Critical Reminders Before You Vote

In a society that offers a 24/7/365 news cycle, four years is a long time. Indeed, for most of us, Obama’s first term has been an eternity. Before Tuesday’s epic election, all citizens should take some time and consider carefully the vote they will cast. With that in mind, and in hopes of sparking your memory, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane. Here are a few things that happened during Obama’s first term.

Let’s start where Obama started — healthcare. Remember the dirty deeds involved with the passage of Obamacare? It was truly a low in American politics. There was the Corn-husker Kickback. There was liberal demi-god, Dennis Kucinich, basically saying — even though I’m against it, I’m for it. Of course, political favors will change even a demi-god’s mind. The late Arlen Spector claimed he was promised increased political clout for his vote but after providing it, he got shafted. Think about that for a minute. Spector was a Republican that jumped to the Democrats. He was a turncoat. Yet once the liberals got his vote, they slit his throat. That’s how dirty this deal got.

Do you recall the stupid sales pitch that Obama-care made fiscal sense? The math wizards used 10 years of revenues versus just six years of expenses for that dandy. How about San Fran Nan’s insightful nugget about how Obama-care had to be passed before the people can see what’s in it? As if it was a present waiting under the tree. Crafty one, she is. Little did we know the pretty paper and ribbon was hiding incomparable tax hikes and bureaucratic death panels. Is it starting to come back you?

The Obamacare circus was an insanely partisan environment. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for it. The House of Representatives has had 33 votes to repeal it. The citizenry was so rip-shit when it passed, that numerous Democrats that supported the bill were voted out during the mid-term elections of 2010. By the way, demi-god Denny got changed out too – he lost his seat at the table earlier this year.

But politicians aren’t the only thing that has changed—so has the price tag. Obamacare was originally said to be a $900 billion pursuit. The last analysis came in at over $2.6 trillion. Ultimately, it is a massively huge tax hike. But we have to have a massively huge tax hike because the $700 billion Obama stole from Medicare just isn’t enough to fund it.

Obamacare is a bad law rammed through by liberal-progressive zealots and it is filled with political poison. Consider that retiring Democrats, as if giving their last confession, have spoken out against it. So bad is Obama-care, unions and businesses that support Democrats demanded exemptions from it. Which, of course, they were given because you can’t jeopardize those campaign contributions, now can you? Obamacare has forced businesses to stop hiring and halt expansion. Numerous states have revolted against it because they are revolted by it. All of this is not anti-Obamacare spin. This is documented reality. In June, Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling basically told us that to rid ourselves of Obamacare, we must rid ourselves of Obama. Well, that time has arrived.

But there are many more sweet memories to cherish from Obama’s first term. It’s well known that Obama has violated the constitution numerous times. Legal scholars have been crying foul almost from his inauguration day. He stands at the podium and talks of love of country but undermines or ignores his constitutional responsibilities. His two-faced behavior was never more evident than when, after blathering on and on about his grave concerns regarding the law, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As a reminder, this law allows the president, on just his say, to target American citizens for detention and hold them indefinitely or to actually have them killed. Incidentally, Obama signed this law under cover of New Year’s eve and a holiday. Political cowardice? You tell me.

This is a president that has made illegal appointments during congressional recess, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and has directed the DOJ not to enforce laws on the books. If you do your research, you will find that some scholars rate George Bush’s constitutional behavior as quite poor. You will also find that others feel Obama’s record is worse. Combine these two presidential terms and we have twelve years of presidential government that routinely violates the constitution. If nothing else, Obama needs to be fired to send the message to future presidents that this will not stand. Dictators and tyrants be warned. The citizens have had enough of constitutional violations, unresponsive government and political corruption.

And speaking of corruption—we have Solyndra, Energy Conversion Devices, Raser Technologies and numerous other “green” businesses that have put us in the red. Obama gave political friends truck loads of cash that has ended in hundreds of billions in losses to American tax payers. There is also the on-going Delphi Pension scandal where, as part of the auto bailout, non-union workers lost huge chunks of their pensions while the pensions of union workers went untouched. Does Obama plays favorites?

