The War on Family: A Glimpse into the Liberal Agenda

For a brief moment, the American public got a glimpse of something that is rarely seen: Liberalism’s “War on Family.”

This short glimpse occurred as Hilary Rosen berated Ann Romney on CNN over having “never worked a day in her life”.  While her tirade continued, she simultaneously revealed exactly how liberalism views women, particularly mothers.

For decades, the main goals of feminism and women’s rights movements have been portrayed as striving for “equal rights” and “equal pay”.  If these were the true goals of radical liberalism, all would be good and well in the world.  Yet, these are just parts of a masquerade created to conceal the actual goal of a long-term “War on Family”.

For almost a month, Democrats, including Obama, have been accusing the GOP of waging a “War on Women”, citing opposition to the “Contraception Mandate” and attacks on Sandra Fluke’s “testimony” to Congress.  In all these attacks, there has been little that was not intentionally manufactured and staged in advance by DNC operatives, including the awkward question to Romney on birth control in a January GOP debate.  One of these operatives was Hilary Rosen, who visited the Obama White House thirty-six times in the last three years and partnered with Anita Dunn to stage the Sandra Fluke testimony last month.

When given the chance, Rosen opened fire on Ann Romney; not for her opposing beliefs, but for being a stay-at-home mother.  According to the liberal view, raising a family cannot possibly be work, but rather an oppressive role forced upon women by the traditional concept of family.   Rosen and like-minded liberals target their hate towards the American family formula, as they see the family as counter-productive to the cause of women’s “independence”.  In their skewed world, children are shackles and husbands are oppressors, resulting in their disdain for career mothers and conservative women.

Ann Romney is that strong conservative woman.

Her entire life story threatens the hollow walls radical feminism has spent years to construct. Mrs. Romney, a breast cancer survivor, has raised five boys and committed her life to the cause of motherhood; going against the modern liberal mantra of career first, family optional.  When combined with that fact that she has multiple sclerosis, Mrs. Romney becomes a symbol of the strength and courage a stay-at-home mother must have and what she can achieve.  For Rosen, this lifestyle is does not fit into the mold of the “modern women”, who must achieve a fulfilled career and spend years fighting against the injustices of the male-dominated world.   It never even occurs to the Rosen’s of the world that motherhood is a career, noble of recognition and more advanced than any public-relations position a presidential administration could offer.

This “War on Family” is not new, but has simply been exposed again by this brief lack of verbal restraint.  In the early-90’s, Hilary Clinton exposed the agenda concisely, saying:

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession…”

Teresa Heinz-Kerry let her disdain for non-career mothers show through in 2004, claiming:

“I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job… I mean, since she’s been grown up.”

Even yesterday, President Obama attempted to cleverly take the side of Rosen when he said:  

“…we didn’t have the luxury for her [Michelle Obama] not to work.”

By making this statement, Obama made it clear that he believes the work of a “stay-at-home” mother is a “luxury”, as if raising children ends at 5pm every day.
While income is relative to one’s spending structure, the Obama’s clearly made a life-choice to balance raising children with their careers. In this free nation, this personal decision should be respected as theirs to make. Yet, this freedom to decide does not seem to apply to conservative mothers or Ann Romney. For all the diversity and tolerance the Left preaches, there does not seem to be much room for respect and acceptance of career mothers and their priorities in life.

Within only a couple of days, the Obama campaign’s artificially created “GOP War on Women” has boomeranged into a full-bodied spotlight into the soul of the liberal perspective on a women’s place in society.

As the general election fight shifts into high-gear, this blatant attack on family is only the beginning of what is planned for the remainder of the year.  As conservatives, we must continue to keep the spotlight on this true agenda and on liberal’s gender stereotyping of women in today’s political arena.

We must defend Ann Romney and a women’s right to choose a career in motherhood and child-rearing.

It’s Time to Saddle Up

As Rick Santorum suspended his campaign yesterday, Mitt Romney appears to have become the inevitable GOP nominee.  Due to the aggressive nature of the GOP primary season this year, there are no doubt many hurt feelings and cries of outrage.  Many are feeling anger and extreme disappointment, as Mitt Romney was clearly not even the second choice of many conservatives and the Tea Party. To be honest, Romney was not my first or second choice, either.  Yet, the table has been set and it’s time for us to re-adjust our focus.

