Hermain Cain Educates Clinton on Economics in 1994 HC Town Hall Forum

I found this video on a great conservative blog – Pesky Emotional Republican

In April 1994, Bill Clinton was stumping for his health-care bill, when Herman Cain debated the president’s claim that restaurateurs would bear only a marginal new cost. Herman said that the bill would force Godfather’s to fire part of its workforce. Clinton disagreed and said that Cain would only have to raise pizza prices by 2 percent. Insisting that Clinton was incorrect, Cain wouldn’t give in. He told Clinton, “I’d had my financial people run the numbers”. Clinton then asked Herman to send the numbers to him and he would have his advisers go over them.

The next day Herman Cain did send the numbers to the White House and he also submitted an oped piece to the Wall Street Journal. The Journal published them, and after Clinton’s plan collapsed, Newsweek identified Cain as one of its “saboteurs”—a badge of honor, especially among conservatives today. Later Hilary Clinton would say the Clinton administration could not be held responsible for every under-capitalized small business in America.

I came away from this video with two things in mind:


1. President Clinton showed Mr. Cain respect. Even when he made a joke about being his best customer, President Clinton quieted the crowd, reminding them that Mr. Cain had brought up a very important point. You just wouldn’t see Obama acting that way.


2. President Clinton knew his facts and figures. Although he was ultimately wrong about the impact of Hillarycare on Mr. Cain’s business, he did come across like he knew what he was talking about. No teleprompters, no stuttering um’s and uh’s.



Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Plays the Race Card

The left often plays the race card and usually they are crying wolf when they do. The latest example of this is by Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who on the floor of Congress said in part:


“I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one. Read between the lines,” she continued. “What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?”

So let me understand this. What did then Senator Obama say about raising the debt ceiling when George W. Bush was President?

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”  – Senator Obama

I guess Senator Obama was behaving in a racist manner. I mean according to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that is why everyone is against Obama. The only reason he doesn’t get “respectful treatment” is because of his skin color. So when the NY Times ran article after article bashing President Bush, was that “respectful treatment?” When Senator Harry Reid called Bush the worst President ever, was that “respectful treatment?”

The left refuses to admit that the first black man to be elected to the highest office in our land has been an abysmal failure. Their desperation is beginning to show and the closer we get to the 2012 elections and Obama is forced to run on his record, then the kid gloves will come off. This is, in all likelihood going to be the nastiest Presidential election in our lifetime.


Public Sector Collectively Bargaining 101

Here are a few videos that delve into the ongoing debate about public sector unions and the abuses built into that system.

The first video is one I found over at floppingaces.net




And here, from Conservative Hideout 2.0 is a video showcasing the class and tolerance of the left…

Obama’s Ties to the Nation of Islam and Libya

In 1984, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya to be the guests of Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya. This visit led to Farrakhan becoming the recipient of an interest free $5 million loan in 1985. Nice terms, if you can get them.

Fast forward to the 2008 presidential campaign and you have Wright being quoted in a WND article:

“When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

The close ties to Libya become more evident, the deeper we dig. Later in the same year that Farrakhan received the $5 million loan, Gaddafi spoke via satellite to Farrakhan’s Savior’s Day Convention in Chicago, and reportedly told Farrakhan supporters he was prepared to provide weapons to a black army in the U.S. to destroy “white America.”

In October 1995, Gaddafi reportedly called Farrakhan with congratulations on the success of the Million Man March. Gaddafi was said to have assured Farrakhan that together “we will unite our capabilities and efforts to achieve this.”

According to reports in 1996 from Libya’s news agency, JANA, Farrakhan and Gaddafi agreed to work together to mobilize “oppressed blacks, Arabs, Muslims and Red Indians” to help reshape U.S. foreign policy.

Gaddafi said that until his alliance with the Nation of Islam, “our confrontation with America was like a fight against a fortress from outside.”

He asserted his alliance with Farrakhan provides him with “a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it.”

Farrakhan went to Libya for multiple other events. He was the recipient in 1996 of the Gaddafi Human Rights Award, which came with a $250,000 prize. Farrakhan accepted the prize despite U.S. sanctions on Libya.