And some of his favorites are dangerous. He grants government access to individuals and organizations that have been determined by a court of law to support terrorism. The propaganda press hides it from us. But it is true. What is also true is that scandals involving money and political favoritism are one thing. Scandals that result in the deaths of Americans are something else.

Operation Fast and Furious cost Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry his life. And the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata is also suspected to be the result of a Fast and Furious gun. This scandal remains unresolved because the supreme ruler claimed executive privilege to stop the investigation. Could it have reached him? It seems likely. And of course we have the Benghazi consulate attack.

There were four Americans killed in Libya on September 11th when the US consulate was attacked by men armed with guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. These details were included in the very first news reports. Yet, instead of standing tall and assuming responsibility as a real leader would, Obama shunned accountability. He misled the American people by claiming the assault was the result of disgruntled protestors upset by an insignificant and amateurish anti-Muslim video.

The details continue to trickle in but to date we know the administration knew almost from the start that the attack was preplanned. We know that personnel within the consulate sent numerous requests for additional protection well in advance of the attack. All of these requests were denied. We also know some security personnel, as the attack was unfolding, were inexplicably ordered to stand down. They didn’t. They fought and ultimately gave their lives to protect others. Meanwhile, tucked safely away in Washington, Obama and his administration have displayed shameful behavior. Clearly, if Obama intentionally misled the public he should be fired. And if you negate malicious intent, then the incompetence displayed by Obama to protect Americans are the grounds for his dismissal.

But there are other gems that should be considered before you vote. For instance, the country’s credit rating was down-graded under Obama’s watch. The first and only time this has occurred. Recall the debt ceiling battles when House Speaker John Boehner said an agreement was reached but then fell apart because Obama moved the goal posts. And even after changing the game, it was Obama that walked from the table, like a spoiled child taking his ball and running home.

Obama has proven himself to be among the most, if not the most, anti-business president in the history of the country. Statements like you didn’t build that and the economy is doing fine are more demonstrative of his disdain for business and capitalism than they are verbal miscues.

It is no secret that the supreme ruler has decided that he—not private industry—should determine America’s energy future. He has created a militaristic EPA that takes more pride in shutting down power plants than working to plan out a realistic future for America. Contrary to his debate lies, he has severely restricted oil permits for drilling. He also rejected the Keystone pipeline. His “green” agenda has closed hundreds of coal plants. This has forced t he price of energy up but worse, it has destroyed the lives of thousands of citizens that rely on the coal industry. And as you know, when plants and coal mines close the restaurants, stores and other small businesses supported by them start to suffer. It is a Domino Effect that can destroy towns. West Virginia in particular has been hammered mercilessly. The pain within West Virginia is so acute and the bitterness is so severe they gave almost half of their Democratic primary votes to a convicted criminal rather than Obama. Hopefully, on November 6th, with your help, they will see a light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

But his wrath is not just directed at oil and coal. Any business is fair game. Recall the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brought suit against Boeing because it wanted to build a “non-union” factory in South Carolina. It is just coincidence that after Boeing gave a machinists union a new four-year contract extension the NLRB dropped the case? Gibson Guitar Corp., a guitar manufacturer owned by a Republican contributor, was targeted, raided and its assets confiscated. After months of legal hearings and business interruption, the case was dropped. Gibson was fined $350,000 big ones and spent some $2 million defending itself. Who knows how much money they lost in sales. Lawsuits against businesses and states are a regular tactic used by Obama to get his way. You can look all this up.

His goal is to grow government, not business. His goal is to expand entitlements, not the American economy. He bad mouths the rich implying they all cheated to make their money. He is a classic tax and spend guy that will fund anything with other people’s money as long as it buys him a vote. His approach to leveling the playing field is not to raise people up. Rather, it is to force people down. Romney promotes the idea that he wants to help make everyone rich. Obama seeks a level playing field where everyone is poor. His spread the wealth philosophy is really spread the pain.

