Cracking The Obama Agenda

I believe I've figured out a key to President Obama's philosophy and, subsequently, his agenda. And I'm convinced it's ultimately the agenda of people like Reid and Pelosi...and our sorry excuse for a Representative, Ciro Rodriguez.

Barrack Obama's father wrote an article in which he said that you could conceivably tax the people for 100% of their income as long as you provided commensurate services via the government collecting the tax. I believe this is precisely the perception of Obama and the Progressives. I will call this the Allowance Doctrine.

What do I mean by Allowance Doctrine? Think about it, using the words of Obama and others like him. He and they have actually said that you can have too much wealth, that you can make "plenty" of money. Now, this assumes that someone decides what enough is. Once you reach that mysterious amount, anything more than that would, it follows, more than enough. Now, if there is enough and if there is too much, then it's logical to assume that Obama and his kind believe there is a threshold for not enough. It has clearly been Obama's agenda, as well as that of the rest of the Progressives, increase the confiscatory taxation of those who are past enough so that the elitists can "spread the wealth" (Obama's own words) to those who are in the not enough category.

I contend that getting and keeping everyone in between the not enough and the more than enough thresholds. This, my friends, would be your Allowance. You are allowed to keep x amount. In fact, in the Progressive's utopia, all of us would work for the government and not actually keep money, but rather simply receive goods, services or credits for the things we need. You would work in factories or other jobs producing the goods and services that the government elites decide are needed and, naturally, good for us. You can already see this happening. We had a pretty thriving incandescent bulb industry going until suddenly the Progressives decided that poisoning the earth with the hazardous waste from florescent bulbs was somehow better than the energy we used with incandescent ones and, with a swipe of a pen, essentially killed an entire industry. There are more examples, of course. But this is simply an example of gradually setting the stage for the move toward the Allowance Doctrine.

Look at the minimum wage. What you have constantly heard from the Progressives is that the minimum wage must be increased because it's not a "living wage". It was never meant to be a living wage. It was meant to create a fair starting point for paying simple labor so that they weren't, for all intents and purposes, slaves. But what the Progressives have decided is that it should represent what you can raise a family on. This, to anyone with any sense at all, is ridiculous. You weren't meant to raise a family flipping burgers. That's not a career, it's not a profession. But the minimum wage is simply one more mechanism to give you an indication where the not enough threshold fits in the Allowance Doctrine.

Now, I could spend pages going on to explain how health care, abortion and a number of other hot button issues also fit into this doctrine...and perhaps in a later post I will. But for now chew on what I've said and see if you don't recognize some other signs of the doctrine.

Because liberals can rarely win debating issues, they always resort to personal attacks.

Good grief. Every time I see a clip of the President he's pompously looking down his nose as he speaks.

Stopping the passage of NDAA, that had the repeal of DADT, is a hollow victory. Sen Collins, a RINO, still favors repeal. She must go.

The Fall Of Karl Rove

I've never really cared for Karl Rove, let me say that up front. I never considered his "accomplishment" getting George Bush elected & re-elected as all that stunning. If you read items from his past, you can see that he's really a big-government Republican. Not really a true Conservative. He has said, repeatedly, in response to criticism of his spouting off against Christine O'Donnell (R), Delaware, that he's for the Republican, whatever the case. He has said repeatedly that he is working for a majority.

Therein lies the problem I have with him. I used to be a card-carrying Republican. GW and that batch of Republicans changed that. I'm not for the majority. The (R) beside your name doesn't mean squat to me if you actually believe and vote Progressive. People like Mike Castle (R...yeah, right), Delaware, are exactly that. They are Democrats wearing an (R). I don't want a moderate. I don't want a blind extremist, either. I want someone who espouses the truly Conservative, Constitutional Constructionist, God-fearing traditional values that our founders created this nation under. I'm not a Libertarian. That's too much like anarchy, and it really is just Liberal but without the mandates to be Liberal.