While it has been a nasty six months of campaigning between the “establishment” candidate and the ever-changing “conservative” choice, we have now must prepare for a political war that hasn’t been experienced since Hamilton and Jefferson.  As conservatives, we must understand that the 2012 election means a complete change in the course for the United States.  There will be no going back from our decision in November, as Obama has already indicated his real agendas are still secret.  Implementation of “ObamaCare” alone in 2014 will ensure a complete remodel of society and the economy we live in.  The addition of another four years of socialistic policies would certainly bring us to an unimaginable place in our history, perhaps with even violent results. This is why we cannot afford to backbite and hold grudges over our issues with Romney anymore.

The stakes are too high and the result is too permanent. Our future generations deserve our present participation.

For some, this concept of uniting behind Mitt Romney and the “Establishment” may drudge up resistance and anger, yet consider these following reasons why we must unite in our battle.

Conservatism and the Tea Party have come extremely far in the GOP since 2008.  Due to the nomination of John McCain, conservatism has surged in the last four years and has become a major force in the Republican Party.  The crescendo from the ‘10 mid-term elections sent numerous freshmen congressmen to D.C. along with a new mandate and direction.  If we can dump our short-term memory and remember these strings of victories, it should become obvious we cannot afford to take any steps backward in 2012.  In 2008, it would have been inconceivable that grassroot-conservative members of the GOP could become such a strong force in the nominating process.   Yet, here we stand having changed the face of the GOP and beginning a journey back to the days of Reagan.  To stop or to sit-out the election now would halt the significant progress made and would begin to send the political environment back towards the status-quo.

Mitt Romney is a viable candidate.  It is very popular right now to claim that Romney cannot beat Obama in the general election.  It is easy to buy into this myth when it is combined with the frustration of other candidates losing to the “Establishment pick”.   While the frustration is warranted, we have to remember who his opponent is: Barack Obama   

Romney faces the most radical President in our nation’s history.  As a magnified version of Jimmy Carter, he has overseen soaring unemployment and gas prices, while the economy and the public’s’ moral simultaneously collapse.  Compared to President Obama, Romney has the potential to appear as a strong, fiscally-conservative alternative.  Even with Romney’s former healthcare law and “flip-flops” on past beliefs, comparisons of him to Obama are a stretch, at best.  There is no record indicating Mitt Romney would suspend oil-drilling in the gulf, criticize/threaten the Supreme Court, or even attempt to bypass the U.S. Congress whenever beneficial.  More importantly, Mitt Romney shows very little contempt or blatant disregard for the foundation of the United States, compared with our current leader.  With the economy failing, Barack Obama is extremely beatable by any candidate the GOP could have put forward this year, even Mitt Romney.

This election may be the last chance for the United States.  As the President’s current and future policies create more inflation, debt, and social division; the window for a change in direction is closing extremely quickly.  As mentioned before, the implementation of ObamaCare in 2014 will alone cripple the deficit and economy.   Each of the divisive policies from the current Administration will become amplified in a second term, furthering the goal of creating a government-dependent society.   If this dependent-society is achieved over another Obama term, the GOP nominee in ’16 may not matter.

Even more important than all the potential policies of a second Obama term are the Supreme Court nominees that are sure to be selected in the next four years.  If Obama is allowed to stack the court with liberal justices, then control of the other branches will be strongly irrelevant.  The Supreme Court will become the new policy-maker, approving and overturning laws based on the liberal agenda, not the U.S. Constitution.

To defeat Barack Obama, conservatives must begin to rally behind Mitt Romney in the next few weeks.  It is a make or break moment, as the nation must choose between embracing the radical changes of this administration and returning to its capitalistic roots. This year, conservatives must unite and fight for their beliefs and their country.  We should be extremely proud of the progress made in the last four years and be encouraged by the battle seen during the primary.

This November, we must realize the Presidency is within our grasp.  We just have to saddle up and take it.

Battlefield: SCOTUS

We have an emerging crisis and battlefield developing in the war against America. 

With the comments made over the last several days, a new narrative has begun to emerge for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.   As he “threatened” the Supreme Court, Obama showed his intentions to run against an “activist” court, signaling he seems to expect (already knows?) that an overturn is coming.

During his absurd rambling, Obama used two important terms in reference to SCOTUS and the ObamaCare case:  “unelected” and “unprecedented”

“…that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law…”

By singling out this “unelected group of people”, the President has begun to play to the uneducated masses. His hope lies on mobilizing individuals to outrage not only at the upcoming ObamaCare decision, but also the Court itself. With no knowledge of how the checks-and-balance system works, it easy to see how many could be shocked that nine “unelected” justices could determine the fate of laws. This ploy is very dangerous and could be effective for the President because of the multiple generations raised under the government-ran public education system.

