Tag Archives: Republican

2012 Election Is Only The First Step

As a Constitution Conservative, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending the Constitution. In fact, I go much further than most conservatives do. I believe the Philadelphia Convention, and the thirteen state ratifying conventions were all done under the superintending providence of God. Therefore, I also believe that our founding documents contain God’s plan for the governing of America. Even a casual survey of American history clearly shows that whenever we deviate from that plan we pay a dear price in political turmoil and economic hardships.

It is imperative for the survival of the Republic that Mitt Romney be elected in November. Obama has to be turned out of office before he completes his mission to “fundamentally transform America” — if it is not too late already. Romney is the only alternative available at this time. However, we must not be misled into believing that electing Romney is going to turn things around overnight. Throughout his political life, Romney has been a follower, not a leader. That is not going to change automatically when he gets in the White House.

Furthermore, Romney has not exhibited a firm grasp of the Constitution during his campaign for the Presidency. For example, he has promised to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. Millions of voters will cast their ballot for him based on that promise. However, when he makes it, he is being disingenuous. The President does not repeal legislation, only Congress can do that. Even Romney knows that much about the working of our government, therefore, he is being disingenuous with the American people when he makes the promise. What he should say is, “on my first day in office I will urge Congress to repeal Obamacare as its first order of business.”  That he can do.

He also says frequently, “On my first day in office I will, by executive order, issue waivers to the states exempting them from having to enforce the provisions of Obamacare.” (Paraphrased) Here he is violating at least two clear provisions of the Constitution. Executive Orders, in the sense he is using the term, carries the weight of law. The very first sentence in the body of the Constitution, First Article, First Clause, clearly states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Executive Orders, other than administrative orders directed to employees of the Executive Branch directly in the President’s chain-of-command, are unconstitutional.

When he indicates that he will not enforce Obamacare as President, he is in effect, saying that he and he alone will decide what the law is. Unfortunately, the same conservatives who condemn Chief Justice Roberts and the Obama Justice Department for making one-man decisions concerning which laws to enforce or what the law is in the first place, are the same conservatives that are cheering Romney on in his promises. Far too many critical decisions are made in our government by one person, whether it is the President, a bureaucratic Czar, or the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court. This has to stop, and should never be encouraged by a Constitution Conservative, whether or not we agree with the intended outcome.

One of the most overlooked sentences in the Constitution is found in the last sentence of Article II, Section 3, “He (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”  This is one of the few specific duties of the President spelled out in the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, Obamacare was passed by Congress and signed by the President, therefore, it is the law and the President is responsible for its execution.

However, it is not the law of the land. Article VI, paragraph two says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,” Notice, it is the Constitution itself that is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the opinions of the Supreme Court or the acts of Congress when they conflict with the Constitution. One of the first landmark cases of the Supreme Court was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, said in his opinion, “a law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” Obamacare is not only repugnant to all thinking Americans, it is also repugnant to the Constitution; therefore, it is really no law at all. Nevertheless, until it is repealed by Congress, it is the duty of the President to enforce it. What then, can we do?

To answer that question we have to look to the hierarchy of sovereignty laid out in our Founding documents. In the Preamble to the Constitution which defines the purpose of our federal government, we read, “We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In America, the supreme power resides with the people by natural law, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. In order to maintain a civil society, the people delegate certain powers to representatives elected by them to serve in the state legislatures that, in turn, are restricted by State Constitutions. In 1774, the people of the original thirteen states formed state governments made up of their elected representatives. Those state legislatures delegated certain powers to the First Continental Congress to form a confederation, primarily for the purpose of conducting the Revolutionary War. In 1786, Congress authorized a convention in Philadelphia for the purpose of strengthening the Articles of Confederation to make them more effective in dealing with issues common to all the states that could not be adequately handled by the states individually. In that Convention, the Constitution was written creating a federal government with limited powers for carrying out a finite number of enumerated responsibilities dealing mostly with national defense and commerce.

In the hierarchy of powers, the federal government as a creation of the Constitution has the least amount of legitimate power, carefully limited to those matters delegated to it by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. In all matters not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, State Law is supreme over federal law. This power structure is not contradicted by the “Supremacy Clause” quoted above in Article VI. Since legislating health care is not one of the enumerated powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, the state legislatures can forbid the enforcement of Obamacare within its jurisdiction. Until it is repealed by Congress– hopefully in January 2013–, it is up to the state governments to prevent its implementation on a state-by-state basis.