Every budget year credited to Obama has had a $1 trillion deficit. That is a staggering and horrifying situation. Try to name anyone working anywhere in any field that would retain his or her job after spending $1 trillion more than was brought in. Obama has done it year after year after year. Obama submitted a 2012 budget and it was rejected 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In April, a proposal based upon an Obama 2013 budget plan lost in the House 414-0. His spending is out of control. Just for kicks, inform the government you can’t pay your taxes because you over-spent last year and see how it responds. And adding $6 trillion to the federal deficit in just one presidential term is an insult to each and every American citizen that will have to pay it back. And their kids. And their grandkids. And their great-grandkids.

But he cares not. American citizens are not his priority. But because we can stop him from meeting his priorities, he hides his socialist agenda as best he can. He spins stories and tells partial truths because if most of America knew what he was really up to, he would be out of a job faster than a West Virginia coal worker. And don’t think he doesn’t have an agenda. Remember, he got caught with an open-mic promising Russia “more flexibility” after he wins re-election. Ask yourself — if you have the courage — what else might he do after re-election? Another open mic incident let us know he true feelings toward Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, we really didn’t need this dose of reality as he has stuck it to Israel regularly during his first term. But it’s nice to have it on record.

Let’s see, what else is there? Obama allowed Seal Team Six operational details to be leaked to try to glorify himself. Perhaps worse, he gave information to a movie crew about the bin-Laden operation so his hero narrative could be captured on film. Think of it, Obama’s daring and personal courage captured on celluloid. No doubt, because Hollywood worships him, it will be an Academy Award winner. But unearned admiration is nothing new for the anointed one. After being elected he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for — well, just because. Obama’s ego and pursuit of celebrity has few limits. His remembrance tribute at the passing of a real American hero, Neal Armstrong, included a picture of himself, not Armstrong.

But no matter how handsome the smile, or how “cool” the persona, it is a facade. Barack Obama is about himself, not the country. His first term and his re-election campaign have demonstrated that he is a small, petty and selfish man. It is now openly discussed within political circles that Obama is a square. He rarely meets with members in his own party and virtually never meets with Republicans. Even now, Democratic politicians across the country are livid because he refuses to support down-ballot campaigns. We know his jobs council hasn’t met since January 17th and that he skips out on his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB). In September, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wrote, “Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.” Imagine going to your job, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and blowing off more than half your meetings. How long would you last? This man didn’t even take the time to prepare for his first debate. Is this the type of guy you want running the country?

What we need to remember about Obama before we vote is what we have learned about Obama during his first term. He is a skilled orator, a mediocre politician and a poor leader. He is a political provocateur, not a statesman. Please, do yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors and your country a favor, vote for Mitt Romney so we can toss the Obama administration on the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net 
Advertisements

After Ron Paul’s Last Hurrah, Where Will His Supporters Go, and What Will They Do?

Bookmark and Share    As Ron Paul embarks upon his last political campaign for either the presidency or Congress, and as the curtain comes down on his over two decade long political career, he promises to go out with a bang.  Instead of exiting the stage on a high note and trying to better articulate and advance his deserving message of liberty, personal responsibility, and a limited, constitutional government, Ron Paul has decided to embark upon a scorched earth campaign that aims its fire at anyone who passes him in the polls.

As he leaves elected politics, he does so in a very ungraceful way that follows the stereotypical negative political path that voters claim they are sick and tired of.

So far, in this his third run for President, instead of being a true leader who demonstrates that their can be a new way forward, and a more positive political path to take us there, Ron Paul has chosen to be a follower who takes his mighty message down the same low road that most politicians have taken.  Instead of building himself up with his message and articulating actual coherent policies that can translate ideological purity into realistic accomplishments, Ron Paul has decided that he must tear others down in order for his message to succeed.  So he was the first to launch highly exaggerated, brutally negative, webads first against Mitt Romney, then Rick Perry, and now Newt Gingrich.

