Rules For Republican Radicals

Feminism 2010: We're Going The Wrong Way Baby

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:48:00 +0000

Last Thursday, a milestone passed without much fanfare. On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, became law. After nearly 100 years of betrayal, belittling, and sometime violent battle, women were granted the right to lend their voice to the governance of the United States.

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, as the Equal Right Amendment was passing Congress, newspapers and women’s magazines proudly announced, “You’ve Come A Long Way Baby.” Commercials celebrated the woman who could “bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget you’re a man…” Today’s Sarah Palin would have been a 70’s icon to the feminist movement; a woman who could run an entire State with a baby on her hip, between moose hunts.

Advancement in employment, education, financial and legal rights had certainly made a more level playing field, but true equality, especially in financial matters and in the workplace, eluded women. By the close of the 1970’s, the Equal Rights Amendment had failed to be ratified and many who had been at the forefront of the equality fight since the early part of the twentieth century, had died.

Those who stepped up to take the leadership roles in the fight for equality had a much different agenda than their predecessors. Many had come out of failed activist organizations in the late 1960’s and 1970’s and brought with them an entirely new set of objectives. Instead of continuing to fight for the Equal Rights Amendment which would have (among other things) guaranteed that women be paid the same salary for the same work as their male counter part, the new feminists shelved the Amendment fight and instead focused on a concept of equality for everyone, around the world.

The new crop of feminist leaders turned an attainable goal (the original Equal Rights Amendment only lacked three votes to become an Amendment to the Constitution) into a ragtag, loosely allied gaggle of radical organizations. The new feminist movement tied basic female equality to gay, lesbian and transgender issues, anti-military and anti-war efforts, anti-pornography campaigns, cruelty to animals issues, female treatment in 3rd world countries, environmental projects, minority issues, sexual abuse, and of course abortion. They changed the face of the feminist from a strong woman who didn’t want to BE a man, but instead wanted to be judged and rewarded in the same way as men, based on her skills and ability, into the angry, aggressive, masculine “feminist” model of today.

By adding all manner of fringe causes, the new feminists diluted the original goal of the equality movement to such a degree that it is almost unrecognizable. By adding controversial and divisive social issues to the mix, “feminist” has become a dirty word and the goal of true equality for women has all but slipped through our fingers.

The feminist movement was supposed to free women from the shadows and shackles of fathers and husbands, giving them the ability to follow their own paths, achieve their own goals, and nurture their own opinions and beliefs. Unfortunately, the domineering men of the past have been largely replaced by the domineering women of activist organizations and the left-leaning media, who deem ultra-liberal positions the only ones viable for women.

Unless a woman agrees with the opinions of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joy Behar, or Rachael Maddow, they are attacked for being “ignorant,” “racist,” or “white terrorists.” Conservative female voters are maligned and called “backward” while conservative female politicians are called “stupid” and “dangerous.”

While women in politics have always had a tough row to hoe, the past presidential campaign has certainly revealed that women are unfortunately their own worst enemy. I have no idea who envisioned the concept that ALL women should think alike, believe in the same things, and vote the same way. Clearly women have a wide variety of experiences, backgrounds, religious and spiritual foundations, social and financial spheres, goals, expectations, beliefs, and opinions. It is therefore incomprehensible that millions of people with such varied backgrounds would all be expected to believe the exact same thing and vote accordingly simply because of their gender.

Today, liberal media personalities have co-opted the term “feminist” for their own. They take the word to mean one who believes in abortion, unfettered immigration, gay marriage, and a complete cradle-to-grave welfare state. The modern feminist movement has rejected any woman who doesn’t agree with their concepts. Largely divided into two distinct camps, some feminists seem to embrace a coom-bye-ah attitude and believe that if we all just put down weapons, embrace our enemies and adopt an “if-it-feels-good-do-it” lifestyle, the world will be rainbows and unicorns. These activists lobby for amnesty for illegals, increasing social programs, and the dismantling of the military.

The rest have adopted a vitriolic, militant posture which embraces any anti-religion, anti-male, anti-tradition concept. The National Organization for Women, which, by virtue of its name, should be an organization for ALL women in the nation, campaigns tirelessly for gay, lesbian and transgender issues, and minority advancement. NOW takes an extremely aggressive position against pro-life groups, churches, and other advocates. Perhaps most ridiculous, they dedicate a considerable amount of time and energy into critiquing commercials and television shows for any hint of sexism or homophobia. Members are encouraged to “rate their outrage” at any sexy Burger King commercial, or Calvin Klein ad. The hint of any negativity against a female personality, in particular a lesbian personality, is grounds for a full on boycott.

The modern “feminist,” whether they are the “dippy hippy” or the angry lesbian variety seem genuinely confused when conservative, female politicians and voters refer to themselves as feminists. Outraged that any woman would disagree with their positions, the modern feminist movement has marginalized itself and outside of the media, largely become impotent at best and a caricature at worst. Any woman who embraces a traditional role of mother or homemaker is villanized. Any liberal politician (Sotomayor, Kagen, Pelosi, etc.) who is questioned about her positions and ideology is the victim of sexism. Any conservative politician is a Nazi or white supremacist. And the original goal of equality for women further dissipates.

Women have a tremendous amount of information, experience, and ideas to bring to the governance of the country. Unfortunately, much of their potential contribution is minimized by the very people who claim to speak for women. Until women in positions of power and in particular those in the media accept that women are not all carbon copies of each other sharing sex organs and an opinion, women will never occupy a position of equality in the United States. Women make up half of the electorate power in the United States. However, as long as there are women in the public eye who continue to demand fealty and require all that women agree with their very liberal opinions, the oppression of women will continue and women will be marginalized in politics and in government.

And while the iconic 1970’s woman had, as the commercial suggested, “come a long way, baby” thanks to the ultra-liberal activists who have raped and pillaged the feminist movement and co-opted it for their own radical agendas, in 2010 the best that women can say is, “we’re going the wrong way, baby.”

Mecca Time to Replace Greenwich MeanTime?

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:57:00 +0000

With the economy tanking, oil washing up on the beaches of New Jersey, troops leaving Iraq to the Taliban, Iran going nuclear, and Obama and Pelosi praising a plan to build a Mosque on America’s hallowed ground, you could be forgiven for missing a little news story out of Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Seems that it isn’t enough for the Saudi’s to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building and supporting thousands of Mosques in the United States or forcing Sharia law into our courts, they now want to control time itself.

As part of the King Abdul Aziz Endowment Project which is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into expanding and modernizing area around the Two Holy Mosques, in Mecca, a new $800 million dollar clock is being unveiled. The purpose? To replace Greenwich Mean Time with “Mecca” Time.

Islamic religious and political leaders claim that Mecca is the “center of the Earth” and should therefore also be the center of time. Of course this is unwelcome news to the rest of the world which has used the 0 longitude, known as the prime meridian, to mark the start of each day. The 0 longitude runs through the Royal Observatory of Greenwich England, a research center for time, astronomy, and maritime studies for hundreds of years, which lends its name to Greenwich Mean Time or GMT. However, the Saudi’s seek to compel the 1.5 billion Muslims to set their clocks ahead three hours to establish Mecca as the time keeper of the world.

The Saudi’s will unveil the world’s largest clock, just in time for Christmas. Perched atop the Abraj Al Bait Towers, the tallest building in the world, the massive, four-sided clock is a modern marvel. Five times the size of Big Ben’s clock face, each of the Mecca Royal Clock (as it is called) faces feature almost 100 million pieces of mosaic glass and 2 millions LED lights which will render the Saudi Royal Crest, the words “Allah is Greatest” in Arabic, and the time, visible for nearly 20 miles.

Situated adjacent to the Kaaba, the most holy site in Islam and the building that Muslims face when they pray, the clock will be the crown jewel in the Saudi’s newly expanded Grand Mosque area in Mecca. Complete with a seven-star hotel, a four story shopping mall, and thousands of high end residences, the Abraj Al Bait Towers complex is has the largest square footage of any building in the world.

Of course the Saudi’s are not relying on hope alone to force a worldwide change in time keeping. The spin machine has already begun. Egyptian cleric and television star Yusuf al-Qaradawi who hosts the popular TV show “Sharia and Life,” has been preaching the “correctness” of adopting Mecca as the new location of the prime meridian.

Now, we in the West may scoff at the audacity of the Saudi’s attempt to rebrand time under the crescent moon. But 1.5 billion people, dozens of countries, and perhaps millions of businesses simultaneously advancing time by three hours and adopting different latitude and longitude boundaries would seriously disrupt commerce and transportation worldwide.

Here in the US, as in many European countries, the government has bowed down to every whim of the minority Muslim population to the point of some judges actually using Sharia law in court to excuse the domestic abuse, rape, and even murder of women and children when the crimes were perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. Will Muslims in America successfully be able to challenge accepted time-keeping on the basis of religious freedom? Will Obama dictate Mecca Time be adopted here? We can all say that it will never happen….but who would have thought that a Mosque would go up steps from Ground Zero?

Alexandrea Merrell

Obama Stands Alone On Infrastructure Failure

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:47:00 +0000

For years, when faced with any challenge or failure, Obama and his Dem background singers have sung the now familiar refrain of “it’s all Bush’s fault.” Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo, the economy, and illegal immigration, Obama has been largely successful in sidestepping responsibility and fault by diverting blame to previous administrations and current Republican politicians. While his poll numbers continue to fall, with the help of the mainstream media, liberal politicians, and pundits who have a vested interest in Obama success, the “inherited problems” have not specifically stuck to the current President.

This is about to change. One problem honestly inherited and compounded administration after administration is poised to derail Obama. What’s more, it will be virtually impossible for him to pass the blame.

America’s infrastructure, once unrivaled globally for quality and sheer magnitude has disintegrated into a failing patchwork of antiquated electrical and water grids, crumbling roads and bridges, leaky damns, asbestos filled schools and hospitals, and outdated transportation instillations. While America’s infrastructure has suffered from disrepair and neglect thanks largely to lack of funding for decades, Obama is in the direct line of fire thanks to his colossal “stimulus plan.”

Unlike other issues in which the failures can be attributed to previous administrations, support for Obama’s “stimulus plan” was largely extorted out of politicians who were stuck between staggering deficits in their own state and Obama’s promise of millions for job creating infrastructure rebuilding programs. However, despite unprecedented debt, increasing unemployment figures, and a general feeling of depression and woe in America, Obama’s “stimulus” has failed to stimulate much of anything.

