What do you get when you put together a man with a microphone who supports Ron Paul and protesters who really do not know what they are protesting against: You get this video, which by the way either will make you laugh, cry, or vomit. While I would agree that Ron Paul may be better than what we have now, that is not the argument for this blog. The video, done by a gentlemen named Adam Kokesh, went around D.C. asking those who were sitting in for the “Occupy Washington” rally what they thought about the economy, the wars, and government control of certain aspects of our lives. What I find the most amusing, even if it does give me pause about the future of this nation, is that most of these individuals are college kids just wanting a free ride.
All they want the government to do is give them something for free, in the name of social justice.
We have heard this phrase before and it is one we must not forget, because it is one that will be used in the ideological battle for the future of this nation. No matter if these young college kids realize it or not, they are advocating the government taking an even bigger role in our lives. They have a lot to complain about but never seem to mention the role government plays in all areas that they complain about. is it not funny, then, when the gentlemen asking the questions points out the government control inside these programs, the students stop on a dime and try to make their statements sound more, may I say, socialistic?
The point that all of these individuals are trying to make, and it is one we have heard many times, is that the government should take a bigger role in our lives and help us when we are down and out. Also, they should help us when we feel like doing nothing, when we do not feel like paying out bills, and when we feel like wasting our lives protesting for an ideal that, realistically, will never make the country better. Those who do well for themselves do it because they have big ideas of their own. Did Bill Gates become rich because he went around to poor people and stole out of their Christmas fund? No, he did not! He got rich because he an idea and he put that idea to work for him. Others in this world wanted the product that he offered, so he raised the price on the products and the people still bought them. If you told these kids that they were supporting these individuals with a lot of money when they bough their smart phones and their computers, they would find a way to beat around the bush, but the fact of the matter is a protest is no good unless you understand the idea you are fighting for. These kids (and I use the terms “kids” for a reason, mind you) want things a certain way, and unless they get it they believe sitting in the rain will help them get it. Unfortunately for them, the majority of people in this country do not agree with their insane view of the world. read more »
With American struggling to get its economy back on track, it is becoming clear that regulations coming from the Obama Administration are smothering the recovery in its tracks. From the EPA to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an alphabet soup of regulatory agencies are driving up the cost of higher new people and the cost of goods and services.
But there is one agency that could dwarf the others in terms of destructive power – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The progressive hero Harvard professor and Democratic Senate candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, designed the CFPB. The CFPB was incorporated into the financial reform legislation by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) as a regulatory agency “unlike one we have never seen before.” The agency was given incredible power to regulate every financial transaction in America. Layaway plans to payday loans from businesses large and small all fell under their purview.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the agency was it was intended to be isolate from checks and balances of normal government agencies. During the course of the legislative process, the agency was renamed a bureau and its headquarters housed in the Federal Reserve who pays its bills. Congress has little oversight of the Bureau, cannot restrict its funding and its director can only be replaced from his five year term with cause.
Warren was expected to head the Bureau but President Obama got cold feet. Instead she recommended former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray – a man who shares her liberal views on regulations – to head the office. She ran back to Massachusetts to run for the US Senate. read more »
In again, out again… the will-o’-the wisp of American politics is/is not harboring heretofore unthinkable aspirations for the presidency. Chris Christie is the elixir du jour of the northeast Rockefeller Republicans.
Why are these money rich establishment Republicans so anxious to lure Christie into running? Answer that question for yourselves and you’ll know everything you need to know about Governor Christie. Christie is not a Conservative, or anything even approaching a Conservative.
His anti-second amendment sympathies would and should do it for him with most freedom-loving Americans. By being as radical as he is against personal concealed carry of firearms, in one of the most crime-ridden states in the union, he is blatantly saying to the citizens of New Jersey “No! You can’t have the right to defend yourselves and your neighbors”.
Every state that has permitted personal concealed carry laws to be enacted has not only not seen a decrease in the use of firearms, but has in every case seen a marked decrease in violent crime. There’s an old saying that has a lot of truth in it… “An armed society is a polite society”.