It is not enough to convince the public that the Supreme Court is “unelected”, as they will not grasp this concept alone. There must be an element of rebellion against the President and the perceived public will. This is where “unprecedented” came into play when the President continued his remarks:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

By setting the expectation that the Court will uphold the President’s law, the belief is created that the Court has little involvement in government’s creation of laws.  The combination of these two concepts allows for the formation of President Obama’s main goal in attacking the court:

De-legitimize the U.S. Supreme Court and show it irrelevant to today’s United States.  

The result of this goal is twofold and extremely dangerous if accomplished.  The first part is to aid and expand Obama’s campaign message of “It’s not my fault!”  It has already been accepted that a “Do-Nothing Congress” portrait will be painted this fall by the Administration, as the GOP-controlled House has put the brakes on their agenda for the last two years.  To deflect against the President’s shortcomings and the floundering economy, “Obama2012” is now deflecting attention toward an “Activist Court” as well.   In doing so, they will have created an election message that pits the Presidency against an obstructionist Congress and misunderstood Supreme Court.

In a society conditioned to love drama, their hope is that this perceived power struggle will give way to a sympathetic view of Obama’s first term.

The second goal is more threatening to our current system of government, as there is little doubt Obama will go down swinging if he loses this November.  If at all possible, President Obama is attempting to place as much public skepticism and doubt around our most misunderstood branch of government.

Once again, due to government-ran public education, it may not be a difficult task.  The Supreme Court is not directly elected and is the only branch of government that is intended to not consider the will of the people.  Very few realize that the Court’s only intended role is to interpret law and the Constitution, not what is popular or what benefits the majority of the public.  As the media drums up an overturn of ObamaCare as “activism”, a potential tide of public sentiment could be created over time as public schools and college classes switch into full courses of progressive revisionism. While this may take years, it has become apparent that liberals are extremely patient.

If placement of anger and fear of this “unelected” group’s decisions can be successfully implemented, the United States’ entire system can be opened for challenge and re-examination.  Commentators and legislators will bow to perceived public outcry that the Court is, in fact, unnecessary since laws are passed by “elected” officials.  While perhaps losing in the general election, Obama would still go down in history as the progressive liberal hero who began the restructuring of the U.S. government. Again, these changes would not occur overnight, but rather through multiple future years of continuing the premise that the Court is a relic.

If this scenario seems unlikely, then consider that only days after the President’s comments, David Dow from The Daily Beast has already written an article calling for the impeachment of the five conservative Justices if they overturn ObamaCare in a 5-4 ruling. The title of his inane article is, “Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law”.  Within a day of this article, Maureen Dowd, who’s vocal opinion counts only to show a look inside the liberal mind, referred to SCOTUS as “hacks dressed up in black robes…”

While some may shake their heads now, this is the playbook and game plan we will be facing this November and perhaps in years to come.  As liberal ideas continue to fall short and fail intense scrutiny, their proponents are turning to refocus on damaging or completely removing entire branches of government.  With roles significantly lessened, their ideology can thrive on the absence of debate and challenge.

There is one major ray of hope throughout this entire scenario.  ObamaCare would have to be overturned for this strategy to play out to its fullest.  In this case, no one could deny that Conservatism would have given the first blow in this new battlefield.  This overturn could give conservatives the springboard needed to begin to express and explain our constitutional principles and beliefs in a way not seen since Reagan. This is why it is crucial that we are vigilant in relentlessly preaching the dangers of government overreach and praising the concepts of individual responsibility and liberty. 

Conservatism cannot afford to lose the battle around the integrity and relevance of the Supreme Court.

Mic Check: Obama’s Desire for “Flexibility”

President Obama got to experience open mic night at the Nuclear Security Summit this past week, while speaking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Under the impression that their microphones were off, President Obama made the following comments:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.”   “This is my last election.  After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev agreed and said he would pass along the sentiments to Putin, who will be taking Medvedev’s position this May. The comments should be a startling wake-up call to those who realize that Russia has and still is our main rival in the global arena, as they oppose the U.S. on almost every issue.

Obama’s gaffe begs us to question what this “flexibility” will bring and why he cannot share his goals with the American people before the election.