To be fair, the problem isn’t that states didn’t receive at least some money to rebuild roads and shore up dams and levees. Faced with bankruptcy thanks largely to unsustainable debt from social programs (welfare generations, illegal immigration, and an aging population) many states used the stimulus money that they received to pay entitlements and stave off bankruptcy.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that it would take $2.2 trillion dollars over a period of five years to repair, replace, and upgrade America’s infrastructure which currently receives only a D rating in quality and safety. However, if Obama were truly interested in stimulating the economy, focusing on these necessary infrastructure projects would result in not only hundreds of thousands of jobs, but would result in a regeneration of the American middle and working classes through local business creation and expansion. This of course provides an increased tax base and ultimately brings prosperity to both the states and the country as a whole.

However, while limited funding has made its way to the states, the stimulus bill money has largely gone to projects that neither create jobs nor stimulate economic growth. Massive amounts of money have been spent on upgrading computer systems and create web based programs, a pet project of Obama. The Social Security Administration has received $13 billion for computer and internet projects which seem a tremendous amount of money until you compare it to the $28 billion that Health and Human Services has received for the same thing. Millions have been spent on wage increases for government employees, bail outs for union pension funds, while billions have simply “disappeared” into pseudo-ACORN group coffers.

Were it not for the wildly unpopular Obama “stimulus” plan, failing dams and levees, leaking oil wells, and electric grid outages could be passed on as failures in state government or blamed on past administrations. However, when Obama pledged to the country and to politicians (many who face daunting challenges to their positions) that the money would be used to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs, neither of which has happened, he will be hard pressed to side-step blame.

To make matters worse, millions spent on signs announcing that the stimulus plan is working and putting people to work have outraged even Obama supporters who contend that it would be more cost effective and honorable to actually use the money spent on signs to fix the problems and hire workers.

Even if a single term Obama can manage to scrape by another two years without major infrastructure collapse, he will legitimately be associated with any disaster for decades to come thanks to his stimulus con job. Politicians from all parties will blame their crumbling roads; asbestos laced schools, and busted dams on Obama’s financial trick. However, with an ever increasing mess in the Gulf, dams bursting in Iowa, and electric grid taxing heat waves across New England and the East Coast, Obama may not have the luxury of being out of office when it all comes crashing down around our heads.

Stealing the Silver While the Titanic Sinks

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:55:00 +0000

There were three types of people on the Titanic on that fateful night in 1912 when the “unsinkable” great ship slipped into the dark, icy waters; those who tried to save others, those who raced to save themselves, and those who tried to steal the silver before heading for the life boats.

Today, as America sinks further into economic depression, a rash of unpopular, career politicians from both parties are using their final months in office to grab as much in cash and prizes as they can possibly carry to the lifeboats.

In the “good old days” a high level politician like Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd (Chris Dodd’s father) would simply pilfer their campaign funds and sail off into the sunset, a whole lot richer. With a little luck, any corruption whispers (or even convictions) would disappear over time and the “respected public representative” could eventually expect to have a school, park or even a stadium named after him.

While Senator Chris Dodd followed in his father’s footsteps into political prominence, the way to play the game today has changed. Why risk reputation and potential pesky legal complications by stealing when, with a little advanced planning, you can repay political and financial allies with public funds and create cushy, lucrative board positions for your retirement (and the rest of your family) in the process?

Dodd has excelled at this type of advanced planning. Whether he is repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from AIG bigwigs, buying pardons for disgraced business partners, or providing “favorable environments” for mortgage companies like Countrywide, Dodd hasn’t been shy in insuring that he gets a lot of personal bang for tax payer’s bucks.

Now that his personal ship is sinking, Dodd is quickly grabbing up whatever loot he can and tying up loose ends in some impressively complex, cyclical schemes that both pay off political backers and create crony jobs and future board, lobbyist, and consultant positions for himself.

One of the most interesting schemes came to light (in part) this week, when Dodd political backers, The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, landed a much decried $54 million preferred loan. Mainstream media reported the loan was to be used to build a tribal library and community center, on the tax payer dime. But the headlines only gave part of the story.

Under Obama’s “stimulus” package, the US Department of Agriculture was allotted $168 million to fund rural development programs across the country. Designed to provide loans to farming and mining communities of under 20,000 residents, with the means to fund employment and regeneration projects, the preferred loans were to be awarded only when other means of financing were unavailable.

It was therefore a shock to find that one of the most profitable gambling companies on the planet, one which cleared over $1.3 billion in profits last year alone, had the audacity to apply for and had incredibly been awarded, over 1/3rd of ALL of the USDA Rural Development program funds. But thanks to the lobbying efforts of Chris Dodd and his former aide, Charles Burnell (the current Chief of Staff for the tribe) The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority was awarded not the $54 million reported, but a total of $74 million from the USDA program and over $2 billion from other “stimulus” programs combined.

So, what project could be so beneficial to a small community to warrant 1/3rd of the national budget for rural development? Surely it would be a project of far reaching economic significance, creating thousands of sustainable jobs for the region, right? Well… The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority will use the money to build a $54 million tribal executive office building, complete with a gym and library to be used by the tribal elders and the 300 tribal government employees who are already housed down the road at the tribes Crow Hill facilities.

The latest $54 million award comes on the heals of a previous $20 million awarded to fund the temporary jobs of 100 construction and plumbing union workers who had been contracted to the building project before it was put on hold. All in, this $74 million dollars will be used to build a replacement office building for one of the most successful and profitable gambling companies in the world; a company that already benefits from preferential treatment by both the state and federal governments due to Native American Indian sovereignty and just happens to be a major contributor to….Chris Dodd.

I appreciate that I don’t have a degree in mathematics, but I fail to see how spending $54 million to replace an office building that houses 300 people is a good financial bet. I have to guess that there are probably construction companies that could do the job for a little less than $200,000.00 per construction worker. Actually, why do the 1,700 recognized members of the Mohegan tribe NEED 300 employees to manage their affairs? All of this seems like a rather shady situation and certainly a bad return on investment to me. And apparently the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority agree, otherwise they would fund their own office building.

To add insult to tax payer injury, the entire office building plan had been shelved and was no longer considered to be a desirable project by the tribe. According to Lynn Malerba who was the chairwoman for the Mohegan Tribal Council, “Our preference would have been to stop the project, but the USDA financing was available now.” Malerba has since been rewarded with promotion to Chief For Life of the Mohegan tribe.

Chris Dodd, when asked why he would push for such a ridiculous use of tax payer money explained that the project would create 1,300 jobs. The USDA, when pressed for justification of such an abuse of their funds and bastardization of their purpose responded that the project would create 1,270 permanent, tribal jobs. However, when these figures were queried of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, Malerba clarified that they project would create only 114 permanent jobs. Whether the USDA and Dodd had been misinformed or had simply fudged the numbers to fit their agenda or cover their own backsides is currently unclear.

What is clear however is that while The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority members claim to “need” stimulus money to build their office, they don’t seem to need any help in funding their new $600 million casino just up the road in Palmer, Massachusetts or to cover the $50 million proposed state license fee to secure the gambling rights. Just last week the state Senate unveiled its plan to establish gambling regions in Massachusetts. The new state divisions would mean that the Mohegan Casino would be the only party bidding on the Western Massachusetts region, assuring that they are in effect, the only gambling operation in the area. It would also protect their Connecticut casino from having competition in its own backyard.

It is also clear that those whom this office building would benefit are not members of the groups that the USDA money was intended to assist. Aside from the $1.3 billion in 2009 profits that the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reaped, each individual member of the tribe receives $30,000 annually in profit sharing. They also benefit substantially by virtue of their ethnic status. Since Obama’s “stimulus” came into effect, the 564 recognized tribes have shared in over $2 billion in federal cash and prizes.

This is not to insinuate that all tribes benefit in the same way. While 300 of the 564 recognized tribes own casinos, only 20 generate enough income to support their tribe. In fact, most tribes are struggling with desperate poverty and associated social, medical, and employment issues. So this tax payer funded 2.8% interest, 30-year loan for an executive office building to benefit one of the wealthiest casino owners in the world should be a huge insult, not only to tax payers in general, but specifically to the Indian community.

So what’s going on here? Of the 145 projects in 37 states that applied for funding through the USDA Rural Development loan program, why would the Federal Government deem a wealthy casino group seeking to build an office building not only deserving of funding, but deserving of the majority of the available funding?

Like so many questions concerning the activities and motivations of the Obama administration, the answer to this question exposes yet another effort to by-pass the Constitution in order to change fundamental American values and rights and move us one giant step closer to socialism, a borderless country, and a New World Order.

Doubt it? Call me a reactionary Right-Winger? Maybe, but the real question isn’t why did the Mohegan’s get millions, but instead, what do the Mohegan Indian payout, the Tohono O’odham Indian Tribe on the Arizona/Mexico border, blanket illegal immigration amnesty, $400 billion missing from the Federal coffers, and Obama’s campaign pledge to issue reparations to blacks all have in common? And who besides Dodd is running for the silver as the Titanic heads for the iceberg?

More tomorrow in:

Part 2 – Obama Holds the Indian Nations Hostage

Alexandrea Merrell

DNC Introdcues Obama "lite"

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:20:00 +0000

Poor Vic Rawl, the four-term South Carolina Senator and ex Judge can’t catch a break.

After being called out of retirement by the Democrat Party to run against Jim DeMint, an extremely popular, Republican incumbent, it soon became clear to Vic that his role was to be that of sacrificial lamb.

Even before the ink was dry on the filing application forms, the Democratic Party bailed on Rawl. By the day of the primary, Rawl had amassed less than $186,000 towards his Senatorial run, while DeMint had raised over $3.5 million.

Whether Rawl entertained some fantasy in which he could win against DeMint or he simply wanted to make a good showing, he used what little was made available to him to send thousands of emails and robo calls and clocked up over 15,000 miles on the odometer as he crisscrossed the state shaking hands and kissing babies in an effort to garner as many votes as possible.

So certain was Rawl of being awarded the Democrat nomination in the primaries that he had already organized a fund raiser for later in the week.

Willing to play a supporting role in the made for TV movie that is the Jim DeMint story, Rawl was certainly not prepared when a completely unknown understudy shoved his way into the spotlight, stealing the show. Enter Alvin Greene, stage left.

Now the Democrats seem to have a problem.

How do you get rid of a black candidate who would appear to be the Democrat’s political wholly grail (black, homeless, unemployed, and unknown) in favor of the very type of candidate that they have been rallying against for decades: old, white, establishment?

Clearly the Alvin Greene story is intriguing.

In the hypothetical Hallmark channel made for TV movie version, Greene is an “every man” who, perhaps inspired by Obama’s run, began saving his money in order to pay the nearly $11,000.00 filing fee to get his name on the ballot. A “simple” man of few words, Greene served his country for twelve years before seeking to serve his fellow man in the political arena. Can you hear the collective awwwwww?