Now Rick, and Mitt, and Newt, are big boys who should be able to defend themselves and with the exception of Newt Gingrich so far , they are not immune from their own negative ads that they have produced against each other.  But Ron Paul is suppose to be a different kind of leader.  He was suppose to be the non-politician, champion of the people, defender of liberty, and defender-in-chief of the U. S. Constitution.  Yet his ads convey more of a very uncharacteristic first blood-like theme that is the total antithesis of his anti-war message and the noble cause he claims to represent.

Some might justify Paul’s highly negative campaign by claiming that he means business, is in this to win it, and will play by the same rules that his opponents will.  That may be so.  But I have yet to see Newt Gingrich produce an attack on the character of any of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.  In fact with Newt, at least so far, it is quite the opposite.  In Newt we see a man who is brave enough to stand behind his own record, his own ideas, and his own message, without resorting to cheap shots and investing his campaign’s money and time in to ads designed to allow him to become some sort of defacto winner because he is the last man, or woman, standing.  Unlike Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich is showing himself to be a leader in this area and blazing the path for a new campaign model that is relying less on polling and polarizing language, and more on solutions, ideas, and vision.

Seeing Ron Paul exit the political stage in such a way is in many ways sad.  Ron Paul deserves much credit for making sure that words and phrases like constitutional and limited government have never been left out of the political debate.  He has done much to make people think twice about what role government is suppose to play in our lives.  While Ron Paul has never quite been able to move his message very far within the legislative process, for the last two decades he has at least been an integral part of insuring that the question of government’s rightful role in our lives is at least an issue given consideration during the legislative process.   For that I give Dr. Paul much credit.  Which is why I would have prefered to see the curtain come down on his years in elected office in a much more dignified way than he has chosen.  But that is Ron Paul’s decision and as he would be the first to tell you, that is his right.

But as Ron Paul does leave elected office, and yes I say leave, because while I may not be sure who the ultimately Republican nominee will be, I am positive that it won’t be him and I see little chance of him being on anyone’s short list for Vice President. So as he “leaves” elected office without seeking reelection to a thirteenth term in Congress, I can’t help but wonder who will take his place.

Who will pick up the Libertarian Party torch and lead the way?

As a political party, Libertarians are a mess.  By their very nature, they are not an agreeable bunch.  In many ways, they are admirably not prone to any kind of groupthink mentality, but also irritatingly unable to consider a differing opinion.  As such, their independence and strong individualism makes them an inherently unruly, impossible to organize bunch.  As one observer put it;

” If you get 10 libertarians into a discussion, you’ll have 10 different opinions on many things, maybe even 11″.

Legendary Libertarian stalwart, Dr. Mary Ruwart  was even quoted as saying;

 “I was at the 1983 convention and it was so spiteful and destructive that I was almost done with the party.”

Responsible for such reactions is the very real Libertarian quality to be disagreeable and independent.  And the fact that Ron Paul was one of the few people that the vast majority of Libertarians could get behind,  simply makes Ron Paul an even more valuable figure and adds to a long list of legitimate credit due him.  Ron Paul is one of the few, if not the only figure that most Libertarians could ever truly unite behind.   Yet at the same time, Ron Paul has not sought out their presidential nomination since 1988, when he first ran for President, and probably for good reason.   While Ron Paul may be a bit, how can I say this…………unconventional.  Yeah.  That’s it,…… unconventional.  While he may be unconventional, he is not stupid.  Even he knows that he can not get elected President with only the Libertarian nomination.  So he runs as a Republican.

So again, with him leaving the spotlight, who else can carry the Libertarian banner with a unified Libertarian following?

Possible popular figures include Wayne Allyn Root, the 2008 Libertarian VP nominee, and Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson who has joined Ron Paul in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, as well as beloved Libertarian candidate, Mary Ruwart.  Yet while these may by leading names within the Party for various reasons, they can hardly be considered figures who can unify the Party and get their message out any more than Ron Paul has been able to.