So it is evident that Gaddafi is closely associated with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. But how does Obama enter the picture?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama both attended Farrakhan’s Million Man March on Washington. Rev. Willie Barrow who is a member of Obama’s official campaign Faith Outreach Team, is a close friend of Farrakhan’s, an ardent NOI supporter and an Obama superdelegate.

Farrakhan stated in a 2002 interview he met with Barrow to devise his Nation of Islam platforms.

Marxist activist Cornel West, an adviser to Farrakhan, also had been an adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a close Obama associate and personal friend.

During the period of Obama’s attendance at Wright’s Trinity United Church, which practices controversial Black Liberation Theology ideology, the Chicago church was openly allied with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Wright gave Farrakhan his 2007 Empowerment Award. Farrakhan delivered multiple guest lectures at the church.

It would seem that Obama picked Wright’s church for a reason.

Wright has been involved in Farrakhan initiatives and labeled him “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century” during a national address to the media in April at which Nation of Islam officials were invited guests.

Obama has appeared at least three times on the cover of Trumpet magazine, founded by Wright. The magazine, to which Obama last year granted a lengthy, exclusive interview, regularly hails Farrakhan.

Obama’s face was featured on the cover of a 2006 issue of Trumpet alongside Farrakhan’s image.

In spite of the MSM all but ignoring the many red flags of Obama’s background, a 2004 picture surfaced of Michelle Obama posing with Louis Farrakhan and Obama adviser Willie Barrow. It was a luncheon for the Rainbow/Push Coalition that Barrow holds the title of Chairman Emeritus.

So what has Obama’s allegiance to Farrakhan, Wright and Gaddafi brought the United States? As reported by ynet news, in a recent interview Muammar al-Gaddafi revealed how he feels about the subject, emphasis mine:

Speaking in the Libyan city of Sirt at an event marking the 24th anniversary of an American attack on Libya, he said, “At the time, we were the target of the American cannon, the American navy challenged us in the gulf of Sirt and attacked us all along Libya’s shores. America tested Libya, and the Libyan people resisted the large country, but today, thank God, the difference is great.”

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.

Gaddafi stressed that Obama’s presidency is “a major historical gain” and said, “He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace.”

Obama has done more than just pay lip service to the Muslim world and to Gaddafi himself to earn praise from the dictator.

From the American Thinker:

Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama “our son,” Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi’s children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha.  What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama’s generosity?

Funding of the ship Amalthea:  The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas.  It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be “keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza.”  The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi’s charity, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Association.  Obama’s friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel’s blockade on Hamas.  Saif joined attempt #2.  One has to wonder which of Obama’s friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3.

The article goes on to remind us about US State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley’s comments about Gaddafi and how they were rebuked:

As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland.  Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya’s “son” first.  As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn’t speak ill of “family.”

How much longer will the American people put up with Obama’s patronage to the dictators of the Muslim world? Speaking for myself and a large number of Americans, 2012 cannot get here fast enough.

I am an American

I am an American.

I do not believe my God tells me to kill all who do not believe in him.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to take my property, the fruit of my labors in order that it might redistribute it to those too lazy to work.

I am an American.

I want the borders of my country secure, so that those who truly want to be here and truly have something to contribute to my country will be welcome.

I am an American.

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of other countries, except where it directly threatens the safety and security of my country.

I am an American.

I do not want my government interjecting itself into the affairs of private enterprise.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me how to raise my children, or what to feed them.

I am an American.

I do not want my public schools to preach socialism, Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism or any other “ism” save for American-ism to my children. It is about time that we started recognizing our own culture for a change.

I am an American.

I want my children to be able to pray in school.

I am an American.

I do not want my children to have to pay for the excesses and out of control spending brought about by our current pack of politicians.

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to read, understand and follow the Constitution of the United States of America; to the letter.

I am an American.

I do not want to have to pay 4, 5 or more dollars a gallon for gasoline because some government bureaucrat thinks we need to save the planet.

I am an American.

I do not want my evening news program to give me its slant on the news. Just report what happens and let me decide what I think.

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to be held to a responsible, reasonable, efficient budget because in my everyday life, I can only spend what I bring in, so they should as well.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me that I no longer have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of my home and family.

I am an American.

I want to know that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is a civil union.

I am an American.

I believe that when it says our Creator granted us the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it should extend to ALL Americans; even unborn babies.