Christie also has much to answer to Conservatives with respect to not joining with over one half of the States that are actively suing to repeal Obamacare. How does that trite colloquial saying go again? “If’n you’re not for us, you’re agin’ us”. read more »
So why are so many Tea-Party-friendly people attacking North Carolina Governor, Beverly Purdue ??
All she said was “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them — whatever decisions they make — to just let them help this country recover. I really hope someone can agree with me on that.”
Apparently George W. Bush has ruined the economy so badly that a Congress that can't agree on anything should remain in place to rescue us from our fiscal funk.
Besides, President Obama was never one for anything traditionally American. How important can one election really be anyway ?? Surely by now we must all realize that our dear president is "to big to fail".
More "fundamental transformation" ? Just what we need right ??
Unlike Sarah Palin, Beverly Purdue has alas proven she's not just another photogenic Chief Executive. No, she is indeed yet another Democratic visionary !!
Governor Purdue is concerned that elections have a way of making our representatives accept responsibility for their behavior. So when she says, “You want people who don’t worry about the next election", what she means is, Democrats are worried about the 2012 elections, but you poor, stupid, voters really don't realize how much you actually need us.
Ironically, the Governor has immediately been forced to accept responsibility for her Freudian slip, which her
staff has defended as necessary "hyperbole" in order to emphasize the true seriousness of our economic plight. Woah, thanks for the news-flash !! read more »
The suggestion by North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue that we should suspend election for two years while we work to fix the economy is something I thought I would have heard from the White House before the Governor of a state, but no matter who is actually putting the idea out there is not the real issue. The issue here is that someone in a position of power would work it into the conversation to see how people would respond to it. Once the Governor and her team saw the people were not behind her idea, they backtracked and told the media that she was just joking. I am not sure what is so funny about this, but suspending elections for no other reason that to try and fix an economy when many Americans are looking forward to voting their leadership out is one of the most despicable ideas ever presented by someone in power in this nation.
As you can tell if you take a look at the video at the link above, which includes the audio of the address by the N.C. Governor, it does not sound like she is kidding. Her press team may believe they can pull a fast one on the American people and the people of her state, but the people are not buying it for a minute. We the people believe that those in Washington need to be held accountable, and if they lose their elections then they lose their jobs. To allow people who would otherwise have lost their jobs to stay in office just because the job market is not where it should be is to say that just because I might be overweight means I should not eat for the next six months. Both ideas make no sense and have absolutely no logic or reason to back them up. read more »
FiveThirtyEight whiz Nate Silver recently asked whether Chris Christie is the anti-Romney or the anti-Perry.
The answer is yes.
Christie is the anti-Romney, because he genuinely and unapologetically embraces and enacts conservative policies, at least on fiscal matters—in particular entitlement reform, the most important policy realm our nation currently faces.
Critics charge that he’s not consistently conservative on issues such as global warming and gun control. Yet Rick Perry critics complain that he’s not consistently conservative on issues such as immigration and the HPV vaccine, and most people wouldn’t call Perry a liberal.
Christie is the anti-Perry, because he knows how to identify, articulate, and justify his positions, using fiery, uncompromising rhetoric that doesn’t sound rehearsed, and isn’t afraid to say things that tick off hallowed interest groups.
Critics charge that he’s arrogant, has a temper, and insults people. Yet his style has proven wildly popular with voters who are fed up with politicians who can’t or won’t stand up to bullying public employee unions that are bankrupting the nation’s most populous states.
If Mitt Romney held more consistently conservative positions on the major issues of the day, he’d be able to articulate them to voters. But he doesn’t.
If Rick Perry were more articulate and had a better understanding of the issues, his positions would be conservative enough for most Republicans. But he isn’t. read more »
To all of the current (and potential) Republican Presidential candidates, here’s a tip: focus on Obama. When we do, we win.
Remember, we are living in a country that is rejecting Obama and everything he stands for. Poll after poll show him at the lowest ratings of his career, and election results from Scott Brown’s upset Senate win in Massachusetts, to November 2010, to the recent special elections in New York and Nevada prove that over and over.
Just as they say that the number one rule in real estate is “location, location, location”, the number one focus of this election should be “Obama, Obama, Obama”. Period. End of strategy. As we evaluate the candidates, conservatives should choose the one who does the best job of doing just that.