Now, I've watched the old YouTube videos, seen the various quotes from Christine O'Donnell. Maybe she has been shallow most of her life, looking only after her 15 minutes of fame. I think almost all politicians share that...just some are more blatant about it. Here's the thing that I also pick up on. Over the years (the videos of her apparently go back to the college days) she has been consistent in speaking in favor of a very Conservative viewpoint and a worldview that respects God. Have her choices in life always been true to that worldview? There would appear to be evidence to the contrary. You could most certainly make the same claim about me. But I would, without a doubt, confidently go up against any Liberal, any Progressive, taking a position the favors a Biblical worldview and Conservative values. And if someone called me out on some past flaw in judgement I'd be the first to admit it and show that I've learned from it---that MY mistakes do NOT invalidate THE MESSAGE. Always, the TRUTH does not depend upon me--or O'Donnell--being perfect.

But what people like Tom Ross, Delaware GOP chair, and Karl Rove are is almost as insidious, almost as dangerous and misguided as the Democrats. I'm convinced they are actually Progressives, but that the power they seek through compromising principles and playing for the "big tent" is for the people with an (R) even if it doesn't actually result in any change of direction for this government and this country. They could care less about the fate of this nation, as long as they have more (R)s than there are (D)s. This should sicken you. It does me. I'd vote for a Democrat if I was convinced he voted more conservatively than progressively.

As for Christine O'Donnell, we should have a pretty good idea over the next couple of weeks if she can get herself schooled enough to go toe-to-toe with her Democratic rival. She'll need to be able to answer the tough questions. I don't doubt she'll help move us away from the Progressive filth we find ourselves in.

And here's a hint to Karl and others....CALL HER! Swallow your flippin' pride and jump in there with as much enthusiasm as you tired codgers can muster and try to help her campaign! School her yourselves instead of saying, "Well, she needs to this, she needs to that." You're not constructive. In fact, you're DEstructive.

LOL, have seen the Dems new website & logo to 're-brand' themselves?. Lipstick on a pig....

So, more people are coming out of the woodwork to challenge Rove's cred as a conservative.

Karl Rove Is Missing The Point

AFTER A SOUND WHOOPIN' when Christine O'Donnell won big in the Delaware Republican primary, Karl Rove, aka "The Architect", just couldn't admit he's wrong. First off, I found the nickname annoying since I wouldn't characterize his successes with George Bush as something I'd really want to brag about. Second, for an "architect" his "designs" have gotten pretty tired. He tried to list all these various character flaws, etc., as reason to not put any money or faith in O'Donnell and, by some of his other comments, on the other "newbie", TEA party-backed winners. He's forgetting, of course, that a growing percentage of people apparently don't care about those things. But, more importantly, he seems to have issue with how inexperienced and "accidental" O'Donnell is, that they need to be schooled on how to work the mine field.

How about this, Mr. Rove and all you Republican Party Ignoratzi: JUMP IN AND HELP THE NEW KIDS!!! Instead of getting your face time on TV, whining about how these people couldn't possibly work the media and the tough challenges, try shutting your yappers and contact these people--who have been elected by US--and offer to get them up to speed. Here's why, Mr. Rove and others.... You're more about the power than the principle. To you people, an (R) beside the word "majority" is all you care about, not whether we have people representing us who stand on the principles we hold dear. I don't believe in the Buckley Rule. I believe we need to elect people with the same mindset, same set of values as our founders.

Delaware IS winnable, Mr. Rove. Get off your lazy rear end and help Christine get ready. Prove you really ARE "the architect".

Republican Establishment Got A Slap In The Face

The fallout from the Delaware Republican primary win for Christine O’Donnell is stunning. If you look at almost all the nay-sayers you’ll find that, if they are Republican, they are “senior GOP” personalities or otherwise identifiable as Establishment, Ruling Class. The vitriol from those stale, faux-conservatives just drips, post Super Tuesday. Here are some quotes from Politico.com, followed by my comments:

“GOP NIGHTMARE: ….If Castle had won the nomination, the GOP almost certainly would have taken the seat. Now, Republicans are UNlikely to take the seat and therefore UNlikely to take the majority on Nov. 2” This has been the pervasive criticism from the Republican Establishment all along. It’s about who has (R) by their name rather than actually working to get this nation back to its roots. It’s also why the TEA party movement has grown.