I am an American.

I feel that decisions have consequences and that our country would be vastly improved and better off if everyone had to be responsible for their own decisions.

I am an American.

I believe that you have the right to stand up and say whatever you want. And I believe this because so many before us have sacrificed life and limb to give us all that right.

I am an American.

I also believe that if I think there is something wrong with my government, or elected leaders that I can change that at the ballot box, not with violent means.

I am an American.

I believe that God put me in the greatest country on his green earth, and that I want my children to have better, more and bigger opportunities that I have had.

I am an American – and a damn proud one at that.

Reagan Stats for his 100th Birthday

Reagan Results:

Number of American taxpayers who claimed more than $1 million in income in 1980: 4,400

Number of American taxpayers who claimed more than $1 million in income in 1987: 35,000


Share of income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers in 1981: 48%

Share of income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers in 1988: 57.2%


Total growth of Real GDP 1983-1990: 35.7%

Total growth of Real GDP 1991-1999: 33%


Total federal revenues 1980: $517 billion

Total federal revenues 1990: More than $1 trillion

(in constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28% increase)


Revenues from individual income taxes 1980: $244 billion

Revenues from individual income taxes 1990: $467 billion

(in inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25% increase)


The Reagan-created economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history.

The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II


The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms.

This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan’s economy to the U.S. economy.


From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year.

From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent.

The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.


Proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% 1981: 18%

Proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1% 1988: 28%


Doesn’t matter how the left tries to revise the record, history shows Reagan’s fiscal responsibility is by far the most successful economic policy of the entire 20th century.

What he did to the tax structure in this country brought about a boom equaled by no other US President.

He won the Cold War without firing a shot and put the Soviets where they belong – on the trash heap of failed governing systems.

Think what Reagan could have accomplished had he a Republican Congress that would work with him, rather than a Democratic Congress that worked against him.


Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan.

Virtual Capitalism

Now as of late, I have been having a bit of writer’s block. So I thought I would take this opportunity to bring something different to my readers. Okay, I will admit it. I play video games. Yes I, father of eight and grandfather of 3 play video games.

Before you all ask why I am explaining this, please bear with me for a bit and allow me a bit of leeway in explaining the game that I play the most. Then I will tie it all in with the real world that we deal in; that is politics.

Well I play one online computer game. It is my stress reliever, my moment of zen if you will. I play a game called World of Warcraft, or WoW for short. If any of you remember Dungeons and Dragons, then you will have a good idea of what type of game WoW is. It is basically a 3D version of D&D brought to life. A “virtual reality” type, role playing game. I love it, I play it and I am not ashamed to admit it.

WoW is an MMORPG or Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. You are online when you play the game with thousands of other people sitting at their homes, in front of their computers also playing WoW. It is an interactive, social networking type of role playing game – and it can be highly addictive.

In a nutshell WoW is set on a fictitious planet called Azeroth. To play the game, you choose a type of character you want to play, the race you wish it to be and then the faction you wish it to be. There are two factions, or “sides” in WoW;

  • The Alliance, consisting of Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Night Elves, Dranei and Worgen
  • And The Horde, consisting of Orcs, Taurens, Trolls, Blood Elves, Undead and Goblins. There are also classes of characters, such as warriors, priests, druids, mages, warlocks, etc…

Now before you head completely spins off your body, let me give you an example. My best character is a Dwarf Warrior, but you could make a Gnome Mage or a Night Elf Druid, an Orc Warrior, an Undead Priest, etc… Each class has its function and they are designed to work with one another on missions, called quests or in dungeons, called instances. You can only talk and interact with other characters within your faction, Alliance or Horde. As I mentioned, the game has a very social aspect to it, in that you can chat with others that are online as well. You can collaborate or compete with them in game. As you play, your character progresses through higher and higher levels. You control your avatar or “toon” via a first person or third person view.

You can obtain better items for your toon, such as armor or weapons. You can get these by doing quests in the game or by actually purchasing them. The game has its own currency; Gold pieces, Silver pieces and Copper pieces. 100 Copper equals 1 Silver and 100 Silver equals 1 Gold. There is an economy in the game, so this is where I connect the game of Warcraft with reality.