What is already known is that the START treaty already agreed to by Obama and Medvedev effectively commits the United States to reducing nuclear stockpiles, without forcing Russia to make any similar concessions.  Not more than ten days ago, the President also stated his intent to bring about nuclear disarmament, saying:

“I believe the United States has a unique responsibility to act — indeed, we have a moral obligation.”

Fortunately for us, the microphone caught our President expressing his true intentions.  Clearly, Obama recognizes that his plan and intentions will be unpopular and against the desires of the people, as he intends to give our global rival the upper-hand in military might.  After all, it would stand to reason that a majority of U.S. citizens would object to their President essentially disarming the nation and strengthening our most prominent rival, Russia.

It is a scary reality that we could be one election away from handing over our military superiority to our enemy. 

His goal of crippling U.S. defense is not the only insight we have gleaned from Obama’s hot mic incident. Let’s take his comments a step farther and to a deeper context.

If it is not already obvious, it should become completely clear now that we have a President who is not concerned with America’s interests or the will of her people.  In fact, he is so focused and obsessed with liberal ideals and objectives that he cannot bring himself to even propose a budget that would garner one Democrat representative vote in the House (the budget failed 414 – 0).   This obsession is so strong that it seems very likely that it will be his undoing this November, as almost every “accomplishment” of this Administration seems to be disliked by well-over half the population.

If President Obama is focused only with his ideals and liberal agenda and is willing to govern against the American people, then what can we expect if he was to win the November election?

To look forward at what may lie ahead, let’s take a glance at what the last four years has brought us. 

In what was intended to be Obama’s crowning achievement, ObamaCare (ACA) has currently deeply divided the nation and rests in the hands of the Supreme Court.  The proposal was incredibly unpopular before passage and the unpopularity has increased as each new “surprise” from the un-read 2,800 page bill is announced, including currently unfunded sub-programs to a $1 premium to support abortions.  Along with the bill came the expansion of federal power to mandate citizens make purchases, with no regard for their desire. In addition, ObamaCare will for all intents and purposes destroy private health insurance companies, paving the way for government-only healthcare.

In another first-term act, the Fast & Furious cover-up hit America upside the head, as the DOJ forced border town gun shops to sell guns illegally to known Mexican cartel members.  The DOJ (intentionally?) lost the cartel members and weapons as they disappeared into Mexico, resulting in the DOJ effectively arming Mexican drug gangs. The less-reported intent for this “operation” was to create reasons for the Administration to tighten restrictions on gun shops and gun ownership in the name of public safety, as U.S. weapons would have been reported as being used by Mexican gangs.  Sadly, this “operation” became public when a Border Patrol agent was killed with one of the very guns the DOJ let disappear.  The reports eventually could no longer go unreported by mainstream outlets and the Administration’s war on the 2^nd Amendment was exposed.  There can be little doubt that this war will continue more publically in a second term, as Obama’s “flexibility” increases.

We can expect “green energy” loans to continue through another Obama term, as they turn out to be major donors to the Democratic Party.  The push for “green energy” seems to be an especially important to President Obama, as numerous “green” companies receive these loans, despite the major collapses of Solyndra, Fisker, and the Chevy Volt experiment.  The main reason for his fondness in this artificially-created sector is due to the large amount of money received from these companies in political donations, revealing a large-scale embezzlement scheme.

Although preached fervently against while a junior-U.S. Senator, Obama has managed to increase the national debt and raise the debt ceiling  to astronomical levels.  In a true form of hypocrisy, Obama has managed to increase the debt level $4.2 trillion in his term, with the majority occurring in his first two years.  To put this into perspective, the first 41 presidents raised the debt limit $4.1 trillion, over 220 years.   If Obama can spend $4.1 trillion in a little over two years, how much can he spend with four “flexible” years?

Perhaps the most dangerous trend certain to continue in a second term is Obama’s lack of belief in the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and his bypassing of Congress for almost every action his Administration has taken. From undercover mortgage deals to unconstitutional appointment of positions and Presidential Czars, Obama has shown his severe disdain for the Congressional branch of our Democratic-Republic and its Constitution. There is no way to know what Obama’s “flexibility” bring in this area, as the sky seems to be the limit for his aspirations to run the government entirely from the White House.  His power-grab intentions will be emboldened by his ability to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with activist justices, thus reinforcing his ability to command whatever actions he sees fit. Only a successful impeachment by Congress would be able to stop the President as he pulls out all the stops on his liberal agenda.  This leads to the conclusion that the United States will be drastically changed and fundamentally destroyed if the President is given “flexibility” in a second term.