“STATE GOP CHAIRMAN TOM ROSS (who will probably resign today) has called O’Donnell ‘delusional,’ and told AP’s Philip Elliot in a phone interview on Sept. 2: “She’s not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware.” I sent a number of emails to this fool warning him it was unwise to come out so publicly against O’Donnell and that if he couldn’t sit down, shut up and wait until the people had spoken he should just quit. He is, again, a perfect example of the Republican Establishment that has, for decades, compromised principles all for the sake of the Party, rather than for what’s right.

“KARL ROVE, to Sean Hannity: “It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, l…while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for….But I gotta tell ya: We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate [of the 10 needed for the majority]. We’re now looking at seven to eight, in my opinion. This is not a race we’re gonna be able to win” I’ve not been a huge fan of Rove. He may be “the architect”, but his “designs” have been stale for some time, now. And getting George Bush elected was not necessarily something I’d be bragging about. There’s so much that annoys me about his statement. First off, “it does conservatives little good to support candidates who…” Who WHAT? Are CONSERVATIVE? Castle wasn’t a moderate. He was a Progressive wearing an (R). Period. Then Karl goes on to mumble about “rectitude and sincerity and character”. Are we talking about Castle here? He has none of those. So, if you think O’Donnell lacks those as well, then which is better? If all other things are equal, the liberal who pretends to be Republican, whom you can’t count on to move us back to traditional values, or the one who really is conservative? And, again, I come back to this crazy, stupid thought these people have that having more (R)s in the Senate is the same thing as having the majority. IT ISN’T, get that through your thick heads.

“GENE ROBINSON, on WP’s “PostPartisan” blog, “Christine O’Donnell’s win is the GOP’s loss. She is pro-life, she’s hostile to gun control, and she was able to position herself as the anti-establishment candidate…. The problem is that Republicans can’t win in November on Tea Party anger alone. They also have to appeal to the disaffected independents – and in a state like Delaware, those independents are likely to be turned off.” The key point I’d like to raise is the VERY thing the Republican Party MUST do. They must appeal to the disaffected….but not just the independents. The problem is that when you say “big tent” you’re really saying “water down your principles and make your group more appealing to people by giving them carrots”. On the contrary, what they SHOULD be doing is convincing the disaffected why the principles of conservativism make the most sense, why it’s the better way of those available. I can use the Church as an analogy. What many churches have done is watered down the Gospel, ignoring the parts on the basis that those parts wouldn’t draw some people or turn them off. Which explains what’s wrong with the Church. The Gospel of Christ is actually very inclusive, given that He died for ALL, but you have to understand what’s messed up in your life and realize why it is better for you to come to Him. The Republican Party needs to take the same approach instead of playing “big tent” at one end or preaching “liberal hell-fire and brimstone” on the other.

“Jonathan Martin: The Delaware results gave Democrats fresh ammunition to make the case that the Republican Party had been taken over by extremists. In effect, Democrats now can counter the GOP’s attempt to nationalize the election around the unpopular policies of the administration and Congress by pointing to such figures as O’Donnell, Nevada’s Sharron Angle and Kentucky’s Rand Paul and asking voters if that’s the Republican Party they want to return to power….If nothing else, the primary election defeats suffered by NRSC-favored candidates this year indicates the lack of a unified command structure within the GOP now. It has, in effect, become an uncontrolled and ungoverned party in which the powers that be in Washington are mere bystanders.” Oh, you mean we’re NOT a bunch of ignorant, unintelligent, mind-numbed lemmings? Oh, my gosh, what is this world coming to? We should be proud of that particular fact, if it turns out to be true. The problem has been a party that exists only if everyone is lock-step with the Establishment. But, guess what! What you’re seeing is that the rank and file IS independent, and it CAN self-organize without the tired Progressive Republican Establishment telling us what to do and how to do it. Uncontrolled? The beauty of this movement is that it IS, in fact, controlled---by the people. This is precisely how our independence from England happened, folks. Read your history. What Mr. Martin mischaracterizes (which is the only way Progressives win an argument) is this being a kind of Republican Party that might “return to power”. The fact is that it’s precisely the old Republican Party that we DON’T want to return to power. We need a better Republican Party, one that actually remains true to the founding fathers’ intent.