Turn the channel however and Greene is a political pawn, a “planted candidate” being manipulated by forces unknown. In this hypothetical HBO version, Greene, who can barely string a handful of words together into a coherent sentence, claims to have saved the filing fee over a two year period…while homeless and unemployed. Of course it is difficult to find a job if you are spending your time hanging out at the local university computer lab trying to show teenage girls internet porn.

Neither version seems to set well with Democrats. In the first, the Democrat Party is virtually impotent. How could an unknown, unfunded, unsophisticated political no-body possibly win a primary without their help and influence? The second version is worse for the DNC. The South Carolina Republican ticket is so strong; there would be no benefit to planting a hand pick opponent. That only leaves non-Republican opponents to either the SC Democrat power structure or to Vic Rawl himself.

Rawl, a white, moderate Democrat who had been elected 4 times to the Senate and has served as Judge and prosecutor would seem to be the perfect candidate. Long term marriage, no major scandals, he has spent his career keeping his head down and voting the party line.

Now the DNC is playing perplexed. Carol Fowler, the SC Democratic Party Chairperson suggested that Greene had been successful in winning the primary because his name appeared first on the ballot. House Majority Whip Clyburn claims that Greene is a Republican plant. Even Rawls is using campaign money to launch and investigation into what he calls “voter irregularities.” The one group that hasn’t waded into the melee is the DNC itself.

It appears that the Dems have lost the use of their most valuable “Ace in the Hole” play, the Race Card. Or have they?

Clearly the DNC can’t come out in support of “white bread” Rawl against a black man without alienating the minority votes that they have counted on (successfully) for decades.

But an interesting thing is taking place. We are talking about it. The news is covering it. The pundits are speculating about it. And now, a race that DeMint had all but sewn up is back in the news.

In what may turn out to be the greatest Race Card play since Obama received 98% of the black vote, Alvin Greene is becoming a household name and the unofficial poster child of the black, poor, and disenfranchised. While the DNC half heartedly says “gee don’t run, you aren’t ready, we will give you your filing fee back,” major Democratic donors and personalities are lining up to offer Greene assistance. And black voters in South Carolina are paying attention too.

Where Obama had to overcome a perceived, elitist, intellectual, arrogance in order to appear “common” and appeal to some black voters, Greene has no such mantle to remove. His lack of sophistication has clearly been noted by voters throughout the state, where it seems to be viewed as a plus. Even black politicians in South Carolina aren’t convinced that Greene is fit to serve, Rep Rutherford, who met with Greene for the first time last week said, "I got the impression that maybe he doesn’t know what he’s dealing with."

South Carolina had been a virtually forgone conclusion as a Republican win. A favorite with Republicans and Tea Party members alike, certainly there were no Democrat candidates in the woodwork that could have come out and challenged DeMint in any effective way. So the DNC looks to the past. How do we get rid of a popular candidate when we have no one to challenge?

The DNC doesn’t have to look back far. When Democrat voter favorite Hillary Clinton was flexing her political muscle pre-primary, a Clinton win was almost a certainty. The powers that be at the DNC made no bones about their dislike of her and supported her as little as possible, yet the Clinton machine powered on. The only chance that the DNC had to regain control was to find a challenger who would be even more compelling to Democrats than the Clinton name. They had to find someone who would be more historic, gain more press coverage, and get out more voters. And they found him.

In what is fast becoming the DNC’s favorite play, Greene, is becoming South Carolina’s Obama “lite.” Greene’s background in both the Army and Air Force must have reassured the DNC that he wouldn’t have any of those pesky radical associations and missing years. Clearly being homeless and unemployed shows that he isn’t getting funding from some secretive source. But perhaps most importantly, Greene is getting news coverage across America in a race that was set to be a snooze fest as far as the national media was concerned.

All the while, poor ol Vic Rawl, mouth gaping like a Wall-eye, wonders just what the hell happened. The press is treating him like a sore loser and the DNC isn’t returning his calls.

Americans be warned, if the Dems can pull this off again, there won’t be an underpass, homeless shelter, or insane asylum in a contested state, free from DNC recruiters. And you thought Washington was bad now…..

Alexandrea Merrell

Helen Thomas & “Superior Opinion Syndrome” Destroy the 1st Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 02:05:00 +0000

Helen Thomas, a reporter since the Eisenhower administration and White House bureau chief for UPI, has resigned. After years of raising eyebrows (and ire) for her anti-Israeli statements, her tirade against Israel and Jews in general has ended a six decade long career.

Her career wasn’t historic simply because its longevity, Thomas, the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, was the first woman to be admitted to the White House Correspondents Association and later served as its first female President of the organization. She also broke gender barriers as the first woman officer of the National Press Club and the Gridiron Club.

But while she mastered arguably one of the most prestigious gigs for a reporter, she failed to understand the most basic job requirement. A reporter (no matter how high up the career ladder) is supposed to…report.

Thomas stopped reporting the news and events that shaped White House policy and practice and instead used her position to not only push her opinions, but bludgeon those who didn’t agree. Helen Thomas has long suffered from “Superior Opinion Syndrome” and she isn’t alone.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Sharing opinions is very valuable. Evaluating the informed opinions of educated and/or experienced people is a great way to understand different perspectives on issues and to develop our own opinions. As a political commentator, I express my opinions on a daily basis. But let’s be clear, at issue isn’t Helen Thomas’ personal opinions, she (like everyone else) is entitled to have personal opinions even if those opinions are offensive, ignorant, or just plain nuts. The problem is that her paid position as a reporter and White House correspondent required her to leave her personal opinions at home and report ONLY the facts.

But, Helen Thomas is like an ever increasing number of people across the country, who despite occupational requirements to be unbiased, to follow the letter of the law, or report facts alone, are turning their paid positions into pulpits and preaching their opinions as facts. These sufferers of “Superior Opinion Syndrome” believe that their opinions are so on-point, so important, so superior, that they can disregard the tenants of their occupations and use their positions and power to “correct” perceived inequities in society or steer policy and practice.

In classrooms, courthouses, and news rooms nationwide, the sufferers of “Superior Opinion Syndrome” supplant fact with radically distorted views of the world and our role in it. The evidence of their illness is all around us. It’s in the YouYube videos of public school teachers forcing grade school children to reveal who their parents support politically and then calling them racists for not supporting Obama. It’s in the court room when a pedophile is released yet again by a Judge who blames the child rapist’s upbringing. And it’s in print media and the evening news when the likes of Helen Thomas and Chris Mathews edit the facts in order to suit their agenda and beliefs.

Perhaps most frightening, because we expect those who teach, dispense justice, or inform us to be unbiased and professional, millions of people around the world simply accept the masqueraded opinions of those in positions of authority, believing skewed views to be factual and their own tainted positions to be centrist. This happens in the media on a daily basis and misinformation, slanted views, and outright lies are being regurgitated as truth, honesty, and sincerity. This powerful indoctrination force villianized one President and elevated another from obscurity. It reinvents history, makes victims into aggressors, and terrorists into martyrs.

And that’s the real crime. Helen Thomas has a right to her opinion. She even has a right to express her opinion. But when she puts on her reporter hat, she has an obligation and professional and ethical duty to report only the events. If she wants to express her opinion, because of her professional role, she must absolutely declare that what she is saying or writing is ONLY opinion. People in positions of power and influence must differentiate between their personal opinions, beliefs, and agendas and actual events. To do otherwise, to clothe opinion as fact and disseminate it among news outlets, further damages an already wounded news media.

After decades of indoctrination and manipulation, after broken promises, next day revelations, and double talk, many Americans know that they are being deceived; they simply don’t know who to believe. The body which once held businesses and the government accountable no longer functions properly and whether it is Chris Mathews and his tingly leg, Obama taking the stage at a free rock concert and later claiming that the tens of thousands gathered were there to see him, or Reuters editing out weapons to paint a sympathetic picture of murdering “activists,” journalism has become more about leading the masses and less about informing them.

Now Obama is poised to use America’s mistrust and anger at the biased media against the very organizations that made his meteoric rise possible. Obama’s love fest with some of the mainstream media has come to a rather abrupt halt, thanks in large part to his failure to run a transparent government as promised and failures in environmental and social reforms. While liberal owned media outlets continue to promote an Obama agenda, many are backing away from supporting Obama personally and are instead focusing on other liberal politicians to carry the flag.

This must have come as quite a shock to Obama who benefited enormously throughout his campaign as sufferers of “Superior Opinion Syndrome” in the media excused inaccuracies, covered up scandals, and dismissed genuine questions about his background, beliefs, associations, and financing.

His response to media disloyalty? Federalize the media. Yes Obama and the Federal Trade Commission are working on a plan to “reinvent journalism” and are using the very mistrust that Americans feel for the media in order to whip up support. In an effort to control what is reported and the way in which it reaches the masses, the Obama administration seeks to put all media under the control of the government and to end internet and independent media all together.

Not only would the Obama administration tax ISP addresses essentially taxing internet use by private citizens, the FTC proposal would require media outlets and journalists to be licensed and regulated AND facts and articles to be approved by….the government. As goes the First Amendment, so goes the Constitution.

Helen Thomas was a journalistic attack dog, calling out administrations and policies on both sides of the political spectrum for decades. To consider her one of the nodding, media, leftists who have salivated at the knee of Obama would be disingenuous. Thomas asked the tough questions of the President and has been critical of his failure on governmental transparency, the environment, and social and world policy issues. When she did her job, that of unbiased reporter sniffing out a story and pinning down a quote, she was terrific. But suffering from “Superior Opinion Syndrome” cost her her credibility as a journalist and destroyed her career. Now Obama is using her own failure to be a reporter and not an opinionista as proof that the media needs his control.

Hopefully those like Thomas, those suffering from “Superior Opinion Syndrome” will harken back to the professional and ethical standards that their jobs dictate and either clearly differentiate their opinions from facts or leave their opinions at home. Short of a return to integrity, the destruction of the First Amendment’s protection of the press falls on their shoulders.

Alexandrea Merrell

Teamsters Look To Obama For Pension Bailout

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 28 May 2010 16:18:00 +0000

They never had this problem when Jimmy Hoffa was in charge….

Central States Teamsters Union, the infamous Chicago branch once called “the mobs bank” for its funding of mob activity and loan sharking has a little problem. Their member’s pensions are missing over 40% of its value. In fact nearly a half a million workers are looking at an average 41.6% shortfall in their pension.

But, Dem Bob Casey from Pennsylvania has a plan to save the day! He has proposed a $165 billion bailout to fund the mismanaged Union pensions. In addition to covering the pension shortfall of Unions nationwide, Casey’s bill would also repay Teamster loyalty to Democrat politicians (Obama specifically) by increasing their annual pension payouts by near $7,000.00 a year.