Being able to hear President Obama’s comments to our rival’s leader may have given us one of the best insights into what lays in store for us, if we fail to rise up and remove him from his post.  This is why we cannot be split over policy issues or which GOP candidate is nominated; but rather we must unite and rally for the sake of the nation we love.

We must give Barack Obama the “flexibility” that only comes with being removed from the Office of President.

Obama’s “Main Message”

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”                                                                                                       – Barack Obama

That’s Barack Obama’s main message to the parents of the boy who was shot and killed last week by a former neighborhood watch leader?  George Zimmerman, the watch leader, has claimed self-defense in the shooting, although the police have not finished investigating his claim. Repeatedly, the local police authorities have said that they are investigating what exactly happened; and at first glance, there may be some potential holes to the former watch leader’s story.  In the end, the story will unfold and more will be revealed.

So the most powerful man in the world’s “Main Message” to these grieving parents is that HIS son, if he had one, would look like theirs.  In twenty-one words, the President of the United States interjected himself into a state criminal investigation with a racial statement, as influential civil rights organizers began to incite crowds into a frenzy over perceived injustices.

As if sensing an opportunity, Barack Obama, who was hailed as “The Great Uniter” in 2008, willfully took the time to subtly play the race card.  Not only had his DOJ, led by Eric Holder, began reviewing the case almost immediately; but the President felt it was necessary to comment at a completely unrelated press conference.  His choice of words which included referencing looks and his own imaginary son has only shown that our President clearly sees events through the prism of race.   If that seems too much of a stretch, then imagine George Bush saying the same exact comment if Trayvon had been white.  At the minimum, one could argue it was a poor choice of words at a time when claims of racism are being fueled.  All Obama had to do, if anything at all, was offer his condolences to the family and express confidence that the authorities would thoroughly investigate.

It could have been that simple.   Instead, the President, even if unintentionally, invoked race and fanned the flames in Florida.  If not as generous as the previous statement, one cannot help but wonder why the President did not comment on and why the DOJ didn’t investigate Melissa Coon’s son in Kansas City, MO.

While walking down the street several blocks from her house, Ms. Coon’s 13-year old son was jumped by two teenagers who doused him in gasoline and then set him on fire.  As they began to douse him, they said, “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.”  Yes, Ms. Coon’s son was white and the attackers were two black teenagers.  Ms. Coon’s son received burns to the face and body and was rushed to the local emergency room.  Fortunately, he survived the attack and still is alive today.  The two teenagers have never been caught and almost not a word was ever mentioned by anyone in the mainstream media.  While the Florida case resulted in a death, it is clear that this attack in Kansas City was definitely a hate crime and there is little ambiguity to details of the event.

Yet, no one is holding their breath for any attention over a crime against a white 13 year-old in the Midwest, as there is no political advantage for Obama or the mainstream media in acknowledging this particular event. The political calculations made by Obama clearly dictate a need to bring excitement to the African-American vote, as their enthusiasm for the President has been shown lacking.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Zimmerman remains in hiding for his safety, the selective intrusions and snubs from this Administration based on race become more obvious day-after-day, as the President takes each opportunity to play the politics of division.

Reality Check: Focusing on the Real Objective

He will be defined by his policies....

As the GOP Primary rages on, there is currently a lot of rhetoric flying around.  As two (three or four?) potential candidates battle for the nomination and for conservative votes, a lot of heated comments are being exchanged.   Anyone who remembers the 2008 primary knows that this did not hurt our current President at all, as he tangled with Hillary Clinton.  In fact, it was quickly forgotten as the liberals fell in line to support the nominee.

Looking at today’s race, the same battle is occurring again between Romney and Santorum (Gingrich, Paul too?).

Each nominee’s camp is claiming that only THEY can defeat Barack Obama, providing a laundry list of reasons to support their claim. It is concerning that so many people are getting caught up (at times, I too) in the fight for their candidate to get the nomination, that they may be losing sight of what got us to this point in the first place. Take a moment and realize that whether “Obama-lite” Romney or “life-time politician” Santorum wins the nomination, this election is not going to be about the GOP candidate; it will be about one man’s desecration and attempted destruction of a nation.

November 2012 will be about Barack Obama.

