At 2:45 mark: Ryan shows Geithner the debt bomb chart.
“What do you call it when someone steals someone else’s money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else’s money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else’s money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him?… Social Justice.” – Unknown
In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election debacle, in which George W. Bush was declared winner after a month of liberal efforts to overturn his razor-thin victory in Florida, the Democrat Party took an aggressive turn to the left. Many explanations of their strange behavior centered on the notion that they were responding in blind rage over their inability to steal the election. But what at first seemed to be little more than a hysterical tantrum eventually emerged as a well-crafted and effective political strategy.
Simply put, Democrats abandoned any former pretense of moving to the right, since that transparent ruse had ultimately proven futile. Instead, they promoted a brazen leftward shift in their agenda, accompanied by glaring partisan attacks against the GOP. The anticipated response from the Republicans was increased efforts to “find common ground” and seek conciliation. In essence, the Democrats moved twice as far from the center as they had previously been, knowing full well that the typical “moderate” Republican reaction would be to try to “meet them half-way.”
By resorting to this simple, yet diabolical plan, Democrat political operatives were virtually assured a “win/win.” Initially, they could expect to see their agenda implemented in its entirety despite having lost control of the White House along with both houses of Congress. But in the long run they also stood to politically benefit from the predictable disillusionment of conservatives who grew increasingly frustrated at the leftward direction their own party was taking.
Not only were such cornerstones of the liberal agenda as “Campaign Finance Reform” and Medicare Part D embraced by President Bush and the Republican Congress, deficit spending exploded and the nanny state grew to monstrous proportions. Admittedly, the September 11 terrorist attacks delayed any fallout at the ballot box until the elections of 2006 and 2008. Nevertheless, over time the plan proved to be a stunning success on both counts.
Despite the relentless efforts of the liberal propaganda machine to recast the ’06 and ‘08 elections as the American people’s reaction to the unending War in Iraq, in actuality they represented a nationwide backlash against Republican “moderation.” The people of the Heartland had simply grown weary of a Republican Party that could only muster the nerve to present itself as a watered-down version of the Democrats.
In early 2009 however, grassroots conservatism reasserted itself on a grand scale in the wake of Barack Obama’s inauguration, and particularly in response to his ominous effort to destroy American freedom and capitalism though the implementation of Obamacare. Starting in the spring of that year, and through the 2010 elections, the “Tea Party” movement had succeeded in sharply defining the contrasts that exist between the two political camps. Consequently, when Americans went to the polls in the mid-term elections, they were given a clear choice between a liberal and conservative course for the nation. Presented with such an option, they sternly rebuffed the radical leftist triumvirate of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
In a desperate effort to regain their former dominance, Democrats have resurrected their despicable but very successful former strategy, in hopes of thoroughly blurring the lines between the parties before November. On virtually every major issue, from raising the Debt Ceiling to implementing the initial phases of Obamacare to the legitimization of the counterculture, they have arrogantly drawn lines in the sand, only to be rewarded by continual Republican surrenders.
With the 2012 presidential election cycle in full swing, and the nation’s fiscal and economic condition inarguably worsening, Democrat strategists fully understand that an honest assessment of their track record would prove disastrous. So it is no coincidence that in just the past few weeks, Obama has put the issues of abortion and birth control front and center on the political stage, at the very moment that the GOP establishment is executing the latest effort to creatively run from anything even remotely related to morality or traditional values. This is indeed a major gamble on the part of the Democrats, and it can only work if the GOP unwittingly falls into line. Unfortunately, past history is not a very encouraging indicator of how things might ensue.
This year, the entire battle-plan of the Republican elite centers on their jaundiced concept of “electability,” and misbegotten efforts at “appealing to the independents,” which they assure us can only be accomplished by the abandonment of true conservatism. In the most profound exercise in futility, they would once again see a candidate in the likeness of Bob Dole or John McCain take the nomination, believing that this time such an individual would somehow miraculously rally and inspire those who claim no allegiance to either major political party. And central to this inane plan is the marginalization of those nauseating “social issues.”
Yet their entire effort is based on a flawed premise, and a wholly deficient picture of the character and motivation of “independent” voters. While some certainly are motivated to sit the political fence, in hopes of remaining at that safe “middle,” many others (and this is historically a much more significant number) are displaced conservatives who cannot abide the insipidness of the GOP any more than the abhorrent liberalism of the Democrats. In consideration of this, it is no surprise that Ronald Reagan, the boldest and most uncompromising conservative president of the last half-century, received far more support from “independents” than any Republican “moderate” before or since.
In response to the controversy Obama and his minions have deliberately instigated, establishment Republicans have one of two options. They can press forward into the elections, courageously and unabashedly standing on the principles of true conservatism, including the sanctity of human life, at which point the Obama camp will suffer severe political consequences as a result of its leftist extremism. Or they can once again back-peddle and cave, which will essentially put their stamp of approval on the outrages and excesses of government mandated birth control, and the attack on freedom and the American ideal that it ultimately represents.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His archives and contact information can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
National Security: The commander in chief who once pined for a world without nuclear weapons has decided a world without an American deterrent is a good start, seeking to cut the U.S. arsenal by 80%.
In a world where rogue states with unstable leadership are either in possession of or pursuing nuclear weapons, and with Russia rearming and China emerging as a world military and nuclear superpower, President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as few as 300 deployed warheads — below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic weapon stocks.
This latest example of presidential naivete, which makes even Jimmy Carter look like a warmongering hawk, seems based not on geostrategic reality but rather on the wishful thinking that the threat posed is nuclear weapons, not the enemies that possess them.
Pentagon planners have been asked to consider three force levels as part of a Nuclear Posture Review ordered by President Obama last August: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads, a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads, and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney believes that even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational. “No sane military leader,” he says, “would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” he told Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon.
SideBear: First our human wreckingball-in-chief trashed our economy and now he is disarming America. God help us!
A voter registration disaster is brewing.
The Pew Center on the States recently released a report entitled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade.” Among other findings, the study discovered “more than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.” Here come the Voting Dead.
Also, Pew found “approximately 24 million – one of every eight – active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid, or are significantly inaccurate.”
But don’t worry, some people are getting all the paperwork filled out correctly. Unfortunately, about 2.75 million of them have done it in more than one state. A good 70,000 of them are registered in three or more states at the same time.
Our antique voter registration system doesn’t work very well, but at least it’s expensive. Pew conducted a study with Oregon that found “state and local taxpayers spent $4.11 per active voter to process registrations and maintain a voter list” during the 2008 election. In contrast, Canada uses a modern electronic system for voter registration and spends less than 35 cents per registration, even though a far higher percentage of the Canadian population is registered to vote.
Registering Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to Vote in Minnesota