While Casey has embarked on a campaign to try and convince the press that his proposal shouldn’t technically be called a bailout, the $165 billion price tag is only an “early estimate.” Conservative estimates suggest that 86% of all union pensions nationwide are in trouble. In fact, if Casey’s proposal passes, the Pension Benefit Guarantee agency would be on the hook to subsidize or even fund outright the pensions of the over 15 million Union members in the US, for the entirety of their lives. Of course this is all on tax payer’s dime.

I certainly appreciate that discovering your pension has been raped or is missing would be horrific. I also understand that people contribute to a pension believing that their retirement will be protected. But surely the American people can not be expected to support millions more people from retirement to death simply because the unions have long out lived their usefulness and defrauded workers.

Instead of bailing out the unions…again. The time has come to end the union’s strangle hold on businesses, employees, and communities. I am sorry for those whose pensions may be worth less or even worthless. But millions of non-unionized Americans are facing their own retirement Armageddon thanks to the Obama administration. We can’t afford to support those who have spent years (even decades) being paid at an artificially high rate thanks to the incestuous relationship between government and the unions.

Obama & Mexico Tag Team Arizona

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Mon, 03 May 2010 11:03:00 +0000

Media outlets report that the Arizona law is straining the recently friendly relationship between Mexican President Filipe Calderon and Obama. This is pretty unlikely. Mexico is receiving an incredible $1.6 billion in cash and prizes from the US under the Merida Initiative which funds the training and equipping of the Mexican military and police forces.

However, since an estimated 90% of all police and military personnel in the US/Mexico border region (and over 60% in the rest of Mexico) failed basic security and background checks, the US is directly funding the crime and non-existent border security that is devastating Arizona and other border states.

Mexican journalist Carlos Loret has reported that over 50% of the Mexican economy is funded by drug money. An estimated $40 billion flows annually from the US into Mexico via drug sales and crime proceeds. Illegal immigrants also send an additional estimated $17 billion annually back to Mexico from revenue generated by illegal employment.

This certainly doesn’t make halting the drug trafficking and related crime an attractive prospect for Calderon. As long as the crime, drug, and illegal immigration situation persists and affects the US, Congress will continue to send millions of dollars.

What does all this mean to Arizona and other border states? Mexico exists on the drug trade, American economy, and Congressional handouts. It is in their best interest to maintain the status quo and keep illegals flowing into the US and cash flowing out. The Obama administration wants not only to continue the flow of illegals into the country, but to give them they ability to vote. His position on Mexico is clear, he dreams of a borderless North America, complete with millions of new Democrat voters eager to be supported by a socialist government.

There are a lot of people who support strong anti-immigration measures, but feel that the federal government should both make and enforce the laws. In an ideal world, that would be the case. But clearly, it is currently impossible to depend on the federal government to do its job, and states are forced to protect themselves from economic ruin and protect their citizens from catastrophic levels of crime.

I certainly appreciate that allowing a neighboring country to disintegrate into corruption and chaos is dangerous for our own safety. But when you live in a neighborhood that is turning bad, you shore up your own house, build fences and security systems, and make certain that your own family is safe. THEN you work to tackle the problem. You don’t swing the doors open and invite the criminal element into your home and hope that they will change their ways.

Arizona has done the only thing that they could. They waited for the federal government to do its job (begged the federal government to do its job) and when failed, they stepped up to protect themselves. Other states should….and I believe will….follow Arizona’s lead.

What's So Wrong With Profiling?

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 23:38:00 +0000

There are a lot of people bally-whooing that Arizona’s brave new anti-illegal immigration measure will result in profiling. Well good. We need more profiling. And it’s about time to drop the politically correct nonsense and embrace the fact that profiling helps to protect us as individuals and as a society.

Profiling is the act of using specific characteristics to make generalizations about a person in a specific situation. If people are honest with themselves, each and every one of us profiles people all day long. It’s one of the ways that we stay safe and protect our families. And politically correct or not, we expect the police to do the same thing to protect our community.

But let’s not get things confused here. Profiling is not about singling out a specific race or sex or religion or age or any other characteristic. It is about keeping aware of surroundings and looking for behaviors which don’t belong in a particular situation. The problem is that people seem to confuse “right” (as in “it’s my right” to do this or that) with “should” and then scream that they are being singled out because of their race, religion, sex etc. instead of accepting the fact that they are being singled out because of their actions.

As a parent, if I notice a guy hanging out around the kiddie playground, who doesn’t have a child or other legitimate reason for being there, I make an assumption. Because men that engage in that behavior are more likely to be pedophiles, I have “profiled” his behavior and determined that he could be a danger. I expect the police to find out who he is and why he is hanging out at the playground. Does the guy have the “right” to hang out at the kiddie playground? Yes. “Should” he? Not unless he wants the negative attention.

If I am slowly driving down a street known for having a bunch of crack houses, the police will pull me over. They look at my behavior and assume that I may be in the area to buy drugs. They are “profiling” me based on my actions. Do I have the “right” to drive slowly down a street of crack houses? Sure. Maybe I’m lost. Maybe I’m looking at investment property. But “should” I drive slowly down crack house lane? Not unless I want to earn the potential repercussions.

Now media outlets are claiming that Hispanics are fearful of being profiled, thanks to the new law in Arizona which would give the police the ability to verify the legal status. This is ridiculous. Hispanics, just like everyone else, will be profiled IF they are engaging in illegal or suspicious behavior. Good. That is exactly how it should be. The new law doesn’t suggest that the police will be trolling neighborhoods, stopping anyone with dark hair. It simply says that the police have the right to ascertain legal status when investigation is warranted.

How is this oppressive? As a driver, I know that I have to have my driver’s license with me when I am in the car. If I don’t carry it and I get pulled over, I can land in jail. So, I carry my license. In an area of the country where violence is being perpetrated largely by people who are here illegally, it is completely reasonable for police to seek proof of citizenship from those who are in high crime areas, are hanging out in places populated by illegals, or engaging in illegal activity. The goal is not to detain people who can show that they are legal citizens, it is to quickly weed out the people who have the legal right to be here from those who do not.

Arizona is under siege from illegals coming from Mexico and South America. Entering the country illegally is….shock….ILEGAL. Once here, a disproportionate number of these criminals engage in additional crime. Some of this crime is against individuals and businesses in the form of assaults, robbery, drugs, and murder. Lots of crime is against tax payers and society as a whole in the form of welfare, medical and educational expenses and additional social services. Until all citizens, but especially Hispanics, refuse to harbor, employ, and support illegals, they will continue to come into our country, breaking the law and devastating our communities and our economy.

There is no denying that LEGAL immigrants contribute in important ways to every aspect of society. But there is no place in this country for illegal immigrants. We must use every means at our disposal to repel illegals at the border as well as create an environment that is so hostile as to stop them breaking into our country.

Arizona Is Fed Up With Illegals – Presidential and Otherwise

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:31:00 +0000

This week, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill which would give the police the power to arrest anyone who was unable to prove that they are entitled to be in the country. Despite a Rasmussen poll that suggests 70% of Arizona citizens approve of the measure, civil rights groups are screaming foul.

Congressman Luiz Gutierrez, a radical proponent of a borderless country and ultra-liberal Chicago Democrat, has been very vocal in demanding that the Governor of Arizona refuse to sign the bill into law, claiming that the civil rights of anyone who looks like they might be illegal would be violated. Gutierrez states that the bill would amount to systematic profiling. He also called to Hispanics to refuse to back Republicans due to their support.

Haven’t we seen enough of politicians using their ethnicity to claim the right to speak for ALL people of the same race? The idea that those who are legally in this country, especially those who have made the effort to become citizens through the proper legal channels, would support the behavior of those who break the laws and flout the system, is ridiculous.

Of course, for Gutierrez and his ilk, this is NOT a matter of protecting people from profiling. It is simply a vehicle to progress the Obama, borderless America agenda. In fact, the bill would protect Hispanics (and others) who are citizens of the US or are legally allowed to be here, by removing the stigma of the illegal immigrant.

Border States like Arizona are going bankrupt thanks to the costs associated with illegal immigration. This means that those who legally entitled to be in the US are dealing with reduced services for education, social services, health and medical services and of course increased crime. Legal citizens, especially Hispanics, are paying both in taxes and in perception for the actions of those in the US illegally.

Despite Mr. Gutierrez’s assertions, the current lack of protection for citizens from illegals and the problems that they bring is already affecting Hispanics in a negative way. Let’s not pretend. If you live in a community where 90% of the people who wear green shirts are gardeners and you come into town wearing a green shirt, people will assume that you are also a gardener. If Hispanics want to protect themselves from the stigma of guilt by perception, they should be first in line to demand illegals are removed and prevented from coming into the country.

Of course this problem only exists because the Federal government refuses to protect American borders and citizens. A combination of a wall, increased border security, and tough enforced immigration laws would end Arizona’s need to protect itself and would quickly end any potential “profiling” issues.

Gutierrez and others suggest that forcing people to show an id proving that they are allowed to be in the country is a violation of their civil rights. This is ridiculous. Every citizen is required to provide proof of their eligibility all the time. In the United States, we are required by law to carry our driver’s license while driving. While it has been a few years since anyone asked to see my id when ordering a glass of wine in a restaurant, anyone who wants to have a drink or go to a club or bar or even an R rated movie is required to show id proving their eligibility. In fact, most activities, from getting on a plane to going to the emergency room require that a person present valid identification to the authority in charge of that activity.

Do I want to live in a police state? Absolutely not. Do I think that giving the police MORE power is generally a good idea? No. But the people of Arizona have the right to be safe. They have the right for their tax dollars to be used for the good of citizens. Unfortunately, as long as the federal government continues to fail to protect citizens, the people of Arizona have the right to protect themselves.

Arizona has also taken a very impressive step to protect its citizens from political charlatans. The House passed a bill requiring all potential candidates to prove their eligibility prior to having their name on the ballot in a Presidential election. While liberals will howl that the issue is geared towards Obama or is a “birther” issue, all Americans should welcome the bill as protection against an illegible person from ANY party, taking power in the United States.

Hats off to Arizona. They have finally had enough of waiting for the federal government to do their job and have reaffirmed states rights. I can’t help to think that at least some of the illegal immigration problem will disappear in Arizona quickly once Governor Brewer signs Senate Bill 1070 into law. If you were in a state illegally and knew that you could be checked at any moment, the likelihood that you would stay in that state is greatly reduced. Of course it might not be so great for neighboring states which may see an exodus of illegals from Arizona into states that protect illegals by failure to move against them. But, maybe it will make other states follow Arizona’s lead. If Obama won’t put the security of the country ahead of his need for new liberal voters, states will have to do it themselves.

And it will be interesting to see if Obama’s on the ballot in Arizona in 2012….