In an ABC News poll, Two-thirds (67%) of Americans want the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate in “Obama-Care”.  In addition, the almighty “independents” that supposedly govern elections oppose the law 51% – 43% as well.  Since we’ve been told repeatedly that Independents are the only real objective in a national election, this should be enough proof to solidify a GOP win.   If that is not enough, not even two weeks ago, another poll, this time from the WaPo, showed that Obama’s disapproval rating hit a new high of 50%.  These are only two recent surveys that have thrown the mainstream media and the White House into panic.  The idea that these sentiments overwhelmingly exist in the country but somehow translate into an Obama victory is not logical. A majority cannot adamantly oppose a President’s key achievement and support him at the same time.   As much as he tries to avoid it, Obama cannot escape the fact that he will be judged by his actions in November.

If you do not trust polls and are still not convinced that the GOP attacks on each other will be almost irrelevant, consider this…

In 2010, GOP candidates won in a landslide against almost every Democratic challenger, resulting in a re-taking of the House and almost the Senate.   In a special election in 2011, New York District 9 elected its first GOP Rep. since 1920.  These protest votes against Barack Obama were unpredicted and under-reported by the media in an attempt to conceal the strong message that voters sent to D.C.

Nothing has changed since then, except that our nation’s situation has grown even more precarious.  We are two years away from nationalized health care being fully implemented, the constitution is being trampled on every day, and governmental organizations are becoming the channels in which to bypass Congress.  Without a doubt, America realizes it.

The idea that 2010’s sentiment has dissipated is absurd.  Americans across this country who indiscriminately protested against Obama through their votes in 2010 now have the object of their anger on the ballot this year.   What should be obvious is that this groundswell of anti-Democrat voters is being and will continue to be unrecognized by most media channels until several days before the November elections; at which point, it will be labeled a “surprise” and an “unprecedented” movement.   We must realize this cover-up of the majority’s opinions is an attempt to suppress any and every damaging vote possible.

Just remember that in several months the GOP primary will have ended and there will be a nominee.  The most difficult part for some will be realigning their focus and attempting to defend the nominee that they had been trying to destroy for months.  Fortunately, many out there, just like the late-Andrew Breitbart, are keeping their sights on the real enemy and the most important vote in our country’s history.   They understand that 2012 is not a year to support third-party candidates or sit-out the election in protest and that the furious battle in the GOP will end with a large group being majorly disappointed.   In November, only one of these four men will remain standing and ready to appear on the ballot against the President, and most of the efforts put forth in the primary will no longer matter.

This is why we must stay focused on the real mission of exposing and defeating Barack Obama. 

Obsessed With Being Offended

No Obama on this flag

We love to be offended.   Think about it for a second and let the concept sink in. Doesn’t quite make sense?  It may be fair to say we are obsessed with it even.  It seems that everyone loves to be the victim and target of some offense act, statement, or concept. Take a look at this simple example that happened over the last couple days.

Yesterday, Nike released a new limited line of shoes called “Black & Tan”, in tribute of the popular Irish beer concoction and upcoming St. Patrick’s Day.  Although an unofficial name for the shoes, the term “Black & Tan” was originally given to a highly oppressive group of British leaders in the 1920’s, who terrorized Irish dissidents.   Of course, the news quickly developed that Nike’s “name” has offended Irish groups throughout the world.  News articles across the board couldn’t resist but use word “offended” multiple times throughout the dialogue, with majority of the “offended” being unnamed and unrecognized.    This entire drummed-up story has forced Nike to make a public apology and remove the unofficial name.

There is nothing wrong with being offended; but consider that every time some group, including ourselves, is offended, the word’s meaning is diminished little by little.   For example:

Barbara Walters is “offended” by the TV show, The Bachelor

Animal welfare group offended by Neb. Gov. Dave Heineman speech

Kim Kardashian is offended by actor John Hamm’s comments

Those are all from news headlines in the last several hours, according to Google.

In the current environment, when we are “offended”, it is just the status-quo anymore.  It’s not an issue; it’s not a problem.

We’ll get over it, right?

Yet, that is the crux of the problem.  These days, being offended is a trend and passing emotion.  Everyone is looking for appeasement via apology or a handout, wondering what will be done to ease their ire.  While we may be offended by someone cutting us off on the highway or bumping in to us on a crowded street, it really does not matter anymore.  We aren’t truly offended; we’re just trying to fit in with the narrative of the day.  It’s just cool to be the victim and oppressed.  After all, who doesn’t naturally want to indulge in some self-pity and be a “martyr”?