While it is the responsibility of every Patriot to vote for Mitt Romney for President in the upcoming election, do not be misled into expecting President Romney to reverse the downward slide of American society without constant prodding from our side. Those patriots who expect to return to their slumber after the November election had better stock up on NoDoze. The real work begins in January of 2013 and we can expect it to continue for at least the next generation if we are to return America to the Constitutional Republic designed by our Founders. While we are attempting to regain control of our federal government, we also have to give serious attention to reforming our state governments. More on that later.

Advertisements

Mitt Romney’s Super Awesome Awe-Inspiring Post Health Care Ruling Speech

I will not challenge Mitt Romney’s business acumen. He has a proven track record of success. However, success in business does not necessarily translate into success in the political arena and Romney’s inability to capture the highly charged emotions rampant across the nation last week was absolutely stunning. I don’t think any of us were expecting the fiery colloquy of Ronald Reagan but Reagan’s number one asset when speaking was the conviction of his words. He believed in what he said because he wasn’t trying to play all sides. That may be good for business, not so much for restoring our government to its’ founding principles.

If you missed it last week and can stay awake through it, I’ve attached a link to Mitt Romney’s super awesome awe-inspiring post health care ruling speech and posted the transcript as well. If you want to understand why every Constitutional conservative and libertarian are in a foul mood between now and November 6, it’s worth know what we hear and do not hear when Mitt Romney speaks.

 “Repeal and replace.”   Repeal sounds great until you realize the President, on his own, has no authority to repeal a law he does not agree with, (Current President aside). He needs a majority in the house and a filibuster proof (60 vote) majority in the Senate to repeal the health care act. It will take all of 2013 and probably a good part of 2014 to pick apart this health care bill piece by piece and he knows it. Hence the lack of conviction. Replace? Replace with what? Classic progressive RINO tactic. “We’re going to get rid of that horrible bill – except for the stuff that makes us look good.” There’s very little conviction in taking a stand against a bill while simultaneously defending parts of it.

“You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life…”   Or you can choose to have just a larger government, that’s just more intrusive in your life. Slow it down a little. The current President is moving too fast.

What we did not hear in the speech outside of, “I agree with the dissent”, was an absolute admonition of the Supreme Court’s decision. The failure of the court to decide based on the Constitution. How a President Romney would choose a Supreme Court Justice.

Back in April, when Mitt Romney was feeling threatened by Rick Santorum’s improbable run for the nomination, he actually gave a couple of truly inspiring speeches. They were clear, concise and took a hard line on everything from religious freedom to the effect the current administration is having on small businesses and the economy. And then he became the “presumptive nominee”. It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. You can kinda shake it up and start all over again. Right Mitt?

http://youtu.be/sp6d3JBLiAE

 “As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent.

What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do.

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy.

Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that.

Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare – cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

Obamacare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people.

And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare.

What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system?

One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people – up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.

And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare.

That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.”

Socialist-NO; Big, Obtrusive Government Adocate-YES

By W.C. Augustine
A friend who most often sees political issues differently than I recently sent me an excerpt from an articlein Daily Finance with the subject line “not bad for a socialist”.  The article said Fortune 500 companies’ profits increased 16.4% over last year and exceeded “the roaring economy” of 2006. (interesting the left was not describing it such in that year’s midterm elections)

I presume he saw the article as evidence that President Obama is not a socialist. To be clear, I believe it is a mistake to allege Obama is a socialist as it is counter productive.  The last generation outputted from the state-controlled school system does not know the meaning of the word.  Describing the President as an advocate of big, obtrusive government is descriptive with more impact.

 Socialism is defined  as an economic system in which the state has ownership or control over the means of production.   Control can be acquired through regulation, taxation, public ridicule or other bullying tactics (think Boeing) without ownership (think GM).  National Socialists (the real name rather than the acronym) found control more effective than ownership.  Without outright ownership a scapegoat is available for politicians to lay blame for problems. Government ownership of BP, in which  he was the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money  over the past 20 years, would have hampered Obama’s ability to lay blame on the company for the oil spill.

Early in the last century businesses became successful by developing products consumers wanted and then making it efficiently.  Later in the century marketing the product became as important as innovation and cost control.  Today a large company ignores pandering to government at its own peril.

According to a study  political activity typically results in a 20% increase in a company’s performance.  Another look at firms doing intensive lobbying shows they have returns much in excess of the S&P.  Think of Microsoft’s change after a hands-off-politicians policy precipitated an anti-trust investigation.