Obama Loses Ground With His Base

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:28:00 +0000

From Obama’s angry reaction, it must have come as quite a shock. Expecting a love fest as he lent his time and effort into trying to revive Barbara Boxer’s political career at an LA Democratic fund raiser, Obama was heckled, interrupted, and abused by members of the gay community, one time slavish devotees.

Promising everything to everyone who might be swayed early in his candidacy, Obama pledged his support to the gay community in two key areas; same sex marriage and allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces. Claiming that he would do all in his power to give same sex couples full equality under the law and use his “bully pulpit” to repeal both the Defense of Marriage Act and the so called the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military, Obama won the gay community’s very vocal support.

Of course, as is so often the case with politicians, Obama failed to live up to those early careless promises. Instead, Obama has back tracked, blamed, and avoided the volatile issues, earning him no points on the right AND the anger of the left. Unfortunately for Obama, these issues are of fundamental importance to liberals and his popularity with his base is diminishing rapidly.

But why? What exactly do gays want from Obama? Initially passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Act further protects states from being compelled to recognize same sex relationship ceremonies performed in other states. Obama pledged to use the full weight of his office to repel the Act, which would essentially provide same sex couples with the rights and protections in matrimonial and family (adoption) issues that traditional couples enjoy.

Due in large part to Obama’s campaign promises, gay rights organizations pressed a dozen states to put same sex issues of the ballot since he took office, expecting a more favorable climate for their cause and for Obama to lobby publicly for the repeal of the DOMA, as promised. Instead, Obama said nothing.

Without his assistance, four states and Washington DC legalizing same sex marriages and another four states granting legalized domestic partnerships. While conservatives cheered the rejection of same sex marriage in California and New York, Obama’s failure to even address the issues, let alone, use his position to further the gay rights agenda, sent waves of shock and anger through his base.

While Obama was silent, other law makers were not. Nearly 100 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. This fact makes Obama’s failure to use his position an even more bitter pill for liberal supporters to swallow, since it would have been particularly easy to publicly support measures that had already been brought up.

If Obama had hoped that this betrayal would soon be forgotten, he was mistaken. Just yesterday, a Texas court determined that a lesbian couple who live in Texas (which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage) couldn’t divorce there, insuring that this issue won’t go away.

Already feeling betrayed, Monday’s hecklers (members of GetEqual, a gay rights activists group) were upset that Obama has also dragged his feet in repealing the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays from openly serving in the armed forces. A major campaign platform in California, Obama had promised that gay rights would be a significant part of his first year in office and that repealing “DADT” would be a top priority in his military policy. On this issue he has been impotent.

Attempting to regain control of the crowd, which had begun chanting “Yes We Can,” in response to the heckler’s demanding to know if and when Obama was going to keep his promise and repeal DADT, Obama continued to declare his commitment to repealing the policy. However, for many previous supporters, his pledges are falling on deaf ears.

Obama’s ability to help struggling politicians is almost non-existent and often his presence is seen as a hindrance instead of a help on the campaign trail. Independents and many conservative Democrats who supported him during the election have migrated in mass to libertarian and Tea Party candidates. Now his most ardent liberal supporters are beginning to see him as a deceitful and duplicitous.

To bad for Obama, Alinsky only wrote a manual explaining how to take power, not how to keep it.

Bill Clinton and the "Unhinged"

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:16:00 +0000

Oh Bill, could there be an ex-President as desperate as you to stay in the public spot light?

Yesterday, after taking Wolf Blitzer on a delightful trip down memory lane where he regaled the news reader with tales of near misses by crazed conservative snipers during his Presidency, Bill Clinton postured himself as a veteran (no pun intended) in the war against murderous, right-wing, zealots.

A frequent re-writer of history, Clinton explained that death threats against him during his tenure in the White House as the result of “white, southern, Protestants” who were the “heart and soul of the right wing movement” attacking him because they considered him a traitor to his “class.”

Arguably, the most memorable of the Clinton would-be assassins (Francisco Duran) however pledged to kill Clinton, not because he felt that Bill abandoned his “class” (again, no pun intended), but because (depending on the source) he was a paranoid schizophrenic who wanted to rid the world of the “alien mist” emanating from the White House or he was a fame seeker who idolized John Hinckley Jr, the would be assassin of Ronald Reagan.

Of course, Duran did have a bumper sticker on his pick-up truck that read something along the lines of “Those who beat their guns into plowshares end up plowing for those didn’t” and one that said “Fire Butch Reno,” a reference to Clinton’s divisive Attorney General, Janet Reno. The bumper stick slogan about Reno was a tag line of a popular, ultra-conservative talk radio personality Chuck Baker. Ergo, in liberal fantasy, Duran was the instrument of a right wing conspiracy.

Clinton went on to reduce Obama’s lack of popularity to deep seeded racism and an irrational fear of change. “Obama symbolizes the increasing diversity in America… symbolizes the loss of control, of predictability, of certainty, of clarity that a lot of people need.” But in his attempt to smear the right as backwards, KKK members he actually got some of it right.

As a kid, I grew up with the idea that a President was a sort of John Wayne character, a moral, unassuming, hard working man who was a steady hand at the helm. An American President was a person who was a protector of the citizens and a defender of the Constitution. But above all, the President was a strong voice of authority dedicated to preserving traditional values and ideals, safe guarding the ability for people to strive for the American Dream, while fostering thoughtful and rational progress. Americans went to sleep at night secure in the knowledge that our President had the watch and he would keep us safe and on track.

Clinton, to some degree, and Obama to greater degree represent a figure diametrically opposed to that concept of an American President. Depending on your position, Obama is either veering radically off course (driving us into socialism) or is simply out of control. People do not feel confident that he has the ability or the desire to be that steady hand at the helm. He has proven in word and deed that he has no interest in protecting citizens or defending the Constitution. Even assessing his tenure generously, he has initiated change for change sake and has arguably done more to undermine American values, traditions, security, and ability to pursue the American Dream than any other President in history.

Of course, according to Clinton, none of this is Obama’s fault. Our failure to understand what a “great” job Obama is doing (and what a fantastic job Clinton did) is down to a combination of our racism, Tea Party hate speech, and Fox News.

But Clinton goes on to make some really interesting statements about the security of the country and the death threats against politicians. Clinton explains, “Since the early 70’s when we still had some left wing problems, by in large these have been systematically coming out of the far right.”

Wow! Now that is news to me. Let’s just think about that for a second. Clinton contends that death threats against Presidents over the past forty years have been the result of a systematic effort from the far right. He says that “demonizing” public officials and in particular the President has been the very dangerous, anti-American providence of the right, going so far as to blame “birthers” and the Tea Party movement.

I would be interested to find out which “far right” groups were responsible for the decade long demonization of George Bush. For the entirety of his Presidency, at every public event that he attended, he was met with signs and posters, even effigies, calling for his death. A movie, marketed as a “mock-documentary” cobbled together from archive footage, real news reels, and transposing the head of Bush onto an actor, called “Death of a President” portrayed the realistic looking assassination of President Bush, WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE! Screened in movie theatres around the country and shown on prime time television throughout Europe, apparently the televised assassination of Bush didn’t raise the level of hate, at least in Clinton’s eyes, as do signs at protests demanding that Obama prove his citizenship or follow the Constitution.

Clinton did half-heartedly acknowledge that there have been a few, random people on the left whose actions “may” have been seen as an attempt to incite hatred or suggest killing a President. However, anyone on the left who would act this way would have to be mentally deranged and not a representative of the feelings or actions of liberals in general.

Some of those “lone” lefties who made death threats or uttered hate speech against Bush included Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry, who when asked on a national television show why he didn’t take his wife to New Hampshire to “kill two birds with one stone” Kerry responded “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.” But I guess Bill didn’t consider the top Democrat in the country as a representative of the Democrat Party.

It is quite interesting that much of the liberal media has taken to nodding an agreement with Clinton’s disingenuous assessment of the threat posed by disapproving words at a Tea Party rally. Yet, when CBS ran the words “snipers wanted” under President’s Bush during his televised acceptance speech, THAT was “humor” and a clear exercise in First Amendment Rights.

Despite Clinton’s desperate attempt to stay in the media spotlight, the issue of threats, real and perceived is important. The liberal media, openly opposed to Bush and the War on Terror, used the anti-Bush placards seen at anti-war rallies to give the impression that the entire country was against the President and US foreign policy. Once people saw that the more outrageous their placards were, the greater their chance to be featured on television, it simply became a matter of one-upmanship. These ever escalating images are then broadcast worldwide and used to support the radical positions of enemies to the US. Is it any wonder why enemy organizations are emboldened when they see news reels suggesting that their acts of aggression against a President would be welcomed?

While Clinton can point his finger at the Tea Party movement if that makes him happy, it is the media (all media) which bares the brunt of responsibility in escalating tensions. Thanks to the media, entire generations have grown up to believe that graphic death threats and burning effigies of a sitting President is an acceptable (even desirable) form of self expression. By choosing to be the purveyors of liberal opinion, dressed as actual information, the media is not only fanning the flames of hatred, they are alienating and vilifying a huge segment of the population who seek only to be heard and exercise the freedoms granted to them under the Constitution.

Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama seem interested in the Constitution only when it protects them and their positions. As soon as people use the Constitution to exhibit opposition to Obama, apparently they become unhinged. To be fair however, during the interview, which took place just days before the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the fact that Clinton would use that dark event and attempt to link it to Tea Party protests makes him the most unhinged of all.

Dear Islamic Extremist, The US wishes to apologize for making YOU bomb US…..

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:12:00 +0000

Last week Obama outraged all rational thinking Americans (not to mention allies around the world) by announcing that the United States would NOT respond to attacks with nuclear weapons.

After decades of using the possibility of nuclear reaction as arguably the most effective deterrent to attack by both enemy countries and terrorist organizations, Obama took another major stride in destroying the security of this country and embolden our enemies around the globe.

Following fast on the heals of his declaration that he intended to remove the term “Islamic Extremists” from the National Security Strategy, Obama further ingratiated himself to our enemies by announcing that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked by a country who was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This essentially establishes an easy out for terror supporting countries. If Syria doesn’t have nuclear weapons itself and is in compliance with the UN initiative, but a terror organization operating with Syrian funds, even on Syrian soil, takes it upon itself to detonate chemical or biological bombs in the US, Obama gives them a pass.

This of course is welcome news to the terrorist organizations and enemy countries that have shied away from nuclear development and avoided chemical and biological warfare against the United States (and long time allies like Israel) because they knew that their own country would be obliterated. Thanks to Obama, terrorists and terror supporting countries now have virtual carte blanch to attack.

