would not have if Romney was elected. Therefore, I believe this is God's plan, and we should all take heart knowing He is on our side. God bless you, and God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)