Well…

I am truly offended.

I am offended…

• When it is announced that the Democratic Party of Lake County, Florida puts Barack Obama’s face on the American Flag.
  
• When a group of American Indians, Northern Arapaho, are given a permit to shoot American bald eagles. 
• When I am told that I must pay for other citizens’ “contraception”.
• When it is announced that the national healthcare law will collect a $1 premium to fund abortion procedures from everyone enrolled.
• When my tax money is rolled into Solyndra and other “green energy” companies
• When our President shows his disdain for the United States of America, through almost all his enacted policies, including apologizing and negotiating with a declared “enemy” in Afghanistan.

These are issues to be offended over!   Not shoe names, celebrity spats, and TV shows.

As citizens of this nation, we should be more concerned and offended by the path the U.S. has been set on by this Administration than Peyton Manning’s departure, a Kony 2012 documentary, or whether or not McDonald’s is out of chicken nuggets.  

If we make these trivial parts of life the target of our outrage and choose to be repeatedly offended over them, then we simply become the “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

After all, when everyone is offended, then no one really is.

A Democracy?

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”

 – James Bovard

         

Democracy vs. Republic

It is frightening when I hear someone refer to this country as a democracy.  Often times, it is elected officials, trying to speak in a language that sounds eloquent and patriotic.  Why does it frightening me? Mainly because the United States contains some portions of a democracy; but, in the end, is and was intended to be closer to a Republic.

Perhaps it may seem as if it is really is just an issue of definitions, but what if it is a whole lot more than that?  What if it is planned and an attempt to establish this democratic set-up?

Let’s look at what a democracy actually is.

Suppose a small group of people approach you and your family while you are walking down the street.  This group encircles your family and demands that you give your wallets, purses, and other valuables to them. Being that you are outnumbered, you comply with your oppressors’ demands.  Being robbed of everything you had on you, your captors are now appeased and they disappear.   The basic concept of Democracy supports what just happened.

Want to counter-argue that the example sounds extreme and there are laws prohibiting what just happened?

Let’s say the country just voted to make it legal to take others’ property?  A pure democracy would support this too; because democracy is based on the concept that majority rule is the final decision.  It does not matter what is deemed right, wrong, ethical, or unethical because the majority have decided what is to happen.

Democracy is mob rule.

For a simple definition, a Republic has boundaries that serve to protect from mob rule and shield individuals or groups from errant majority opinions.  The U.S. was intended to have the will of the people expressed and to guide the nation, but there is a severe difference from Democracy.  This difference is that if at any time the will of the majority of people goes outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, then it is to be rejected.

In all correctness, the United States is a Democratic Republic, in which the majority (voters) chooses through (representation) to make decisions for the country.  All these decisions by the majority’s elected officials are tempered through the court system.  If challenged, the courts then decide whether laws passed are within the boundaries set by the constitution.

Fast forward to today’s current hot topics and look how the concept of democracy has taken a tight grasp on many people’s thinking.

There are groups calling for the government to force religious groups to violate their convictions and provide free contraception.  On another front, there are people calling for the rich to pay an undetermined “fair share” of taxes, with talk of 99% against the 1%.  The whole concept of a 99% is ploy to stoke these democratic sentiments.

If the United States was a democracy, as some desire; these actions would have happened without any questioning of the legality. In fact, the 1% wealthy could have every penny taken legally from them if the 99% decided that was what they wanted.

This is why we have a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, and why the term “democracy” has been carefully turned into an acceptable description of our nation.  In basic, the Democratic Party theoretically is based on the belief that the will of the people is what matters, no matter what the majority supports at the moment.

It is mob rule vs. individual rights. 

 

“Democracy is the road to socialism.” – Karl Marx

What If We Took It All?

U.S. National Debt Clock

What if we took it all? What if we were to take all the money of the richest people and put it on the U.S. national debt.  That would be social justice after all, right? That’s we are being told or hinted at by many liberal activists.  Our President has even attempted to make this issue a pillar of his re-election campaign.   So, with all the 99% vs. 1% arguments and “fair share” comments thrown around these days, let’s look into this a little bit.

The U.S. debt is around $15 trillion at the moment and still rising. That is around $2.5 million every minute you and I breath.  To be fair, not many are truly saying confiscate it all.  Instead, they are simply calling for a “fair share” to be given back to society from the “1%” of America. Of course, what is not being acknowledged is who decides what is “fair”  and how “fair” is determined.