Hillary Clinton, desperate both to flex her Secretary of State “muscle” and to try to avoid the splash back from such a disastrous position, hurried to contradict Obama by stating that the US would not rule out using nuclear weapons against a biological attack. However she provided plenty of wiggle room for terrorists by explaining that a nuclear attack might be an option, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

Of course, this is double talk designed to placate an electorate shocked by Obama’s overt attempt to weaken America to attack by Islamic extremists. Even Democrats are not running to support Obama’s position which is essentially, “if attacked we will not fight.”

Instead, Obama proposes the use of diplomacy or “talking” with enemies, even after the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons against the United States. Could Obama’s position be clearer? Is it possible that there are still people who actually believe that Obama has the best interest of the US at heart or that he is not a radical, Islamic sympathizer? After kowtowing to the Arabs, releasing terrorists to return to launch attacks against Americans, attempting to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a global stage with a NYC trail, refusing to acknowledge Ft Hood Assassin Nidal Hasan as a terrorist, his declaration that he would stand with Muslims, his open hostility against Isreal, and now stating clearly that he will not allow the US to retaliate with the most powerful weapon in our arsenal against terrorists or their sponsoring countries, I don’t see how he could make his position any clearer.

The US needs a strong, sure footed, pro-American President who walks quietly and carries a big stick. What we have is a militant blowhard who has given all our sticks to our enemies.

Steele Admits Mistakes, Just Not the Right Ones

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:09:00 +0000

Since taking over the RNC, Steele, once touted as the great unifier of the Republican Party, has proven to be extremely divisive. In his corner, career politicians desperate to continue using the RNC as their personal financial cash cow. In the opposite corner, almost every one else.

Yesterday, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Steele acknowledged that perhaps using RNC money to fund sex club adventures and private jets was a mistake. Financial abuse of this kind however is not new to the RNC and has certainly continued (arguably increased) under Steele’s leadership. That fact alone makes it clear that Steele and the RNC leadership consider getting caught the real mistake.

Clearly, Steele and other high ranking RNC officials want to maintain the status quo. These career politicians rely on the kickbacks, side deals, and wink wink nudge nudge of politics as usual to insure their personal wealth. Sadly, the very things that we distain in Pelosi, Reid, and many of the Democrat upper echelon continue to occur within the RNC.

The call to use RNC power and money to oust Pelosi is only a response to public anger and the RNC’s desperate attempt to stay relevant in what is fast becoming a Tea Party conservative world. Pelosi has been a disaster for this country for years, yet the RNC has only suggested targeting Pelosi, after fellow Republicans have called for Steele to step down.

Perhaps more disingenuous, the RNC recently issued a letter of support for Steele claiming responsibility for “….victories in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and victories in 29 of 37 special elections…” completely ignoring that these wins were largely a combination of independent voter migration from Democrat politicians, Tea Party activists who came out in mass to support more conservative politicians, and regular Americans afraid of the continued liberalization of the country.

Once considered a promising spark, Steele has been a disappointment. Between pandering to the liberal media’s portrayal of Republicans as racists and “old, white, men” and refusing to acknowledge the anger at the RNC’s support of the likes of Scozzafava, Steele continues to use his position to elevate himself and the “voting for favors” system, use by both parties, that is largely responsible for getting the country into the current mess.

If Steele were genuinely interested in admitting mistakes and moving forward as he claims, he could start by acknowledging that the “politician for life” model is failing the public. He might admit that financially supporting politicians who prove to be liberals in Republican clothing has been a disaster, both for the party and for the country. Steele could even embrace the Tea Party conservative instead of dismissing them.

However, with his latest smirking mea culpa over thousands of dollars wasted on luxury jets and stripers, Steele continues down the road to making history. Not as the first black man to head the Republican Party, but rather as the last man to head the RNC.

Americans are raising their voices and massing in ever increasing throngs demanding that politics as usual, within both parties, be abolished. It is within Steele’s power to align the Republican Party with this movement, but unless he and the rest of the RNC leadership address the real issues, make the painful changes, and embrace term limits and liberal litmus tests, the biggest mistake that Steele will make is simply failing to be a change agent for the Republican Party.

Move Over Joe the Plumber, Meet Jack the Urologist, Bob the Realtor, Ann the Engineer…….

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:12:00 +0000

A urologist, in what perhaps started out as a knee jerk, tongue-in-cheek reaction to the shot-gun wedding passage of Obama Care, has become the latest to find himself in the firing line of both the liberal media and headline seeking politicians.

Dr Jack Cessell, frustrated by the sweeping changes that will significantly limit his ability to care for his patients, posted the following sign in his office:

"If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

Despite the fact that Cessell has not refused to care for any patients and the Florida Department of Health has publicly stated that such a sign doesn’t violate any licensing laws, Dem headline whore Rep Alan Grayson is canvassing for any constituents that will claim that they are offended by the sign so that he can file complaints against the doctor.

“Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?" complained Grayson to the Orlando Sentinel, "If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty.” What Grayson and his ilk continue to disregard is that the opposition to Obama Care is not a Republican vs. Democrat battle. Hatred of the plan is truly bipartisan.

Americans are angry. They are angry that an ill conceived, cobbled together mandate, filled with kickbacks and earmarks, adding billions to the deficit, while striping Medicare has been forced down their throats thanks to back door deals.

But many Democrats refuse to address the significant problems with Obama Care and instead have turned their focus to either conning the American people into believing that they are better off now that Obama has waved his pen or finding people to become the new face of hate.

And just as they did with Joe the Plumber, the liberal media have rushed to dig at the background and potential skeletons in the closet of Jack Cessell because he stood up and dared to challenge Obama’s version and vision.

But where Joe the Plumber largely stood alone, now Americans all across the country are standing up and making their displeasure heard. Hundreds of thousands of people are joining Tea Party movements and getting involved in local politics. But in ever increasing numbers, people are publicizing their anger. Groups of citizens are sponsoring billboards designed to call out hypocrisy, issue a warning to politicians, and challenge the liberal media.

People are also following Jack’s lead and stating publicly that voting has consequences. In Jack’s case, he made it clear that the choice to support Obama not only directly affects his career and his ability to treat his patients, but affects their ability to get the medical care that they have come to depend upon. I think that this will become more common as the effects of Obama’s socialist agenda are felt in small businesses.

Perhaps if more people joined Jack Cessell and made it clear how Obama’s efforts were damaging their businesses, their ability to provide services to customers, and limited their ability to support their families, some voters would be less interested in voting based on race or fantasy ideals and more interested in finding out the reality of their choices.

An Inconvenient Border

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:27:00 +0000

What oh what should we do about all those pesky illegals that sneak across the border? Washington seems confused. Lawmakers shake their head and ring their hands. Dems want to open the borders and get them voting, as long as they vote Democrat. But these positions all miss a rather inconvenient truth.

.
People who enter the country without permission are breaking the law.

People who break the law are called criminals.

Illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS

PERIOD

The United States already has mechanisms in place to protect citizens from criminal activity and to punish those who commit crimes. There should be no question as to what we should be doing to deal with the 12 million people who sneak across the border, breaking the law.

.
Liberals like to point at economic hardships or lack of opportunities south of the border as a justification for people breaking the law and entering our country illegally.
.

But does that rational extend to everyone? So if I feel that my economic situation isn’t ideal, I can go knock over a liquor store or rob a bank without fear of being branded a criminal? Do I have crate blanch to break into my neighbor’s home and steal their stuff because they have it better than I do? Ridiculous.
.

In the real world, some people break the law. Because of this fact, businesses and private citizens protect themselves. We lock our doors. We fit our businesses, homes, and cars with alarms. We build fences and put bars on the windows. We hire police and security guards to patrol our neighborhoods. We do what we need to do to protect our property, our families, and our community from people who break the law. We take action to protect ourselves from criminals.
.

Do we worry that locking our doors might send a message to our neighbors that we don’t trust people? Do we worry that having a well equipped police force may make criminals feel uneasy? Do we worry that having fences may keep people out of our property? Are we worried that protecting ourselves from the realities of life make us appear unfriendly? No?
.

But that is Obama’s justification for not sending the National Guard to our border to get the criminal migration under control. That is Obama’s justification for refusing to authorize the building of a wall. He doesn’t want to send a message to the world that we are unfriendly or aggressive.

.
Great plan.

.
And just like the grocery store, bank, farm, factory, or family home that advertises that it doesn’t protect both its assets and its people, the United States has been pillaged into financial devastation and its citizens live in fear for their lives.
.

Immigration criminals break into our country and steal an estimated 4.3 billion dollars annually from the local, state and federal government and kill more than 25 Americans EACH DAY. But at least Iran, Sudan, and China and the rest of our world “neighbors” see us as friendly and non-aggressive.
.

There is an old saying; “Good fences make good neighbors.” Anyone who has ever lived in the suburbs knows that this adage is true. Without establishing boundaries, your neighbors encroach on your space, use your stuff, and generally take advantage, creating an atmosphere of animosity, anger, and mistrust. But well marked and established boundaries help insure that those on both sides of the fence behave themselves and respect each other’s providences.
.

As a country, we have failed to create firm boundaries and have sat by grumbling as our neighbors to the south have run amuck over our property and disrespected our rights. But they aren’t simply using our kid’s paddling pool, parking on our driveway, or hooking themselves up to our cable. These bad neighbors are robbing us into bankruptcy, destroying our property value, and injuring, even murdering us in our own homes.
.

The only way to regain control is to reassert our boundaries, build those fences (both actual and metaphoric), establish well defined repercussions for those who trespass, and enforce those penalties consistently.
.

The idea that we appear aggressive to other countries when we protect ourselves is ludicrous. No other country on the planet would tolerate what we have actively encouraged by failure to react appropriately.
.

Obama, by virtue of his office, is sworn to protect the citizens of this country. He is sworn to take action. Instead, he is continuing a tradition of failure. But he isn’t simply failing those of us born and raised in the United States; he is failing legal immigrants who surely suffer stigma from their perceived illegality.
.

Obama’s border failure is also harming the citizens of Mexico. The recent attacks of Mexicans in border towns perpetrated by Mexican drug gangs, is the direct result of our failure. Securing our borders eliminates the easy access to the US marketplace that these drug dealers enjoy. Without that easy access, there would be no reason for these gangs to take over the border towns.
.

No one wants to build fences or put bars on their windows. But in many areas these precautions are necessary to protect property and people. The same is true for our border with Mexico. A fence is unsightly. It is expensive to build, maintain, and man. But, at this time, it is also a necessity.

Executive Powers & A Socialist Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:39:00 +0000

Those ol Greeks were a smart bunch. Concerned that a single concentration of power would result in tyranny, they developed a system of democracy around the concept of a constitutionally mandated “separation of powers.” By dividing governmental roles between the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches, they insured that no one group would become too powerful. The system of government that they developed became the basis for governments great and good throughout history, including our own.