Recently however, our candidates have been too focused on each other, instead of staying focused on Obama and how they would draw a distinction between his failures and conservative principles.
But Republicans don’t need the candidates to tell us what their opponent’s weaknesses are. We’re all too familiar with them. And as the process continues we’ll all have to come to grips with them and decide which of them we each feel does the least offense to our principles. No one is perfect and we’ll all compromise somewhere in choosing a candidate.
But the important point here is beating Obama.
Make no mistake, this process is not about making a statement, or insisting on 100% orthodoxy and then going down in flames. In that case, all we will have done is hand liberals the political means to continue remaking America in their own image. read more »
In the latest Gallup Poll which asked people if they felt the government was a threat to their individual liberties, nearly half of the respondents said that the government WAS, in fact, a threat to their individual liberties. This is the highest it has ever been since the poll started being taken by Gallup back in 2003. Although only 28% of Democrats say that the government is a threat to their liberties, 61% of all Republicans and 57% of all Independents agree that the government is a threat. We can see the divide between party lines and those who are sticking with President Obama through thick and thin. As Gallup states, the numbers during the Bush Administration were also high, but not nearly as high as this and the number of Democrats were much higher than Republicans at that time, with Independents believing that no matter who is in office they are a threat to the freedom of the American people.
With these numbers getting higher and higher by the year, does the government have to start taking notice of what the American people feel or will they put it aside and not pay any attention to it? Pelosi, during the debate on Health Care Reform, responded very sarcastically to someone who asked her it was against the Constitution to pass such legislation. This is one of the reasons, I believe, that the numbers are much higher than they have ever been. The people see that the government is a threat to individual liberties if they do not understand where their power ends and the people’s power begins. The people in power are no different than any other people in history who wanted even more power once they tasted a little, and if we go down the road of those other civilizations we will end up in the trash heap of history along with them. read more »
…and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
We, in all our arrogant sophistication, have utterly failed to grasp what this ‘primitive’ philosopher knew forty two years before the birth of Christ.
The critical situation in which America now finds itself is a gut check of monumental proportions. There can be little doubt in any rational person’s mind that there are forces at work in this country which, left unchecked, will certainly extinguish the greatest beacon of democracy in the history of the world, resulting in the enslavement of free people’s souls. We’ve been served a constant diet of lies and prevarication for close to a century. read more »
During the 1992 Clinton campaign there was a famous sign hanging in the campaign headquarters exclaiming “It’s the economy, stupid!”, reminding everyone that the focus of the campaign was that the economy (George Bush sr.’s economy) was terrible, and that it was all his fault.
Fast forward sixteen years and Obama ran his campaign on a similar notion, but now, three years into his first term and looking towards re-election, things are worse and blaming George W. Bush just won’t cut it. So, for Obama, it’s all about the politics.
His recent “jobs” speech to Congress was, at its root, about just one job: his own, and his attempts to keep it. The whole point was to have a prime-time TV opportunity to set the lay of the land for the coming re-election campaign. His reading his “plan” from a teleprompter on national TV to members of Congress who are capable of reading it for themselves was neither capable of nor meant to accomplish anything else.
But why the sudden urgency on Obama’s part? That the economy has been awful is nothing new. Quite the contrary, it is something all Americans have seen and experienced first hand for several years (except maybe those who work for the government).
So again, why now? As it turns out, it wasn’t a set of new economic indicators that drove Obama’s need to look busy, but rather new political indicators.
Obama ended the month of August with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, (Gallup put him at just 40% approval). The same held true for his standing with young voters, Hispanics and women, three voting blocs that were crucial to his 2008 election. Only 40% of Independent voters approve of the job he’s doing, while 54% disapprove: putting him upside-down by -13%. The most recent bi-partisan “Battleground Poll” reported that only 26% of voters said they would “definitely” vote to re-elect him. And the Rasmussen poll’s approval index put those who “strongly approve” of Obama at just 19%, while 45% “strongly disapprove”: a difference of -26%, which means that there are a lot of people who are really passionate about seeing him lose next year. read more »