Regardless, for the “greater good” of the nation and in the name of social justice, let’s confiscate every penny from Forbes Top 20 Richest Americans and place it on the National Debt.  Let’s liquidate their assets and take every drop of their net worth and send them to a soup line, homeless and just the cloths on their back.   We would reduce our $15 trillion debt all the way to $14.5 trillion.  That’s right, not quite a half a trillion. Still seeming like a good idea?   Not only have we stripped naked individuals of their wealth, but we have also deprived them of their roles in the business world.  This has removed the Koch brothers (oil), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Larry Elison (Oracle) and three members of the Walton family (Wal-Mart) from influential positions in the economy.  Other companies affected by this confiscation are Google, Facebook, and Amazon; not to mention the numbers jobs lost due to the removal of these visionary leaders.

All for $.5 Trillion, $460 Billion, 1/30^th of the U.S. debt.   How ever you want to word it.

What if the United States used it “immoral” superior military force to confiscate the net worth of the 1,226 richest people in the world, which is Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires?   Go outside her borders and force each nation to take it all from these 1,000+ individuals?  The U.S. debt would be diminished by $4.6 trillion to a whopping $11 trillion owed.   So now we have bankrupted every billionaire in the world, destroyed numerous corporations, and caused the loss of countless jobs in exchange for 30% of the U.S. debt.   That’s right; we would still be over the debt level of $10.6 trillion when our President took office a little over three years ago.

Clearly, this is not realistic, yet the cries for this kind of action are being called for on a much smaller scale.  Surely, leaders and activists know that anything less than the severe move described previously would not even make a dent in the debt crisis we face.  It is a political game being played to dredge of jealousy and hatred for those who have more, and it is based on the belief the voters are ignorant enough to believe it.

Still sound like a good idea? Perhaps we should be looking at a change in leadership instead of a change in tax rates.

A Revelation

I believe all things happen for a purpose.  As I walked toward my polling place on Super Tuesday, I was approached (outside and at a legal distance) by a man, who asked for my support.   I had been vaguely familiar with the name and already had plans to vote for him.  He was Ohio state senate candidate Paul Isaacs.

I thanked him for being out there and continued on to go exercise my constitutional right. As I was leaving, I felt compelled to ask him for information about his campaign and some of his beliefs.  The conversation was continually interrupted as he would greet every voter walking towards the polling center; but through the half-sentences and pauses, I came to know a man who put his convictions and faith above other people’s opinions and the odds. This most obviously demonstrated by the fact that he was asked to run and start a campaign two months before.  As we spoke, I came to learn that Mr. Isaacs’ main reason for running was the lack of interest in the Heartbeat Bill that the current District 06 state senator has shown over the last year.   I listened to his abbreviated campaign story and saw conviction and passion that one rarely sees expressed in an individual.  I stayed that afternoon helping Mr. Isaacs hand out literature and asking voters to support him.  Between the requests, we spoke about our politics, convictions, and our faith in the Lord.  Before I knew it, the sun had gown down and the polls were about to close.  Mr. Isaacs had left a few minutes before to wrap up some loose ends before the results were announced.  Standing there alone in the dark, I found myself campaigning for someone who I’d just met.

Mr. Isaacs lost the election.  His two month old campaign garnered a little bit over 31% of the vote from OH -District 06 voters. For a campaign born not more than two months before Super Tuesday, that is nothing short of incredible, but that’s not the point.  Although we only spent three hours together, I could tell the drive Mr. Isaacs has for his beliefs cannot be stamped out by the loss of an election.  The revelation I experienced that evening was that I have a duty to be active for my beliefs or I need to sit down and be silent.  The middle ground is the easy place to be; in fact, it may be the easiest position.  What could be easier than being silent when dissidents are present and expressing  “convictions” when in friendly circles?  Nothing could be simpler than to blend in with your surroundings, avoiding confrontation with the people around you.

No more!

I cannot call myself a conservative, if I am not willing to speak it.  The biggest spark to this realization was a comment that Mr. Isaacs made to me that evening.  In a discussion around religious beliefs, he said he did not believe that people will die for something they don’t genuinely believe in.  I realized that this is a level of conviction that one must have if they truly believe in something, and it’s time to apply this all areas of life.  Young and old conservatives must live by this; or we must fade away, taking our beliefs with us.  There isn’t really any middle ground anymore; perhaps there never really was.