Those of you old enough to remember when Civics was taught in school will remember that the Executive Branch, headed up by a duly elected President, has two main roles. The first primary role is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The second role is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

Each President, as he takes the Oath of Office pledges to fulfil the roles of the Executive Branch. Obama, despite flubbing the Oath, was no exception. However, over the past year it has become evident that as long as Obama was awash in the warm glow of popularity, confident that all would bow to his will, he preached transparency and biapartisian unity. As soon as the soft glow turned to a harsh spotlight, the transparency disappeared and the door on the GOP and dissenting Democrats was slammed shut.

Obama is now posed to use the powers inherent in his position in ways that they were not intended. Last week, he threatened to use his “Executive Powers” to force the Senate to approve dozens of controversial nominees. Clearly the reason that appointments must be approved by the Senate is to insure that a President doesn’t exercise a power grab by placing loyalists in positions of authority.

Then White House announced that Obama intends on using his “Executive Powers” to ram through unpopular initiatives and funnel money to discredited projects. All but dead ObamaCare, next round stimulus funds, and a jobs bill unpopular with Democrats and Republicans alike are rumoured to be top of Obama’s agenda. However, controversial energy and climate programs, already mired in scandal are also scheduled to bypass political or public scrutiny prior to implementation.

An optimist might find Obama’s plan to force his agenda as simply an overly enthusiastic and naive response to the power of his position. However, this would negate the fact that Obama dedicated his pre-political career to the study of the Constitution. Well versed in the limitations and loop-holes in the Constitution, Obama’s power grab takes on a much more sinister and frightening significance.

Isn’t it about time that Obama stops pressing his personal agenda and starts embracing the position of Constitutional champion for which he campaigned and was elected? He certainly isn’t my choice as leader of this country, but at a minimum, his job to protect and preserve the Constitution should keep this country on a relatively even keel. The checks and balances system, designed by the Greeks and emulated by the Founding Fathers is designed to protect us against the very “Presidential Bum Rush” that Obama is threatening.

Obama Budget Taxes Middle Class Hard

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:02:00 +0000

In an effort to regain some of the class-warfare (anti-wealth) momentum employed in his Presidential campaign, the Obama administration proposed publicly to increase taxes on those earning $250,000 or more a year, to offset the $1 trillion deficit and fund the Obama Care behemoth.

.
While these "high-earner" taxes would generate less than 1% of the country's unprecedented debt, Obama stands to gain billions through backdoor tax increases that raise rates by at least 3% on those who earn over$33,750, pushing most Middle Class earners into a higher tax bracket.

Rather than overtly adding new taxes, the Obama administration is playing a game of semantics,proposed to either let tax breaks expire or eliminate tax benefits, thereby generating billions of dollars in tax revenue from the very people who can least afford the increase.

While Obama's proposal effectively increases taxes on an estimated 25 million people, the biggest burden is carried by working class families who will see an additional 5% increase in capital gains taxes, lose some property tax deductions, and lose college tuition and educational expenses deductions.
.

Those hardest hit however are Middle class individuals and families who had previously received some relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Failure to adjust the exemptions and for rates of inflation effectively terminate deductions for medical expenses, state and local tax itemization, net operating losses, investment expenses, and mortgage interest on home equity debt.

The self employed and those who incur costs related to employment also lose the ability to gain relief through itemization, as both accelerated depreciation and supplies and tool tax credits are scraped.
.

Under Obama's budget proposal, the unemployed would find themselves both without a job and liable for taxes on the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits.

The writing is on the wall for working/middle class families. Obama seeks a border free America, where we are liable for the medical, educational, and welfare expenses of potentially millions MORE illegals. He wishes to saddle us with a health care bill that will bankrupt the already fragile economies of many states and criminalize employers and employees alike who cant afford the increased heath care costs.

How many families will be forced into bankruptcy or foreclosure thanks to these "back-door" tax increases? How many working class families will be unable to send their children to college?
.

Obama is creating a socialized America, not through revolution, but through relegation. States unable to pay their mandated bills will fall under the control of the federal government.

Employers unable to pay the increased health care costs will be compelled to relegate control to the federal government. Banks, mortgage companies, energy supplies, ranchers, farmers, manufacturers, and medical providers are all being forced to accept government takeovers or draconian mandates designed to usurp control.

Now the Middle Class is compelled to dig deeper into already thread bare pockets or fall to the growing ranks of welfare recipients who make-up Obama's socialist Army by proxy.

Obama Wants MORE Media Coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:01:00 +0000

Despite nearly 150,000 column inches of coverage on the front page of the New York Times, 4 dozen magazine interviews, and a whopping 80 televised interviews during his Presidency, Barack Obama wants MORE media coverage. After failing to fulfill campaign promises of transparency, Obama has replaced his pledge of open, bipartisan dialog with what has amounted to an almost endless Infomercial. In the latest slap to bipartisan co-operation, the White House shut down hope of a televised question and answer forum with Republican lawmakers.

Bill Burton, a White House Deputy Press Secretary was quick to assure both liberal and Conservative political pundits and consultants who had been pushing for televised debates in the style of "Question Time," that refusal wasn't a matter of avoiding televised debate, explaining "The President is going to look for more opportunities to do things on camera and have open discussions on important issues." Of course, the unscripted and teleprompter free vision of debate will never occur and any "open discussions" are only with Democrat "fans" and moon-eyed media.

Obama's desire for more media coverage comes on the heals of his advice to Democrats in the Senate, "turn off your CNN, turn off you FOX..." Thankfully California's Barbara Boxer shouted out "and MSNBC," otherwise it might appear that the President was targeting right leaning media. Sarcasm aside, history is full of leaders who directed the media, monopolized the airwaves, and vilified opposition voices. In the entire history of mankind, none of these leaders left the country in better shape than when they ascended to power and often by the time they were ousted, there was no country left at all.

RINO Collins is "a little confused" About Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:08:00 +0000

Susan Collins, RINO pariah from Maine who vocally supports a liberal agenda, admitted to being “a little confused” at Obama’s State of the Union address. No longer feeling the necessity to pretend that he has any interest in fulfilling his campaign promises of transparency, open debates about health care, and of course true bipartisanship, Obama pledged to fight on to get his colossal, socialistic, medical revamp shoved through Congress by any means necessary.

Personally, I can’t think of a reason why anyone would be “surprised” at Obama’s failure to court bipartisanship. Since the moment that he flubbed the oath of office, Obama has made no attempt to include Republicans in any of his efforts. To be fair, Sue shouldn’t be the only one who is “a little confused.” Everyone who voted for Obama should be scratching their heads, especially concerning Obama Care.

What happened to his pledge “to do our work openly,” to have health care debates on C-Span so voters “can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents?” Where has he posted the health care legislation? He promised to have it posted online for at least five days before votes so that the American people (and presumably those who are supposed to be voting on our behalf) have a chance to review. Is it possible that Obama said anything that he need to say in order to get elected and….shock of shocks…didn’t actually mean any of it?

Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, Collins continues to preach “that it is still possible for Democrats and Republicans to reach a deal on a bipartisan health care bill.” I have to wonder, where does Collins believe that common ground actually lay? Dozens of states have taken legal steps to prevent Obama Care from being thrust onto their citizens. States who can’t afford the millions in unfunded mandates and don’t want to become beacons for the illegals entitled to free care. While Obama supporters claim that there is no provision to cover illegals, the bill is worded to provide free healthcare to ALL non-citizens (no matter what their legal status) who show up for treatment.

Perhaps Collins believes that Republicans and Democrats can find common ground concerning the tax grab (2.5% of your income) if you don’t have a plan that the government supports or the health care rationing, by which a government official determines your medical needs and if you “deserve” treatment. In fact, the only thing that I can see Republicans and hopefully Democrats agreeing upon is that the entire proposal needs to be scraped.

No one is suggesting that our health care system is perfect. Between anchor babies being used to provide citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegals, legitimately poor being forced to use emergency rooms as doctors offices, and those who are have been preyed upon by insurance companies seeking any means available to deny claims and terminate services, there does need to be some fundamental changes made. But these changes should be ones of preventing those who are not entitled from abusing the system at the expense of Americans with genuine need. These changes should be about protecting those who are vulnerable and providing people with greater care options.

I have long thought Collins was simply a typical RINO, who had two-faced her way into a position from which the GOP is loath to extract her. I am beginning to think however that she is either incompetent or a “true believer.” I’m not sure which is more dangerous.

Steele Continues To Get It Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:41:00 +0000

RNC member James Bopp (Indiana) proposed a resolution that would grant financial support only to candidates who support the GOP platform, at the RNC winter meeting in Hawaii last week. Shockingly, this proposal, which would cut the financial legs out from under RINO pariahs like Snow and Collins, withholding GOP financial support from those who didn’t officially support at least ten party positions, was FORCEFULLY REJECTED by Michael Steele.

The lukewarm alternative which was enacted provides MORE flexibility to the GOP powerbrokers to determine who gets money and who may be too far left to support. Of course, these are the same people who approved millions in support for Specter, Scozzafava, Collins, Snow, etc. etc. etc. If Scozzafava et al aren’t too far left for financial support; it’s hard to imagine anyone who wouldn’t get GOP funding. Instead, RNC member Bill Crocker (Texas) threw the responsibility for poor candidates back to the local and state levels urging the regional Republican Party’s to “carefully screen” the positions of candidates.

Crocker is correct; we need to be much more vigilant on a local and state level. However, Obama’s path to power and in fact much of the success of liberals recently has been down to strong party efforts to fill seats on a local level. The GOP still doesn’t embrace the entire political candidate process, instead focusing only on those to rise to the top. Unfortunately, this has created a system by which politicians can rise through the ranks, paying lip service to any Conservative platform with the knowledge that once they get to the “big show,” the GOP will reward them with cash and prizes beyond their wildest dreams, no matter how they vote.

The best way forward is a bottom up AND a top down system (as outlined in “Rules For Republican Radicals”) which monitors and weeds out those who are clearly NOT conservatives on a local and state level, but insures that there is no payoff for those duplicitous and sneaky enough to lie their way into positions of power. The GOP has made it clear that they will support anyone who runs on the Republican ticket at a national level. That has to change. Sadly, Steele had the ability to end the rise of the “wolves in Republican clothing” but rejected that notion.

The philosopher Aristotle, lecturing on the subject of politics said “Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly ever of the public interest.” This is clearly as true today as it was in 350BC. Therefore, we must make it the self interest of the politician to be honest and transparent in their deeds and to serve the interests of the Republican Party. The only way to insure that the politician votes the party platform is to insure that failure to do so will equal failure to keep a Republican seat. Clearly, Michael Steele continues to think of his own position and self interest and those of his cronies rather than the future of this country and the best interest of the conservatives and Republicans he is supposed to represent.

