Since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, which was a direct reaction to President Obama’s massive expansion of the federal government, the Left has fought back with a fury, mostly by hurling insults like “fascists,” “radicals,” “Nazis,” “arsonists,” “terrorists,” “anarchists,” and the favored “extremists.” This is nothing more than a misguided attempt to discredit us with smear tactics.
But why? If we true conservatives are really nothing but a tiny fringe movement, as they claim, why all the fuss? Because we are a vital threat to their very livelihood – a livelihood that depends on a government that rewards the elites and punishes the rest of us. Should we galvanize our movement to full control of the Republican Party, our candidates will emerge victorious, and their cash cow government is finished, and they know it.
So instead of taking the word of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama on what our movement is really all about, let us tell them! Continue reading
Americans love anniversaries and this year marks some pretty remarkable ones, most notably the sesquicentennial of the battle of Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg, two events that dealt a crippling blow to the Confederacy in the summer of 1863, and the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But 2013 also marks the centennial of another crucial event, the enactment of the infamous income tax.
Pushed by Liberals for decades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the income tax was supposed to be the “great leveling,” a policy that would correct the long-festering problem of wealth inequality. However, there was one problem – the Constitution specifically prohibited the government from taxing the American people directly. Continue reading
Emerging from deliberations during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman what kind of government the delegates had crafted for the new country. “A republic,” he told her with a warning, “if you can keep it.” Doctor Franklin’s message has become eerily prophetic, as our republic, once the envy of the world, is in tatters. And whom can we blame? To quote Ross Perot, “Go look in the mirror.”
A Republic is the hardest form of government to maintain because it requires a wise and virtuous citizenry, one that is also highly educated and vigilant, and views the government with suspicion, ever mindful and jealous of its liberty. It is laughable to think that description can, in any way, define the state of our people today. Continue reading
This week marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, fought on July 1-3, 1863 in a small Pennsylvania town. Celebrations began on Sunday and are scheduled to last all week. Articles and commentary from across the political spectrum will flood the Internet and the airways in praise of those who fell on that hallowed ground in defense of liberty.
Yet the praise will be directed at Union forces. But what about the 28,000 Southern soldiers who died for what they believed in? Did they risk less? Were their ideals any less glorious than those above the Mason Dixon line?
We have come to expect as much from leftwing Northern “scholars,” as well as Southern scalawags. But, painfully, those who call themselves conservatives will take the Union side in the conflict as well. Continue reading
A little more than 243 years after the Boston Massacre of 1770, the city of Boston faced another violent incident, this time carried out, not by a foreign army, but by two fanatical immigrant Muslims, in an apparent sleeper cell, upset about the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They, like many of their radical cohorts, desire the expulsion of troops from the Middle East and will use violence to obtain their objective, the central tenant of terrorism.
President Obama assured the nation that the attackers had “failed” to achieve their purpose. But, whether it is an unintended consequence or not, these attacks are succeeding in a very meaningful way, with the further erosion of our constitutional liberty, the central tenant of government. Continue reading
On April 13, those of us who love liberty and value the ideals of the American Revolution should reflect on the 270th birthday of Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest presidents.
After penning the words of the Declaration of Independence, and serving in a variety of public offices, Jefferson stood for election to the presidency in 1800. Americans were more than ready for a change after twelve years of Federalist rule, and as a result, Jefferson’s Republican Party swept into power by taking over both houses of Congress in addition to the Presidency.
Many historians erroneously claim that President Jefferson did not institute much change once he entered the White House. This is wholly untrue. Jefferson made monumental changes during his presidential tenure, beginning with his inaugural ceremony, completely altering the decorum of the presidency. He wore simple clothing and walked to the Capitol rather than arrive in grand style. Today newly inaugurated presidents walk part of the way up Pennsylvania Avenue as a tribute to Jefferson. Continue reading
During his tenure as president, George Washington visited the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When asked if he would call upon the new chief executive, Governor John Hancock is reputed to have said, “I am the highest ranking public official in the state and he should call on me.” The humble Washington did so.
Today, every time a president visits a state, we are treated to the pathetic scene of the governor and various state and local public officials waiting on the tarmac for the “King” to emerge from his state-of-the-art aircraft. Sadly, the states have willingly become subservient provinces. This is not they way it was intended to be. Continue reading
“Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid,” Abraham Lincoln said in 1855. “As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ Soon it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
Though I am no fan of Lincoln, who was nothing short of a despot himself, I do believe his quote is as applicable today as it ever was. Do we not have a “base alloy of hypocrisy” in regards to our land of liberty? We seem to want to uphold our ideals, praise our Founders, and celebrate the 4th of July with picnics and parades. But in this day and age do we really believe it?
If we do, why then do we allow our federal government to run roughshod over the Constitution and the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? Why did we just re-elect a man president who clearly does not hold any of these values? Continue reading
A recurring theme throughout this campaign season has been the distribution of the nation’s wealth, stirred by President Obama and the Occupy movement. A new phrase has entered the American political lexicon: the 99 percent versus 1 percent.
Mitt Romney stirred up the political waters recently with remarks about wealth distribution and government dependency.
“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he told supporters at a private fundraiser. “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. [They believe] that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
Though what he spoke was truth, the Mainstream Media went wild. At the same time, a 1998 tape was released of then-state senator Obama speaking in favor of re-distributing wealth. Yet the media just yawned. Continue reading
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Barack Obama’s term in office, it simply cannot be argued that he has fulfilled any of his campaign promises. The soaring rhetoric of his historic 2008 run for the presidency was nothing more than a well-orchestrated marketing campaign. He said what he had to say in order to be elected. What puzzles many is the fact that he has as much support in the polls as he does.
His campaign promises, as well as those he made once in office, were legion and his failures to achieve those goals are nearly as numerous, much too lengthy to detail here, so let us look at some of the major ones. Continue reading