I explain all this because Blizzard, the company that makes World of Warcraft has been very successful with it; and for good reason. To date they have over 12 million subscribers to the game. Subscribers pay a nominal monthly fee to be able to log onto the game and play. Blizzard long ago realized that in order to make the game play interesting or fun enough to keep people paying and playing, they had to set up an in game economy. It would be real easy for Blizz to just give each player the items they need to play the game, but after a very short time, the fun would wear off. Instead Blizz has set up WoW as a free market economy.

You see, in the real world – in a free market economy such as in the United States, if you want something, you go to a vendor that sells what you need or want and you purchase it. WoW is very similar in that if your toon needs a new item, say a weapon for instance; then you have a quite a few different options.

  • Through different professions your character can learn to make some items and gear.
  • You can find a vendor in the game that sells it and you can purchase it if you have the correct amount of currency. Vendors are NPCs (non playing characters) which are AI or artificial intelligence – in other words NPCs are computer generated characters that you can interact with in the game.
  • You can complete quests that offer gear as a reward for completing those quests. Or you can group with other players and complete instances (dungeons) and what you need might or might not “drop” when you kill a certain boss in those instances.
  • You might also approach other players via the trade function in the game and negotiate a price for the item you need, that is if they have it.
  • Lastly, you can go the auction house that is in game and bid on items there. Now this is where it gets interesting, because you can make vast amounts of in game “gold” by knowing what items are valuable or highly sought after and you can obtain or make those items and sell them on the auction house.

I find it very interesting that Blizzard chose the free market system to model their in game economy after. The sheer skill needed to obtain enough gold to purchase the high level items your toon needs is considerable.

In addition, a black market of gold sellers has cropped up. People who have mastered the skills necessary to harvest vast amounts of gold (referred to as gold farmers in the gaming community) actually sell in game gold for real world money. Just Google “WoW gold” and you will see what I am talking about.

Now what really blows me away is when I am in game and notice on the chat channels that people are complaining about “Obama bashers.” They defend him and say things like, “So what if he is socialist? What is so bad about socialism?” All the while they are competing in a free market economy. Understand that the players in the game, not Blizzard set the prices on the vast majority of all items. This means that the in game economy is elastic and suffers the same trials and tribulations of real world economies; inflation, supply and demand, etc…

If Blizzard tried to implement the policies that Obama is attempting to force upon the American public, then the number of subscribers would drop greatly. For, to have everything provided by a centralized authority would take away all the goals and accomplishments that make the game fun to play. An epic sword that has a low drop rate is held in high regard because it is so difficult to obtain. A player might run a certain instance dozens or even hundreds of times to get the item he or she is looking for. If Blizzard simply provided it to the players, where would the satisfaction be?

I submit that if socialism was truly better than capitalism, then Blizzard and other game makers would not set up free markets for the players of their games. Cheat codes on some games make them less appealing because of the same reason.

I think the Obama administration and his economic advisers need to purchase subscriptions to World of Warcraft and play for a few months before making any more changes in the United States’ monetary policy. I mean, hey what could it hurt? Besides it would be fun to be online and stumble upon a virtual president. I would know it would be him because of all the virtual secret service…

God Blessed Texas

God blessed Texas in many ways; wide open spaces, beautiful landscapes, a rich history and most of all a people with an independent streak that runs deep. That independent streak has shown itself recently in a bill that was prefiled to be introduced in the 2011 Texas state legislative session. It sets up penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the “felony” of attempting to “enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation” pertaining to Obamacare. It is sponsored by state Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) and if it becomes state law, then it will for all practical purposes render Obamacare “null and void and of no effect”.

The bill says the federal Act (Obamacare):

  • is invalid in this state;
  • is not recognized by this state;
  • is specifically rejected by this state; and
  • is null and void and of no effect in this state.

It further states that any “person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter.” And it lays out how Obamacare is opposite to individual liberty and the freedoms put forth in our founding documents by saying that the “assumption of power by the federal government in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872; Pub. L. No. 111-152) interferes with the right of the people of this state to regulate health care as they determine is appropriate, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist Paper Number 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are ‘few and defined’ while those that remain in the state governments are ‘numerous and indefinite.’”

Michael Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center says that there is already nationwide dissatisfaction with the onerous mandates of Obamacare.