Americans Are Too Stupid To Understand Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:18:00 +0000

Personally, I understood Obama Care to be an immensely unpopular redistribution of medical coverage from those who work hard and pay for medical insurance through employers and personal contributions or who have worked their entire lives and are now eligible for Medicare programs, to cover illegals, deadbeats, and now AIDS & Hepatitis ridden refugees. But apparently, I and the millions of others who feel that Obama Care is a spectacularly disastrous proposal are simply not bright enough to understand the complexities of the bill.

Obama gave the American people a collective pat on the head and cooed that he had obviously used words far too big and concepts too complex for us to understand when explaining Obama Care. Clearly, he reasoned, had we simpletons been able to understand his vision of health care reform, we would all be cheering his name and erecting statues in his honor.

In an effort to sooth our “irrational” fears, Obama attempted to break down key elements of his plan into small chunks so that we could understand. "Our approach,” he explained, “would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." Perhaps in his effort to dumb it down, he felt it unnecessarily cumbersome and confusing to mention the myriad of new taxes on insurance companies. Having a Masters Degree, perhaps I am still too thick headed to understand, but if you raise the cost of business for insurance companies, it seems common sense that they will pass these increases on to consumers, either through increased rates or reduced coverage. This will adversely affect the vast majority of working Americans. Obama was also mum on the Congressional Budget Office report stating that Democrat proposals would significantly alter Medicare, reducing coverage for millions of seniors.

While Obama’s continual tutting about the stupidity of anyone who doesn’t agree with his colossal, socialist, revamp of American society once again shows his contempt for America and Americans, his latest attempt to brand us all as a bunch of brainless, scowling, head shakers, also serves as a distraction. The bill, which is over a thousand pages long, is chalk full of unfunded mandates and intensive and intrusive access and control over your medical care (and even life). The bill includes*:

Medical treatment rations. If you use up the care allotted to you…you get no more, even though you pay insurance. Not so great news if you have long term medical needs through serious accident or a disease.
A government panel called the “Health Choices Commission” will decide to what treatment you are entitled and there is no appeal process. If the government doesn’t think that you need the treatment or that it is too cost prohibitive, you are out of luck.
ALL non-US citizens (illegal or not) WILL be provided free healthcare.
The federal government will have direct access to your bank account in order to withdrawal funds to cover treatments.
Taxpayers will subsidize all union and community organizer (ACORN) health plans.
Any individual who doesn’t have “acceptable” health care will be taxed 2.5% of their income
The government will determine who qualifies as a “special needs” person

The list goes on and on.

Now it’s true, I didn’t get my education at Harvard, but I think that I have a pretty firm grasp of Obama Care. There seems to be a lot of free medical care for ACORN and illegals. There also seems to be a lot of access to my bank account and personal records. And the liberals, who have made it clear from day one that they do not respect my rights under the Constitution, have taken steps to deprive me and my family of our very lives.

Any politician, Republican or Democrat that supports ANY version of this abomination must, MUST be removed. NOW! This bill, if passed, will enslave every single working American. This cannot be an issue that we simply hope our elected officials will sort out on our behalf. We must retake control. If our politicians cannot assure us that they will strike down this bill, they must be removed. If you are a member of a Tea Party or any other organization mobilizing against Obama, thank you for doing your part. If you aren’t part of an organization or you want to learn how YOU can stop Obama, please pick up a copy of the book, Rules For Republican Radicals.

*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts

Obama Once Again Puts America Second

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:40:00 +0000

65% of Haitians live in extreme poverty. The country has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the world. Within hours of the earthquake, armed gangs began looting, robbing, raping, and killing their own neighbours. So violent were the attacks that the military was finding getting supplies and aid to the island difficult. But quick thinking Obama came up with a solution to all of Haiti’s problems; bring them all here.

Rightly or wrongly, America has put itself into the position on “world saviour” for decades, running to the rescue of friend and foe. However, we have typically (though not always) had the good sense to help people in their own community rather than inviting the problems into our country. The earthquakes in Haiti however have provided Obama with the opportunity to achieve several goals, all of them detrimental to the American people.

After decades of banning 33 million foreign HIV carriers from entering the country, Obama quietly lifted the ban in October 2009. This was followed by Obama’s Open Boarder proposal to allow unrestricted access for Africans to enter the United States, millions of who had not been eligible to enter the country previously due to their deadly infection. Now, Obama is welcoming upwards of half a million Haitians into the country. Due to their status as refuges, they will receive housing, food, clothing, education, and medical treatment all on the tax payer dollar. And while Obama is trying to figure out how to convince the voters that death panels are a good idea because our parents and grandparents are costing too much money to keep alive, he is sweeping in a half a million new people, many of whom have highly contagious diseases, who will receive financially astronomical medical treatment.

Of course, Obama claims that these people will be only “temporary” guests. However, our history of “temporary” guests has not been a successful one. An estimated 7 million illegals cross our border every year, nearly 20,000 of those people are from terror supporting countries. We have been unable or unwilling to round them up and send them back. Obama who openly supports a borderless country has no personal interest in sending them back. Coupled with the welfare burden that this places on already hobbled States, surely there will be financial and safety implications to Americans when opening the doors to people who happily hack their neighbors to death, given the chance.

Now before anyone starts screaming racism, etc. I don’t want to bring a half a million welfare recipients from any country into the US. When hardworking Americans are being foreclosed upon, businesses are going bust, and state governments are struggling to stave off bankruptcy, we have to be practical and look at the implications of adding another half a million welfare recipients into the mix. As a Judeo-Christian country we are happy to help when tragedy befalls others. I am proud that despite our economic condition, Americans routinely donate more money per capita to charity than any other country in the world. But it makes far more sense, in both short and long term to assist the Haitian people in rebuilding their own country, not in bringing them all here and then hoping that after living off the tax dollar while we rebuild their country, they will go home.

Whether this open borders and wallets policy towards the people of Haiti is Obama’s attempt to justify his Noble Peace Prize or is simply an opportunistic step forward towards a border free America (not to mention a half a million new Obama supporters) is perhaps a matter of opinion. However, it is simply one more instance of Obama putting the needs of anyone before the needs of the American people.

Blago: Democrat Cautionary Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:24:00 +0000

Far be it from me to ever defend Rob Blagojevich, the now disgraced and impeached ex Governor of Illinois who was allegedly caught attempting to sell the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama to the highest bidder. But, with nightly news covering the ever increasing rounds of votes for sale, one could find the Democrat’s attitude towards Blago disingenuous at best. It seems he was simply following standard, Democrat, operating procedure of offering his power to the bidder with the best cash and prizes.

Over the course of the past few months we have been witness to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (among others) selling his vote for kickbacks, payoffs and exemptions and of course the superfluous automotive Unions being promised subsidized medical coverage, all in an effort to try and pass the massively unpopular Obama Care. But these “shinning examples” of how Democrats get things done are not unique. Biden, used his political clout and the promise of future “favorable political considerations” in order to hold his vacated seats open for son, potentially robbing the voters the right to chose their own representatives in what has to be the most repugnant and blatant cases of nepotism in living memory. However, since “seat warming” is an old practice and has secured the political careers of many, including Pelosi, it is rather surprising that Blago isn’t embraced by the Dems, who certainly seem to appreciate the value of a swing vote and a Senate seat.

While their can be little doubt that back room bargaining takes place throughout politics, the brazen and public nature of the current crop of Democrats playing “lets make a deal” makes it rather tough to see the distinction between their actions and those of Blagojevich. In a political culture where Democrats failing to pay taxes equals a cushy cabinet post, mortgages are dolled out on exceptionally friendly terms, and even the most depraved behaviours are covered up and smoothed over, it seems that Blago’s main sin against the Democrat’s “pay-to-play” book wasn’t in setting a price, but rather that he had burned so many bridges in his own party that just about everyone wanted to see him hang…no matter what the reason. Disliked by his own party and ranked as the least popular Governor in the country by voters (even before corruption and fraud charges were levied), Blago had no Reid, Pelosi, or Obama to come running to his defense, smooth things over, and cover up problems.

Rod Blagojevich has become a Democrat cautionary tale. Not a warning against dishonesty, bribery, or the corruption of power, those actions have clearly become quite shameless business-as-usual. But rather, that with power and behavioural carte blanc, comes lifelong obligations to all of those Democrats who helped you on the way up political ladder and shield you from scandal. When you stop meeting those obligations, your usefulness ends, as does your protection. Some end up with a fatal case of what under Clinton was called the “Arkansas Flu.” Those who have enough skeletons in their closets or are too high profile to “get sick,” simply get fed to the Feds. Poor Blago, has he only continued to play ball, with is record he would be a shoe in as a Democratic candidate for President in 2016. That is, if there is still an America in 2016

The Referendum on Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Rules For Republican Radicals) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:38:00 +0000

Not so long ago, a snake-oil salesman would roll into town with brightly coloured wagons, charismatic speeches, and bottles of magic, cure-all tonic and convince town folk that his secret potion could cure all their assorted ailments. After collecting all their cash, the snake-oil salesman would beat a hasty retreat out of town, before the residents figured out that they had simply purchased expensive bottles of coloured oil and water or worse, some toxic bathtub concoction that caused real harm. It was a pretty lucrative business; conning the gullible and hopeful out of their money, the only real danger was accidentally hitting the same town twice or rolling into town shortly after some other snake-oil salesman had just left.

On Tuesday Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Liberalist Snake-Oil Show found out what it’s like to hit the same town twice. The residents of Massachusetts, already raw from being scammed into financing a colossal failure of a cure-all, state wide, government mandated health care program voted against nearly four decades of tradition and rode Coakley and Co out on a rail.

Of course, the White House and liberal media pendants immediately declared that the historic win was not a referendum on the Health Care bill. It would be more accurate to say that Tuesday’s vote was not ONLY about the Health Care bill. Not to take anything away from Scott Brown who ran an impressive, groundswell campaign, and endeared himself to millions of Americans with his common sense, no-BS approach to politics, but Tuesdays vote was largely a referendum on Obama and his socialist vision for America. It’s a vision that Conservatives have never wanted and Independents and even dyed-in-the-wool Democrats are shunning in mass.

Obama, the master a snake-oil salesman himself, only a year ago could draw hundreds of thousands of the fevered believers to his “cure-all” side shows. Today, even with all the dead Democrats voting in Massachusetts, Team Obama couldn’t pull out a win. After upsets in Virginia and New Jersey, you can almost hear the woeful prayers of the God fearing Democrat politician (if there is such a thing); “Dear Lord, PLEASE do NOT let Obama campaign on my behalf.