So, here we are, a “party torn”. The people have spoken, which is as it should be. Now the Republican Party Establishment has a decision to make. Do you embrace the fact that people want a return to the principles and values this nation was founded upon, do you knuckle down and examine the very tough, probably less-than-palatable medicine that MUST be sold to the American people if this nation is to survive and people remain free and unify behind a message that can resonate in the heart of hearts of people who, deep down, know we have to fix this mess? Or do you get your feelings hurt and wash your hands of the candidates the PEOPLE have chosen and guarantee that you won’t have a majority of (R) members in Congress? The ball is in your court. For those of us who are independent Conservatives, we aren’t about to let our work and our fervor stop with the primaries. We are taking it to Nov 2. To borrow from my Hispanic friends, si se puede.

Republican Establishment keeps saying a vote for O'Donnell is a vote for a Democrat. The FACT is a vote for Castle is TOO!

Once again, I an being proven right. More evidence surfacing that mosques are typically built at locations of "victory".

Lie of the decade: Harry Reid - "I had nothing to do with the massive foreclosures".

The Pres said "they talk about me like a dog". Not true: I like my dogs.

hey'd say no". He is a liar.

This man is just absurd. The President said this weekend, about Republicans, "if I said the sky was blue they'd say no. If I said fish live in the sea t

In case you didn't know, George Soros is just plain evil.

Seriously, "Why not a RINO"? Really?

I've been watching the Delaware Republican Primary race with great interest because what you're seeing there is another battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I use to be a card-carrying, dues-paying member. The batch of Republicans who came into the Congress, as well as George Bush and John McCain changed that for me. I'm independent, and I'll only vote -- and send money to -- individual candidates. I'm convinced that the party establishment is nothing but a bunch of good ol' boys just trying to hold onto power. Michael Steele and the rest of the old guard are completely clueless. They'd like to ride the coattails of the TEA party movement, but they don't understand it. Sadly, time and time again we've seen them stupidly put their muscle -- and $$ -- behind the establishment candidate and behave like Democrats in attacking the one WE THE PEOPLE are supporting.

The battle in Delaware is between establishment darling, Republican In Name Only (RINO), Mike Castle, is slightly ahead of TEA Party favorite Christine O'Donnell. Mike Castle, like other RINOs such as Snowe, are the sweethearts of the Democratic Party because they can usually be counted on to vote with the liberals. Tim Ross, chair of the Delaware Republican Party, has pushed the establishment to fully get behind Castle. He and others of his ilk consistently fall back on the argument that O'Donnell can't win, that we'd be electing a Democrat if we get O'Donnell as the candidate.

If you are ignorant or shallow, you'll buy that argument. The TRUTH is that whether the Democratic nominee gets elected or a RINO gets elected, the end result is A LIBERAL GETS ELECTED. Mr. Ross, Mr. Steele and others just don't get it. Having a majority in name is NOT the same thing as having a majority. If a large portion of your party typically votes with the other side, then exactly what use is it? None. Instead of looking for a fake candidate, what Ross and other party leadership MUST do is find the true conservative candidate and work as HARD AS THEY CAN to get them elected over the liberal candidate. I don't give a rip about the party. I give my money, my effort and my vote to someone who will work the hardest to get this nation back to its roots.

So, my message to the party establishment and all conservatives: Stop being lazy, get up and work for the conservative candidates and forget about the party. Just because they wear the right t-shirt doesn't mean they actually believe it the principles!