“The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives,” he explained.

“They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers,” he said.

Maharrey went on to note that 14 states have already sued to block the implementation of Obamacare, along with more than a dozen private lawsuits by others as well. But Texas is taking this “a step further.”

“While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority,” Maharrey wrote.

He quoted Madison’s work (emphasis mine):

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Michael Boldin, who founded the Tenth Amendment Center says that this isn’t anything new.

“One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.

The Center goes on to say in a report, that 10 other states are considering similar legislation.

Whether this makes it into law or not, it is a landmark proposal that ought to make the powers that be in Washington D. C. sit up and take notice.

Conservatism: What it is and why it is needed?

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? By its very nature, conservative is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to look at the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor, our Constitution. It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative. It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time.

Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.

  • $787 billion stimulus package
  • $410 billion omnibus spending bill
  • $700 billion Wall Street bailout package
  • $3.6 trillion budget
  • $1.2 – $3 trillion for Obamacare

To assail his critics, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his obscenely bloated budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R N-H) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

But it actually gets worse. Projections from the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office show that spending on entitlements will outpace economic growth from 147% to a whopping 331% by 2030. That means with our Gross Domestic Product at 72%, we will be spinning our wheels as a nation to try and cover the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention Obamacare which is a boondoggle of gargantuan proportions.

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure statist’s Utopian dream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children? The answer is no. This is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now.

…with Liberty and Justice for all!

In the 8th Congressional District in Illinois there is a three way race between  Democrat Incumbent Melissa Bean, Republican Candidate Joe Walsh and the Green Party’s Bill Scheurer. In a debate last week which was sponsored and moderated by the League of Women Voters a spontaneous recitation of The Pledge of Allegiance broke out, much to the dismay of moderator Kathy Tate-Bradish of the LoWV.

During the opening of the event, an audience member stood up and requested that The Pledge of Allegiance be recited. Tate-Brandish said that it would not be recited because it was not on the schedule for the evening’s program.

After several shouts of “Why not?” the audience stood up and recited the pledge over the objections of Tate-Brandish, anyway. After the audience sat down, Tate-Brandish scolded them by saying she hoped that was the last time she would be disrespected. At first, when questioned, Tate-Brandish said this about reciting The Pledge of Allegiance, “I have absolutely nothing for or against saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of something like this.”

Let’s look at that statement. She said she has nothing against saying it. Fine, so let the audience say it. She further said she has nothing “for” saying it. Why? What is it that is so bad about being patriotic these days? Well in the days following the event, League of Women Voters’ Illinois Spokesperson, Executive Director Jan Czarnik said “phony patriotism” is driving the criticism of Tate-Brandish. Czarnik spokesperson then added that it was an orchestrated attempt by GOP Candidate Walsh’s campaign to “bully” the organization (LoWV). She then went on to say, “It’s a phony patriotism issue is what it is,” she said. “They must think it helps their campaign.” Czarnik also added that someone is not a better American just by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

So now it is phony to want to recite The Pledge of Allegiance? Why is the League of Women Voters playing the blame game on this?

Walsh’s campaign denies responsibility for it and during the recitation both he and incumbent Bean stood and recited the pledge with the audience. Green Party candidate Sheurer did not. He later stated that he did not want to be “forced” to recite it.

Audience member and Island Lake resident Joseph Ptak, a Walsh supporter, claimed Friday that he was the person who stood asked for The Pledge of Allegiance at the debate. Ptak, 58, a U.S. Air Force veteran, said he thought the pledge was a proper way to begin the event that was in a high school with student participation. He said numerous veterans were in the audience, and he objects to Czarnik questioning the request’s sincerity.

“I’m a Joe Walsh supporter, but first and foremost I’m an American,” Ptak said.

What has this country come to when a spontaneous rendition of The Pledge of Allegiance is labeled as “phony patriotism” and used as a foil by a leftist organization such as the League of Women Voters? This is yet another example of everyday Americans waking up and taking a stance against the creeping Marxism of the far left. Kudos to Mr. Ptak and to those audience members who stood up not only for The Pledge of Allegiance, but also for America.

Video of the spontaneous recitation of The Pledge of Allegiance –

GOP Candidate Joe Walsh’s comments after the debate –