A superficial observer may say the evidence only suggests large corporations are buying government favors.  True, they are, but at what expense and at what competitive disadvantage does that place the small business owner who can not curry sufficient favor?  The favors and payoffs are mutual-think paying the piper.

Does Ma and Pa Heating and Cooling get to keep tax loss carry-forward after their creditors write off debt as General Motors was allowed?  Does the small company receive the tax breaks of General Electric?

Large companies can spread government regulatory burdens over huge sale volumes and still keep overhead under control.  Small companies can not.  A fortune 500 company is more than happy to relinquish some control to the government in return for the government giving them a competitive advantage in addition to the protection of a bailout to recover from mismanagement.  Hence small businesses are caught between large companies’ gained advantages in collusion with the government and a government that through huge deficits usurps more capital from entrepreneurs.

When Democrats seek a way to pay for reducing the interest on student loans,they don’t look to big corporations, their high paid executives, trust funds or highly paid entertainers and athletes, they go after small business via their common organizational structure, S-Corps.   Many in the media are ever available to carry the left’s message such as the Tribune’s Lisa Mascaro whose disparaging use of the adjective “so-called” preceding S-Corps bears her tilt.

Given that 70% of new jobs come from small companies, government putting them at a competitive disadvantage does not grow the economy, but gives government more control over the economy, enhancing the growth of a big obtrusive government.

Have a fulfilling and profitable day,

W C (Bill) Augustine,  www.atlasrising.tateauthor.com

Who’s Defending The Constitution? Part One

By Art Wilson

The US Constitution was put on trial this week in a public way such as I have never seen before. I would say that it has been under attack for quite some time, specifically beginning in 1962, but never before in such a public manner. The week began with the story of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s January 30th interview in Egypt regarding the drafting of an Egyptian constitution. The Supreme Court Judge made a couple of statements that, too many Americans that pay attention to what is going on in our government found shocking. Courtesy of MEMRI TV:

I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Wait. What? Let’s go back over one of the two Oaths of Office she had to take prior to taking the bench in 1993.

The Constitutional Oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

How does one reconcile the Oath of Office that she took and the statements that were made in Egypt? It seems quite apparent that for nearly twenty years we’ve had a Supreme Court Justice sitting on the bench that has a complete disdain for the rather old document the she wouldn’t even look at today if she could go back and do it all over again.

And then there was the New York Times piece that came out February 6, 2012 by Adam Liptak; “‘We The People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World”. The piece references a study to be published in June in The New York University Law Review regarding the “ free-fall of constitutional similarity to the United States”. The study notes that the US Constitution was the most widely recognized and emulated documents for new governments up until the 1980 and 1990s. The writer then goes on to state the possible reasons why he feels this is the case:

The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”

He mentions an interview where Professor Law, one of the authors of the study, where he identifies a central reason for the trend: The availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1.”

Wow! Really? The Constitutional Amendment process isn’t good enough anymore? We just need an “upgrade”? Our Constitution just isn’t “sexy” enough anymore? This sounds eerily similar to the statements made by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria last June that the Constitution is “outdated” and should be “debated and fixed” and in an interview with Charlie Rose that “ America is parochial and there are countries around the world that do things better than we do.”. Then again, what can we expect from a man that lauded Finland for trying to come up with a constitution via Twitter?

We should by now know several examples of what many members of Congress feel about the Constitution. Maxine Waters congressional slip that she was all about socializing companies. Nancy Pelosi in 2009 degrading a CNS reporter when asked if she thought the health care was Constitutional. If they’re not outright expressing their disdain for the Constitution, their ability to ignore it in their actions pretty much sums it up.

While attacks on the Constitution are not new, they really came to light during the 2008 presidential campaign thanks to our current President. Appearing on a WBEZ-FM radio show, January 18, 2001, to discuss “The Courts and Civil Rights”, Obama laments the fact that

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”

and finally the highly played,

“…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”.  In September of that same year on the same radio show, this one titled “Slavery and the Constitution”, Obama stated about the Constitution, “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.” and “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot.”

Before we get to far down the “that was then and this is now” path, it’s not too difficult to Google the numerous times the President has bemoaned the fact that he felt constrained by the Constitution and the way our government works. I began noticing it as a constant theme beginning with the La Raza speech last July. And he’s carried this theme in many of his speeches since them included last months’ Presidential Address. (Note: This will be addressed in a future posting.)

So now we’re back to the original question. Who’s defending the Constitution? We have officials in all three branches of government, professors in our universities, the media and apparently the rest of the world that show contempt for the bedrock of the greatest nation in history. If our elected officials in government will not defend the Constitution who will? I believe the answer to that question lies in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the actual Constitution, “We the People” was highlighted and written larger than any of the other words in the document. We are the people that will have to defend our Constitution if we wish for it to remain in place. That means studying the Constitution and understanding it. Only in doing this can we teach our families and friends and hopefully spark a grass roots interest in our founding documents. It is our responsibility to work from the bottom up since it has become quite evident that we can no longer depend on our leaders to defend the Constitution. But then, we should have been involved all along.

Note: This is the first part of a multi-part series regarding the attacks and defense of the constitution. If you would like to learn more about the Constitution, I’d like to recommend the following site: http://illinoisconservative.com/ . At this site, you’ll find the Constitution in both the standard format and the reference format.


Conservative Party USA Endorses Rick Santorum

For Immediate Release

Based on extensive review and comprehensive examination of the issues and candidates, the Conservative Party USA endorses Rick Santorum to be the GOP nominee for President.

“While many of the current GOP candidates are solid contenders and worthy of consideration, CP-USA recognizes that Mr. Santorum best articulates the constitutional, economic and fiscal policies that America needs today.” explained H. M. Hervey, Chairman.  “Like CP-USA, Senator Santorum proudly affirms the concept of American Exceptionalism, supports traditional family values and understands that “Buy American” is the key to reviving the U.S. economy.” continued Mr. Hervey.

CP-USA understands that Mr. Santorum has an uphill struggle to cross the finish line ahead of Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. “Ms. Bachmann is a solid, proven conservative who is running a stalwart campaign.  She performed well in the debates and stood toe-to-toe with the big boys.  No fear, no excuses.” said Lisa Michaels, Chairman, CP-Oregon. “Bachmann would be CP-USA’s first choice where it not for Santorum’s close alignment with our Platform.” Lisa added.

CP-USA also believes Bachmann would also be a splendid addition to the next Administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services where she could use her considerable skills and experience to help dismantle ObamaCare.

Governor Romney appears to have the clearest path to the GOP nomination at this stage because his solid business experience will play well in the general election. But Seth Riggio, CP-USA’s Director of Youth Outreach, explains that “While most of the GOP establishment deems Romney as more electable, Romney’s brand of conservatism is a bit more ‘ambiguous’ than other candidates like Santorum and Bachmann.  That precludes him from capturing CP-USA’s nod at this time.”

Richard Rutledge, Chairman, CP Alabama, points out that “Santorum and Bachmann have the right values, temperament and skills needed to defeat Obama and be a good President.  And removing Obama is Job #1 for conservatives in 2012.  The debates also prove that Santorum can hold his own on any stage with Obama. ”

Ron Paul is running strong as he does traditionally at this stage of the race; it’s his third and final try. While his national support is a mile wide, it’s only a yard deep. That renders his long-term staying power questionable at best.  CP-USA supports some of Paul’s domestic monetary/fiscal policies (e. g., auditing the Federal Reserve; serious budget cuts) but rejects his libertarian drug policy as unrealistic and his foreign policy on Iran as dangerous.

Rick Perry flew out of the gate hot as a six-shooter with unbounded fanfare, handsome with lots of promise and good hair.  But then he started talking.  Yikes.  Conservatives need someone who can walk, chew gum, talk and shoot critters..in chorus.  Jon Huntsman is a competent and accomplished diplomat but has never caught the imagination of most conservatives or Republicans primary voters.

Of course that leaves Newt Gingrich.  The imperious Mr. Gingrich is certainly a strong, articulate and well-informed candidate.  However, his considerably flawed personal and political history would make HIM the focus in the general election rather than Obama’s economic failures and global anti-American apology tours.  Newt’s desire to explore for precious metals on the moon may be a vain attempt at making all his political baggage weightless.

In addition, CP-USA believes it takes more to win the general election than out-snarling Obama in debates.

H. Michael Hervey
Chairman, CP-USA

The All-American Conservative

If conservatives are to prevail in our struggle with the socialist hoards that have taken over our institutions during the past few generations, we must come together in a unity of purpose. If not, we run the risk of returning Obama to the White House and the Coalition of socialist Democrats and RINOs to Congress, the same group that has brought us to the brink of destruction in the past few years. As things now stand, the fiscal conservatives, the values conservatives, and the constitution conservatives make up conservatism’s three main groups.

The values conservatives are criticized by the fiscal conservatives for “trying to ram religion down our throats” and “turning off” secular independents. Many constitution conservatives seem to have a tendency to substitute legality for morality; anything is okay so long as the decisions are made at the state level and not the national. Fiscal conservatives, too often, focus on monetary policy rather than basic principles. The danger is two-fold: First, there is the danger that conservative voters will become so disgusted with both parties that they stay home on Election Day. The second danger is that conservatives, disenchanted with the Republican Party will vote for one of several minor party candidates soliciting their vote, thereby splitting the Republican vote, and giving the election to the socialist Democrats and RINOs.

While most of our problems may originate in Washington, their full impact is felt by citizens at the state and local levels. Most state governments are made up of the same socialist Democrats and RINOs that populate Washington D.C. States like California and Illinois offers undisputable proof that the problem goes much deeper than an out-of-control federal government. If there is one lesson to be learned from our 225-year experiment in self-government, it is that no government, even with the best plan ever devised by man can endure without a sound and solid culture, based on time-tested moral principles.

As we pointed out in our last post, America, like its government, is composed of three separate and equal parts, its government, its culture and its economy. At the federal level, government is based on the principles and rules contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most nearly perfect plan of government ever devised. However, the best of plans is of little value unless it is faithfully followed. The cultural foundation of America is our Judeo-Christian heritage composed of the Christian principles found in the Bible. Out economy is based on the principles of free-market capitalism.

The dysfunction of one part of this three-part system results in the dysfunction of all. A near perfect Constitution does not work when the moral standard underpinning the culture breaks down. Political corruption and individual immorality among the nation’s population leads to poor economic decisions, self-serving politicians and an amoral citizenry with no objective standard of what is right or wrong. The results, we see all about us today. We have a government that no longer works, an economy dominated by crony capitalism, and a culture that accepts depravity and immorality as something to be tolerated and even applauded.

If we are going to pass down to future generations, the nation of liberty and prosperity handed down to us by our forefathers, we have to put aside our hyphenated conservatism and unite in an All-America Conservatism. As Christ reminded us, “man does not live by bread alone” and “what shall it profit a man [or nation], if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

The future of America depends on conservatives winning the current struggle with socialism. To do that we have to stop approaching issues based on political expediency and personal financial gain. We have to stop judging policies based on expediency and judge them on the time-tested principles that transformed us from a collection of displaced vagabonds into the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Fooled, Hoodwinked and Bamboozled on Debt/Budget Deal

By Sam Gallo
Conservative Party USA

It is now clear the new Debt/Budget “Deal” the Republi-Dem elite have fashioned among themselves exemplifies “business as usual” in Washington.  This “compromised” Bill is a smelly political deal rather than a true fiscal solution. It accomplishes NOTHING resembling the desires of the people.

America lost and Obama won. Period.

This Bill increases the debt ceiling by $2.1 Trillion immediately while it spreads just $1T in cuts over 10 years. The REAL debt increase, however, will be more than $8T because Baseline Budgeting rules require the government to spend $10T during that period. Fooled!

The Bill makes no necessary structural reforms to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.  It creates yet another Commission to “recommend” cuts that Congress will ignore just like it ignored all the previous Commissions. Even when Congress fails to make cuts (and you know they won’t make any cuts during an election year), that “Trigger” has more loopholes and gimmicks than old Swiss cheese hanging in a Rube Goldberg factory.  The Bill exempts those big entitlement programs from any cuts while Defense and Homeland Security will suffer almost 50% reductions if the “Trigger” is pulled. Hoodwinked!

Obama and Democrats got this entire debt and spending issue pulled off the table until after the election.  Keeping current tax rates is the only thing Republicans “won” during this political charade and even that is no sure bet once the new Commission acts. The GOP just “compromised” with……..itself.

This “Deal with the Devil” has another aspect that few people understand. The White House and their supporters in the Lame Stream Media convinced Republicans into thinking they prevailed by repeating the false notion that Obama “caved” while the Tea Party “won”.  The media firmly believe that a big lie – if repeated often enough – will eventually be accepted as true.  All that counterfeit left-handed praise was designed for only one purpose: it duped Republican RINO’s into supporting the Bill just because they believed Obama lost the negotiations. Bamboozled!

This fiasco reconfirms that the two-party system is failing America – again.