The way I see it, aside from Ron Paul’s son, freshman Kentucky Senator  Rand Paul, no one has even the slightest chance of doing that.  And even Rand may fall short of being able to fill his father’s shoes among LP members.  While Rand Paul is an apple that has not fallen from the tree, his Libertarian roots are not quite as solid as his fathers.  Many Libertarians might even consider him to be too much of an interventionist for their tastes.

The sad fact is that as a Party, Libertarians are simply dysfunctional and they can barely be considered their own national Party.

As Dr. Walter Block,  a professor of economics at Loyola University, once noted, the Libertarian Party seems to be on the verge of being taken over by conservatives.  Which is part of the reason why the bombastic former conservative Republican Congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr was the Party’s presidential nominee in 2008.

Block writes that in 2008 he was struck by the fact that the Libertarian National Convention  had conservative  Richard Viguerie give what he called a “high profile” and “very well received speech”.  Then he was struck by the designation of conservative Jim Pinkerton as the moderator of the convention’s presidential debate.

All of this has already raised some big questions regarding what is really more of Libertarian movement than a Party.  Will it be taken over by conservatives and their often spoken of “neo-con” nemeses?  Will we see the Libertarian movement dismembered by a division between  conservative-Libertarians or libertarian-Conservatives and old guard Libertarians?  Will we see the rise of Conservatarians?  Or maybe we will see the Libertarian Party consumed by the TEA Party movement?  These questions become even more pertinent now that Ron Paul heads off in to retirement.   Having become the only widely recognized national leader of libertarianism, where do his supporters go after him?    And how will his supporters vote when he fails to win the Republican presidential nomination?  These questions and the lack of an answer to them are probably Ron Paul’s greatest failing as as the perceived father of contemporary, American libertarianism.  His inability to look beyond his own presidential aspirations and to  prepare for the future of his movement, leaves its future in great doubt.   Maybe Ron Paul believes that his son will inherit the libertarian limelight.  If so, the Libertarian Party will soon fade away as a political organization because as a member of the U.S. Senate, Rand Paul’s Party loyalties to the Republican Party are far greater than many may be willing to accept.

Rand Paul could however be a bridge.

He could become a bridge that finally helps lead to what really needs to be done here….the creation of coalition of Libertarians, and Republicans, and Conservatives, together in one great cause to save the principles that founded this great nation.  At least until we have steered ourselves safely away from the shoals of socialism that could run our ship of state aground.

While I have these questions, I do not have the answers.  But what I do know is that our nation is at a very critical juncture in its history.  Our current President has taken a hard left turn that has advanced the cause of socialism in America at a pace faster than I could have ever imagined.  And while Republicans, even prior to President Obama, have not always effectively stood their ground for the principles of limited government, after losing all control of government in 2008 and regaining some of it back in 2010, the hope is that they have learned their lesson.  But even if they have, the non-liberal, anti-socialist voters of America are still leery of the G.O.P.  So much so that in a close election in 2012, a conservative or libertarian oriented third party candidate could easily insure the reelection of President Obama.  This we must avoid.

Quite unfortunately, Ron Paul’s scorched earth campaign strategy is not willing to accept that.  Instead, the way he sees it, if he can’t be the Republican presidential nominee, then no one other Barack Obama can be President in 2012.

Bookmark and Share

White House 2012 October Power Ranking

Bookmark and Share     White House 2012 is out with this month’s ranking of the Republican presidential race for the White House.  The ranking reflects the combined  opinions of White House 2012 contributors and offers a look at where we believe the candidates or perspective candidates will place on Election Day based on current circumstances.

It is important to note that the last WH12 ranking was in August, not September, so the changes betweeen this ranking and the last show dramatic shifts for some candidates, such as Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.  Others have moved slightly or not at all.  Most interesting in this month’s ranking of the field is the lack of any place for Chris Chrsitie.  Obviously our contributors do not by into the media hype that the New Jersey Governor is reconsidering his reconsideration of rethinking a run for President, which he has said he is not ready to run for and does not want to run for.

 

%d bloggers like this: